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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There is also another aspect to the Leader role in D&D 4 that I like on a mechanical level:
Abilities that "reward" players for certain actions, and that provide incentives to take certain actions. Defense debuffs, extra damage when attacking a specific target. This is also something that can be tricky to do with using the Fighter as base class for a "leader" - the Fighter already has good, strong an powerful attacks. If he spends his expertise dice to buff someone else, it must still be able to compete with what he could do if he augmented his own attacks. A class that by definition is based more on helping others and is less effective in fighting (or spellcasting ,or whatever other things you do in combat) on its own would work better with this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Because nobody should be reduced to being the sidekick.

Why not? Fantasy fiction is replete with legendary "sidekicks". For some reason this seems to be difficult for certain people to understand, but most of us are not interested in being the alpha dog. Sidekick, companion, support character, noncombatant, and a variety of other roles are entirely valid choices, ones that if anything we should be encouraging.

After all, what kind of game would we have if we had parties of four or more people and no sidekicks? That's a recipe for disaster.

Moreover, in D&D this dynamic is well-established. You don't see Caramon bitching that he can't do the things that Raistlin Majere can, and indeed the latter values him tremendously. Nor does the god-wizard (i.e. Elminster) cause problems. People are still lining up to play Drizzt clones despite the fact that he isn't a "CoDzilla" (and if there's one setting that emphasizes the power of spellcasters, it's FR). In fact, to enforce the kind changes in class balance you're getting at, you'd pretty much have to tear down the D&D aesthetic, and all of its settings. As you may be aware, this was actually done, and it failed to produce the desired effect, never mind the cost.

And what you recommend (ignoring class balance) does exactly that.

No, it doesn't. The people at the table are the ones responsible for balancing the game. If they do a poor job, the results will speak for themselves. If they do even a half decent job, the game will work, completely irrespective of what rules they're using.

 

[Obryn]

Why not? Fantasy fiction is replete with legendary "sidekicks". For some reason this seems to be difficult for certain people to understand, but most of us are not interested in being the alpha dog. Sidekick, companion, support character, noncombatant, and a variety of other roles are entirely valid choices, ones that if anything we should be encouraging.

After all, what kind of game would we have if we had parties of four or more people and no sidekicks? That's a recipe for disaster.

Or, you know, a functioning team where nobody's king. Just throwing that out there.

o, it doesn't. The people at the table are the ones responsible for balancing the game. If they do a poor job, the results will speak for themselves. If they do even a half decent job, the game will work, completely irrespective of what rules they're using.

I don't pay for games that a designer was too lazy to fix.

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess I just don't see the statement "we're doing different HP modules for different styles of game, such as a module to get people up to full HP faster, and a module to play in a low or no-magic game, and some other HP modules, too" as the opposite direction of the playtest packet.

Whereas I see the direction of the playtest packet as "Non-casters get even less useful stuff than they did in 3.X". A dex 20 thief specialised in balancing literally needs 20 or more on 1d20+1d6 to walk a tightrope. I can't remember if it's this packet or last that made knocking the cotting pin out of a wagon a DC 15 check but there was certainly a DC 15 sabotage a wagon issue. The fighter literally gains no new potential abilities after level 11. And what's considered a powerful feat (+1 to a stat) might be really useful to a caster but does almost nothing to help a non-caster at managing their weaknesses. For all these reasons and more I expect almost nothing to make non-casters like the warlord cool -after all they've done almost nothing so far and have been offering us packets for more than a year.

It's smart to be skeptical and to ask for some proof, but I imagine the possibilities that they see are bigger than what either of us can see by the nature of their position, and I don't find the idea that they're essentially going to slap something much like the playtest docs in between two covers and sell them to us to be all that believable.

Two years ago I wouldn't have thought the notion they'd slap something like the playtest docs together and offered them to us to playtest to be believable. I've got used to the notion when it comes to my expectations they are accomplished limbo dancers.

I have interviewed Mike Mearls several times, seen lots of public and not so playtest material at different stages, provided feedback at different points, and have no reason to believe from any of that different options will not be supported. WotC and the design team are well aware of what the warlord, and similar non cleric refresher characters meant to a group in 4E. They have provided a bit of knowledge here and there and I don't want to say too much about any of that for various reasons but the time of low fantasy, non healing D&D is going to arrive in a little bit because hard working people sought the feedback of game loving players and put it all together the best they could to make as many people happy as possible. If there is any concern it is that when you try to make everybody happy........

I look forward to seeing the results. But I'm not holding my breath.

I don't pay for games that a designer was too lazy to fix.

Neither do I - and I don't see any reason to want to. There are games out there that don't need fixing. And if I need to seriously fix the game it would probably be easier to just homebrew. Or use one of the many games I own that doesn't need it.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't pay for games that a designer was too lazy to fix.

I think that you're seriously misinterpreting Ahnehnois's statement, here. He was saying (correctly, I believe) that "game balance" isn't something that any set of rules can create unto themselves - balance can only be achieved during the course of actual play, via the input of the GM (and the other players, though I think that this is to a lesser degree).

The fact that no one can agree on what balance actually is (beyond nonspecific statements like "everyone has 'equally effective' characters" or "no one is 'more powerful' than anyone else") certainly seems to speak to that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

]I don't pay for games that a designer was too lazy to fix.

I don't pay for games where things that weren't broken were "fixed".

Then again, I don't pay for games in general. Mine's free!

 

[Obryn]

I think that you're seriously misinterpreting Ahnehnois's statement, here. He was saying (correctly, I believe) that "game balance" isn't something that any set of rules can create unto themselves - balance can only be achieved during the course of actual play, via the input of the GM (and the other players, though I think that this is to a lesser degree).

The fact that no one can agree on what balance actually is (beyond nonspecific statements like "everyone has 'equally effective' characters" or "no one is 'more powerful' than anyone else") certainly seems to speak to that.

And yet, we can talk about games with better or worse balance. For example, RC D&D is better balanced than 3.5. Heck, it's often used as an epithet against 4e!

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.

 

[Alzrius]

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

Sure, but those will be opinion statements, unless there's an objective definition for "balance" and a metric for quantifying it which I remain unaware of.

For example, RC D&D is better balanced than 3.5. Heck, it's often used as an epithet against 4e!

Epithets aside, I doubt that an 8th-level halfling out of the Rules Cyclopedia thinks that when the human members of the party have levels in the low thirties.

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.

The problem with this is that it seems to equate realizing that balance takes place at the game table with somehow not taking the issue of balance seriously. It's not a question of the designers having "broken" anything - the rules are not broken because they can't accomplish something that was always beyond them.

 

[Obryn]

Halflings in the RC are on their attack rank letters at that point, which are indistinguishable from "real" levels. And taking half damage from spells and dragon breath. And using weapon mastery to be shortbow ninjas.

Balancing needs to be considered from the system level, first and foremost. That's not the table's job. If the table needs to put more than a cursory glance towards it, that's a design failure.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

Balancing needs to be considered from the system level, first and foremost. That's not the table's job. If the table needs to put more than a cursory glance towards it, that's a design failure.

I disagree. Balance is going to be strongly situational, which means that it's dependent on the GM (and the players) to shape the situation accordingly.

EDIT: It's worth noting that what we're discussing are balance for combat as sports (where the rules are going to need to work hard to prevent anything that could upset an equitable competition between two sides) versus combat as war (where the rules present a general range of options, and the players and GM adjudicate from there).

Neither are better or worse than the other in-and-of themselves, but trying to use one type of rules design to achieve the other kind of balance during game-play will likely lead to one's expectations being unsatisfied. That, more than anything, speaks to the lack of consensus on what "balance" actually is and where it comes from.