D&D 5E Boop

[Fenris-77]

There thanks for an explanation TOTM is massively more work on a new DM which is also a new player it also requires an arena of assumed trust. Note I am not saying D&D shouldn't support it just that it doesn't really look to be doing the legwork so that DM isnt heavily burdened.

This is a perspective thing, not a fact. I find narrative play to be less work than heavy grid use. I find heavy grid use slows the game down enormously and, in certain respects, limits player agency and creativity. That's my game and my experiences though. However, the point was the D&D is both, not one or the other and that class design should take that into account. That doesn't look any one way, or mean anything specific, just that it should be a criteria (amongst many) against which class design decisions are measured.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

This is a perspective thing, not a fact. I find narrative play to be less work than heavy grid use.

Are you a new DM who just picked up a book with everything with specific described distances and area of effects and so on? I agree it is a perspective thing.

Onward
I dispute there is MORE requirement for distances with specificity inherent in a Warlord class than spells and weapon ranges and the like inherently require.

A wizard creates a zone on the battlefield which every single other players turn creates inherent who is where questions the DM has to adjudicate that player wants to push someone into that zone an obvious repercussion of that Wizards spell as long as it lasts which can easily be the entire fight or suddenly its gone and he made a new one etc.

I feel like 5e Warlords are held to a standard other classes already existing never were. In other words sure ward against super speficity I suppose but the examples from the previous edition was no more tied to those things than spells are and have been. It didnt use an aura as its base class effect but rather individual exploits had that.

Presence in the 4e warlord... had no range or area just can you see the warlord.

 

[Garthanos]

duplicate

 

[Fenris-77]

Are you a new DM who just picked up a book with everything with specific described distances and area of effects and so on? I agree it is a perspective thing.

Um, obviously not, but I was a new DM once, and when I was a new DM the game was all narrative, grid maps weren't a thing. It worked fine. Back to the Warlord though...

It's not about holding the class to a different standard, it's about ensuring that it meets the basic standards of 5e design, which means being playable both on and off a grid. I've already explained, in some detail, what aspects of the Warlord could potentially be problematic there, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Garthanos]

Um, obviously not, but I was a new DM once, and when I was a new DM the game was all narrative, grid maps weren't a thing. It worked fine. Back to the Warlord though...

The odds of a new DM trying to follow all those precise numbers seems likely high when presented them in every part of the game to me. None of the 5e DMs I know are new DMs poor source of anecdotes. I used pen an paper notes myself when I became a DM and that it hasnt changed often but I had seen other DMs calculating the exact deformation of a fireball because those were in the rules. Shrug. Deciding off the cuff seems something long term dms will be more comfortable with to me.

It's not about holding the class to a different standard, it's about ensuring that it meets the basic standards of 5e design, which means being playable both on and off a grid. I've already explained, in some detail, what aspects of the Warlord could potentially be problematic there, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

I think Mearles made it more persnickity with his admittedly a subclass design which included the Warlords focus which was an area of effect where he manipulating things. If that is a tactical thing the core presence could be more like 4es helps everyone who can see him for basic effect which they inspire (like a certain bard ability)

 

[Fenris-77]

You aren't really addressing the core of my position. It isn't that one ability or the other is an issue, it's that having too many abilities that require precise distance information every turn can be a problem. Some of the Warlord's abilities are necessarily going to involve precise distance, but what I'm suggesting is that the design should take pains to not make every ability like that.

You keep referencing other 5e mechanics, like AoE spells, or Bardic Inspiration, but none of those happen every turn. What I'm worried about is essentially, a fireball, a cantip, and an aura, all with different distances to different targets that all need to be calculated every turn, just for the one character. It's too much, and the class doesn't have to be designed that way. Some of the abilities can be simple LoS, or earshot, or there could be less variation in the distances involved. There are lots of possible answers, and I'm not trying to rule anything out.

 

[Garthanos]

You aren't really addressing the core of my position. It isn't that one ability or the other is an issue, it's that having too many abilities that require precise distance information every turn can be a problem.

Some of the Warlord's abilities are necessarily going to involve precise distance, but what I'm suggesting is that the design should take pains to not make every ability like that.

OK but why is it likely to be designed that way? It didnt happen in 4e. Allies which attack the same enemy you attack get bonus X a pretty common abiity formula. Dailies of which one got 4 a day seem likely to have higher positional complexity.
In 5e or 4e a Wizard can create zones that involve distancing and location of every players turn of the entire battle (or as long as maintained or concentration holds) not many Warlord abilities have anything like that. Once on a given players turn versus everyones turn.

And I was mentioning Bardic inspiration as being like the 4e Warlord abilitiy which also didnt happen every turn not an example of positional detail required but exactly the opposite.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you focus too much on individual abilities, without keeping the bigger picture in mind that's exactly how it could end up looking. I'm just saying we should keep a careful eye on the bigger picture.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Some of the Warlord's abilities are necessarily going to involve precise distance

Any class that cast spells or can use ranged weapons is going to involve precise distances, that's just 5e, and, obviously, every class.

But, in concept, a lot of warlording consists of interaction with allies - inspiration, tactical coordination, warnings, &c ' - which might not suggest precise distance as a limiting factor.

You keep referencing other 5e mechanics, like AoE spells, or Bardic Inspiration, but none of those happen every turn.

The Paladin's aura is there every turn, for just one example.

Some of the abilities can be simple LoS, or earshot, or there could be less variation in the distances involved.

Certainly. Though it's important to keep in mind that 5e has different design principles, it's worth noting that, in 4e the Warlord's signature build (sub-class) feature used LoS or earshot, and, in general range/area were not as granular/varied, neither in distance, nor shape, for that matter.

Also, doesn't seem to have much bearing the relative merits of extant 5e classes as a design-template 'chassis.'