D&D 5E D&D podcast!

[Gargoyle]

This seems to be another case of where the design team is changing their minds about certain basic goals they made at the beginning of the process. One of the goals was to support every class from the core rules of every edition. They seem to be bailing on the warlord.

I don't care for the warlord personally. I don't like non-magical healing. I don't like how he steps on the fighter's toes; there isn't enough design space for him IMO.

But I think the warlord should be in D&D Next anyway. My reasoning? If they don't build it into the core, we will see a substandard version of it in Dragon within six months. I'd rather have it in the core and playtested with the rest of the classes.

They need to design the warlord along with the assassin, the illusionist, and every other class that really doesn't need to be in D&D so that people who love those classes have them, and so that they are done right. I don't have to use it if I don't like it.

 

[Droogie128]

I have, but I still see Libramarian's point. In many (I daresay most) campaigns, PC's are exceptional heroes who show initiative in battle, not privates in some army. If I'm roleplaying a heroic fighter, do I really want to be directed all the time by my peer?

I see the other side of the coin too. The warlord is very good at what he does, and it can be heroic to follow orders. My greatest heroes IRL do it all the time.

It is a very subjective issue when considering the fluff of the warlord, and whether it fits your game or not.

Which is why this game I'd modular. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Unfortunately, like every other innovation 4e brought forth, this one is getting swept under the rug, too.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Manbearcat]

I wish they would just be out with it and give up all pretense to trying to cater to a 4e crowd that is interested in the 4e-specific design focus and mechanical and thematic features that synergize to support a playing experience that is very different from Moldvay, AD&D and 3e.

5e looks like, and plays like, a very tight hybrid of those 3. Its core plays very much like a solid Moldvay and AD&D hybrid and the standard game amps up task resolution and PC build depth to a degree that supports 3e play.

What it does not do (outside of Backgrounds) is support 4e-specific play.

I think if they just focus on what they have, tighten it up and cater specifically to those three groups that they can:

- create a tight, coherent Basic/Standard/Advanced game that improves on the playing experience of those three camps.
- have the ability to produce functional adventure support (assuming they have the in-house talent to write for it) that doesn't have a wide variance of baked in mechanical and thematic assumptions (thus defeating the effort before it gets off the ground).
- potentially have a large enough marketplace to support their endeavor.

Those are good goals and still lofty accomplishments that would be lauded. They should stick with that. I would bet, in house, that they likely know this and they probably speak relatively freely about it or joke about it in code. Any 4e player who just played 4e because it was the current incarnation of D&D that is supported will almost assuredly move to 5e. 4e advocates who are looking for what I outlined in the initial paragraph are not going to get what they're looking for...and I'm certain that they know it and I expect WotC knows it (assuming there are designers in house who truly know the product). Trying to shoehorn random inverted or morphed 4e-isms (hit dice are not healing surges at all and talking about encounter-based design in an adventure focused framework, with bad math to boot, is really just gratuitous) for presumably some token nod to sustain interest from that crowd is counterproductive to a tight, weaknesses-smoothed-out Moldvay, AD&D and 3e hybrid and those 3 goals and accomplishments above.

 

[Plaguescarred]

R&D might not have given the Warlord a pass yet as a full class, but it doesn't mean they won't at any point during the development cycle of D&D Next. I think it can work as a Fighter subtype as much as a full class, but it will depend what they think makes up a Warlord and if there's enought to be a full class or not.

RE: Martial Healing

I see hit points as an abstraction as described in How To Play pg. 17, under either Damage & Dying or Hit Points. A mixt of endurance, will, energy and health

They also account for luck, divine favor, and other mystic phenomena. In short, hit points are an abstraction.

I am okay with a martial character capable of helping allies recovering overall level of energy, speed and agility to avoid harm through inspiration, thus restoring hit points.

Your hit points represent a combination of several factors. They include your physical durability and overall health, your speed and agility to avoid harm, and your overall level of energy.

Taken that damage taken has no effect on you until you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, it means damage are not necessarily direct wounds, and that lost hit points can be restored without necessarily meaning it is done through wound-binding.

Creatures with more hit points are more durable and difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile. Damage that you take typically has no effect on you until you drop to 0 hit points or fewer. At that time, you are dying.

Even within the HP as abstraction ideology, at some point a certain ammount of lost hit points must equate direct wounds since being dying require stabilization and is the result of trauma or bleeding injury.

When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points or fewer strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

Because you heal even when you regain hit points through mundane means, then i am totally okay with a martial character capable of helping allies recover energy and speed through inspiration, thus restoring hit points - at least up to a certain point. If wounds show below half HP, then perhaps such ''inspirational healing'' could work as long as the ally is not bloodied. This would probably help a lot of people having an issue with martial healing accept it since it would be incapable of bringing back an unconscious character, but could restore hit points of those yet not showing direct sign of injury. Similar to how the Barbarian can regain hit points with Regenerative Rage through mundane healing

You heal whenever you regain hit points through magical or mundane means.

 

[Libramarian]

You've never been in the military, have you?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

No, but that's irrelevant because I don't see what D&D characters are doing as analogous to being in the military. Like at all, not even a little bit.

In many (I daresay most) campaigns, PC's are exceptional heroes who show initiative in battle, not privates in some army. If I'm roleplaying a heroic fighter, do I really want to be directed all the time by my peer?

Agreed.

 

[Dragonhelm]

How would you guys feel if WotC took the concept of the warlord/marshal and combined it with the cavalier?

 

[Garthanos]

never mind.

 

[lkj]

This seems to be another case of where the design team is changing their minds about certain basic goals they made at the beginning of the process. One of the goals was to support every class from the core rules of every edition. They seem to be bailing on the warlord.

To be fair, I think they were pretty careful from the beginning to say that 'supporting any class that was in a first players handbook' did not mean that every one would get its own class. I'm pretty sure if you go listen to the early panels and such, they go out of their way to say that certain previous edition classes might get folded into some other class. That's my memory anyway.

I find this debate about whether 4th edition is being used to develop the new edition kind of fascinating. I was a wholesale 4th adopter. I dragged my whole group in with me (sometimes kicking and screaming). I very much like the game and want the 'innovations' from that edition incorporated into the new one. However, I have a much broader take on what 'incorporating 4e innovations' means than some others. Some of general things I want are:

-- the underlying math of the system is worked out and understood by the designers (though I'd rather it was more invisible than it is in 4e)
-- given that math, the classes are pretty well balanced against one another and they are all fun to play
-- That I have easy to use DM tools for building encounters and adventures such that I have a pretty solid idea of how hard a fight I'm throwing at the players. I don't care if every encounter is 'balanced'. I just want to have a pretty good idea of whether it is or isn't.
-- That DM'ing and DM prep is easy on the mechanical side such that I can focus on the story when I'm developing an adventure. I want monster design to be easy for the same reason. I don't want to spend ages developing my master villains to the detriment of preparing anything else.

There are other things, small and large, but those are a few. And on the whole, I see most of those elements in the current playtest. They seem to get the math and are tweaking it as they go. They've already provided an easy to use encounter building system. Monsters are easy to use. DM'ing and prep is pretty easy. The classes (while still needing work) are all fairly interesting to play.

So I love 4e. But I don't have this same feeling of needing an emulation of each particular element. I don't need a separate warlord class so long as my players feel they can build a character that hits what they got out of the warlord. I don't need healing surges, so long as there are options to disentangle party survival from always having a healer character. I don't need at will, encounter, and daily powers for each class so long as each class feels fairly balanced and is fun to play. I don't need a tactical system built into the core-- so long as the option exists to run tactical combats when I feel like it.

Don't get me wrong-- It's not that I think those who want warlords as a separate class are wrong. Or that those that think getting the 4e experience (for them) requires healing surges, warlords, and a three tiered power system. It's just that it's not those very specific things that made 4e my current game of choice.

Anyway, just rambling.

AD

 

[Raith5]

So I love 4e. But I don't have this same feeling of needing an emulation of each particular element. I don't need a separate warlord class so long as my players feel they can build a character that hits what they got out of the warlord. I don't need healing surges, so long as there are options to disentangle party survival from always having a healer character. I don't need at will, encounter, and daily powers for each class so long as each class feels fairly balanced and is fun to play. I don't need a tactical system built into the core-- so long as the option exists to run tactical combats when I feel like it.

Don't get me wrong-- It's not that I think those who want warlords as a separate class are wrong. Or that those that think getting the 4e experience (for them) requires healing surges, warlords, and a three tiered power system. It's just that it's not those very specific things that made 4e my current game of choice.

I think your last sentence points to the heart of the problem. WOTC are pulling discrete elements out of 4th and saying here you are we are representing 4th, but fans of 4th like the way these elements coalesced into a particularly effective game for them with a particular style of pacing, etc. WOTC take an atomistic view of 4th and other editions and fans of 4th take a more holistic view. That is why when 4th ed fans look at DDN it does not remind them of 4th ed or look especially interesting - despite having 4th ed elements therein.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

See, I see having a zillion classes as going again that strong distinct archetypes.

I mean, every character concept out there isn't an archetype.

I think they kind of are. Fighter with a big club who wears very little armor is quite a bit different from Knight in shining armor with a sword and shield. Though, in essence, they are both fighters...they are still 2 different archetypes. The two characters should attack, defend, and roleplay almost completely differently.

If the difference between them mechanically is "One is wearing less armor and using a different weapon" then they certainly don't FEEL very distinct. It might be possible to make these characters distinct simply by choosing different maneuvers, but it is more interesting IMHO, to have them as different classes with more to set them apart mechanically.