Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6047689" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Deception in combat is not like selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge. It's about making the only tenable option <em>this</em> rather than <em>that</em>, and then taking advantage of foreknowledge that the enemy will choose <em>this</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>These two posts convey my point well.</p><p></p><p>Not in any meaningful sense. For example, think of how a pin is adjudicated in 3E. If you look at the details in a fine-grained enough way, you see that there are decisions made by the victim of the pin - they move their body in a certain way, for instance, rather than have their arm broken or dislocated. But the resolution mechanics don't model those voluntary choices - they are not fine-grained enough.</p><p></p><p>Likewise think of a to-hit roll. This involves voluntary choices made by the victim of the attack - choices to move this way rather than that way, for example, as the result of being outmanouevred by a superior opponent. But the game system doesn't model those choices.</p><p></p><p>This is why I'm not a big fan of [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]'s suggestion of a Will/Wisdom save. I can see where that is coming from, but we don't grant a Will/WIS bonus to AC, so why should responding to feinting and misdirection in combat be any different when we look at the broader scope of the warlord's battlefield control?</p><p></p><p>At the level of detail at which D&D resolution works (and most other RPG resolution that I'm familiar with), ducking because you don't want to be cleaved in two by a broadsword, or moving on the battlefield because it's the only viable opening you can see, are not voluntary actions modelled by player choices. They are forced choices that result from the superior weapon play, or battlefield disposition, of skilled opponents. And if we had a zone system for adjudicating battlefield position this wouldn't be controversial - it is only because it involves moving a token on a map - which is purely a feature of D&D's particular approach to action resolution in combat - that it is controversial.</p><p></p><p>You 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".</p><p></p><p>My response was, and is - for those who think my conception is too restrictive, go to town. Presumably it doesn't stop you doing that that I don't think your're designing a very good warlord.</p><p></p><p>My goal in this thread isn't to stop you enjoying your metagame-free battlefield commander. It's just to explain why, in my view, that particular build doesn't capture the essence of the warlord achetype, because in eschewing metagame it eschews the key elements of D&D combat resolution: action economy, hit point attrition and non-abstract positioning mechanics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6047689, member: 42582"] Deception in combat is not like selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge. It's about making the only tenable option [I]this[/I] rather than [I]that[/I], and then taking advantage of foreknowledge that the enemy will choose [I]this[/I]. These two posts convey my point well. Not in any meaningful sense. For example, think of how a pin is adjudicated in 3E. If you look at the details in a fine-grained enough way, you see that there are decisions made by the victim of the pin - they move their body in a certain way, for instance, rather than have their arm broken or dislocated. But the resolution mechanics don't model those voluntary choices - they are not fine-grained enough. Likewise think of a to-hit roll. This involves voluntary choices made by the victim of the attack - choices to move this way rather than that way, for example, as the result of being outmanouevred by a superior opponent. But the game system doesn't model those choices. This is why I'm not a big fan of [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION]'s suggestion of a Will/Wisdom save. I can see where that is coming from, but we don't grant a Will/WIS bonus to AC, so why should responding to feinting and misdirection in combat be any different when we look at the broader scope of the warlord's battlefield control? At the level of detail at which D&D resolution works (and most other RPG resolution that I'm familiar with), ducking because you don't want to be cleaved in two by a broadsword, or moving on the battlefield because it's the only viable opening you can see, are not voluntary actions modelled by player choices. They are forced choices that result from the superior weapon play, or battlefield disposition, of skilled opponents. And if we had a zone system for adjudicating battlefield position this wouldn't be controversial - it is only because it involves moving a token on a map - which is purely a feature of D&D's particular approach to action resolution in combat - that it is controversial. You 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". My response was, and is - for those who think my conception is too restrictive, go to town. Presumably it doesn't stop you doing that that I don't think your're designing a very good warlord. My goal in this thread isn't to stop you enjoying your metagame-free battlefield commander. It's just to explain why, in my view, that particular build doesn't capture the essence of the warlord achetype, because in eschewing metagame it eschews the key elements of D&D combat resolution: action economy, hit point attrition and non-abstract positioning mechanics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top