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

[Manbearcat]

Again, we're confusing reskinning and refluffing.

The problem with this reskin approach is the mechanical change has interactions with other systems (typically spells) and carries balance concerns. If a Warlord can use his mundane abilities unbridled in anti-magic zones and without any concern for alignment spells or any effect from (say) a monster ability that nullifies magical healing or suppresses radiant effects...then you have a class that hasn't been refluffed...you have a class that has been reskinned mechanically to be objectively better than the mechanics (and class - Cleric) it is attempting to thematically reproduce.

Simply refluffing something with keywords, keeping all of the 1st order mechanics the same, ensuring no dispirate 2nd order interactions, is A Ok by me. Changing "Divine" to "Martial" carrying more than thematic heft (in this case, PC build potency disparity) is the problem.

We need more GOTCHA games imo.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Reskinning relies on constructing an appropriate or innovative narrative for established rules.

I'm unconvinced the cleric's mechanical details (turning undead, pillars of fire, mediocre with weapons) fit a warlord's fictional role.

-O

I'm not convinced that a 5e cleric is going to be quite so monolithic in those details. Deities provide a lot of customization.

And what is a pillar of fire but a hail of arrows?

 

[Mike Eagling]

We need more GOTCHA games imo.

Sorry, what does that mean?

 

[Obryn]

I'm not convinced that a 5e cleric is going to be quite so monolithic in those details. Deities provide a lot of customization.

And what is a pillar of fire but a hail of arrows?

There's two issues, as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] indicated. If you're not changing mechanical details, anything goes. If you are, it all gets a lot trickier. In this case, in 4E terms, you're changing from fire and divine keywords to martial and weapon. Not a perfect fit, especially if spell resistance, antimagic, and fire resistance are things.

I have no problems with daily hail-of-arrows abilities, but the mechanics and fiction should be congruent.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Sorry, what does that mean?

"haha, look at those silly 4vengers complaining about reskinning!* I got them here!"

* never mind that this isn't the expected and normal 4e refluffing, but a suggestion of actual mechanical changes.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

Reskinning relies on constructing an appropriate or innovative narrative for established rules.

I'm unconvinced the cleric's mechanical details (turning undead, pillars of fire, mediocre with weapons) fit a warlord's fictional role.

-O

Well, it's for that reason that I suggested just a cleric multiclass. So you have primarily the combat ability of the Fighter, the "buff others" abilities from the specific expertise dice, and the couple of Healing Words from the multiclass. And since we don't know what multiclassing entails yet... there's a chance that many of the more esoteric clerical abilities wouldn't actually cross over. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to select enough specific clerical stuff that's closer to the mundane side that would be very easy to refluff away from "magic".

After all... for a warbringer cleric and his "Channel Divinity" uses... Divine Wrath is just like a Daily power's worth of extra damage on a weapon swing, and Righteous Might is just advantage on STR checks. Those abilities can easily just be considered mundane by refluffing the term "Channel Divinity" to "Channel Strength". Then, you just ignore and not use the third CD power, Turn Undead.

 

[DMZ2112]

Not even close to the same thing. Mundane characters and fantastic characters should both be viable and fun concepts. And the players of the mundane characters should have as much fiat capability as the players of the magical ones.

First of all, I never suggested that they shouldn't. Second, it's /exactly/ the same thing; magic should permeate a fantasy setting the way science does reality. There is no shame in the setting's magical underpinnings being the reason why a martial character is able to do things he could never have done on Earth.

Medieval longbowmen didn't know the first thing about ballistic physics, but they still killed a lot of heavily armored dudes with it. You don't have to understand physics to apply it, and you don't need to cast spells to take advantage of magic.

What you're essentially proposing is that a martial character should stubbornly resist any and all association with the nature of the world he lives in. And that guy? That guy doesn't get fiat, no. He also doesn't get +5 weapons.

"But J," you protest, "if there's no shame in martial characters making use of the magic in the world, why aren't warlords D&D?"

"I'm glad you asked!" I exclaim. It's class glut, plain and simple. A warlord is, in fluff, no different than a warpriest of the philosophy of battle. He just has different, redundant, and (in my opinion) illogical crunch governing his "spell list."

...And third, you're trying to solve problems that don't need solving. For 40 years, players have found both martial and arcane characters to be viable and fun concepts.

I want a bold and experimental 5e that takes direction from modern games.

No thank you.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem with this reskin approach is the mechanical change has interactions with other systems (typically spells) and carries balance concerns. If a Warlord can use his mundane abilities unbridled in anti-magic zones and without any concern for alignment spells or any effect from (say) a monster ability that nullifies magical healing or suppresses radiant effects...then you have a class that hasn't been refluffed...you have a class that has been reskinned mechanically to be objectively better than the mechanics (and class - Cleric) it is attempting to thematically reproduce.

I would suggest that that balance concern would only ever matter at a table that had both a cleric and a "warlord", *and* had a DM that would throw out anti-magic fields, and monsters that restrict "magical" healing and radiant damage, *and* would voluntarily screw over the cleric by allowing the "warlord" to get away with using his abilities and the cleric not. And considering this "warlord" would actually primarily be a fighter with only a couple levels of cleric multiclass (and thus might not actually even have taken any clerical abilities that would be affected by anti-magic, or radiant resistance)... I would consider this the corneriest of corner cases.

And thus not enough of a reason to necessitate an actual full Warlord class just to be a workaround to the issue. But that's just my feeling anyway.

 

[Obryn]

First of all, I never suggested that they shouldn't. Second, it's /exactly/ the same thing; magic should permeate a fantasy setting the way science does reality. There is no shame in the setting's magical underpinnings being the reason why a martial character is able to do things he could never have done on Earth.

Medieval longbowmen didn't know the first thing about ballistic physics, but they still killed a lot of heavily armored dudes with it. You don't have to understand physics to apply it, and you don't need to cast spells to take advantage of magic.

What you're essentially proposing is that a martial character should stubbornly resist any and all association with the nature of the world he lives in. And that guy? That guy doesn't get fiat, no. He also doesn't get +5 weapons.

"But J," you protest, "if there's no shame in martial characters making use of the magic in the world, why aren't warlords D&D?"

"I'm glad you asked!" I exclaim. It's class glut, plain and simple. A warlord is, in fluff, no different than a warpriest of the philosophy of battle. He just has different, redundant, and (in my opinion) illogical crunch governing his "spell list."

...And third, you're trying to solve problems that don't need solving. For 40 years, players have found both martial and arcane characters to be viable and fun concepts.

So then what's the problem with daily and encounter martial powers again if you're making everyone magic?

No thank you.

I can only shrug. It's what I'm looking for. I already have D&D games that do the old stuff.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Well, it's for that reason that I suggested just a cleric multiclass. So you have primarily the combat ability of the Fighter, the "buff others" abilities from the specific expertise dice, and the couple of Healing Words from the multiclass. And since we don't know what multiclassing entails yet... there's a chance that many of the more esoteric clerical abilities wouldn't actually cross over. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to select enough specific clerical stuff that's closer to the mundane side that would be very easy to refluff away from "magic".

After all... for a warbringer cleric and his "Channel Divinity" uses... Divine Wrath is just like a Daily power's worth of extra damage on a weapon swing, and Righteous Might is just advantage on STR checks. Those abilities can easily just be considered mundane by refluffing the term "Channel Divinity" to "Channel Strength". Then, you just ignore and not use the third CD power, Turn Undead.

It's theoretically possible, depending on how rules connected magic and divine casting are. I'm thinking Next is more concerned with those categories than 4e was.

I'd still rather avoid multiclassing. I kinda hate it.

-O