Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Pauln6]

Unless you're casting a spell, then it does what it says in the spell description.
See the difference?

Yes there is a large difference in that the basic effects of the spell are prescribed in more detail than martial options. However that doesn't also preclude using spells in a similar way. Using invisibility to leave only one visible target, using an illusion to create an image of a racial enemy and so on. The more prescribed everything is, the more it becomes like button pushing or card playing. On the one hand you have something silly like using come and get it on an ooze. On the other you run the risk your DM saying that's too silly. I prefer things more fluid though. Most DMs want players to have fun. The key is try to apply some logic and common sense and just ask the player HOW it is they intend to achieve the result they want. Making a lot of noise by banging a sword on a stone floor to attract something with blind sense could work in some circumstances.

 

[jrowland]

Begun, the warlord wars has.

er...continued...

flared up...

I am not sure which is longer: warlord wars or the Afghanistan war.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes there is a large difference in that the basic effects of the spell are prescribed in more detail than martial options. However that doesn't also preclude using spells in a similar way.

Oh, absolutely. Far from it, each new well-defined effect you can use opens up /more/ ways you can improvise. Especially when what it defines is otherwise physically impossible, like invisibility, aportation, etc...

On the one hand you have something silly like using come and get it on an ooze.

Not so silly, as all that. The power doesn't use language. An ooze is virtually mindless, if you notice it advances aggressively towards a certain noise or vibration or action by one of your allies, you fake that and it goes for you...
...heck some monsters should just never get wise to a gambit - "realistically," that is, game balance dictates otherwise.

The key is try to apply some logic and common sense and just ask the player HOW it is they intend to achieve the result they want. Making a lot of noise by banging a sword on a stone floor to attract something with blind sense could work in some circumstances.

Nod. The same creative exercise that gives you an improvisational trick that the DM has to decide on the fly whether and how it might work, can be used to provide a rationale for a simple, well-defined, character ability to just work the way it's written.

 

[cbwjm]

Begun, the warlord wars has.

er...continued...

flared up...

I am not sure which is longer: warlord wars or the Afghanistan war.

I'm halfway expecting to see the warlord threads cordoned off into their own forum again before being silently merged back into the current forum after people have calmed down.

 

[Kinematics]

Sure, not every power for warlords action granted. But, the iconic ones certainly did. That's what a warlord does. It grants actions. It's not all that it does - there's buffing and healing too. But when you think warlord, you think action granting.

This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class. I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept. If that ends up being action granting, then fine.

However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag. It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is actually desired, and start designing the solution from there.

I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long since left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation. I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.

 

[cbwjm]

This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class. I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept. If that ends up being action granting, then fine.

However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag. It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is actually desired, and start designing the solution from there.

I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long sense left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation. I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.

I think his subclass is shaping up to be really cool and I'm looking forward to see the finalised (pre-playtest) version next week. The idea of the tactical zone with a variety of at-wills as well as some "higher level" battle plans sounds like it could be a really cool concept. I also like the ability to overheal and grant temporary hit points with their healing ability.

 

[FrogReaver]

This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class. I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept. If that ends up being action granting, then fine.

However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag. It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is actually desired, and start designing the solution from there.

I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long sense left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation. I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.

Most of us haven't been demanding a specific implementation. We have been saying:

1. Warlords need to be able to heal
2. Warlords need to be able to grant an extensive amount of attacks
3. Warlords need to buff allies

We talk about specific implentations a lot and why we either see merits in them or don't see them working at all. The most common gripes are:

1. It is or isn't at will attack granting or doesn't grant enough attacks.
2. It does or doesn't grant actions
3. It's doing to much too early.
4. It's doing to much damage for too little investment to be able to heal and buff well.
5. It grants healing instead of temp hp or too much healing or too much healing too early...
6. It feels too magical.

Heck, most of us have even commented on why the design decisions of Mike (that he has spelled out) will or will not work. The most common gripe is that he's forcing the warlord to be a fighter subclass because we mostly all know there isn't enough design space for attack granting and healing and buffing there. If it was sufficient then a battlemaster would have taken off as a Warlord substitute as he can grant lots of temp hp, or grant a decent amount of attacks and provide buffs like advantage to allies.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think his subclass is shaping up to be really cool and I'm looking forward to see the finalised (pre-playtest) version next week. The idea of the tactical zone with a variety of at-wills as well as some "higher level" battle plans sounds like it could be a really cool concept. I also like the ability to overheal and grant temporary hit points with their healing ability.

Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread. Where can I find it?

 

[Zardnaar]

May have been after my time. While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time. AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.

Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread. Where can I find it?

Link on page 41 for part 2

 

[cbwjm]

Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread. Where can I find it?

I thought someone had transcribed it a few pages back. I was trying to avoid spoilers before watching the video so I brushed over a few posts. If not in this thread then Reddit might have it but I'd suggest watching the video on YouTube if you have time.