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

[Alzrius]

Wow. That was pretty low.

I disagree, it was far more respectful than his post was.

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.

Well then it becomes a question of what constitutes "better" doesn't it?

I am guessing you're totally unfamiliar with how these two play at the table, then?

I'm not sure why you'd ask that, save for trying to invoke unfamiliarity as a way of discrediting someone else's insights and opinions on something.

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.

That's 4E-specific; we're talking about making them different in Fifth Edition (or, more generally, what differentiates them as a whole - talking about their differences in 4E isn't going to speak to those broader ways of differentiating them).

 

[Obryn]

I'm not sure why you'd ask that, save for trying to invoke unfamiliarity as a way of discrediting someone else's insights and opinions on something.

That's 4E-specific; we're talking about making them different in Fifth Edition (or, more generally, what differentiates them as a whole - talking about their differences in 4E isn't going to speak to those broader ways of differentiating them).

Let's follow the footprints. I responded to Cyberen re: sameyness. You asked me to clarify the difference. I did so. In other words, I know it's 4e specific. You were asking what the difference was in those classes. That's the only edition where both clerics and warlords existed, so the question has no context otherwise.

Your unfamiliarity is why you might not see an interesting difference in play between two classes which share some features. Like spike healing, here. Nobody wants a warlord to work just like a cleric in all respects.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

Let's follow the footprints. I responded to Cyberen re: sameyness. You asked me to clarify the difference. I did so. In other words, I know it's 4e specific. You were asking what the difference was in those classes. That's the only edition where both clerics and warlords existed, so the question has no context otherwise.

I think you may need to re-check where those footprints lead.

You pointed out that there are numerous ways to differentiate the cleric from the warlord. I suggested that it would be helpful if you could say what those differences are.

It's at this point that there seem to be some differences in what sort of conversation we're having. I started dissecting some of the differences you posted in terms of their overall levels of applicability (insofar as the "identity" of each class went) to what made the classes different. The reason I did so was to try and better establish the main themes of each class, so as to figure out how (or even if) they could both exist in D&D Next.

Your response was to suggest that my doing this...meant that I didn't know 4E?

So you can see why I think that's tangential at best. Talking about some specific scenario with their 4E class abilities isn't really helpful to the idea of "let's figure out the basic nature of the classes, and how to make that apparent in Next."

Your unfamiliarity is why you might not see an interesting difference in play between two classes which share some features. Like spike healing, here. Nobody wants a warlord to work just like a cleric in all respects.

You're making a huge number of presumptions here, mostly regarding how familiar I am with 4E, and whether or not I see any "interesting differences" between the cleric and the warlord...something I haven't spoken to at all.

 

[Obryn]

I think you may need to re-check where those footprints lead.

You pointed out that there are numerous ways to differentiate the cleric from the warlord. I suggested that it would be helpful if you could say what those differences are.

It's at this point that there seem to be some differences in what sort of conversation we're having. I started dissecting some of the differences you posted in terms of their overall levels of applicability (insofar as the "identity" of each class went) to what made the classes different. The reason I did so was to try and better establish the main themes of each class, so as to figure out how (or even if) they could both exist in D&D Next.

Your response was to suggest that my doing this...meant that I didn't know 4E?

So you can see why I think that's tangential at best. Talking about some specific scenario with their 4E class abilities isn't really helpful to the idea of "let's figure out the basic nature of the classes, and how to make that apparent in Next."

Then... You probably should have said this? Like, "how would you differentiate them in Next?" or something. Because that's not what I was responding to, as you can see. You didn't specifically mention Next until your last post.

You're making a huge number of presumptions here, mostly regarding how familiar I am with 4E, and whether or not I see any "interesting differences" between the cleric and the warlord...something I haven't spoken to at all.

Okay.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

Then... You probably should have said this? Like, "how would you differentiate them in Next?" or something. Because that's not what I was responding to, as you can see. You didn't specifically mention Next until your last post.

Given that this was the main point of the entire thread prior to that, I thought it was a safe assumption.

My mistake, there.

 

[Warbringer]

You're making a huge number of presumptions here, mostly regarding how familiar I am with 4E, and whether or not I see any "interesting differences" between the cleric and the warlord...something I haven't spoken to at all.

For clarification, how familiar are you with 4e? While I own all the books and use concepts in my houseruled game, I haven't played since 2009, so i'm not throwing any stones

 

[Alzrius]

For clarification, how familiar are you with 4e? While I own all the books and use concepts in my houseruled game, I haven't played since 2009, so i'm not throwing any stones

Oh, not very much at all.

I own (legal) PDFs of the first three Core Rulebooks, but that's it. When I finally found a weekly gaming group in my hometown, back in 2010, the existing players were already burnt out on 4E and didn't want to play it any more, so I never got a chance to use those books.

 

[Warbringer]

Oh, not very much at all.

One thing I love from 4e is healing surges, in that they give players resource control and they represent non-meat healing very well. For that reason, the Warlord mechanic works very well in the heal space, but I'm struggling how it can bring real benefit in the maneuver space (given Next more constrained action economy).

Ideas I've seen so far that I like are allow players to use healing dice, but "bloodied" then max effect is 50% max hit points) and granting advantage on actions. Not sure there is a whole class in there though

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'm not saying that Combat as War doesn't exist. I'm saying that that ridiculous monicker should be dropped.

There is a legitimate difference between a strategic and a tactical focus. Or between combat as a as a crucible and combat as the final resolution. However.

The dichotomy of Combat as War vs Combat as Sport is one of sneering and edition warring. I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say it's an invocation of Manly Men With Balls of Steel vs namby pamby pantywaists who are just playing. The terms are set up with the distinction that one group is inferior to the other - and I therefore consider it edition warring, intentional or not. It is itself a sneering judgement on which side is better.

I also consider the D&D as war (as opposed to a strategic game) to be a joke. A very twisted joke when you look at the sort of war in which a small band of non-state sanctioned people attack the enemy on their home territory where they think they are safe and use very violent psychological warfare as well as asymmetric warfare.

But I don't think there's anything wrong at all with a strategic focus to play. I just object to the terms and their connotations. Especially Combat as War, and doubly so as it relates to D&D.

 

[Alzrius]

One thing I love from 4e is healing surges, in that they give players resource control and they represent non-meat healing very well. For that reason, the Warlord mechanic works very well in the heal space, but I'm struggling how it can bring real benefit in the maneuver space (given Next more constrained action economy).

I can see the appeal there, but since I'm one of the "hp is meat" guys, I find that it creates some cognitive dissonance, despite the mechanical usefulness. Ironically, I tap-dance around this particular problem by saying that such healing is magical in nature, since I think there's a very large space between "spellcasters" and "non-spellcasters."

Of course, I use a class-less point-buy character builder, so that's a fairly easy space for me to fill (but that's another thread).

The dichotomy of Combat as War vs Combat as Sport is one of sneering and edition warring. I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say it's an invocation of Manly Men With Balls of Steel vs namby pamby pantywaists who are just playing. The terms are set up with the distinction that one group is inferior to the other - and I therefore consider it edition warring, intentional or not.

I understand what you're saying here, though I don't agree. Both in its original thread (where the terms debuted), and viewed unto themselves, I don't see any particular connotation that the "war" approach is meant to be taken as the more serious style of play, whereas "sports" is meant to mean not serious at all. It's all still just a game, after all.

I also consider the D&D as war (as opposed to a strategic game) to be a joke. A very twisted joke when you look at the sort of war in which a small band of non-state sanctioned people attack the enemy on their home territory where they think they are safe and use very violent psychological warfare as well as asymmetric warfare.

Same thing here about understanding your point, but not agreeing with it. I don't think that using the label "war" for strategic-style play in a table-top game in any way evokes real-world atrocities.