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

GreyICE · Nov 12, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
The main difficulty here is that dictating bigger waves of enemy movement would be overpowered for an at-will, and achieving that pseudo-magical action dictation is something that should probably stay out of non-magical characters by default. Do warlords necessarily need to change the entire battlefield more so than an at-will ability would be capable of? Do they rely on mind control? I don't believe so. Though this is one of the points where we see some overlap with a bard: there'd be NO issue having a charm or an enchantment that forced an enemy to move like that.

One alternative, that might be a bit sticky, is kind of comparable to how 4e's marking mechanism is an improvement over the 3e knight's challenge: rather than dictate an action, it introduces a choice. Rather than pulling, sliding, or pushing enemies, I could see some Expertise Dice abilities offering that sort of choice, but we'd still have to be careful not to get into magical territory. It still has to be clear what the choice offers: a maneuver that, if the enemy doesn't move, punishes them with some damage or some penalty, might work pretty OK. Maybe a "Paint the Target" ability that lets a warlord spend ED's on allies' attacks as long as the target remains in the same place. Abilities like this are feasible, they just require more thought and caution than "pull 5 squares" so that you can keep things believable.

A failure of design to incorporate an aspect does not mean such limitations actually exist. It just means the design is limited. Here, I made you a wonderful, metagame-free version of some Warlord Abilities. These would work perfectly fine in 3E.

Lamb to the Slaughter

A hostile creature who has a clear path to the Warlord and can see them (or sense them if the creature relies on non-sight senses) and is no farther from the Warlord than its maximum movement speed makes a Will (Wisdom in Next) save (DC 10+Warlord Level+Charisma Modifier).

If the creature fails the save it immediately moves adjacent to the Warlord (this movement does not provoke opportunity attacks). Up to three allies may make a charge attack immediately.

Taking these action doesn’t affect the subject’s normal place in the initiative order. The charge attack is a single attack and follows the standard rules for attacking. This maneuver does not allow the subjectto make more than one additional attack in a round. If any ally has already made an additional attack, due a prior maneuver, the haste spell, or any other spell or ability, this charge action may not be used.

-------

Reorient the Axis

Each ally who can hear the warlord and is not grappled, entangled, or otherwise immobilized may immediately move at a speed dependent on the Warlord's intelligence modifier as a free action. Their speed is considered to be equal to 5' times the Warlord's intelligence modifier (so a Warlord with an intelligence of 15 would grant a move of 10'). This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Taking these action doesn’t affect the subject’s normal place in the initiative order. If a maneuver or spell has already allowed the subject to move as a free action this turn they may not make this move action.

Does this convince you that movement effects may be created without using "metagame mechanics" (whatever that inane phrase means today) ?

pemerton · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Position of Enemies: There are at-will ways to handle this that don't necessarily break disbelief, but most of them rely on the warrior actually applying physical force to the enemy, because that is how you move people without dictating their actions (something that would be within the domain of magic).

<snip>

I think you run into some of the same "pseudomagical" problems here with certain games, but 5e HP is already rather explicitly 99% karma, and by all signs is likely to remain so, so this actually isn't a problem from that standpoint.

<snip>

Thankfully, a commander (or anyone else) with the Healer specialty can remain entirely 'non-magical' and just drop herbal healing potions on their allies anyway, while using their in-combat abilities for something more dynamic and in-the-moment, rather than long-term.

<snip>

I also don't see straight healing as necessarily the mechanical representation of protecting and inspiring your allies. I don't think the archetype necessarily rests on that specific mechanic for that fiction. There's a lot of ways to model protecting and inspiring your allies that don't involve simply giving them back lost HP, and in many ways, that's the least interesting way to do it.

In the real world, people trick others into moving all the time without applying physical force - from boxers outmanoeuvring one another in the ring, to military commanders luring enemy forces into traps.

If all this is to be within the domain of "magic", that is a big limitation on any sort of warlord class.

As I noted upthread, there are RPG action resolution mechanics which permit defeating an enemy via "mind games" (Burning Wheel closed scripting would be one example), but D&D mechanics don't support this for a range of reasons, including the openness of the battlefield to all participants, and hit point attrition and the lack of active defence giving the to-and-fro of combat a particular dynamic that is not feint-friendly.

Will the same rationale that says warlords can't move NPCs without applying force lead to diplomats who can't actually change anyone's mind, or apply the "charmed" condition, because only magic can do that!

As for healing, I don't find applying herbal poulstices all that evocative of a charismatic warleader. There is an archetypical scene in action fiction, of the fighter, eyes blinded by blood, head spinning, getting to his feet - whether because he remembers something valuable to him, or because his leader's words rouse him. In other systems this could be modelled as condition removal, but given that D&D doesn't work on a wound or condition-track system, but via hit point attrition, the only way to capture this scene is to permit inspiration to restore hit points. 4e permits that scene to occur in a game of D&D. A ban on martial healing means it can't happen.

Metagame mechanics aren't just bonus features of a warlord. They're at the heart of it, because - given D&D's action resolution mechanics - they are the only way in which scenes that are utterly ubiquitous in action fiction (feinting, leading into traps, rousing friends from a stupor) can take place.

Tony Vargas · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Just a little thought experiment: if we rolled these classes together, what might it look like?
[*] Add the "Commander" Fighting Style for those who want an easy pre-packaged set of abilities.
[*] Add the following Maneuvers: Inspiring Words, Commanding Shout, Tactical Instructions.
[*] Design Notes: Healing Specialist specialty would help a "warlord-style" PC keep the party recharged with healing potions and whatnot. Noble background gives them Persuade and other relevant skills.amazing.
[/LIST]

Two major problems. One, of course, is that making the Warlord anything other than a class in it's own right is a final repudiation of 4e that would conclusively give the lie to claims that 5e is 'for everyone.' Not that it isn't, but, they still have plausible deniability while they keep a token thing or two from 4e in. More importantly from a game design perspective, making this Warlord essentially requires a fighter with specific style, specialization, and background - and that leaves it with virtually no customization left. That's a big "fail" right there. Terrible idea.

OTOH, Assassin as a speciality makes some sense. Anyone can be a murderer for hire. Similarly, to drag it back to the Warlord, a 'Leader' specialization or a background that carries a rank or authority could be a good thing to add to the game, not just for Warlords for whom it might be particularly apt (just as 'Healer' is to Clerics) but because characters of any class might lead a party or hold positions of rank/authority...

I'm A Banana · Nov 13, 2012

pemerton said:
In the real world, people trick others into moving all the time without applying physical force - from boxers outmanoeuvring one another in the ring, to military commanders luring enemy forces into traps.

This conflates two things that are very different in actual practice. Mike Tyson couldn't plan a military ambush, and I doubt Napoleon was an excellent boxer.

So they probably need different rules to model them.

pemerton said:
If all this is to be within the domain of "magic", that is a big limitation on any sort of warlord class.

Forcing an action is magic. That's what gets you to move 5 feet against your will.

Playing a trick is mundane. That might also make you move 5 feet, but it's not against your will, it's going to rely on you choosing to do it. That choice is important -- it shouldn't be glossed over.

Which is why the 4e marking mechanic versus the late 3e attempt to duplicate the effect was an example I used as an improvement. It's not magical, because it allows for that choice.

pemerton said:
Will the same rationale that says warlords can't move NPCs without applying force lead to diplomats who can't actually change anyone's mind, or apply the "charmed" condition, because only magic can do that!

That's a little beyond this scope, but it should be noted that the team has been pretty clear about comparing non-combat spells to what similar ability checks can do. A Charisma check should be able to change someone's mind. The "charmed" condition is currently pretty specifically magical (it forbids certain actions outright), but an earlier iteration was less so (just giving advantage on interaction checks). Charmed as a specific condition might be exclusively magical, but there's no reason that a Friendly attitude wouldn't have basically the same effects.

pemerton said:
As for healing, I don't find applying herbal poulstices all that evocative of a charismatic warleader.

They're not meant to be -- the recommended specialty isn't inherent to the class. The herbal poultices are evocative of someone who knows how to heal people's wounds.

The dodges, parries, and defense-buffs are what's evocative of a charismatic commander telling you to "ACT NOW!" and giving you the chance to do something you couldn't otherwise do.

pemerton said:
There is an archetypical scene in action fiction, of the fighter, eyes blinded by blood, head spinning, getting to his feet - whether because he remembers something valuable to him, or because his leader's words rouse him

That's exactly what the Inspiring Words ability in the first post can model: you'd be dead now if it wasn't for your leader's words.

pemerton said:
Metagame mechanics aren't just bonus features of a warlord.

I don't think that's true. People have played leader-oriented characters even with absolutely shoddy support from OD&D on up, metagame mechanics or no. They've played them with pure DM fiat, they've played them off the grid, they've played them as fighters, as paladins, as barbarians, as cavaliers. They've played them when the only support is "I attract followers," they've played them when the only support is, "If you have a high Cha and a lenient DM" The concept of the archetype in fiction doesn't depend on those metagame mechanics.

They're useful, sure. Calling it the "heart" of the warlord seems... unnecessarily restrictive to me.

But that's sort of more of a personal thing, a note that it has to be a dial to turn.

Even if you ditched that requirement, and went full metagame, I believe the Expertise Dice system could totally accommodate that. That was sort of the thrust of this thought experiment.

Tony Vargas · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Forcing an action is magic. That's what gets you to move 5 feet against your will.

You've never been shoved by a bully, or intimidated, tricked, or pressured into doing something?

Playing a trick is mundane. That might also make you move 5 feet, but it's not against your will, it's going to rely on you choosing to do it. That choice is important -- it shouldn't be glossed over.

It can be against your will in the sense that you don't /want/ to do it, but see no other better option at that moment, or think you're doing something else.

In any case, there's nothing at all wrong with modeling a successful 'trick' as forced movement.

Unless, of course, you think it's "wrong" for non-casters to have anything useful or interesting to do. Clearly, even if you don't, a lot of people do think that way.

Manbearcat · Nov 13, 2012

I'm not sure what use a narrow, rigid interpretation of "forced movement" serves. Abstraction of the concept allows us to model all manner of combat dynamics while contraction disallows in the same way.

"Forced Movement" is simple. It is any compulsion, physical or otherwise, on your conscious or subconscious mind that dictates that you give up ground that you would otherwise keep.

In Hockey, a Center might be forcibly pushed from the crease by a Defenseman.

In Basketball, a Guard might split a double team to get into the paint but a weak-side help defender might cut him off and reroute him. The Guard is not physically compelled but his "basketball IQ" (subconscious instinct) kicks in and the Guard "automatically" retreats the gained position so as to avoid a potential turnover.

In American Football, a Defense is in 2-Deep Man Coverage. The Cornerbacks lock up on the Wide Receivers while both Safeties have deep halves, protecting against the deep ball. The Tight End runs up the Seam (attempting to occupy the attention of the Safety). The Wide Receiver runs an Out Route (the same way he has run it 5 times before in the game), setting up a Cornerback for a double-move. The Quarterback looks off the Safety over the top of the Wide Receiver by staring down the Tight End to draw the Safety inside (forced movement). The Wide Receiver's head flashes back to the Quarterback (possibly the Warlord here) who performs a perfect pump-fake to that side of the field. The Cornerback bites on the pump-fake and jumps the Out Route (forced movement). The Wide Receiver turns up-field and with the Safety pulled inside by the Tight End on the Seam Route (and the QB's eyes attracting him there), the Wide Receiver is now wide open. The Quarterback (Warlord) puts it on him. Both the Safety and Cornerback were compelled by "forced movement."

If these things are going to exist in combat in D&D, the definition has to be abstract enough to allow for it and the offenders need to have activatable abilities to dictate the forced movement without the defender being able to "choose" if they wish to participate...because in martial endeavors, there is rarely a "choice". It is most often either physical imposition or, if not that, it is a reflexive, subconscious response dictated by the operative condition of mass exposure to a stimulus + muscle memory + instantaneous calculations of cost-benefit-analysis that don't even register to the conscious mind.

Jeff Carlsen · Nov 13, 2012

I'm a bit late to the thread, but I had a thought on the initial post.

I definitely see what you're going for in the commander abilities, but something feels wrong. It feels like the commander is causing behavior as opposed to facilitating it. But I think a subtle change to command abilities might help.

What if command abilities allowed the commander to distribute his expertise dice to allies, but with their use being limited to certain abilities. The commander never does the rolling of those dice, he just determines where they go and what they can be used for.

For example, one command grants a die that an ally can roll to increase their AC. Another might boost an attack, or allow for a parry or jab maneuver. The commander can split his dice among as many commands and allies as he likes. Or even split them between commands and maneuvers.

It's very similar to what you proposed, but I think it does a better job of capturing the essence of a battlefield commander. Thoughts?

GreyICE · Nov 13, 2012

Can I have an answer from Kamikaze on whether he's given up his Quixotic attempt to unify the Warlord and the Fighter?

I mean right now we have about 4-7 new Expertise dice functions, a bundle of maneuvers that can also be bought using Expertise dice, an optional possible Aura mechanic, scaling off Int/Cha on a class that scales off Str/Dex/Con, etc.

Forcing an action is magic. That's what gets you to move 5 feet against your will.

Playing a trick is mundane. That might also make you move 5 feet, but it's not against your will, it's going to rely on you choosing to do it. That choice is important -- it shouldn't be glossed over.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]: Doesn't failing a Wisdom check equal failing to realize the trap that you're being lured into? (Or in 4E, hitting versus Will?)

I mean when someone succeeds on an intimidate check to break the opponent's morale, you don't say "well, they stand and fight anyway" (at least not unless there's a lousy DM involved, but horrid DMs are their own thing).

You say it's against your will, but if you've ever seen any sort of zoning, it really isn't at all. The offensive line in football doesn't just decide "hey, we'll leave open this route to let the quarterback be sacked." They fail their Wisdom check to realize that their opponents have laid a trap that will leave a clear lane open to the quarterback on the next play.

When you're being zoned that way you're under constant pressure such that you need to make split-second decisions. It's not a conscious choice, it's a FAILURE.

Do you let your players get off if they fail a disable device check?

"Well, you didn't choose to set off the trap, so even though you rolled a 2 on your Disable Device check, I don't see how the non-magical trap goes off. I mean it's not magic, so you get a choice!"

Or do you have the trap go off in their faces?

Why can't the Warlord lay traps?

Dragoslav · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Forcing an action is magic. That's what gets you to move 5 feet against your will.

Playing a trick is mundane. That might also make you move 5 feet, but it's not against your will, it's going to rely on you choosing to do it. That choice is important -- it shouldn't be glossed over.

Not being able to move an enemy on your own turn and having to wait for it to move on its turn reinforces the "stop-motion" feel of combat and doesn't reflect the motion and fluidity of a real-time combat in the same way that forced movement does. Relying on getting the DM to make the monster make a bad move just amounts to relying on being able to trick the DM, while forced movement better represents the in-game fiction.

Kamikaze Midget said:
That's exactly what the Inspiring Words ability in the first post can model: you'd be dead now if it wasn't for your leader's words.

That only captures the trope of the sergeant shouting "GET DOWN!" at a crucial moment, preventing you from getting sniped or blown up; it doesn't "feel" the same as the 4e Warlord's Inspiring Word at all. A key part of the Warlord's identity is being able to encourage allies to keep fighting even after they've already taken a beating and stay confident even when they feel like they're losing.

pemerton · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
This conflates two things that are very different in actual practice. Mike Tyson couldn't plan a military ambush, and I doubt Napoleon was an excellent boxer.

So they probably need different rules to model them.

I'm not sure that they do, actually. I think it's an elegant feature of 4e that it finds a common rule to model both of them, plus a range of fear effects, plus physical pulling and shoving, plus clever weapon play ("Footwork Lure" etc).

Kamikaze Midget said:
People have played leader-oriented characters even with absolutely shoddy support from OD&D on up, metagame mechanics or no.

Sure. People would also play wizards, even if all magic depended on GM fiat and adjudication. But that doesn't mean that spells, as discrete mechanical elements corresponding to discrete story elements, aren't the heart of D&D magic-users.

Kamikaze Midget said:
That's exactly what the Inspiring Words ability in the first post can model: you'd be dead now if it wasn't for your leader's words.

But in my view that shows the limitations that result from not granting healing. It is a damage preventing reaction. It rules out the rousing speech after the person has fallen, or the Aragorn dream sequence from Jackson's Two Towers, etc.

It is limiting the fictional scope in pursuit of a purely mechanical policy of not permitting martial restoration of hit points. Whereas my goal is "fiction first". And I think the mechanics I have identified - hit point restoration, and control over enemies' movement and disposition more broadly - are central to realising the relevant fiction within the parameters of D&D action resolution.

Kamikaze Midget said:
I believe the Expertise Dice system could totally accommodate that.

Whether or not the Expertise Dice system could accommodate metagame abilities isn't my main concern. I think there are other issues around this system - namely, it strongly favours abilities that can be measured in numerical terms (especially damage prevention and bonuses to damage rolls or to d20 rolls) - but that is likely to be as big a constraint on the design of decent fighter and rogue abilities as decent warlord abilities.

Kamikaze Midget said:
Forcing an action is magic. That's what gets you to move 5 feet against your will.

Playing a trick is mundane. That might also make you move 5 feet, but it's not against your will, it's going to rely on you choosing to do it. That choice is important -- it shouldn't be glossed over.

Forcing an action isn't magic. The real world is free of magic (at least to the best of my understanding) but is full of forced action.

The problem with always granting a choice is that, in D&D, you can't simulate the circumstances that affect and manipulate choices in the real world. The GM has no momentum, for example, that precludes changing direction; has no relevant emotions to be manipulated; etc.

Kamikaze Midget said:
Which is why the 4e marking mechanic versus the late 3e attempt to duplicate the effect was an example I used as an improvement. It's not magical, because it allows for that choice.

The fundamental problem is that this leaves it in the hands of the GM whether or not the NPC moves. Whereas a good tactician manipulates the enemy in such a way that it is not in their hands, in any sense beyond the basics of voluntary muscular movement, that they move to A rather than B.

Tony Vargas said:
It can be against your will in the sense that you don't /want/ to do it, but see no other better option at that moment, or think you're doing something else.

In any case, there's nothing at all wrong with modeling a successful 'trick' as forced movement.

Manbearcat said:
I'm not sure what use a narrow, rigid interpretation of "forced movement" serves.

<snip>

"Forced Movement" is simple. It is any compulsion, physical or otherwise, on your conscious or subconscious mind that dictates that you give up ground that you would otherwise keep.

<snip>

the definition has to be abstract enough to allow for it and the offenders need to have activatable abilities to dictate the forced movement without the defender being able to "choose" if they wish to participate...because in martial endeavors, there is rarely a "choice". It is most often either physical imposition or, if not that, it is a reflexive, subconscious response dictated by the operative condition of mass exposure to a stimulus + muscle memory + instantaneous calculations of cost-benefit-analysis that don't even register to the conscious mind.

I agree with both these posts.

As I said upthread, an RPG can have action resolution mechanics that compel sub-optimal choices - blind scripting, as in Burning Wheel, is an example, where a skilled player can "feint" the GM by clever scripting that the GM does not anticipate in scripting for the NPCs. But D&D is not such a game - everything is open. When everything is open, the GM can't be tricked into a bad choice.