D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Lyxen]

So it's hardly a surprise that one then goes on to learn of a class feature called Commanding Presence.

No one doubts that, I liked playing warlords for that reason. It still does not explain how it HEALS people, as per the 4e definition, that's all. This is where the pure gamist perspective comes in.

I would also add: the earliest version of a warlord-type ability published for D&D that I know of are the abilities of a Good Cavalier, as presented in UA, to (i) act while at negative hit points, (ii) to heal an additional d4 hp per week of healing, and (iii) to make all allied creatures within 10' immune to fear.

And it has nothing to do with healing others. Also, just because other editions had mechanistical gamist effects does not excuse other editions to do so as well, they are typed exactly the same way.

 

[Nefermandias]

Huh?

FIrst, there is this on p 143 - the introduction to the Warlord class description:

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight.​

So it's hardly a surprise that one then goes on to learn of a class feature called Commanding Presence. And the description, if one were needed, is in the name - the character has a commanding presence. Furthermore, one is called Tactical Presence and is INT based - so we can work out that it involves the urging of one's allies to use clever tactics - while the other is called Inspiring Presence and is CHA based - so we can infer that it involves rousing one's allies to further action, and urging them on.

With similar economy, Moldvay Basic has no description of the Fireball spell beyond "This spell creates a missile of fire that explodes into a ball of fire 40' diameter when it strikes a target" (p B18). It's a virtue of 4e, especially pre-Essentials, that it eschews overwrought prose and relies on crisp mechanical presentation to make clear what the fiction is.

I would also add: the earliest version of a warlord-type ability published for D&D that I know of are the abilities of a Good Cavalier, as presented in UA, to (i) act while at negative hit points, (ii) to heal an additional d4 hp per week of healing, and (iii) to make all allied creatures within 10' immune to fear.

Speaking of Moldvay's Basic (which by the way, is one of my favorite versions of this game alongside 4e), it's funny how it has rules like "monsters in the dungeon are always able to see in the dark" and "doors will slam shut on their own after you leave a room" and yet, you never see people complaining about B/X having dissociated mechanics. There has to be something more than just that going on.

To me, one of the best feature of both B/X and 4e is that those games don't try to hide the fact that they are games. As a DM, I have the necessary imagination to weave pretty much any narrative that I think is best for the story, but when it comes to applying the actual mechanics, I prefer my systems clear and unambiguous. I expect the rulebooks to give me a complete and funcional game. Fluff and fiction I can handle myself.

That's just me, though.

 

[pemerton]

That's just me, though.

No, it's not just you!

 

[wicked cool]

the problem with D&D is its turn based. If its not your turn for the most part you are just sitting there waiting to be attacked-Doesnt really fit a movie

How you could change it
if you attack the goblin the goblin also rolls to attack-its a vs roll and theres a chance when you attack you lose and can take damage (melee)

the ability to dodge-the goblin raises its bow across the room. i dont have a chance to dodge/hide behind a rock etc?

if theres 10 goblins vs 1 the goblin that attacks gets a bonus for outnumbering you

Maybe make advantage dice happen more often. Its the 12th barbarian and fighter vs the goblin (you have advantage on all dice rolls)

 

[pemerton]

my perspective is that retcons look stupid narratively speaking.

You mean like the Shield spell in 5e D&D?

4e defines regaining hit points as healing.

Per page 55 of the 4e PHB, which lists a number of keywords: Healing: Powers that restore hit points. And p 293 tells us that

Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation. . . .

Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic.​

There is no ambiguity or mystery here. One of the things hit points represent is resolve. One of the ways characters regain hit points (= heal) is by way of heroic resolve.

It's utterly clear what is happening when a warlord speaks an Inspiring Word, a cleric speaks a Healing Word, etc.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Inspiring word:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother.

Healing word:
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height.

Majestic word:
There is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.

 

[Lyxen]

To me, one of the best feature of both B/X and 4e is that those games don't try to hide the fact that they are games. As a DM, I have the necessary imagination to weave pretty much any narrative that I think is best for the story, but when it comes to applying the actual mechanics, I prefer my systems clear and unambiguous. I expect the rulebooks to give me a complete and funcional game. Fluff and fiction I can handle myself.

That's just me, though.

Yes it is, it's good to have preferences and to express them, it's just that mine are different, if I want to play a wargame or a board game, I play a wargame or a board game, but if I want to play a roleplaying game, it's better for me to have a system that supports storytelling and roleplaying and in particular that does not dissociate too much the mechanics in and out of combat, because that is extremely artificial and does not happen in books and movies of the genre. It's harder to do with D&D than with other systems because of some ancestral mechanics like the turn base, but it's not black and white either, and I prefer systems that do not rely too much on the actual mechanics and leave room for interpretation.

 

[pemerton]

if I want to play a roleplaying game, it's better for me to have a system that supports storytelling and roleplaying

Who do you think you're contrasting with here?

I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing that prompted @FrogReaver's OP.

 

[Lyxen]

You mean like the Shield spell in 5e D&D?

It is declared before the attack is resolved, and therefore before it is described as successful or not, so no retcon.

Per page 55 of the 4e PHB, which lists a number of keywords: Healing: Powers that restore hit points. And p 293 tells us that

Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation. . . .​

​

Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic.​

There is no ambiguity or mystery here. One of the things hit points represent is resolve. One of the ways characters regain hit points (= heal) is by way of heroic resolve.

It's utterly clear what is happening when a warlord speaks an Inspiring Word, a cleric speaks a Healing Word, etc.

Except that this paradigm is specific to 4e and matches nothing in fiction of the genre, where at least some magic is used. This is why, although it's a mechanic, it's only a mechanic, it's fictionless in and of itself. It was all well and good to invent a "martial" power, but like a lot of things in 4e, they did not make it more than a mechanic, creating a rift between the really magical effects that it produces and the descriptions of what is being done.

 

[Lyxen]

Who do you think you're contrasting with here?

I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing that prompted @FrogReaver's OP.

For me it's slightly different, there is the system, and there is the way that you are using the system, when it's open-ended. 4e is not that open-ended, it's extremely formal, but 5e is much more open-ended. The problem is that the OP is using 5e in the most fictionless way possible and is therefore getting a fictionless result. But, contrary to 4e (which does not make it impossible, only harder), it is much easier to be more fictionfull in 5e, you just need to make the corresponding decisions in using the system.