D&D 5E Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option

Tony Vargas · Nov 14, 2012

Eldritch_Lord said:
warlord retain some 4e warlord and fighter mechanics while not upsetting the pre-4e players, as long as you couch those mechanics in acceptable mechanical "language." Give him Lamb to the Slaughter and Come and Get It...just make them use Bluff, Intimidate, Knowledge (Tactics), or similar instead of a Will save, to represent him tricking or outsmarting his enemies rather than mentally forcing them to move somehow.

When a caster throws a will-save spell, one check stand between that spell and success. A save. Similarly, when a 4e caster attacks will, it's one check to see if it works. Similarly, when a fighter uses Come And Get It, there's one attack roll per target. When a Warlord uses Lamb to the Slaughter, each of his allies still needs to make an attack roll, so, again, it's individual rolls as points of failure.

What you are proposing is to put layers off checks between martial characters and success. So, your Fighter's Come & Get it would require some sort of bluff check - a skill it's historically been difficult for fighters to be good at, and one using CHA while his attacks use STR - then, to actually hit his enemies, he'll have to make attack rolls. So it's two rolls to get one hit. That's like having an ability that /always has disadvantage/. Except of course, both of those rolls could have disadvantage, in addition.

That's not 'couching it in different language,' that's making it starkly inferior.

pemerton · Nov 14, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
They don't force anything.

They make movement seem safe when it's really not.

Deception isn't a force. It's a misdirection. If I shove you into traffic, that's going to be modeled a different way than if I convince you that you're immune to cars, so you walk out into traffic.

Deception in combat is not like selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge. It's about making the only tenable option this rather than that, and then taking advantage of foreknowledge that the enemy will choose this.

mlund said:
His movement is forced because nobody in that position wants to be maimed or killed.

Even a good feint isn't purely a deception, because if you ignore a good feint it won't be a harmless bluff.

Manbearcat said:
This is just not true. After behavior is practiced enough, the role of "decision-making" becomes automated and moves from the conscious mind to the subconscious mind.

<sip>

Life and death martial conflict with a master swordsman with super-human speed moves at a similar pace, with a similar margin of error and a similar number of vectors...all with higher stakes and greater pressure.

These two posts convey my point well.

Kamikaze Midget said:
I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that someone who is decieved -- tricked -- still makes a decision, that decision just happens to be one that is bad for them to make, since they made it without a true understanding of the ramifications.

That's different than being forced to take a certain action.

Not in any meaningful sense. For example, think of how a pin is adjudicated in 3E. If you look at the details in a fine-grained enough way, you see that there are decisions made by the victim of the pin - they move their body in a certain way, for instance, rather than have their arm broken or dislocated. But the resolution mechanics don't model those voluntary choices - they are not fine-grained enough.

Likewise think of a to-hit roll. This involves voluntary choices made by the victim of the attack - choices to move this way rather than that way, for example, as the result of being outmanouevred by a superior opponent. But the game system doesn't model those choices.

This is why I'm not a big fan of [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]'s suggestion of a Will/Wisdom save. I can see where that is coming from, but we don't grant a Will/WIS bonus to AC, so why should responding to feinting and misdirection in combat be any different when we look at the broader scope of the warlord's battlefield control?

At the level of detail at which D&D resolution works (and most other RPG resolution that I'm familiar with), ducking because you don't want to be cleaved in two by a broadsword, or moving on the battlefield because it's the only viable opening you can see, are not voluntary actions modelled by player choices. They are forced choices that result from the superior weapon play, or battlefield disposition, of skilled opponents. And if we had a zone system for adjudicating battlefield position this wouldn't be controversial - it is only because it involves moving a token on a map - which is purely a feature of D&D's particular approach to action resolution in combat - that it is controversial.

Kamikaze Midget said:
Saying that you need metagame mechanics to have a good warlord isn't also saying that you can't have a good warlord without metagame mechanics?

You said "The problem in my mind being that if you think a battle commander can only accurately be played using metagame mechanics, that this feels to me to be an unnecessarily restrictive idea of what a battle commander is".

My response was, and is - for those who think my conception is too restrictive, go to town. Presumably it doesn't stop you doing that that I don't think your're designing a very good warlord.

My goal in this thread isn't to stop you enjoying your metagame-free battlefield commander. It's just to explain why, in my view, that particular build doesn't capture the essence of the warlord achetype, because in eschewing metagame it eschews the key elements of D&D combat resolution: action economy, hit point attrition and non-abstract positioning mechanics.

pemerton · Nov 14, 2012

Eldritch_Lord said:
That's really all it takes to settle some of the dispute between the 3e and 4e crowds, little tweaks to make the mechanics and flavor mesh better instead of using more generic mechanics.

Tony Vargas said:
What you are proposing is to put layers off checks between martial characters and success. S

<snip>

That's not 'couching it in different language,' that's making it starkly inferior.

I agree with Tony Vargas.

People who think that 4e players don't care about the mesh between mechanics and flavour seem to be ignoring what (at least some of us) are posting.

Look at my discussion, upthread, of the Aragorn/Arwen dream sequence in Jackson's Two Towers movie, and of related scenes in action fiction. I want an RPG that can reproduce that fiction. And that can likewise reproduce fiction involving clever and inspiring tacticians outwitting their enemies, and spurring their comrades on to success.

There are a range of mechanical techniques for achieving this. I've explained upthread why, within the scope of the D&D paradigm, you won't achieve it if you eschew metagame mechanics.

Bluenose · Nov 14, 2012

jrowland said:
I like the stop-motion way of describing it. Although I think immediate actions break-down the freeze-frame nature (and is often cited as what makes 4E rounds take so long and complicated), and the abstraction becomes more fluid during a turn rather than round-by-round. But, on that score, on-turn (non immediate) is fine, I just think there should be MORE immediate actions than the 4E warlord gets. Lets just say I am in favor of Warlords having some action denial in their arsenal (or as a separate build), whether its preventing attacks, or changing a move.

A Warlord in 4e with Interrupts (and in Next with Expertise Dice they use outside their turn) is yelling "Ware Left", "Duck", "Raise your Shields", and improving people's defences accordingly.

Manbearcat said:
How about; have you ever been severely injured in a sport and then attempted to play it again under those same circumstances?

I have. Cycling, when I was a lot younger and rode in road racing events, basically as a sprinter. When you're going at speeds cars don't often reach in urban traffic, in a crowd where you can put an elbow out and connect with someone else on both sides, and you want to get into the lead; well, let's say that conscious decision making takes too long. You either react on instinct and make for the gap that is going to be there in the next second, or someone else does and you get beaten.

And then one day I went for the gap that was going to be there, someone hit me from behind, I hit the tarmac at 50mph and got a dozen more people crashing over me, and ended up with a bloody head and a broken arm. Physically it all mended fine; mentally, when I got into that situation again I had to think, and that didn't work because other people were reacting without thinking, and always beat me.

I'm pretty sure that a fighter who doesn't move when a sword or fist is coming towards their eyes is a fighter who won't react the same way again. I'm also sure, people I know do martial arts, that they are taught not to think but to act, and that people who have to think about what they do always lose to people who simply act without having to think about it. It might not always be possible to predict exactly how someone will react to a situation, but anyone who doesn't want to lose does react.

Chris_Nightwing · Nov 14, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
When a caster throws a will-save spell, one check stand between that spell and success. A save. Similarly, when a 4e caster attacks will, it's one check to see if it works. Similarly, when a fighter uses Come And Get It, there's one attack roll per target. When a Warlord uses Lamb to the Slaughter, each of his allies still needs to make an attack roll, so, again, it's individual rolls as points of failure.

What you are proposing is to put layers off checks between martial characters and success. So, your Fighter's Come & Get it would require some sort of bluff check - a skill it's historically been difficult for fighters to be good at, and one using CHA while his attacks use STR - then, to actually hit his enemies, he'll have to make attack rolls. So it's two rolls to get one hit. That's like having an ability that /always has disadvantage/. Except of course, both of those rolls could have disadvantage, in addition.

That's not 'couching it in different language,' that's making it starkly inferior.

I wouldn't want to require two checks for these sorts of abilities to work, for the reason you state. However, I think that the moment you make the check can be called wrongly. Come and Get It for instance, draws enemies in no matter their intelligence, their position, who they are also in combat with, their size, and so on. Then the Fighter might hit them or not. I would *much* rather have seen it expressed as an attack against Will, and if successful they are drawn in and the Fighter hits them automatically. I mean, he's luring or tricking them into surrounding him - as part of that he can easily lure or trick them into getting hit by his sword.

For the Warlord power, similarly, I'd rather see a wisdom save to see if his gambit/lure works on the enemy, and if it does then he and his allies deal damage automatically to that enemy (probably balanced here by using the expertise dice as damage or at least disallowing ability modifiers). I think that's more thematic - it doesn't matter how heavily armoured that guy is, if you trick him into doing something stupid, everyone gets to wail on him.

Edit: I actually could imagine some abilities that require two checks to hit, and the tradeoff would be a powerful effect or additional damage or affecting many creatures. Come and Get It could be an attack vs. Will, then an attack vs. AC, and you deal full damage to multiple enemies. The Warlord ability could be Wisdom save, then attacks vs. AC with allies dealing full damage, since you get a lot more damage potential than a standard attack out of it. I might run some maths to see where the tradeoff lies.

Tovec · Nov 14, 2012

mlund said:
You're confused. You obviously didn't grow up watching Sox-Yankees and Sox-Rays baseball. I'm not talking about a buzzing a batter. I'm talking about deliberately beaning him.

Yes, there's a choice between getting hit and getting out of the way. Some people don't realize the angle and react in time, but nobody deliberately takes a major-league fast-ball in the ear.

Sure, the Orc might not flinch. Change "baseball" to "arrow" and that orc is dead. Don't even bother rolling damage. He's dead. Likewise one can always choose to fall in the wood-chipper rather than leap to safety. The default assumption is that monsters and characters that are capable of combat don't willfully commit suicide.

- Marty Lund

Okay I am going off of a few assumptions so I am sorry if I missed something along the way.

Using your example, the pitcher throws the ball attempting to bean the batter. The batter, not wanting to be beaned, then jumps out of the way. I don't have a problem with this so far. We'll call it premise 1.

Here are some assumptions that I make about what happens next according to 4e tactics.

Premise 2. Everyone is always going to jump out of the way, because they don't want to get hit. If they DON'T jump out of the way it is because they don't realize that they are going to get hit. So, in this way isn't it more of a bluff, as opposed to an automatic effect that just happens because you made an attack. (Unless of course you are bullrushing or tripping or w/e.)
Ex. If you fail a check you DON'T know something is going to happen and therefore don't move. If you DO succeed then you do move because you realize you are going to get hit. This is OPPOSITE of what is modeled in 4e forced movements.

Premise 3. You force the target to move AND deal damage. So, harkening back to your ball = arrow idea. How many times do you successfully cause the guy to avoid the arrow but still cause them to get hurt by that arrow? Again, backwards to what I would expect to see. If you DO jump out of the way then you should negate the damage. If you DON'T then you should get the damage. This is what KM was saying, I believe.

Premise 4. If you force movement they'll ALWAYS move the same amount in the same direction as chosen by you. Why do YOU get the choice of how far/which direction? Why not them? And why is it happening on your turn, not theirs?
Ex. Forced movement back 2 squares, every time. Now, why 2 squares? Why in a certain direction? Couldn't they misjudge and move forward. Couldn't they overract and move FURTHER back? Beyond that, how are they moving on YOUR turn without you applying any form of physical force - firing an arrow doesn't actually lift people off their feet and displace them back 2 squares.

So, if I understood KM's recent ideas: They should have a choice of how to react, if to react and can take the damage if they choose not to.

For the record, I'm not all for KM's proposed warlord idea either. I just didn't like this ganging up and saw some problems with your response Marty.

mlund · Nov 14, 2012

Tovec said:
Premise 2. Everyone is always going to jump out of the way, because they don't want to get hit.

Incorrect. Everyone is assumed to at least -attempt- to get out of the way. Whether they react fast enough or not is a moot point, really.

If they DON'T jump out of the way it is because they don't realize that they are going to get hit.

See above. If they don't react it is because they don't realize they are going to get hit until it is too late. Most feints and luring maneuvers normally don't work in the edge case of the enemy being completely unaware of your presence throughout the maneuver. You'd probably want to get their attention first.

So, in this way isn't it more of a bluff, as opposed to an automatic effect that just happens because you made an attack.

Nope. It's just an effect that automatically fails if you use it on an inanimate object or creature.

Premise 3. You force the target to move AND deal damage. So, harkening back to your ball = arrow idea. How many times do you successfully cause the guy to avoid the arrow but still cause them to get hurt by that arrow?

Incorrect assumption. Most of the time, unless you are sniping perfectly, you normally cause the enemy to attempt to avoid the arrow. That's why they take 1d6 damage or whatever out of 16 HP instead of catching it in the neck and going to 0 automatically.

In the same respect, if you really want to drill a batter you throw at his center mass. If you have a good enough fast-ball the best he can do is twist to one side and take a glancing hit.

Premise 4. If you force movement they'll ALWAYS move the same amount in the same direction as chosen by you. Why do YOU get the choice of how far/which direction?

Because I'm the person choosing the direction from which the threat comes from, and thus determine which areas in the abstracted melee in which the attack happens are "safe" and which ones are immediately fatal.

Ex. Forced movement back 2 squares, every time. Now, why 2 squares? Why in a certain direction? Couldn't they misjudge and move forward.

They could, but then they'd impale their head on a stick. It's generally considered bad form to assume that an opponent's reaction to your attack is to willfully suicide himself on your weapon. It makes for a lousy game.

So, if I understood KM's recent ideas: They should have a choice of how to react, if to react and can take the damage if they choose not to.

No. Generally if they manage to make a choice that defeats the maneuver outright it is abstracted out in missing the attack completely. Remember, this isn't a one-sword-swing-a-around combat system.

- Marty Lund

Tovec · Nov 15, 2012

I don't see why you decided to dissect my post in the way you did but whatever.

mlund said:
Premise 2. Everyone is always going to jump out of the way, because they don't want to get hit.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Everyone is assumed to at least -attempt- to get out of the way. Whether they react fast enough or not is a moot point, really.

In the example you gave, which is what I was using and WILL be using in this post, you described a pitcher throwing a ball and attempting to bean the batter. Using this example you then summarize that the batter will attempt to jump out of the way. I will concede that he may or may not be successful but the want for him to do it is not irrelevant.

If they DON'T jump out of the way it is because they don't realize that they are going to get hit.

Click to expand...

See above. If they don't react it is because they don't realize they are going to get hit until it is too late. Most feints and luring maneuvers normally don't work in the edge case of the enemy being completely unaware of your presence throughout the maneuver. You'd probably want to get their attention first.

Right, but my example was based on yours. My question remains the same. But let me break it down further.

Either the pitcher is TRYING to hit the batter in the head (to bean him as you say) or he isn't. If he IS trying to hit him then the pitcher does not benefit from the batter moving. If he is NOT trying to hit him, then it should be some sort of bluff check in order to get the batter to move. If it is the case where the pitcher IS trying to hit him then the batter being unaware doesn't matter (and in fact HELPs.. as per the current example you are now using). If he the pitcher IS NOT trying to hit the batter but instead trying to get the batter to move then if the batter is unaware (aka failing his perception/spot check) then he should NOT be subject to the attempt.

Either way, a simple effect of pitcher makes effect > batter moves is no longer as simple as it seems.

So, in this way isn't it more of a bluff, as opposed to an automatic effect that just happens because you made an attack.

Click to expand...

Nope. It's just an effect that automatically fails if you use it on an inanimate object or creature.

Again, why isn't it a bluff check as opposed to an automatic effect?

I'm asking for an explanation, to explain something you cannot say 'nope'.

Also, the explanation I did get doesn't rely on the example you gave (pitcher and batter) and instead (I assume) talks about some other effect and target (as you mention inanimate objects - which the batter is not).

Premise 3. You force the target to move AND deal damage. So, harkening back to your ball = arrow idea. How many times do you successfully cause the guy to avoid the arrow but still cause them to get hurt by that arrow?

Click to expand...

Incorrect assumption. Most of the time, unless you are sniping perfectly, you normally cause the enemy to attempt to avoid the arrow. That's why they take 1d6 damage or whatever out of 16 HP instead of catching it in the neck and going to 0 automatically.

In the same respect, if you really want to drill a batter you throw at his center mass. If you have a good enough fast-ball the best he can do is twist to one side and take a glancing hit.

If I was wrong on the assumption that the underlying effect was designed to move someone and deal damage, then I completely understand and I'll move on.

However, your response here confuses me. Because the batter is attempting to move out of the way he is getting dealt 1d6 of 16 HP? How.

As we already extablished earlier the pitcher should either (a) be trying to hit the batter, or (b) be trying to move him. I don't see where (c) him trying to hit him AND move him happens. I certainly don't get how he expects to hit him but do less damage.

For a moment, because we are talking about a batter and a pitcher and not fighters and rogues I'm going to drop the HP = abstraction mechanism. I'm doing this because the example you gave is not abstract, and the example you gave is supposed to apply to the example of (un-free) forced movement.

Also once again, you didn't answer the questions I posed about premise 3.

Premise 4. If you force movement they'll ALWAYS move the same amount in the same direction as chosen by you. Why do YOU get the choice of how far/which direction?

Click to expand...

Because I'm the person choosing the direction from which the threat comes from, and thus determine which areas in the abstracted melee in which the attack happens are "safe" and which ones are immediately fatal.

Okay, but saying "where the threat comes from" does not explain the following:

What EXACT action the target will take. The target (in this case a batter) will attempt to avoid getting hit by the ball. The target won't necessarily jump 10 feet away and end up prone. He MAY jump 5 feet away, he may run towards the dugout, he may drop to his knees and avoid the ball. He may end up prone (but that is another matter) if it hits him or he may end up prone if it is the best way to avoid getting hit by the ball, he may NOT end up prone. Or he may end up failing to avoid the blow entirely and end up hurt. How is the pitcher dictating ANY of this? How is he doing it EVERY SINGLE TIME? If he is able to then somehow (to many of us) he is able to telepathically control the batter so the batter does exactly what the pitcher wants and ends up where the pitcher wants. Damaged to boot.

Ex. Forced movement back 2 squares, every time. Now, why 2 squares? Why in a certain direction? Couldn't they misjudge and move forward.

Click to expand...

They could, but then they'd impale their head on a stick. It's generally considered bad form to assume that an opponent's reaction to your attack is to willfully suicide himself on your weapon. It makes for a lousy game.

Right, and I'm not arguing if he should react. I'm not. Not even a little. I'm asking why the EFFECT that the pitcher is causing leads to the same outcome for the batter EVERY SINGLE TIME?

Again, you seem to be talking about an abstraction but I'm not because I'm talking about the very simple example of pitcher throwing a ball at the batter and attempting to bean him. That is it. If you have to get VERY abstract to answer that, and to force the batter to move, then something has gone wrong.

So, if I understood KM's recent ideas: They should have a choice of how to react, if to react and can take the damage if they choose not to.

Click to expand...

No. Generally if they manage to make a choice that defeats the maneuver outright it is abstracted out in missing the attack completely. Remember, this isn't a one-sword-swing-a-around combat system.

No what? No, I don't understand KM's idea correctly?

I'm not saying (and as far as I understood KM isn't either) that there shouldn't be a form of forced movement. I think we are both saying that it shouldn't be entirely dictated by the "pitcher" just because he is the one initiating it. I am saying that if the "pitcher" IS going to dictate the exact terms of how an enemy is going to perform an action, especially if it is repeatable every single time in the exact same way, then it should be a physical thing. Even the ball attempting to bean the batter is a physical attack. He isn't just moving from side to side and thrusting a sword at the batter and assuming the batter WILL move back 2 squares. He isn't automatically forcing the batter to move. Perhaps batter, using this new 'swing a sword' thing has his own weapon and the proficiency to STOP what the pitcher is doing. The forced movement ideas don't elaborate on this. They just hope and assume that the abstraction should be enough for everyone and then say "screw off" if you want a better explanation.

Also, completely unrelated to this whole thread, and to your post in specific, who says it CAN'T BE or even SHOULDN'T BE one-sword-swing-a-round combat? I've run it that way and I only have a problem when I encounter things that ONLY work in abstraction, such as forced movement. Maybe they should look into that for Next time.

mlund · Nov 15, 2012

Tovec said:
I don't see why you decided to dissect my post in the way you did but whatever.

If it was really "whatever" you wouldn't have bothered to gripe.

I decided to address your post point-by-point because you explicitly numbered and labeled things as "Premise 1," and "Premise 2" and then constructed your arguments around those premises being sound.

When they were not sound, I addressed them.

In the example you gave, which is what I was using and WILL be using in this post, you described a pitcher throwing a ball and attempting to bean the batter.

Actually, in baseball when you throw a bean ball you usually don't succeed in hitting someone in the head unless things line up just so. The typical outcome is the batter winds up eating dirt and backs off the plate. A bean ball is more vicious and dangerous than a buzzing a batter high and inside because if you're just as satisfied if you put it in the guy's ear.

In the same regard, if the fool is stupid enough to not fall for a jab at the eyes and you happen to slide your sword into his brain pan that's a win. Again, D&D as a game generally relies on a premise of non-suicidal monsters and those random critical hits are just tha - random critical hits.

Again, why isn't it a bluff check as opposed to an automatic effect?

Because it's not a bluff. It is a deadly attack that happens to present a controlled zone of egress. There are plenty of situations is combat where a series of lows drives an opponent back because the alternative is immediate defeat.

However, your response here confuses me. Because the batter is attempting to move out of the way he is getting dealt 1d6 of 16 HP? How.

Coup de grace is what happens when you don't or can't protect yourself. You go to 0 HP.

As we already extablished earlier the pitcher should either (a) be trying to hit the batter, or (b) be trying to move him.

As noted above, this is a false premise.

I don't see where (c) him trying to hit him AND move him happens. I certainly don't get how he expects to hit him but do less damage.

A baseball is not a deadly weapon. The threat range of a single baseball is somewhat more limited than 6 seconds of someone shooting a bow or swinging an axe with intent to kill.

Again, you seem to be talking about an abstraction but I'm not because I'm talking about the very simple example of pitcher throwing a ball at the batter and attempting to bean him.

That's arguing past the forest to the tree. The pitcher is merely a concrete example that falls under the abstract concept.

I'm not saying (and as far as I understood KM isn't either) that there shouldn't be a form of forced movement. I think we are both saying that it shouldn't be entirely dictated by the "pitcher" just because he is the one initiating it.

It's the ability of the actor who is spending his action and already successfully defeated the target's defense to hit him.

The combat system is only going to get so far down in granular detail. There are other games with way more detail.

He isn't automatically forcing the batter to move. Perhaps batter, using this new 'swing a sword' thing has his own weapon and the proficiency to STOP what the pitcher is doing.

Sorry, but he got his defense beaten and is in deadly jepordy on the attacker's terms. Now it is all "death or cake." The game wisely assumes everyone will choose "cake," as a default. That would be kind of embarrassing, running out of cake like that. Pretty soon you'd had people asking for chicken or fish and chips and it'd be bedlam.

- Marty Lund

pemerton · Nov 15, 2012

mlund said:
There are plenty of situations is combat where a series of lows drives an opponent back because the alternative is immediate defeat.

For me, this is the key.
[MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] are saying that it should be in the defender's hands as to whether or not movement occurs (which, in practice, means in the GM's hands). But a skilled fighter chooses where to put his/her enemy, by providing only two choicse - move to where I want you, or be defeated by a winning blow.

A skilled captain works with his/her unit in a similar way - controlling the movement of the enemies by controlling the disposition of his/her own forces, and the threats that they create.

This is what 4e-style forced movement models (as well as other stuff too, including mind control, physical force, recoiling in fear, etc).