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

[Alzrius]

It is generally those in the group being prejudiced against who get to decide if they feel prejudiced against. Not those who invent the term.

That presumes that there's any prejudice in the first place, which in this case there wasn't.

That's without even mentioning that those who like combat as sport are not being prejudiced against in any way, shape, or form...certainly not by the use of the term "combat as sport."

 

[Cyberen]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I don't want to enter a sterile non-debate with you !
I was *genuinely* stating that the literary archetypes you insist to rely on as epitomizing Bravelords are, in my book, archetypal paladins.
In fact, the list of literary paladins would start : 1- Roland, 2-the rest of the bunch of Charlemagne' peers, 3- Joan of Arc, 4- Galahad, 5- Lancelot (the Fallen paladin !), 6- Arthur, 7- some other Knights of the Round Table, depending on the version, 8- Aragorn (the Ranger class was made to accomodate him, but I find he's better portrayed as a paladin)... so I was *genuinely* advocating to tweak the proposed Paladin's Oath to make it compatible with those tropes. I honestly find your take on those literary tropes very alluring, but I think you are shoehorning the 4e Warlord in it (which is great when you're running 4e, not so when you're designing 5e). I am not trying to win an argument here, as some posters in this thread seem desperate to !
I have been violently contradicted by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and others, but I still believe the difference between, say "Combat for the sake of the outcome" and "Combat for the beauty of it" don't entail the same preoccupations about balance.
I do agree Battle Captains should heal, I find it uninteresting mechanically and thematically to give them *clerical* abundant, instantaneous healing. Of course, if anybody finds it interesting, he should go to town with it. But I wouldn't call the designers names because they don't agree : choices are to be made.
I try to show due respect to previous editions of the game we all love and play, and also due respect to their designers.

 

[Starfox]

That presumes that there's any prejudice in the first place, which in this case there wasn't.

Which, by my logic, is not for you to decide. Repeating an argument does not make it stronger.

 

[Alzrius]

Which, by my logic, is not for you to decide. Repeating an argument does not make it stronger.

It's not for you to decide, either. You can say that you feel that a statement was prejudiced, but that doesn't mean that it actually was. Saying that you think something is true does not make it true.

 

[billd91]

Is the leader valued? Sure. Those soldiers wouldn't be fighting if not for their leader. But the leader is a symbol, not a tactician, and definitely not a healer. I don't recall their words doing anything that could be construed as a mechanical effect. For the most part, words aren't even audible in a battle of that size (which contributes to the absurdity of the warlord concept). You could maybe make a case for the symbolic value having an ongoing effect on morale, which Heroes of Battle does perfectly well without going anywhere near "spike healing" or people who focus their careers on talking inspirationally during battles to the death.

No mechanical effect? I don't think I'd necessarily agree with that. Eomer's grief seems to inspire others to follow in his berserk rage. Plus, I think it would be a good addition to allow the oratory given by a leader before the battle, whether it's King Harry, Maximus Decimus Meridius, King Theoden, or Aragorn to have some effect on the men. So I think there's room for some kind of martial inspiration in the game. I don't think I'd normally include healing in that sort of thematic portfolio, though.

 

[urLordy]

In which case, and a genuine question here, why aren't you up in arms about the dragon just posted. If it was in 4e it would be the single most metagame-oriented monster in the entire edition. If it's a line in the sand, the dragon is way way over it. Legendary Points and the Ignore 4 spells/day are both raw metagame points.

If that's your line in the sand, Next has just not crossed it, but is busy playing volleyball over it.

I'm not up in the arms about Legendary Points and Ignore 4 spells per day because, as I mentioned before, it's a "work in progress" and it's important to me to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they ask for it.

The other reason I'm not up in arms is that Mearls already expressed concern about mechanical contrivances, etc. so at least I understand what the goal is, if not the final implementation. Conversely, if Mearls had opened the article with
a line about "process-sim nonsense" ala Obryn, I probably would've gotten up in arms.

Since it's a genuine question, I'll try my best to articulate why else. Not all these answers are created equally or full arguments in themselves for anyone else's playstyle.
- The DM doesn't have it to use it (I could trust a process-sim-oriented DM to use them judicially if it would otherwise be a problem for the gaming group's playstyle)
- It overlaps with other rules that I've already accepted, like saving throws and magic resistance and the fact that sometimes, magic just doesn't always work 100% against everyone
- How do I know if the dragon auto-succeeded on the saving throw or just rolled a successful saving throw
- It prevents a 'boss' monster from disappointingly dying in the 1st round and spoiling the climax
- It allows a DM to 'officially cheat' without having the DM feel angsty about fudging dice and feeling bad about it
- there was a whole preamble about legendary creatures bending reality so to speak. It's very Planescape-esque and also fits with the concept of hit points IF you accept that hit points is part luck and destiny. This pseudo-logic might be controversial (I haven't thought about it much further than that) but at least Mearls said something about a default story
- it only applies to the DM and the behind-the-scenes stuff that happens with a good magic show and it only applies to monsters, alien and legendary, and as is, doesn't seem like it would happen very often. It doesn't apply to the PCs themselves, who I try to relate to and understand. If it applied to a relatable PC that used a metagamey power every encounter power, it would feel more in my face

For me, the overall impression isn't that D&D Next is busy playing volleyball over that line in the sand. I hope that helps somehow?

 

[Mike Eagling]

I think it would be a good addition to allow the oratory given by a leader before the battle, whether it's King Harry, Maximus Decimus Meridius, King Theoden, or Aragorn to have some effect on the men. So I think there's room for some kind of martial inspiration in the game.

Ah! Now that does resonate and is a non-magical version of Bless

 

[Umbran]

Goodness knows the rest of us are more interested in having fun than in ruining everyone else's.

Unsupported by empirical evidence. If you really were more interested in having fun than in ruining other people's fun, you'd not lay about you with insults.

How about you remember that on EN World we expect you to SHOW RESPECT for the persons of others, and their opinions, and then come back and try again. If you're not willing to do that, don't post.

And, folks, don't think for a minute that I'm only talking to Ahnehnois, here. The level of partisan edition warring and sniping in this thread is unacceptable. Way too many of you talk as if your preferences are more important than the people you're talking to. Getting personal, being jerks - over your preferred ways of pretending to be elves.

Nobody in this thread is likely to receive another warning before a moderator deals with you. And, remember, we don't have a threadban feature any more - so, if you continue in this vein, you can expect a vacation from EN World for your troubles.

That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, hopefully now with more respect and civility.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@pemerton , I don't want to enter a sterile non-debate with you !
I was *genuinely* stating that the literary archetypes you insist to rely on as epitomizing Bravelords are, in my book, archetypal paladins.
In fact, the list of literary paladins would start : 1- Roland, 2-the rest of the bunch of Charlemagne' peers, 3- Joan of Arc, 4- Galahad, 5- Lancelot (the Fallen paladin !), 6- Arthur, 7- some other Knights of the Round Table, depending on the version, 8- Aragorn (the Ranger class was made to accomodate him, but I find he's better portrayed as a paladin)... so I was *genuinely* advocating to tweak the proposed Paladin's Oath to make it compatible with those tropes.

That'll take a lot of tweaking of the historical D&D Paladin archetype. Warlords probably are closer to fictional paladins than they are to fighters. But the "Laying on hands, automatic evil detecting, comes with their own warhorse" are part of the "feel" of D&D. (And re: Aragorn, which ranger class. Rangers have changed in every edition). Not saying that it's not a good thing to do, admittedly.

I have been violently contradicted by @Neonchameleon and others, but I still believe the difference between, say "Combat for the sake of the outcome" and "Combat for the beauty of it" don't entail the same preoccupations about balance.

We disagree less than previously thought. "Combat as challenge" has a different balance than "Combat for the sake of the outcome". But this doesn't mean that combat for the sake of the outcome can or should be lacking in its own balance. One in which the fighter is a complete mincing machine - because they are weaker than other classes out of combat.

I do agree Battle Captains should heal, I find it uninteresting mechanically and thematically to give them *clerical* abundant, instantaneous healing.

No disagreement here. But for tactical considerations to matter, the healing must be spike-shaped. You don't have to heal as much or in anything like the same way. But D&D has only the one model of healing.

Neonchameleon's statement was about him thinking that the terms are pejorative towards "combat as sport." I disagree with that; I don't think that @Daztur was making any kind of value judgment about either style of play when he came up with those terms.

I'm pretty sure @Daztur wasn't. He was exploring a valid difference in playstyle he noticed, with the terms that he thought of. However I believe he was biassed towards his favoured playstyle (CaW) in choosing his terms. And I believe that we've had the conversation directly leading from Daztur's insight - and what's left is threefold; first a statement of preferences and that neither are badwrongfun, second that the terms actually used were poorly chosen and display a strong bias supporting one playstyle against the other - and that if this is part of the intent then the intent was to edition war, and if it was not part of the intent then it undermines the usefulness of the terms.

Given that Gandalf is a Maiar and thus a minor god: Clerical magic.

Saruman's power in his tongue was still present after his power was broken. It was art and it was skill. It wasn't magic. Gandalf likewise had great art and skill in his tongue - and if Gandalf was part of the same class as Saruman it too was independent of his power as a Maiar.

Edit: [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], I almost certainly wouldn't include healing if D&D included any other factors commonly limiting the ability of normal PCs to either fight or carry on. If most fights were directly decided by morale and one side breaking or surrendering then you wouldn't need such a feature

 

[Alzrius]

I'm pretty sure @Daztur wasn't. He was exploring a valid difference in playstyle he noticed, with the terms that he thought of. However I believe he was biassed towards his favoured playstyle (CaW) in choosing his terms. And I believe that we've had the conversation directly leading from Daztur's insight - and what's left is threefold; first a statement of preferences and that neither are badwrongfun, second that the terms actually used were poorly chosen and display a strong bias supporting one playstyle against the other - and that if this is part of the intent then the intent was to edition war, and if it was not part of the intent then it undermines the usefulness of the terms.

I disagree. Unless there's a statement that he made to that effect which I remain unaware of (which there might be), I don't think that his choice of terms showed any particular bias whatsoever - the terms don't showcase any particular preference for one style of play over, at least not that I can see.

Likewise, I don't think that the terms were chosen poorly, as they do a good job of presenting a shorthand for what each style of play is about. Given that, it's clearly not intended to edition war, and likewise that some people simply don't happen to like them (because they're reading something into them that isn't there) in no way detracts from the usefulness of the terms. They're still excellent descriptors for describing different play-styles, and carry no inherent bias in regards to what they describe.