D&D 5E Boop

[Fenris-77]

I also think it's important not to get too caught up in the 4e version of the class, which was built for a very different game.

 

[Garthanos]

I also think it's important not to get too caught up in the 4e version of the class, which was built for a very different game.

Supposedly this version of the game is less nailed down by roles and the like and characters can pick their own weave within the story of the fight but to me it looks more nailed down and prescriptive at times ( damage damage all damage every day ). On the other hand I have not seen any convincing arguments that the 4e Warlord is too powerful for 5e nor really that its abilities arent already floating around in 5e.

In fact maybe it can actually fit the concept of Warlord even better than the 4e one but I do not think it will ever do so if it is artificially limited by thinking of it as something other than the team player

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Meh that is the opposite of Warlord the concept of Warlord is "TEAM" coordinating a team what you are describing is that battlemaster fighter subclass ie he doesn't see the whole scene nor understand how their interaction is where they get there awesome and makes them greater than an individual. This is not an utterly consistent element and one can probably easily choose to be more focused but it is dramatically a missing element for that Battlemaster who has to use huge resources to affect more than 1.

?

The sentence you quoted was specifically addressing how the mechanics for a couple of single-target spells might be justified when converted for a warlord. - Specifically addressing the "determining who's affected" part of Tony's post in his conversation with me about those spells.

Not a suggestion regarding general warlord capabilities or theme.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I also think it's important not to get too caught up in the 4e version of the class, which was built for a very different game.

Sure, 4e class designs were more-nearly balanced and focused on clearly defined roles. A direct port of a 4e class to 5e would be wildly underpowered, like Class Tier 5, probably.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's true, however I was also indexing some smaller design features, like target X allies, which play out differently depending on how much focus is placed on grid combat. A 5e Warlord needs to be functional without the grid, which calls for a different design approach, at least in part.

 

[Garthanos]

?

The sentence you quoted was specifically addressing how the mechanics for a couple of single-target spells might be justified when converted for a warlord. - Specifically addressing the "determining who's affected" part of Tony's post in his conversation with me about those spells.

Not a suggestion regarding general warlord capabilities or theme.

Got you I took it too broadly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Grid Dependence" was a popular grousing point of my fellow grognards when annoyed by the existence of 3.x & 4e, but it's really pretty meaningless, mainly a matter of jargon and convenience.

For instance, in...
3e you'd say "5' step,"
4e "shift 1"
5e "Disengage and move 5 feet."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As was said in the Dunamancy from Wildemount thread;

"Chess-piece opponents around the battlefield to where you want them to be"

Calling it: Graviturgist = Warlord

 

[Garthanos]

"Grid Dependence" was a popular grousing point of my fellow grognards when annoyed by the existence of 3.x & 4e, but it's really pretty meaningless, mainly a matter of jargon and convenience.

For instance, in...
3e you'd say "5' step,"
4e "shift 1"
5e "Disengage and move 5 feet."

4e various abilities allowed shifting far greater distance they were about avoiding opportunity attacks of course. Very few things besides flanking are very specific about location.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wasn't really talking about the jargon. When you're on a grind all the time it's always exactly obvious who's within what of whom. That makes it easier to say two allies within X or whatever for an ability. When you aren't playing on a grid the decision making is offloaded on the DM. My suggestion is that we avoid doing too much of that because the class will end up being a pain in ass to DM for, which probably shouldn't be one of the design goals. This isn't a barrier to service, but more of a game ergonomics issue.