D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

I keep hearing Advanced Game. Is there some kind of new AD&D book coming out or something?

It's what they've been calling anything beyond the Standard, no-optional-rules game since the playtest. The free-on-line pdf are the Basic Rules, the PH the Standard Rules.

All those modules in the DMG you never (or frequently, depending on your DM style) use? Advanced Game.

Anything forthcoming in a non-core supplement would also be part of the Advanced Game, entirely optional.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

OTOH, a second wizard could have done the same thing, and instead of having one wizard down two third-level slots, you'd have two wizards each down only one slot. Same result, far more spell resources available to do it again.

But that's the thing. A second wizard will be a second wizard for every encounter. Even ones where a second wizard is not as advantageous as having something else. But the warlord makes sure the next encounter has a second "whatever is best", instead, in the moment.

That's the problem.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It's what they've been calling anything beyond the Standard, no-optional-rules game since the playtest. The free-on-line pdf are the Basic Rules, the PH the Standard Rules.

All those modules in the DMG you never (or frequently, depending on your DM style) use? Advanced Game.

Anything forthcoming in a non-core supplement would also be part of the Advanced Game, entirely optional.

Ah thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mellored]

Again, does it make sense for a 1st level Warlord to "give advice" to a 20th level Champion?

As much as it makes sense for a level 1 cleric to "bless" a level 20 paladin...
or a level 1 bard that can "inspire" a dragon.

Saying a level 20 champion can learn nothing from a level 1 fighter is arrogant. If you've ever been around kids, you know that there is plenty to learn from them, no matter how experienced you are.

Do you object to my suggestion, that the abilities affect the monsters instead of teammates?

Not entirely, but yes.

2 pairs of eyes are better then one. Sniper's have spotters for a reason, and it's not because they are bad shots. You can see things that the other can't. Like if an enemy puts a shield in your face to mask an attack from the above, having someone who can see around the shield and tell the attack is coming from the right is very helpful.

IMO, the only verisimilitude issue is communication speed. It takes much longer to say "watch out for the attack from the right" then it does to attack from the right. Even "duck" can take too long. Which kinda makes me want to have it telepathy.. Thousand Eyes: You can see though your allies eyes, gaining new perspectives.... but i suspend my belief for much more odd things.


That said, i'm not against having abilities that work against enemies.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You must have hated 3E morale bonuses then.

I love this sort of comment.

It could have been, "Did 3E morale bonuses also bother you? If not, what was the difference?"

Instead it's this sort of cynical, accusatory statement, as if trying to catch me in a contradiction. Like maybe I'm lying.

Anyway, how did 3E morale bonuses work? I only played 3E a few times and I don't remember the mechanic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But that's the thing. A second wizard will be a second wizard for every encounter. Even ones where a second wizard is not as advantageous as having something else.

Not that there's a whole lot of those with a class as flexible as the wizard, but sure, that's exactly right. A Wizard and a hypothetical dedicated action-granting Warlord without the limitations action-granting exploits faced in 4e, could theoretically be (slightly) more flexible than the party with a pair of Wizards. The price paid for that is having half the slots available each day relative to the party with a pair of wizards, while casting spells at the same 2/round rate. In a game where attrition is as important as it is in 5e, that's really /too/ high a price. The Warlord needs to bring something more to the table than just giving his actions away.

Just like how a party of all Assassins is going to be really deadly in come encounters, while a more mixed party will handle a wider variety, the oddball 'lazy' Warlords of 4e gave the party some added flexibility, even beyond that of a normal party mix, at the price of being all but non-contributing when their trick was sub-optimal.


So it's no problem at all, not unless 5e finds some new way to make it one.

 

[Nifft]

I'd love to see stuff like 3.5e's White Raven and 4e's Lazy Warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it's this sort of cynical, accusatory statement, as if trying to catch me in a contradiction. Like maybe I'm lying.

It ('contradictions' let say) happened a lot in the edition war. Some folks are still shell-shocked.

It could have been, "Did 3E morale bonuses also bother you? If not, what was the difference?"

One trick is to mentally translate it, and answer it as if it were more reasonably phrased.

Anyway, how did 3E morale bonuses work? I only played 3E a few times and I don't remember the mechanic.

Nothing like action-grants, the most contentious sorts of 'command'-fluffed Warlord exploits in that sense. They were just another named bonus. 3e had a /lot/ of named bonuses that you could stack up if they were different. 'Morale' was one of them. Some spells gave morale bonuses, but it was the lowly Bard who was most notrious for 'em, with his ability to sing all combat long and thereby give everyone a morale bonus to their attacks.

If it bothers you that singing making people better at fighting somehow implies they aren't really as good at fighting as their classes' marketing brochures promised, in spite of full BAB, STR scores north of 20, feats & the like, then, yeah, it'd be a problem. I'm not saying there's no similarity between that and some objections that have been raised to the Warlord, but it seems tenuous to me.

Also, if that description of the Bard sounds funny, check out 'Elan' in 'Order of the Stick.'

 

[Aldarc]

I love this sort of comment.

It could have been, "Did 3E morale bonuses also bother you? If not, what was the difference?"

Instead it's this sort of cynical, accusatory statement, as if trying to catch me in a contradiction. Like maybe I'm lying.

I apologize, since I believe you have been discussing in good faith. I have, however, been finding a lot of the discussion surrounding the warlord irritating as of late, since I don't think all of it has been and the irritation can cumulate.

Anyway, how did 3E morale bonuses work? I only played 3E a few times and I don't remember the mechanic.

A 'morale bonus' was simply another category of bonus that you could add to your rolls. So a player could use a character ability to provide you (or herself) with a bonus +X morale bonus to your attack roll or skill check, etc. It is something that seems like it would inherently roleplay your character's presumed morale level. But we see it in 3E and Pathfinder without any issue or complaint.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If it bothers you that singing making people better at fighting somehow implies they aren't really as good at fighting as their classes' marketing brochures promised, in spite of full BAB, STR scores north of 20, feats & the like, then, yeah, it'd be a problem. I'm not saying there's no similarity between that and some objections that have been raised to the Warlord, but it seems tenuous to me.

Wha...? Bards use magic.