D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

Absolutely agreed.

The ironic thing here is that by 5e standards the 4e warlord is a pretty good defender.

One of the more offensively minded warlords (a bravura warlord or tactical warlord for example) might fit pretty well.

And for the record as @FrogReaver is apparently largely ignorant of the types of warlord, a bravura warlord granted attacks without being a remotely lazy warlord. Instead they lead from the front and offered the enemy chances to hit them - but if the enemy took them then the warlord's allies also got free attacks on the distracted enemies. Lazy didn't refer to granting attacks - it referred to the character themselves never making attacks. And Bravura Warlords were normally far more dangerous than Lazy Warlords - at the cost of themselves going down much more often.

Am not, and i don’t appreciate it you making this personal.

I have no problem with the Bravura Warlord annd yes I did know what it was as conceptually it’s my favorite, though I wasn’t ans happy with its mechanics overall.

Also, No problem with attack granting in general.

There are 4e lazylords and 4e all other warlords (henceforth known by the term warlord).

 

[Zardnaar]

Problem with Warlord is it doesn't work in 5E with its at will attack crant8ng.

Something like an order cleric/battlemaster coukd come close but in 5E the rogue already exists.

So to make the warlord work you limit it (not at will), break the game or redesign the paradigm.

WotC seems to be nerfing the rogues sneak attack so wouldn't work on OneD&D anyway.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Problem with Warlord is it doesn't work in 5E with its at will attack crant8ng.

Why not?

And not all warlords granted attacks. The key function shared by all warlords and that the Battlemaster fails to do is recovering hp to send people back into the fight. That's not something that "doesn't work in 5e"

Something like an order cleric/battlemaster coukd come close but in 5E the rogue already exists.

And? Reactions are a thing. So is making it work as an attack action.

 

[Umbran]

Enough to justify advocating taking that away form those who enjoy it and had it previously?

Justify, in what sense? Ethically? In a business/economic sense?

Ethically, I don't hold to the idea that we are entitled to much. My relationship with the company is largely transactional. If they put out a product I like, I buy it. If the next book I don't like, I don't buy it, and I don't feel any need to have anyone "justify" the differences.

Business justification? Well, current results are perhaps the greatest success in RPG history, so I don't think there's a strong argument that removing it was particularly harmful.

Especially when 5e actually does have a feat called Inspiring Leader, regardless of how lackluster it is?

One feat is not "especially" anything, to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Problem with Warlord is it doesn't work in 5E with its at will attack crant8ng.

Something like an order cleric/battlemaster coukd come close but in 5E the rogue already exists.

So to make the warlord work you limit it (not at will), break the game or redesign the paradigm.

WotC seems to be nerfing the rogues sneak attack so wouldn't work on OneD&D anyway.

WotC reversed course on the last one

The truth is there really is nothing the 4e warlord does that 5e can't handle.

1. Brash Assault is jus Reckless Attack but you give it to enemies
2. Commander's Strike is in 5e as Short Rest. WOTC is allowing for at will at high level.
3. Furious Smash is just "if you hit, deal STr damage as an ally gets +Cha to their next attack.
4. Viper Strike just cancels enemy Disengage
5. 5e has HD just allow for HD healing in battle with a bonus.

The biggest hurdle is tracking bonuses and 5e handles that better than 4e: advantage and disadvantage.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why not?

And not all warlords granted attacks. The key function shared by all warlords and that the Battlemaster fails to do is recovering hp to send people back into the fight. That's not something that "doesn't work in 5e"

And? Reactions are a thing. So is making it work as an attack action.

It's because the rogue exists. I'm currently playing an order cleric gave seem vatlenasters doing same thing.

WotC is indicating they're removing being able to do it with rogues. It's really good btw death house wast that hard.

 

[Zardnaar]

WotC reversed course on the last one

The truth is there really is nothing the 4e warlord does that 5e can't handle.

1. Brash Assault is jus Reckless Attack but you give it to enemies
2. Commander's Strike is in 5e as Short Rest. WOTC is allowing for at will at high level.
3. Furious Smash is just "if you hit, deal STr damage as an ally gets +Cha to their next attack.
4. Viper Strike just cancels enemy Disengage
5. 5e has HD just allow for HD healing in battle with a bonus.

The biggest hurdle is tracking bonuses and 5e handles that better than 4e: advantage and disadvantage.

Ah good. I'm fibe with it I don't see them allowing it at will though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Justify, in what sense? Ethically? In a business/economic sense?

Ethically, I don't hold to the idea that we are entitled to much. My relationship with the company is largely transactional. If they put out a product I like, I buy it. If the next book I don't like, I don't buy it, and I don't feel any need to have anyone "justify" the differences.

Business justification? Well, current results are perhaps the greatest success in RPG history, so I don't think there's a strong argument that removing it was particularly harmful.

This exchange started with one poster asserting that an inspiring leader type is not a valid fantasy to be allowed to have representation in D&D. It has nothing to do with what WoTC is not doing.

One feat is not "especially" anything, to me.

It's better than a lot of archetypes got in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

This exchange started with one poster asserting that an inspiring leader type is not a valid fantasy to be allowed to have representation in D&D. It has nothing to do with what WoTC is not doing.

It's better than a lot of archetypes got in 5e.

Insiring leader us fine but the people kinda insist on the 4E warlord.

3E had auras, Bard thing and SWSE had the noble. Sone OSR games have bards and Knights doing something similar.

5E also allows it.

How one does it seems to be tge argument.

 

[Minigiant]

Ah good. I'm fibe with it I don't see them allowing it at will though.

In the current playtest a level 15 battlemaster fighter can once per turn use a maneuver for free by rolling a d8 instead of a d10 or d12.

Just scale that down.

d6 at level 7 and d4 at level 2.