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

[urLordy]

You mean that spellcasters uber alles is a feature and not a bug? Because if not I don't understand what you are saying.

Did you assume that the priest from FR was outshining Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Because, no, that was not what I was thinking at all. I was thinking that, with the help of a healing priest, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would probably squeeze in more combats per day... that kind of thing.

So I did not mean that "spellcasters uber allies is a feature, and not a bug". I meant that the low magic setting that you claimed to inspire you doesn't say anything about fighters' optimal capacity (according to some objective baseline).

But apparently this is a moot point, as per Cyberen and Ratskinner touched upon, you've been conflating your low magic setting inspiration with gamist desire for a battle captain, with the gamist drive being the primary overriding priority and the low magic setting being merely lip service (am I correct on that one?). I'm not sure if there is much merit to lip servicing. It would've been great if everyone could be honest or aware of they actually wanted. It's a great way to avoid a stubborn endless argument.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Did you assume that the priest from FR was outshining Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Because, no, that was not what I was thinking at all. I was thinking that, with the help of a healing priest, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would probably squeeze in more combats per day... that kind of thing.

Indeed. Add a third person to the group and they should be able to last 50% longer. Add a second rogue and the same thing will happen.

But apparently this is a moot point, as per Cyberen and Ratskinner touched upon, you've been conflating your low magic setting inspiration with gamist desire for a battle captain, with the gamist drive being the primary overriding priority and the low magic setting being merely lip service (am I correct on that one?). I'm not sure if there is much merit to lip servicing. It would've been great if everyone could be honest or aware of they actually wanted. It's a great way to avoid a stubborn endless argument.

I read the above and I'm taken back to the 90s and the people who followed White Wolf's lead in talking about "Roleplaying and not Rollplaying". You're trying to separate things (the game rules and the implementation of the class) that are inextricably linked. The mechanics need to mesh with the fiction - mess with one and you mess with both. And the concept of "Warlord" or for that matter "Fighter" means "Warlord as a D&D class" or "Fighter as a D&D class". Classes do not exist in the real world and only exist because D&D is a game that tries to either create a challenge or to model a fictional setting. Either way what other classes do is important.

 

[urLordy]

Indeed. But in D&D the same resource measures wounds, morale, and fighting spirit.

Without derailing the thread, all I want to say on this point is that nobody can objectively state what hit points represents "in D&D". The only pertinent edition of "D&D" is D&D Next, and according to the infamous Mearls:

Hit points represent an element of physical wear that involves a combination of fatigue and physical injury. As you take more damage, you have more evident wounds

Mind you, he then goes on to write:

To enable heroic play, you could choose to have a quick hit point refresh option in your game.
You could use an option that allows for healing without magic, which supports low- or no-magic campaigns. This option would also allow you to play without a cleric, druid, bard, or other healing class.

So if you want your warlord-esque character in D&D Next, you'll probably be able to... And you'll find out how with a bit of.... patience.

 

[urLordy]

Indeed. Add a third person to the group and they should be able to last 50% longer. Add a second rogue and the same thing will happen.

For the 3rd time, it would be really great if you could own up to what you actually said instead of going tangential. I was rejecting that I had anything to say about "spellcasting uber allies."

I read the above and I'm taken back to the 90s and the people who followed White Wolf's lead in talking about "Roleplaying and not Rollplaying". You're trying to separate things (the game rules and the implementation of the class) that are inextricably linked. The mechanics need to mesh with the fiction - mess with one and you mess with both. And the concept of "Warlord" or for that matter "Fighter" means "Warlord as a D&D class" or "Fighter as a D&D class". Classes do not exist in the real world and only exist because D&D is a game that tries to either create a challenge or to model a fictional setting. Either way what other classes do is important.

I think I mostly agree, but this is tangential IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Without derailing the thread, all I want to say on this point is that nobody can objectively state what hit points represents "in D&D". The only pertinent edition of "D&D" is D&D Next, and according to the infamous Mearls:

Which is a meaningless statement. It merely says that there is some correlation. 4e even has you getting scarred after your first death save failed. How much is fatigue and how much cosmetic isn't known.

But Mearls has also been joking about shouting hands back on.

For the 3rd time, it would be really great if you could own up to what you actually said instead of going tangential. I was rejecting that I had anything to say about "spellcasting uber allies."

You keep trying to look at a microcosm of the field, then accusing me of "going tangental" whenever I try to point out that context matters or telling me I said something when I'd set out clearly in the opening post why the warlord needed to be measured against the cleric. Without the context of D&D, the idea of the warlord as a class is utterly meaningless. And the idea that you could add a third PC to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and they wouldn't get more done is so utterly banal that I didn't take it as a serious option.

 

[Cyberen]

One point I stiil don't get, NC :
Why do you want to *compete* with the cleric. It might be true the cleric is OP, not because of CoDzilla issues, but because "spike healing" is so shiny. (I personnally doubt it is "too powerful", but it certainly changes combat dynamics). But I can't understand why you *need* a cleric. If you want to play in a "not D&Desque" setting, I think you should cope with combat healing being scarcier.
I don't get why you need the exact same healing capability.
I am on your side with healing being available to inspirational leaders, but I consider having the ability to miraculously close wounds should give you an edge at it ! Of course, your battle captain can also have *nice things*, but claiming to have clerical healing doesn't feel right (and I would rather have miraculous wound closing being scarcier for the cleric than giving it to everybody, as it would definitely take us *further* from source material).

 

[Cyberen]

Sorry, double post.

 

[urLordy]

Which is a meaningless statement. It merely says that there is some correlation. 4e even has you getting scarred after your first death save failed. How much is fatigue and how much cosmetic isn't known.

You baffled me at least 3 times now. You objectively stated what hit points are. I objectively stated what Mearls thought hit points will represent in D&D Next core and optional. This thread is about D&D Next, yes? It's about a possible warlord in D&D Next? So what exactly do you find meaningless about quoting the most up-to-date representation of what hit points represent in D&D Next in order to provide context? How can you say this was a "meaningless statement" and remain credibile?

You keep trying to look at a microcosm of the field, then accusing me of "going tangental" whenever I try to point out that context matters or telling me I said something when I'd set out clearly in the opening post why the warlord needed to be measured against the cleric. Without the context of D&D, the idea of the warlord as a class is utterly meaningless. And the idea that you could add a third PC to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and they wouldn't get more done is so utterly banal that I didn't take it as a serious option.

I suppose I've been saying that fixation of measuring the warlord against the cleric is an arbitrary one.

If we go back to the problem you had that a fighter was operating a significantly reduced capacity without a cleric (or warlord). But then you wrote that Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser "should be able to last 50% longer" if you add a rogue to the group. So you understand that there is a possible multilayered approach to boosting fighter capacity, but the only thing that matters to you is having a warlord who is equal to the cleric.

Why isn't this thread called: Neonchameleon wants a warlord in D&D Next? Everything else is just filler.

 

[Starfox]

I think that this is an option worth exploring, but I doubt I'd get much agreement on that point. I'm currently using a class-less point-buy character in my Pathfinder game, and I'm much happier for it. If I want to be able to heal and/or inspire the other characters, I just pick up an ability to do so.

I agree. My homebrew is actually quite similar to DnD, but is entirely point-bye. It does have levels of a sort in that you have a cap on your abilities depending on your total points. See link in my sig.

But this deserves its own thread if its to be treated seriously.

 

[urLordy]

You keep trying to look at a microcosm of the field, then accusing me of "going tangental" whenever I try to point out that context matters

I meant it was tangential to my statement you quoted. If it's not tangential to the larger argument, that's fine; but it's confusing to me when you respond tangentially to a specific quote of mine.

And tangential or not, and just to start, I don't know how to reconcile this:

I don't know what you mean by "a metagame tool to fill a hole in the rules". As I see it a class, in a class-based game, is a package of mechanical elements that makes sense within the action resolution rules - but that's a pretty abstract description.

with this:

You're trying to separate things (the game rules and the implementation of the class) that are inextricably linked. The mechanics need to mesh with the fiction - mess with one and you mess with both.

Pemerton seems to do just fine separating the game rules from the fiction, and even advocates it.

But all of the above seems to be tangential to post #188 above which seems to be our main sticking point.