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

SomebodyElse · Nov 11, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Your main problem here seems to be the lack of martial daily or encounter powers, which isn't something within the scope of what I'm doing.

That's the problem, this stuff ISN'T in the scope of what you're doing. You're correct that the 4e warlord is very similar to a fighter but our issue is that you're keeping the most 'fighter like' bits of it while throwing away the most thematically 'warlord like' bits. This is the exact same mistake WoTC seems to be making.

About half of the warlords abilities in 4e have some sort of group effect granting everyone nearby/in the party a particular bonus. Others might be different but to me those are the abilities which define the warlord. They don't just inspire one ally, they inspire them all. Just look at the 4 level 1 dailies available in the players handbook:
1) encounter long bonus to AC for nearby allies and some immediate temp HP.
2) Encounter long bonus to attack rolls for nearby allies.
3) Encounter long movement penatly to BBEG as long as any 2 allies are adjacent to it.
4) Encounter long 'if you or an ally hits they can let another ally shift 5ft'

Personally I don't think you can do 'warlord' properly unless you can find a way to give them rarer encounter changing abilites instead of just at-wills.

When WoTC was talking about the wizard a while ago they mentioned that it would have less round to round damage than a fighter but could pull out a big daily spell to change the course of a battle. That's exactly the sort of thing I want for the warlord but with martial tactics instead of magic.

Dragoslav · Nov 11, 2012

One thing I can say is that I wouldn't accept a Warlord that didn't have some sort of incentive to put points into intelligence or charisma.

If we had to use expertise dice, something like "Roll an expertise die. The ally gains a bonus to (something) equal to your charisma modifier + the result of your roll."

Maybe something like:

"When making an attack, roll any number of expertise dice. If you hit, the damage equals the result of your dice roll, and an ally can move up to a number of feet equal to 5 times your intelligence modifier."

"When making a melee attack, roll any number of expertise dice. After you make this attack, the enemy may choose to make an attack against you and has advantage for the attack. You have a bonus to AC equal to your charisma modifier against this attack. If the enemy makes this attack, an ally may make an attack against that enemy and has a bonus to his or her damage equal to the result of your expertise dice roll."

I'm A Banana · Nov 11, 2012

GreyICE said:
It's just numbers.
...
But it has to be more interesting that "oh look, here's some numbers." If every ability boils down to numbers, then combat in D&D Next is a drawn out math problem.

Yeah, whatever issue you have here, it's clearly not within the scope of this little thought experiment.

If you'd like to talk about martial characters lacking big, limited-use effects in general, that's mostly a different thread. I've shown you how you can use Expertise dice to replicate those mechanics.

SomebodyElse said:
That's the problem, this stuff ISN'T in the scope of what you're doing.

It is, as I've noted, actually pretty easy to ramp up the effects and tack on metagame elements if that's what is necessary to accomplish the big effects you're looking for.

As an aside, it's also possible to codify those effects as spells and make them a bard with magic instead of a warrior with tactical genius. In fact, I don't see any reason why both of 'em can't exist.

GreyICE · Nov 11, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Yeah, whatever issue you have here, it's clearly not within the scope of this little thought experiment.

If you'd like to talk about martial characters lacking big, limited-use effects in general, that's mostly a different thread. I've shown you how you can use Expertise dice to replicate those mechanics.

No, you haven't. You've shown that the expertise dice effects could be applied to the fighter... but could be applied to things that are not the fighter.

Well gosh, how surprising.

You haven't shown that there's a way to make a coherent fighter that is also a Warlord WITHOUT changing the definition of the Warlord.

Basically you made a thread where you moved the goalposts, and then once you stuck them where you wanted them, you declared yourself a winner.

I just discussed things that Warlords need to have to be Warlords. You ignored it. Integrate THOSE mechanics with the fighter without creating a monstrosity of a class that makes the 3E Druid look well organized and sensible, and you'll actually manage to impress me.

GX.Sigma · Nov 11, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Add Int, Wis, or Cha to the options. Fighters may need intelligence for brilliant tactical maneuvers, Wisdom to read their opponents, and Charisma to inspire their allies.

So, a Fighter can have any of 6 stats as his prime requisite? (which none of your maneuvers use, so it may as well say "Str, Dex, Con, or one of 3 wrought-iron bear traps")

Look, I'm all in favor of having the "guy who is a leader because he is an awesome warrior" be a Fighter, but I think that means that "guy who is a leader because he is a brilliant tactician and strategist, but isn't very good at fighting" shouldn't be a Fighter.

I'm A Banana · Nov 11, 2012

GreyICE said:
No, you haven't.

Well, if you're not going to read the post where I mentioned how you could replicate encounter and daily effects by limiting expertise dice recharge rates and ramping up the effects of those abilities (adding metagame mechanics if you'd like), I don't see much of a reason to continue debating this particular point with you.

GreyICE said:
You haven't shown that there's a way to make a coherent fighter that is also a Warlord WITHOUT changing the definition of the Warlord.

If your definition of "warlord" rests on the existence of daily and encounter powers, I think your definition of warlord is restrictively narrow.

GreyICE · Nov 11, 2012

Kamikaze midget, please read what I am writing. I already debunked your strawman in post #18 (as a side note, it would be nice if you could have a discussion without resorting to strawman arguments, which is just basically a polite way of saying that you like to lie about what I write)

The Warlord does NOT rest on Encounter or Daily powers. He rests on being able to control the flow of battle, exploit weaknesses in enemy formations, and find opportunities for his allies to take advantage of. Very little of that is represented by adding damage dice to an attack.

Your model of the Warlord fails to capture the spirit of the Warlord, which is the ultimate master tactician, the person who sees the flow of battle and exploits the enemy's weaknesses, while preserving his allies. All he is is numbers and dice.

Boring. Bad design and boring.

MoonSong · Nov 11, 2012

SomebodyElse said:
That's the problem, this stuff ISN'T in the scope of what you're doing. You're correct that the 4e warlord is very similar to a fighter but our issue is that you're keeping the most 'fighter like' bits of it while throwing away the most thematically 'warlord like' bits. This is the exact same mistake WoTC seems to be making.

About half of the warlords abilities in 4e have some sort of group effect granting everyone nearby/in the party a particular bonus. Others might be different but to me those are the abilities which define the warlord. They don't just inspire one ally, they inspire them all. Just look at the 4 level 1 dailies available in the players handbook:
1) encounter long bonus to AC for nearby allies and some immediate temp HP.
2) Encounter long bonus to attack rolls for nearby allies.
3) Encounter long movement penatly to BBEG as long as any 2 allies are adjacent to it.
4) Encounter long 'if you or an ally hits they can let another ally shift 5ft'

Personally I don't think you can do 'warlord' properly unless you can find a way to give them rarer encounter changing abilites instead of just at-wills.

When WoTC was talking about the wizard a while ago they mentioned that it would have less round to round damage than a fighter but could pull out a big daily spell to change the course of a battle. That's exactly the sort of thing I want for the warlord but with martial tactics instead of magic.

Actually encounter based morale effects aren't without i'ts precedents. Back in 2e and 3e this is the way the bard music worked, the music or poetry wasn't magical, just extremely inspiring, there is a reason in 3e nspire courage provided a MORALE bonus and in 2e it was encounter based tather than limited by day.

I don't think giving the warlord some encounter based morale effects would be so bad or even strain suspension of disbelief, in fact warlord healing is about the only thing that breaks it (except those times when the warlord acts like a fighter), and I think it works even in fiction.

Those who have read History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi will know what I'm talking about here, to me Nijima is the archetypical warlord guiding the alliance to hit in the right place at the right time, even allowing them to defeat a master class warrior, despite not being very inspirational to most main characters, he has managed throught cunning, awareness and force of personality to turn a bunch of former enemies into a team, and is capable of guiding them, even when 90% of them hate him. The only thing he doesn't do than a 4e warlord does is healing.

However doing this right requires a subsystem of it's own, the Fighter chasis isn't appropriate for it (in the same way the wizard chasis isn't suitable for sorcerers)

Cadence · Nov 11, 2012

GreyICE said:
The Warlord does NOT rest on Encounter or Daily powers. He rests on being able to control the flow of battle, exploit weaknesses in enemy formations, and find opportunities for his allies to take advantage of. Very little of that is represented by adding damage dice to an attack.

Your model of the Warlord fails to capture the spirit of the Warlord, which is the ultimate master tactician, the person who sees the flow of battle and exploits the enemy's weaknesses, while preserving his allies. All he is is numbers and dice.

I thought he explained in the collapsed note in #15 that he knew he was leaving out the things that you think are heart of the Warlord because he thought it was hard to work them in using what he saw as the way 5e was going and that it didn't fit what he was trying to do with the suggestion.

As far as what constitutes a Warlord, in the 4e PHB isn't the"Tactical Warlord" only one of two builds, the other being the "Inspiring Warlord"? Is it also worth noting that "[the warlord] is a strong warrior in melee, able to stand beside the fighter or paladin"?

GreyICE · Nov 11, 2012

Cadence said:
I thought he explained in the collapsed note in #15 that he knew he was leaving out the things that you think are integral to the Warlord because he thought it was hard to work them in using what he saw as the way 5e was going and that it didn't fit what he was trying to do with the suggestion.

So basically, what you think he did was:

1) Attempted to integrate the Warlord with the Fighter
2) Discovered that he couldn't integrate the Warlord with the Fighter because the mechanics were too hard to work in
3) Decided that the Warlord didn't really need all those interesting mechanics because they were hard to fit in.
4) Threw in some bad dice mechanics, called it a day
5) Belittled and yelled at anyone who thought that the Warlord couldn't be integrated with the fighter without losing important mechanics or creating a mess of a class.

I hope that's not what he actually did.