D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[Ahnehnois]

And yet, we can talk about games with better or worse balance.

But not in any particularly consistent or even meaningful way. In fact...

Certainly there are different approaches to balance. But failing to take the question seriously leads to a broken game. It shouldn't rest on the DM to fix stuff the designers broke.

If you click back to [MENTION=6716488]Hutchimus Prime[/MENTION] 's post that started off this chain, you'll see that he (or she) was not failing to take the question seriously, but stating that one definition of it has become distorted and overused and shouldn't get as much attention as it does. A viewpoint that I heartily endorse.

Goodness knows I spend a lot more time worrying about balance than any rpg player I've ever met. And yet, somehow, I don't buy into the particular narrative under discussion here.

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

If you click back to Hutchimus Prime's post that started off this chain, you'll see that he (or she) was not failing to take the question seriously, but stating that one definition of it has become distorted and overused and shouldn't get as much attention as it does. A viewpoint that I heartily endorse.

He.

 

[Cyberen]

Yep. When you consider "Combat as Sport", I can see the urge to balance the Warlord *against* the cleric, but I still consider it a bad idea, as it leads to 1) boring (imho) class sameyness and 2) ugly (imho) gameplay where combattants rise and fall in a disturbing way.
When you consider "Combat as War", it becomes a meaningful choice to play a cleric or a warlord. As it's unlikely to have both in the same party, the different abilities tied to each class just means they won't address the same challenges in the same way, which is definitely a feature in my book, and certainly truer to "not D&D" worlds (definitely a strawman of the OP, the more I yhink about it).
The corner case being a party with both a Bravelord and a Cleric. I can understand the need for balance here, but I am with those who think its mostly a table dynamics issue, and that the spotlight would be easier to share between clearly differentiated characters, rather than mechanical twins with a divine/mundane coat of paint.

 

[Obryn]

Yep. When you consider "Combat as Sport", I can see the urge to balance the Warlord *against* the cleric, but I still consider it a bad idea, as it leads to 1) boring (imho) class sameyness and 2) ugly (imho) gameplay where combattants rise and fall in a disturbing way.
When you consider "Combat as War", it becomes a meaningful choice to play a cleric or a warlord. As it's unlikely to have both in the same party, the different abilities tied to each class just means they won't address the same challenges in the same way, which is definitely a feature in my book, and certainly truer to "not D&D" worlds (definitely a strawman of the OP, the more I yhink about it).
The corner case being a party with both a Bravelord and a Cleric. I can understand the need for balance here, but I am with those who think its mostly a table dynamics issue, and that the spotlight would be easier to share between clearly differentiated characters, rather than mechanical twins with a divine/mundane coat of paint.

Oh dear lord, are we going down this sport/war thing again?

Even if both have access to spike healing, there's numerous other ways to differentiate the classes. It's so easily done, it's already been done in 4e. In fact, that's the main reason to have a separate and distinct Warlord class rather than a boring reskin of the cleric.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

Oh dear lord, are we going down this sport/war thing again?

Of course we are. Why wouldn't we?

This community came up with intuitive, descriptive methods for talking about two different play-styles; these terms were needed, since the difference in these play-styles had long been intuitively understood but were usually poorly described. That was a bad thing, since even fundamental aspects of the game can be radically different depending on which play-style they tried to serve.

So yes, we're "going down this sport/war thing" again.

Even if both have access to spike healing, there's numerous other ways to differentiate the classes. It's so easily done, it's already been done in 4e. In fact, that's the main reason to have a separate and distinct Warlord class rather than a boring reskin of the cleric.

Perhaps it'd be helpful if you could reiterate the ways that the cleric and the warlord are different, then? Ideally, the broader the differences in what the classes can do, the better.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course we are. Why wouldn't we?

This community came up with intuitive, descriptive methods for talking about two different play-styles; these terms were needed, since the difference in these play-styles had long been intuitively understood but were usually poorly described. That was a bad thing, since even fundamental aspects of the game can be radically different depending on which play-style they tried to serve.

Some people made such a declaration in which they tried to declare that a playstyle in which hit points escalated so you were a hero by 4th level and a superhero able to wade through lava by 8th was "war". Every single D&D edition there has ever been has been a case of Combat as Sport in which you are taking tougher than life characters with rigged odds into fights. And has been a game based on a hacked tabletop wargame with a class called a fighter whose main ability is that they fight really well.

The fundamental difference between so-called Combat as War (in which the enemy do not do all the mean things the PCs do because that would be unfair - or lead to lunar lich wars) and combat as sport is the focus. Whether you want to win before the first die is rolled or whether you want local tactics to matter and combat to be tense and exciting.

Perhaps it'd be helpful if you could reiterate the ways that the cleric and the warlord are different, then? Ideally, the broader the differences in what the classes can do, the better.

The cleric is a hacked vampire hunter whose remit has expanded across multiple editions to do ... anything at all. The warlord is a leader, relying on brains and steel.

 

[Obryn]

Perhaps it'd be helpful if you could reiterate the ways that the cleric and the warlord are different, then? Ideally, the broader the differences in what the classes can do, the better.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] answered the first bit.

And if we're talking 4e, clerics focus on buffing, saves, radiant attacks, channeling divinity, and healing. Warlords focus on enabling (that is, granting attacks) and tactically rearranging the field. With a few exceptions, they're front-line or second rank, with spears. Each can change focus with a few feats, but you'd never mistake one for the other in play.

 

[Alzrius]

Some people made such a declaration in which they tried to declare that a playstyle in which hit points escalated so you were a hero by 4th level and a superhero able to wade through lava by 8th was "war". Every single D&D edition there has ever been has been a case of Combat as Sport in which you are taking tougher than life characters with rigged odds into fights. And has been a game based on a hacked tabletop wargame with a class called a fighter whose main ability is that they fight really well.

You seem to be saying that "combat as war" not only doesn't exist as a (legitimate) playstyle, but that the game has never supported it. I disagree strongly with the first part, and think that the second is self-evidently false.

The fundamental difference between so-called Combat as War (in which the enemy do not do all the mean things the PCs do because that would be unfair - or lead to lunar lich wars) and combat as sport is the focus. Whether you want to win before the first die is rolled or whether you want local tactics to matter and combat to be tense and exciting.

And this is just a snarky value judgment on which style of play is "better."

The cleric is a hacked vampire hunter whose remit has expanded across multiple editions to do ... anything at all. The warlord is a leader, relying on brains and steel.

The only point you're making here is that you don't respect the opinions of people who disagree with you, which doesn't really make you any more convincing (quite the opposite, in fact).

Neonchameleon answered the first bit.

Trust me, you really don't want to invoke his answers for your own.

And if we're talking 4e, clerics focus on buffing, saves, radiant attacks, channeling divinity, and healing. Warlords focus on enabling (that is, granting attacks) and tactically rearranging the field. With a few exceptions, they're front-line or second rank, with spears. Each can change focus with a few feats, but you'd never mistake one for the other in play.

I'm not sure what "radiant attacks" are, but don't warlords also have a (spike) healing focus to them? Likewise, do clerics not get utility spell functions (some of which might be battlefield control/optimization)? Certainly, clerics have always been second-line fighters.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like the Combat-as-Sport/Combat-as-War distinction - it seems to describe two playstyles I very much enjoy. For rulesbound Combat-as-Sport gamist play, systems such as 4e, 3e or Hero System are good choices. For Combat-as-War open-ended gamist play, I think systemless works best, or virtually systemless such as Amber Diceless Roleplaying. Some of the best combat encounters I've run have been systemless Combat-as-War. I feel that Combat-as-War doesn't describe old school D&D very well as OS D&D has lots of combat rules, which restrict what a player can do.

Combat-as-War for me, is very much the same as Matt Finch's Quick Primer For Old School Gaming - both describe systemless play (an area where I have a reasonable amount of experience) far better than they describe old school.

 

[Obryn]

Trust me, you really don't want to invoke his answers for your own.

Wow. That was pretty low.

I'm not sure what "radiant attacks" are, but don't warlords also have a (spike) healing focus to them? Likewise, do clerics not get utility spell functions (some of which might be battlefield control/optimization)? Certainly, clerics have always been second-line fighters.

Yes, warlords can be among the best healers as was discussed before. and every 4e leader does spike healing. But nobody does healing better than clerics. Nobody does enabling or tactical positioning better than warlords.

I am guessing you're totally unfamiliar with how these two play at the table, then? I've seen... I think all the 4e leaders, by now, and the small differences on paper make for intensely different play.

For example, the warlord has an encounter exploit that lets them push an enemy into an AoE attack by another member. The cleric can create a sacred zone of protection which heals their allies. Clerics can grant temp HPs and saves at will. Warlords can give allies their attacks. And so on. They play nothing like one another.

-O