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

Abraxas · Nov 13, 2012

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).

Snake's Swiftness - a standard action spell that targets one creature:
"The subject may immediately make one melee or ranged attack, even if it has already taken its action for the round. Taking this action doesn't affect the subject's normal place in the initiative order. This is a single attack and follows the standard rules for attacking.
This spell does not allow the subject to make more than one additional attack in a round. If the subject has already made an additional attack, due to a prior casting of this spell, from the haste spell, or from any other source, this spell fails."
The mass version just affects multiple allied creatures.
The spell seems significantly different than what you posted.
Oh well, YMMV and play what you like and all that...

mlund · Nov 13, 2012

It would be an interesting solution to see limited-expression and continuous effects "consume" or "occupy" expertise dice. "This die is not regained until X," is a nice effect template. It could be used for auras "until you end this effect." It could be used for Limited Expression effects, "until the end of combat," or "until you take an extended rest."

Other than that, I'm a little concerned at the direction the thread has taken. My preferred characters to play are Warlords and Bards. The Warlord really sold me on 4th Edition, and I think people spend way too much of their edition-warring vitriol on the class. I just need to be able to play a class with options for the same general style and functionality: martial combat, improve allies performance, mitigate damage, limited manipulation of enemies.

If people want to cut one another to pieces because they are married to their particular favorite nuts and bolts of metrics or description text just try to keep the gory splatter off my Commanding Warrior Guy, OK?

- Marty Lund

GreyICE · Nov 13, 2012

Abraxas said:
The mass version just affects multiple allied creatures.
The spell seems significantly different than what you posted.
Oh well, YMMV and play what you like and all that...

The template is exactly the same. The effect is obviously different, Warlords and spellcasters do different things (even if Snake's Swiftness/Mass Snake's Swiftness is not really an effect that a spellcaster should have ever gotten)

jrowland · Nov 13, 2012

pemerton said:
But the opponent doesn't actually end up in a different place. The warlord hasn't actually tricked the enemy into moving into a disadvantageous position.

Sure he has. D&D combat is FAR from simulationist, I think you know that. But, if a creature moves, then the Warlord interrupts (using an immediate interrupt) and tricks the creature to moving into a disadvantageous position (a forced movement effect). That is pretty darn close for abstract D&D combat.

That same forced movement, after the creature has completed all its actions, might be ok too, but it smacks more of re-conning than an actual "trick em to move elsewhere". Worse still the creatures turn ends, and 1-5 other creatures/allies take turns then the warlord uses the same power on his turn...what the hell is that? If its a ret-con, then everyone who followed the creature should get a do-over. If not, then its weird non-magic magic hand-wave ret-con wtf-ness.

Thats not to say warlord can't have abilities that do force movement on his turn. A shield bash is a shield bash, and it has its tactical uses. But all classes can be "tactical" with a well-timed well-placed ability on their turn. Same with Buffs/Debuffs, those can be on-turn warlord actions (especially for inspirational type builds), but the tactical warlord should be expressed through immediate actions for the correct feel. And if 5E makes immediate actions rare, all the better for the warlord for whom it is a class feature.

Standard Disclaimers: YMMV, IMO, etc etc

Tony Vargas · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
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.

You want to use the player as the resolution system. So, if you consider yourself 'clever,' you can be confident that you can't be tricked, especially if you have your DM's number and he's just not that good at tricking you anymore. It doesn't matter that your character is a callow first level wis 8 farmboy, he'll see through every NPC's subterfuge, be it diplomatic interaction or in the heat of combat.

While I agree that most mechanics should have a chance of success/failure, that chance should be based on the mechanics, not some arbitrary talent a player may or may not possess in any great measure.

As an orthogonal support for this position, D&D has long shied away from dictating what actions your PC is required to take.

True to some degree. PCs were never subject to morale, for instance, when D&D had such. But, D&D hasn't had such rules for some time.

And, getting pushed back by aggressive swordsmanship or lured into a disadvantageous position for a moment isn't a decision, it's a consequence of some mechanical test between the character and the opponent, resolved per the system.

pemerton · Nov 13, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Only through the application of physical force.

I don't think that's true. Feints, lures, etc force movement without the application of physical force.

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's a distinction that the game doesn't draw in myriad other places where it might. For example, the game doesn't simulate DEX-based "finesse" fighting via the sort of process you are decribing here. The finesse fighter simply gets to add a bonus to his/her attacks. Forced movement is the same logic, only applied to positioning rather than to attack rolls.

This was the point of my comparison, upthread, with zone-based combat. If positioning in D&D was abstracted into zones, in the same sort of way that attacks are abstracted, then I think no one would object to warlord forced movement. But D&D uses non-abstract positioning, and hence needs forced movement to permit feints and trickery to occur within the game on a reliable basis.

Kamikaze Midget said:
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.

D&D highly regulates that actions my PC can take, especially in a combat round! It certainly doesn't rely on free narration.

Kamikaze Midget said:
The GM doesn't need to be tricked. They just need to allow their creatures to be tricked.

A week or two ago you had a thread in which you posed the question of whether free roleplaying was a satisfactory way to resolve combat. Your implied answer to the question was (to my reading, at least) no.

The same arguments that apply to that case, apply to this one too. If I want to play a battlefield commander, relying on free roleplaying to trick the NPCs and monsters is not satisfactory. It makes action resolution for my PC essentially a matter of GM fiat.

Kamikaze Midget 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 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.

Who is saying this? If people want to build fighters and rogues and then free-roleplay the GM into tricks, go to town! If people want to build warlords (or cavaliers or whatever they end up being called) and choose only the non-forced-movement abilities, go to town! I'm not stopping them.

pemerton · Nov 13, 2012

jrowland said:
But, if a creature moves, then the Warlord interrupts (using an immediate interrupt) and tricks the creature to moving into a disadvantageous position (a forced movement effect). That is pretty darn close for abstract D&D combat.

I misunderstood your suggestion - I thought your warlord was getting a free attack, but didn't realise s/he was also getting forced movement.

jrowland said:
That same forced movement, after the creature has completed all its actions, might be ok too, but it smacks more of re-conning than an actual "trick em to move elsewhere".

I have different views here, for the sorts of reasons [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] has given - the real world is not stop-motion, so the freeze-frame turn sequence is already an abstraction. The warlord tricking others into moving when its not there turn to me enhances verisimilitude, by (i) breaking down the freeze-frame nature of resolution while (ii) increasing the impression that the warlord, rather than his enemies, has control of the tactical disposition of everyone's forces.

jrowland · Nov 13, 2012

pemerton said:
I misunderstood your suggestion - I thought your warlord was getting a free attack, but didn't realise s/he was also getting forced movement.

I have different views here, for the sorts of reasons BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention @Bluenose END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention has given - the real world is not stop-motion, so the freeze-frame turn sequence is already an abstraction. The warlord tricking others into moving when its not there turn to me enhances verisimilitude, by

pemerton said:
(i) breaking down the freeze-frame nature of resolution while

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.

pemerton said:
(ii) increasing the impression that the warlord, rather than his enemies, has control of the tactical disposition of everyone's forces.

I also think immediate actions also give the impression of warlord being "in control" of the battlefield. Again, the caveat is that immediate actions being a warlord schtick and not everyone's schtick. I am not talking all-or-nothing, but rather an increased focus.

But we are not talking about 4E, we are talking about 5E. How does 5E address forced movement and action denial/granting? That's the crux of my argument. I see immediate actions being the place for those things for martial characters (excluding spells here. They are truly forced movement versus the not-really-forced-but-abstract-expression-of tricked-into movement of martial characters).

To bring this back to the OP, Fighter (Warlord) maneuvers that are usable as immediate actions goes a long way to make the Fighter (warlord) feel unique over a Fighter (other). In other words, If K.M. made those maneuvers immediate actions (well, besides inspiring word) I think it would be a Warlord I want to play (assuming generic maneuvers are still available)

I'm A Banana · Nov 13, 2012

pemerton said:
I don't think that's true. Feints, lures, etc force movement without the application of physical force.

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. Cause and effect are quite different in those circumstances, and that difference is worth preserving, IMO.

It's a distinction that the game doesn't draw in myriad other places where it might. For example, the game doesn't simulate DEX-based "finesse" fighting via the sort of process you are decribing here. The finesse fighter simply gets to add a bonus to his/her attacks. Forced movement is the same logic, only applied to positioning rather than to attack rolls.

My point was only that the distinction between a deception and a physical force is important because a deception doesn't remove choice. I don't know what that has to do with a finesse fighter particularly. An agile fighter doesn't necessarily control people's actions.

More broadly, D&D has largely preferred to elaborate WHY something is deceptive, rather than just ruling it deceptive. Mimics who look like piles of coins, for instance, don't have an effect that yanks people up to them because of trickery. They rely on players choosing that option to ambush.

pemerton said:
D&D highly regulates that actions my PC can take, especially in a combat round! It certainly doesn't rely on free narration.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. You're always free to do whatever you can think of, the combat round is just one way of modeling what you might be capable of.

pemerton said:
A week or two ago you had a thread in which you posed the question of whether free roleplaying was a satisfactory way to resolve combat. Your implied answer to the question was (to my reading, at least) no.

The same arguments that apply to that case, apply to this one too. If I want to play a battlefield commander, relying on free roleplaying to trick the NPCs and monsters is not satisfactory. It makes action resolution for my PC essentially a matter of GM fiat.

I'm not sure the same arguments totally apply, though they are close kindred. The idea is not simply to rely on DM Fiat, but to allow DMs to still make a choice.

Again, the comparison to 4e marking mechanics is relevant. The mechanics don't just dictate that monsters hit the marking PC, but they impose a choice on the DM that incentives that outcome.

Who is saying this? If people want to build fighters and rogues and then free-roleplay the GM into tricks, go to town! If people want to build warlords (or cavaliers or whatever they end up being called) and choose only the non-forced-movement abilities, go to town! I'm not stopping them.

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?

GreyICE · Nov 13, 2012

Lets play a game.

It's called "is a discussion occuring." Discussions are characterized by a sharing of opinions that involve ideas changing and involving based on new input.

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.

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. 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).

Kamikaze Midget said:
My point was only that the distinction between a deception and a physical force is important because a deception doesn't remove choice. I don't know what that has to do with a finesse fighter particularly. An agile fighter doesn't necessarily control people's actions.

More broadly, D&D has largely preferred to elaborate WHY something is deceptive, rather than just ruling it deceptive. Mimics who look like piles of coins, for instance, don't have an effect that yanks people up to them because of trickery. They rely on players choosing that option to ambush.

HEY KAMIKAZE MIDGET DOES A WILL/WISDOM SAVE REPRESENT A CHARACTER FAILING TO NOTICE A TRAP OR NOT?

IF THE CHARACTER STILL GETS A CHOICE, WHY DOES A CHARACTER WHO FAILS A DISABLE DEVICE CHECK STILL SET OFF MUNDANE TRAPS? SHOULDN'T THE PLAYER HAVE THE CHOICE NOT TO SET OFF THE TRAP BECAUSE ITS MUNDANE?

Mod note: Folks, this has been dealt with. ~Umbran