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

pemerton said:

I don't know if I'm among the "those", but my concern isn't about power. It's about effect. A warlord rallies allies, inspires them, and misleads the enemy. You can't achieve those effects if you won't let the warlord grant buffs and hit points, or won't let the warlord change the position of enemies on the battlefield, because those effects are deemed too magical.

Click to expand...

When a spellcaster charms an enemy into stepping onto a trapdoor, they want to do it, and up to the very moment they fall to their death they are happy to be there. When a rogue tricks, or a fighter pushes, or a warlord draws in an enemy onto that same trapdoor, they suddenly realise they don't want to be there at all, but unless they have movement left or some other way to respond, they're also falling to their death.

There's no problem with what is termed 'forced movement' being non-magical, but there has to be some logical and reasonable defence against it. For magic, that's a saving throw. For bluffing, that's a sense motive, or a wisdom saving throw. For pushing, that's now a strength saving throw, or having a good enough AC that you don't get hit. For a warlord to arrange enemies on mass, that ought to involve an instigating action, and a saving throw. I can imagine the warlord's presence on the battlefield being prominent, constantly giving orders, so there's nothing wrong with him using an ability to call out some prepared set of orders, false or otherwise, that lures the enemies into certain positions and makes them easier to attack. Forces them to move into pits? No, that's silly. Forces them to all move up to the fighter, who can then make a free attack, that's fine.

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

Only through the application of physical force.

When someone tricks you, they're not forcing you to do something against your will. They are withholding relevant information so that you make a decision on your own free will -- that happens to be disastrous.

That's quite a vital distinction for those of us who want to feel like we are making in-character decisions when relevant. It allows us as a player a chance to not believe the trick. As an orthogonal support for this position, D&D has long shied away from dictating what actions your PC is required to take. A doppelganger, for instance, doesn't have a rule that says "Your PC is tricked into thinking this character is what it looks like." Instead, if has a rule that lets it actually look different than what it is. If your character is to apply trickery to goblins, rather than simply dictating "I trick the goblins," it would seem that a better rule would be one to allow the character to actually do that, via things like ambush rules (stealth, perception, etc.) and feint rules (bluff, etc).

But like I pointed up above, this is mostly a side consideration anyway. There's clearly a lot of different ways that people break on the metagame level of the mechanics, and that's fine. Like I said, I think it should be something that is a dial that can turn.

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 and has been throughout D&D history. It limits it: if the only people who get good battle commander mechanics are people who accept metagame weirdness, that's a pretty unnecessary restriction in my mind. Favoring or enjoying or using the benefits of metagame mechanics is one thing -- requiring them seems like a line in the sand that doesn't need to be drawn, to me.

pemerton said:

When everything is open, the GM can't be tricked into a bad choice.

Click to expand...

The GM doesn't need to be tricked. They just need to allow their creatures to be tricked. The GM needs to be able to judge if a creature makes that choice. That judgment call can be as simple as "this maneuver I'm using says I trick them," as long as that makes sense in the context of the world in the moment and allows for the DM to actually make that choice, as the monster, rather than having it dictated to them.

Meanwhile, if you don't disagree that Expertise Dice mechanics are a viable way to express these abilities, metagame or no, than that part of the experiment is a success, at least. If "getting the warlord right" relies more in your mind on the level of metagame in the mechanic than the nature of it, D&DNext's maneuvers system is still a workable home for them.

The level of acceptable metagame -- and how to turn that dial for different folks -- is kind of an orthogonal conversation. One that probably needs to be had, but one that is, in my mind, independent of "how might you model the combat-leader-type within the Fighter class structure as it exists now?"

Kamikaze Midget said:

The level of acceptable metagame -- and how to turn that dial for different folks -- is kind of an orthogonal conversation. One that probably needs to be had, but one that is, in my mind, independent of "how might you model the combat-leader-type within the Fighter class structure as it exists now?"

Click to expand...

Hmmm... a new thread to discuss how to put the forced-movement Warlord into 5e (and maybe a second one to discuss the metaphysics of forced movement)... leaving this one to musing about @Kamikaze Midget 's leaderish fighter build.

Kamikaze Midget said:

When someone tricks you, they're not forcing you to do something against your will. They are withholding relevant information so that you make a decision on your own free will -- that happens to be disastrous.

That's quite a vital distinction for those of us who want to feel like we are making in-character decisions when relevant. It allows us as a player a chance to not believe the trick.

Click to expand...

Honestly, you've had like 3 or 4 people tell you why this argument is invalid.

You repeat it without acknowledging what anyone wrote. You engage with people's points not at all.

Why?

Kamikaze Midget said:

The problem in my mind being that if you think a battle commander can only accurately be played using metagame mechanics

Click to expand...

GreyICE said:

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.

Click to expand...

No metagame mechanics in there.

You were strawmanning what now?

[MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]

Well, I find the idea that the Warlord can move every ally a certain distance whilst the enemy stands around and lets them a little metagamey, but perhaps if there was a descriptive reason it would work - does the warlord throw up a distraction (that ought to have a save I think)? Why do your allies get to move around as they like out of turn?

Similarly for the first power, the enemy gets a save, good, but then why do your allies all get to both move and attack this enemy? If it let everyone who was already there attack then it would seem a bit more logical. I think my problems come with how your handling movement out of turn - allies doing anything out of turn ought to use up their reactions at least, then it fits within the framework of the current combat system.

Chris_Nightwing said:

[MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]

Well, I find the idea that the Warlord can move every ally a certain distance whilst the enemy stands around and lets them a little metagamey, but perhaps if there was a descriptive reason it would work - does the warlord throw up a distraction (that ought to have a save I think)? Why do your allies get to move around as they like out of turn?

Click to expand...

Reality has simultaneous movement, like in an MMO. My general assumption is that you can look at the situation at the start of a round and at the end, and usually come up with a rational explanation for how it got like that, even if the route is somewhat circuitous. You can't take a snapshot at any point in the turn and say that at some point the situation was like this, as some people still have their actions to resolve and until they are it's hard to tell what will happen.

Chris_Nightwing said:

[MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]

Well, I find the idea that the Warlord can move every ally a certain distance whilst the enemy stands around and lets them a little metagamey, but perhaps if there was a descriptive reason it would work - does the warlord throw up a distraction (that ought to have a save I think)? Why do your allies get to move around as they like out of turn?

Similarly for the first power, the enemy gets a save, good, but then why do your allies all get to both move and attack this enemy? If it let everyone who was already there attack then it would seem a bit more logical. I think my problems come with how your handling movement out of turn - allies doing anything out of turn ought to use up their reactions at least, then it fits within the framework of the current combat system.

Click to expand...

Hence why they can only do it once. Combat is a fluid, dynamic system. D&D has always tried to represent this in many ways. Opportunity attacks when you make movement, spell casting interruption when spellcasters take a hit, out of turn interrupts and contingencies.

We can work with the mechanics of how to do things out of turn (that was specifically phrased to work with the 3E mechanics, which were a little messy on that entire area), but I think using up your out-of-turn action seems reasonable.

I find it metagamey when characters can only act during their turn and are restricted from acting at any other time.

GreyICE said:

Hence why they can only do it once. Combat is a fluid, dynamic system. D&D has always tried to represent this in many ways. Opportunity attacks when you make movement, spell casting interruption when spellcasters take a hit, out of turn interrupts and contingencies.

We can work with the mechanics of how to do things out of turn (that was specifically phrased to work with the 3E mechanics, which were a little messy on that entire area), but I think using up your out-of-turn action seems reasonable.

I find it metagamey when characters can only act during their turn and are restricted from acting at any other time.

Click to expand...

I'm not clear, but was the power lifted straight from 4E? That might explain the 'only get one bonus attack' rather than using up your reaction. I still don't like that your enemy doesn't get to follow the opportunity attack rules just because the power says so, what is it about the warlord provoking this action that causes this?

I agree with you and [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] that combat is dynamic and freeze-framing is a bit silly, but I also think that you need to restrict the number of player-driven actions out of turn, both to keep the game ticking along smoothly and to make your life as a designer easier (you know that any two reactions will never be combined, for instance). Physical forced movement is driven by the person whose turn it is, but non-physical, metagame, forced movement ought to be kept in check in some way.

Chris_Nightwing said:

I'm not clear, but was the power lifted straight from 4E? That might explain the 'only get one bonus attack' rather than using up your reaction. I still don't like that your enemy doesn't get to follow the opportunity attack rules just because the power says so, what is it about the warlord provoking this action that causes this?

Click to expand...

Actually it was lifted STRAIGHT from 3E. Directly and without apology (look up the spell "Snake's Swiftness" or the 2nd level spell "Mass Snake's Swiftness"). The 4E version is much less wordy and complex, but I wanted to maintain the authentic 3E feel to show how a Warlord functions quite admirably without using "metagame mechanics" and still has the Warlord feel (something KM is busy insisting is very impossible).

As for why it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, the Warlord is creating tactical opportunities. Since he's set up the opportunity for his allies to make this attack or movement, it's not going to provoke opportunity attacks, for the same reason 5' steps don't provoke them (you're not moving unprotectedly, you're rolling with the flow of combat).

I agree there are solid metagame reasons to limit out-of-turn actions, but certainly the Warlord having a few does not slow the game to a complete crawl. I mean they're all very easy to resolve (we all charge, we all roll dice, we all roll damage). Making sure they don't stack bones two Warlord parties, but that's not a huge issue. Having a few out-of-turn actions like that makes the combat feel a lot more like a dynamic flow rather than an old-school turn-based JRPG.

GreyICE said:

Actually it was lifted STRAIGHT from 3E. Directly and without apology (look up the spell "Snake's Swiftness" or the 2nd level spell "Mass Snake's Swiftness"). The 4E version is much less wordy and complex, but I wanted to maintain the authentic 3E feel to show how a Warlord functions quite admirably without using "metagame mechanics" and still has the Warlord feel (something KM is busy insisting is very impossible).

As for why it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, the Warlord is creating tactical opportunities. Since he's set up the opportunity for his allies to make this attack or movement, it's not going to provoke opportunity attacks, for the same reason 5' steps don't provoke them (you're not moving unprotectedly, you're rolling with the flow of combat).

I agree there are solid metagame reasons to limit out-of-turn actions, but certainly the Warlord having a few does not slow the game to a complete crawl. I mean they're all very easy to resolve (we all charge, we all roll dice, we all roll damage). Making sure they don't stack bones two Warlord parties, but that's not a huge issue. Having a few out-of-turn actions like that makes the combat feel a lot more like a dynamic flow rather than an old-school turn-based JRPG.

Click to expand...

Tactical opportunities? Isn't an attack of opportunity a tactical opportunity? How is the warlord, from a position away from the enemies in question, prevent them from attacking his fleeing allies? As one of said allies, you might be able to use an action that allows this, but if you're the clumsy wizard, how is the warlord letting you move away from the orc bearing down on you? There's a disconnect between cause and effect that you might try to explain with more than tactical opportunities.

There really does have to be a limit on gifting out-of-turn actions, and using the reaction is hardly crushing the warlord's ability, which he'll only use on his turn anyway. My fear is that you create a precedent for other classes, perhaps even spells, that then snowballs into a mess (see the end of 3.5 with swift, free, immediate and so on).