D&D 5E READ AND REPLY TO THIS 5E WARLORD THREAD, SOLDIER

[GX.Sigma]

So I'd like to understand what specific elements of my proposal seem dissociated and metagame to you (since I rather deliberately tied the effects to specific actions that occur in the game world - ie, shouting warnings, threatening retribution, etc.).

Directed Strike still doesn't make sense to me--are you just shouting "hey, hit that guy again"? If it's supposed to be an abstract tactical advantage, why not make the mechanic more abstract (+1 to X while you can see and hear the warlord)?

Not sure what Threaten is trying to do. Is that a typo?

Warning and Distraction are fine, but note that there's already a Rogue skill trick called Distract that does a very similar thing.

Encouragement: Do these temp HP stack? How long do they last? What's to stop me from using this 500 times before combat? (Note: "free actions" don't exist in 5e either, and MDD recharge on each character's turn, not just once per round.)

Anyway, if it's just supposed to be inspiring words, it feels weird that:

• you can do it during an intense battle ("Go on Redgar, you can do it!" "Do you mind? I have a troll in my face and I'm trying to focus!")
• you can target it so specifically ("Go on Regdar, you can do it! ..but Mialee, you can't.")
• it's tied to the mechanical representation of martial expertise, rather than something like a skill trick
• the Warlord can (and will) do it pretty much every round ("Go on Regdar, you can do it!" "I know, you've told me 50 times already!")
• no one else can do it ("Go on Regdar, you can do it!" "Shut up Mialee, no one likes you.")
• it ever even does anything useful ("Go on Redgar, you can do it!" "Uhh, thanks?")

Burst of Speed: What does the Warlord do, though? Does he say "get out of there," and the target moves? If so, why does it take your action and not theirs? Also, why can't all characters do that? (disassociated, metagame)

You might want to read the post again -- I specifically avoided making it a fighter build, for some pretty specific reasons, and at least two Warlord fans have already said it hits quite close by their sweet spot.

The whole Warlord part is represented by maneuvers, which are the Fighter's thing (according to a recent L&L, expertise dice and maneuvers are fighter-only in the version the designers are currently working on). There's no reason that shouldn't be a Fighter build. This is probably what the designers meant when they said that when they tried to design the Warlord as its own class, it wanted to do the same things the Fighter was doing.

 

[darjr]

What if, instead of DR, it was something like 'Redgar! Watch your SiX!' that would give the target PC a temporary bonus to AC?

Only the warlord could really do it because.... he really knows about combat and 'sees' what is about to happen.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Its taking advantage of the Warlord's aggressive weapon and shield work, coupled with his own (hence phalanx), to provide cover or create difficulty for the opponent to strike true; like Spartan Hoplites in skirmishes. You wouldn't be able to impose disadvantage if your brother wasn't next to you or engaging the same target in melee. Its coordinated fighting.

That sounds alright (might be better represented by something like "For as long as you're within reach of that character, he has half cover"). But the Fighter's Protect maneuver already does this. Why not use the Fighter maneuver? Why not make the character a Fighter?

This is why the Warlord, in specific, is such a metagame powderkeg and drew so much rancor from metagame averse folks.

For such a divisive thing, the answer seems clear: Make it optional. Put it in the DMG right next to fate points. If it's optional, it doesn't have to compromise--it can use as many metagame and disassociated mechanics as it needs to, and those who don't like it don't have to use it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For such a divisive thing, the answer seems clear: Make it optional. Put it in the DMG right next to fate points. If it's optional, it doesn't have to compromise--it can use as many metagame and disassociated mechanics as it needs to, and those who don't like it don't have to use it.

Why not the other way around? Why not stick the MDD and manoeuvres in the DMG and call them optional? I mean, if I don't like that system, I don't see why it should be in the PHB and that I should be forced to use it when another system I prefer already exists and is easily workable.

Do you see why this sort of thing can rub some folks the wrong way?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why not stick the MDD and manoeuvres in the DMG and call them optional?

They're already kind of doing this--the Basic fighter will not have maneuvers, and that's exactly as it should be.

The real question is: You know this class is controversial, not backed up by tradition, doesn't fit within the design philosophies of this edition, and some people really can't stand it. If you're one of the people who loves it, and you get a version of it that you love, why do you care which book it's in? If they make it into a core class, they'll have to do all sorts of compromising (as you see in this thread), and won't please anyone. Wouldn't you rather have a version that goes all-out?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

They're already kind of doing this--the Basic fighter will not have maneuvers.

That wasn't my point. I could have said the same thing for ANY game mechanic that they've shown so far that I don't like. The entire skill check system, for instance.

The real question is: You know this class is controversial, goes against 34 years of tradition, doesn't fit within the design of this edition, and some people really can't stand it. If you're one of the people who loves it, and you get a version of it that you love, why do you care what book it's in? If they make it into a core class, they'll have to do all sorts of compromising (as you see in this thread). Wouldn't you rather have a version that goes all-out?

I would rather have a version that goes all-out, of course. I would also rather it be in the core book, along with all the other OPTIONS. To do any less would be a compromise in and of itself; it's like saying that some options are more or less 'valid' than others.

If it doesn't fit within the design of this edition (which I don't necessarily think is the case), then I guess this edition doesn't fit with how I want to play, so I won't run it. For those who can't stand it, they don't have to use it, now do they, so what's the harm in putting it in the core books with all the other OPTIONS? As I said, I don't even necessarily think it needs to compromise to fit in the design of the game. If you are determined to shoehorn the concept into 'Fighter' then yes, you'll end up with a compromise.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That wasn't my point. I could have said the same thing for ANY game mechanic that they've shown so far that I don't like. The entire skill check system, for instance.

Skills are optional (theoretically).

I would also rather it be in the core book, along with all the other OPTIONS. To do any less would be a compromise in and of itself; it's like saying that some options are more or less 'valid' than others.

When one of the options is that controversial, I wouldn't say it's less valid, but I'd certainly say it's less standard - and that's what we're talking about here.

If it doesn't fit within the design of this edition (which I don't necessarily think is the case) [...]I don't even necessarily think it needs to compromise to fit in the design of the game.

Mearls has already written an article (and spoken in a podcast) about how much he doesn't like disassociated mechanics, and doesn't want to design the game like that. You can see the ripples of this throughout the playtest packet.

For those who can't stand it, they don't have to use it, now do they, so what's the harm in putting it in the core books with all the other OPTIONS?

Because the people who don't want it, don't want it to be an option. To satisfy those people, it has to be an optional option.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Skills are optional (theoretically).

Still missing the point. It's the particular implementation I don't like, and they don't offer an alternative that I do like in Next.

When one of the options is that controversial, I wouldn't say it's less valid, but I'd certainly say it's less standard - and that's what we're talking about here.

Is it? Burying something in the DMG sounds like a bit of both. And TBH, I couldn't care less about 'standard' or 'tradition'. Adding something from 4e doesn't take away from someone else's idea of what is traditional, but by excluding it or relegating it to some obscure sidebar in another book, it would be drastically affecting MY "traditions."

Mearls has already written an article (and spoken in a podcast) about how much he doesn't like disassociated mechanics, and doesn't want to design the game like that. You can see the ripples of this throughout the playtest packet.

Yeah, and much as I loved what he did with Essentials, I think that's full of hooey. I heard about the "yelling limbs back on" nonsense. All that does is demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what hit points actually are (if it wasn't just a base attempt to score cheap points with the hp-as-meat crowd). If it was their goal to piss all over the 4e playerbase and what we like, then that's a shortcut to success, right there. Inclusive, big-tent edition, indeed.

Because the people who don't want it, don't want it to be an option. To satisfy those people, it has to be an optional option.

That is about the weakest argument for something I have ever heard. That's what edition wars are made of. I don't want to deny anybody anything, but for that to work, I have to get what I want, too. So then I guess they have to choose which crowd to piss off, because to satisfy THIS person (and probably a lot more), it has to be a REGULAR option.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Still missing the point. It's the particular implementation I don't like, and they don't offer an alternative that I do like in Next.

But there could be an alternative option in the DMG, for people who want to run their game a certain way. That's how a modular system is supposed to work.

I couldn't care less about 'standard' or 'tradition'. Adding something from 4e doesn't take away from someone else's idea of what is traditional, but by excluding it or relegating it to some obscure sidebar in another book, it would be drastically affecting MY "traditions."

Not everyone is like you.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

But they could in the DMG, as an option for people who want to run their game a certain way. That's how a modular system is supposed to work.

Then they should ALL be in the DMG, or ALL in the PHB - wherever it is that skills are going to go.

Not everyone is like you.

First of all, GOOD.

Second, I know, just like not everyone is like you. So what's your point? Do they want my business or not? Are they trying to be inclusive or not? Signs point to 'no' at the moment.