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

[Manbearcat]

I've seen that claim many times as well. It just doesn't hold up in play when you have a group of players that are (a) familiar with, and good at, synergizing, (b) know the "pitfalls" of what they are doing and how to compensate, (c) spends their various resources wisely, and (d) manages their workday such that they don't overextend themselves.

Well then. Since your post was just the rhetorical flourish of juxtaposing my a-d header with your own mirrored copy and didn't address the meat of my post (which would have been the broken out 1-11 below), I'll assume you just aren't interested in having the conversation (about your take that Warlords are overpowered when coupled with Strikers in 4e, hence your read that it logically follows that they would be overpowered in 5e). Or perhaps you don't consider it thread-relevant. If it is the latter and you'd like to have the conversation, then by all means make a separate post about it (perhaps in the 4e forums if you feel it is more relevant there).

(1) Average workday of 3 difficult non-combat challenges (whereby PCs are taxed Surges on micro-failures and macro-failure is punitive with respect to the stakes and story trajectory), and two combats of level + 2-4/level 5-8 (depending on tier).

(2) Little to no melee control can be devastating.

(3) What is that Striker going to do if I spend a fair portion of my encounter budget on Traps/Hazards that serve as blocking terrain/control/damage and can't be ablated via HPs?

(4) How much damage potential value is lost when you're trying to manage an encounter with level + 2 Artillery Minions that are protected by terrain?

(5) What about when you're being slid next to an abundance of Challenging Terrain that immobilizes or puts 5/10/15 damage on you...

(6) ...by a Solo Controller who crushes you with status effects and is protected by...

(7) ...Swarm guards that take the blow for the the Solo Controller and eat your super duper Striker damage (1/2 single target damage against them) as an Immediate Action (thus mitigating it dramatically)...

(8) ...and chew through your (low) HPs with their Aura auto-damage (or the Aura halves your, already meager, Surge value)?

(9) What about when the goal of the encounter isn't about HP ablation (which is the only thing you're good at)?

(10) What if it is about saving a little (Minion) girl when her skiff is attacked by a giant Tentacle Monster who has a dozen or more Tentacle Minions and likes to throw you in the water and drown you (which would be about melee control/action denial/multi-target control and dealing with punitive terrain/control)?

(11) What if it is about defending against wave after wave after wave of slimes and oozes that are seeping out of the ceilings/walls/floor until your ally (NPC or PC) can successfully exorcise Juiblex from a possessed fallen Paladin in a "haunted" throne room (via a difficult Complexity 3 SC)? This of course is about possessing (i) necessary control, (ii) "staying power" (which includes handling spike damage...which revolves around melee control, damage mitigation, requisite defenses, requisite HPs), (iii) and the breadth of relevant skills (Arcana, Diplomacy, Endurance, Heal, Insight, Intimidate, History, Religion) to successfully execute the difficult C3 SC.

 

[Remathilis]

It still doesn't matter if you use CAPITALS or not. They were not written into any books, descriptive or not, and were simply not there outside of some individuals imagination.

Well, I was away from my computer (and posting on my phone) so I didn't have access to my PDFs...

ADVENTURING PARTY BASICS

A typical adventuring party consists of four characters, each representing one of the iconic elements of fantasy roleplaying.The fighter, the wizard, the cleric, and the rogue form the classic group. The fighter relies on weapons to mete out damage and wears armor to avoid injury. The wizard uses spells to destroy enemies and to circumvent hazards. The cleric supports the other characters through healing spells and “buff” spells that enhance abilities, though he can also aid the fighter in combat. The rogue bypasses traps, assists the fighter and cleric on the battlefield, and brings to bear an impressive skill set that makes her the party’s “go-to” person in just about any situation.
...
Consider carefully how your character choice will interact with those of your fellow players in an adventuring party. If two people want to play rogues, and your group has only four players, the party might have to do without one of the four key elements unless someone else chooses a character whose abilities cover the missing theme. Even choosing characters similar to those in the ideal party can create problems. For example, choosing a druid or a paladin in place of a cleric, or a bard instead of a rogue can produce severe consequences for a party that cannot fi ll the gaps in expertise. The same problem exists with the new standard classes presented in recent publications. What must the other characters do to compensate when a party includes a warlock instead of a
wizard, for instance?

Boom. Pre fourth edition discussion of roles.

 

[I'm A Banana]

your argument makes zero sense

your argument is nonsense.

If you don't like it, don't post it on a public forum

So if I post on a public forum, then it's OK to misquote me to support a mendacious argument?

The hostility is wildly unnecessary. Don't engage in it any further.

 

[Manbearcat]

Permeton, when looking for a passage to define the 'roles' described in previous editions, as pertaining to those used in 4E, it may be useful to check whether any of the passages quoted actually uses the term 'roles' along with those of 'Defender', 'Striker' or whathaveyou.

These passages you have chosen merely describe the Classes in question and simply describe what they are good at - rather than there predesignated jobs in a playing party. I could argue against the use of Classes in a RPG too - indeed several game designers did throughout the period and ended up designing new games like RuneQuest. However, you are now simply conflating two separate ideas as if they are the same. As stated before, several times, the use of 'Roles' were exclusive to 4E and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.

I know we've danced this tango before multiple times in the past, but I'm having the same trouble parsing these arguments as before.

Most (but not all) goal-oriented efforts involve multiple personnel/units. In any endeavor worth striving for accomplishing an objective, there will be a delineation of the (inevitably various) jobs (roles, suite of tasks/responsibilities...you can call them what you like) required to achieve the objective *. Each component part will have some measure of expertise or some set of qualities that renders them more suitable for their duty(ies) than another party would be. These duties might be "finished carpentry" or "plumbing" if you're building a finished structure. They might be "pitcher" or "catcher" if you're playing baseball. They might be "mastermind" or "hitter" if you're playing Leverage. They might be "forensic engineer" and "peer review lead" if you're working to establish the cause and origin of some event. In D&D combat (not noncombat...just combat), they might be "front line dude that soaks damage from the bad guys and protects squishier folks from them" (Defender) and "squishy dude that incapacitates and kills the bad guys en masse" (Controller). That is true regardless of edition. And that hews pretty closely to the exact way it was described to me in 1983 by guys who had been playing for many years prior. It is also depicted in the AD&D passage above and I'm sure it is referenced aplenty in plenty of Dragon of the period.

* If there is utter anarchy in responsibility or an absolute vacuum with respect to demarcation of duties, then I'm assuming no one in the history of the game has had the foresight nor does anyone present possess the capabilities/leadership to perform the analysis and execute some kind of "team directive."

 

[Manbearcat]

Though Alexander the Great was in fact famous for fighting on the front line, and nearly died doing it. Inspiring Warlord, rather than Tactical.

yeah

Julius Caesar is a better example.

One of the greatest leaders of men, the defeater of Pompey (aka the man who effectively stopped piracy in the Mediterranean for several hundred years).

His skill is not with force of arms, but in his words and inspiration.

Or Hannibal from the A Team. Or Mick from Rocky. Or Colonel Troutman in Rambo. Or Bilbo/Frodo in the Hobbit and LotR. There are plenty of examples in genre fiction.

Or mommy kissing boo-boos away!

 

[Remathilis]

This doesn't really make sense to me.

Why is an AD&D fighter usually played as a "tank"? Because it has high AC and hit points, and at least in AD&D 1st ed melee combat is inherently sticky and the fighter has the AC and hit points to survive in melee.

Why is a 4e fighter usually played as a "tank"? Because it has high AC and hit points, plus class features that make melee sticky, and its high AC and hit points give it the ability to survive in melee.

The design details are different - in AD&D melee stickiness is a function of the core combat rules, whereas 4e follows 3E in making melee basically non-sticky then gives the fighter special class features to change that default - but I don't see any contrast between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION/DEFINITION.

Chicken-or-egg class design.

The four 4e roles were modeled after the core four character classes place in combat (tanking, healer, dps, and debuffing). Its easy to see how he fighter defined the defender role. However, due to the intercompatibility of any class with X role does their job on par with the trope namer, a lot fo recycled designed crept in.

Ok, lets take my favorite example: the leader. Clearly, the leader role was based on what clerics typically did in combat: buff allies (bless, prayer, resist fire), heal (cure wounds, remove fear), and occasional combat. So that became the leader's job description: buff, heal, occasional combat.

When the marshal moved to become the 4e warlord, he was pegged to be a leader. Natural fit, right? The marshal could buff allies, and got in occasional combat. Problem: he wasn't a healer, and all leaders must heal in combat. Solution: give him the same healing power as a cleric (with minor differences in riders).

When the artificer from Eberron moved up to 4e, it made sense to make him a leader also. After all, his job description was to buff allies via infusions and engage in occasional combat. Problem: He wasn't a healer (except to warforged via repair damage) and unless he had a wand or staff, he couldn't heal a living creature. But all leaders must heal in combat. Solution: come up with some strange potion power where he throws a healing potion in the air and people can spend healing surges. Twice per encounter. Healing word in a bottle.

When the druid came over to 4e, he was a powerful class. His spells were damn good; healing, buffing, and attack magic. Due to his ability to control elemental magic, he got pegged as a controller. Controllers don't primarily heal. So despite the fact that during 1e, 2e, and 3e a druid had most of the same healing power as a cleric, druids did NOT get a healing ability. In fact, I think they got maybe a few utility powers (number eludes me, but it was minor) and building a "healing druid" in 4e was impossible. Primal healing was handed over the shaman class.

I can go on. Paladins had a mark-based mechanic because paladins were defenders and they needed the same type of mechanic to fill in for the fighter's mark mechanic. Barbarians had more hp than fighters and could get decent AC to tank, but since they were strikers, no mark mechanic.

Role-assigned mechanics are prescriptive. They don't describe what the class did, they tell it what to do. In situations like the artificer and druid, it radically altered the description to fit with the new roles prescription.

 

[Jester David]

Chicken-or-egg class design.

The four 4e roles were modeled after the core four character classes place in combat (tanking, healer, dps, and debuffing). Its easy to see how he fighter defined the defender role. However, due to the intercompatibility of any class with X role does their job on par with the trope namer, a lot fo recycled designed crept in.

Ok, lets take my favorite example: the leader. Clearly, the leader role was based on what clerics typically did in combat: buff allies (bless, prayer, resist fire), heal (cure wounds, remove fear), and occasional combat. So that became the leader's job description: buff, heal, occasional combat.

When the marshal moved to become the 4e warlord, he was pegged to be a leader. Natural fit, right? The marshal could buff allies, and got in occasional combat. Problem: he wasn't a healer, and all leaders must heal in combat. Solution: give him the same healing power as a cleric (with minor differences in riders).

When the artificer from Eberron moved up to 4e, it made sense to make him a leader also. After all, his job description was to buff allies via infusions and engage in occasional combat. Problem: He wasn't a healer (except to warforged via repair damage) and unless he had a wand or staff, he couldn't heal a living creature. But all leaders must heal in combat. Solution: come up with some strange potion power where he throws a healing potion in the air and people can spend healing surges. Twice per encounter. Healing word in a bottle.

When the druid came over to 4e, he was a powerful class. His spells were damn good; healing, buffing, and attack magic. Due to his ability to control elemental magic, he got pegged as a controller. Controllers don't primarily heal. So despite the fact that during 1e, 2e, and 3e a druid had most of the same healing power as a cleric, druids did NOT get a healing ability. In fact, I think they got maybe a few utility powers (number eludes me, but it was minor) and building a "healing druid" in 4e was impossible. Primal healing was handed over the shaman class.

I can go on. Paladins had a mark-based mechanic because paladins were defenders and they needed the same type of mechanic to fill in for the fighter's mark mechanic. Barbarians had more hp than fighters and could get decent AC to tank, but since they were strikers, no mark mechanic.

Role-assigned mechanics are prescriptive. They don't describe what the class did, they tell it what to do. In situations like the artificer and druid, it radically altered the description to fit with the new roles prescription.

That's the problem with most warlord designs for me.
I'd want a version of the class that does what the class did, not what the role mandated. And giving the warlord abilities needed to let it fit into role requirements that no longer exist just means fewer other abilities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I remember the same from playing in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Also, that if we'd rolled stats for a new game and were going off to make characters for when it started next week, declaring that you were making a Fighter was assumed to mean someone who could stand in the front line of the party, not some archer who'd hang at the back while the Ranger, Cleric, or even the Thief had to step up to fight ogres toe-to-toe. Just because we didn't use the Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller or the Tank/Healer/DPS terminology didn't mean we weren't perfectly well aware of how it applied to classes and parties. I actually remember Tank being used a few times by people for their heavily armoured front-liners, too.

I think the genesis of this terminology was in comic books, where some super heroes were called 'bricks' and others were called 'blasters', etc.

It really does hark back to actual wargames, where units emulated military forces, which need these core functions, someone to take and hold territory (a defender, infantry), someone to blast the enemy infantry (heavy weapons, classical direct fire guns, machine guns, shock troops/cavalry, RPGs, etc) (striker), someone to deny the enemy territory and suppress his ability to fire and maneuver (howitzers, mortars, mines, skirmishers, light cav, etc) (controller), and support functions (leader). You can see it in Chainmail, so the idea that this is a D&Dism, and particularly a 4e-ism simply brands one as utterly ignorant of such matters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't recall playing any D&D games, just about ever, where the group was concerned about optimizing tactics, until after the MMO revolution and late into 3E play, and then all of a sudden my peers were over conscious about optimal team play. The vast history of the game is a rag-tag group of players that were generally overly concerned about their individual contributions and spot-light (even if that wasn't a term yet either.)

Now, see, I would invoke the opposite. Playing at the origins of the game almost you had a small party of 3-5 PCs. The RULE was you NEVER went without a cleric, ever. You HAD to have front line guys, and having a thief and a wizard was quite important. If any of these things was not present then you WERE expected to hire henchmen or hirelings to fill the gap. A party without 3-5 men-at-arms to stick in the front was delusional and suicidal. If you lacked a wizard, cleric or a thief you absolutely hired one. If that was IMPOSSIBLE then you either changed your adventuring plans or perhaps if you were lucky you could buy some healing potions and do without the cleric on a makeshift basis (figuring that you'd come back to town for Remove Curse, which you couldn't cast yourselves yet anyway).

The roles were a little fuzzier in their mapping than in 4e days, but not that much. Fighters were 'bricks' that went up front and ground on the bad guys or blocked the door. Thieves were either artillery or if they got in a good position backstabbers that tried to take out the most dangerous foe, the cleric blessed, cast PFE 10'r, or CLW as needed, and maybe subbed as a 'defender'. The wizard wrapped up half the bad guys in a Web, put them to sleep for a couple rounds, charmed one, or etc.

While its hard to prove now exactly the degree to which all this was articulated, it is VERY true that we were all quite aware of it. We'd all played Chainmail or other TT tactical wargames and understood those principles and applied them. Half the guys I gamed with were Army, they knew it all from training, and there was little doubt that they used those concepts in gaming. In fact I even took the ROTC wargaming class in college for an easy credit. That's EXACTLY what they taught us, right out of Army Field Manual something-or-other.

 

[mellored]

does it really matter where the idea came from?