D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Gimby]

No. Commander's Strike, "With a shout, you command an ally to attack."

"Hit it Joe!" from a buddy isn't the same as your boss ordering you to do something. The Battle Master is not a leader and isn't designed to boss others around, even if it has one ability that comes close. The 4e Warlord is Leader with tons of abilities that center on bossing the party around.

Basically it's the difference between my exclaiming, "Quick X, bring some more paper towels!" as I use the ones I have to try and stop a spill, and your boss saying, "X, there's a spill on aisle 1, go clean it up. There are paper towels in the break room." The former isn't trying to be a boss of you. The latter is.

Ok, so given that the 4e version is a Melee power with a range of your melee weapon reach, requiring you to be in the thick of it to use while the 5e version is ranged at one character who can see and hear you, it seems much more like the 4e version is the buddy one and the 5e is the boss one. One needs to have the "mop" in hand, one can be done from a chair 30 yards away.

I really do get your overall point that you've got an aesthetic objection to a "bossy" character, but the bulk of Warlord powers were weapon attacks, meaning you were always in the thick of it contributing. The "Princess/Cheerleader" build wasn't really possible until quite a few more powers had been published.

 

[Remathilis]

4e and 5e didn't alter the setting to fit the system because they had to, they did it because of a conscious design decision that the system was the game and the setting was just stage dressing.

Yes. And its a decision I agree with 110%. We're going to just disagree on this.

 

[DammitVictor]

...okay...but...i don't really see the problem in, say, reflavouring commander's strike from a command to pointing out a gap in an enemy's defense that ally can exploit, or flavour text changes along those lines.

I mean, sure. As far as I follow the argument-- I'm only seeing one side of it-- the main problem with the power is whether or not the power can compel an ally into an unwanted action, or if it only grants the ally a bonus if they take the action. The Warlord power says that the target ally can make a basic attack with a bonus, but it doesn't contain any language-- in the coded mechanics or the "flavor" text-- that indicates the ally has to.

So what if is a "command"? As long as the targeted ally has a hand free, giving the Warlord the middle finger is a free action.

 

[Lanefan]

Except all you agreed to was that it was easier to follow whoever was in front. Why is that (perfectly real effect) a problem?

Frankly, it comes across as your playstyle being openly hostile to the very idea of teamwork. "Ew! No! Then I might accidentally do something because someone told me to, and not exclusively because I wanted to!" Someone else coming up with a plan automatically motivates you to disrupt that plan, simply because following it would mean you had subordinated yourself to them.

Not to that extreme, but that pretty much sums up my real-life personality as well.

I've never liked anyone telling me what to do, even less so when they can't provide a good reason or rationale for doing (or not doing) that thing if not already obvious.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yes. And its a decision I agree with 110%. We're going to just disagree on this.

You, and the rest of the D&D fandom that I no longer belong to because of it. For the reasons I've stated.

I'm perfectly content to disagree with you on this, but I'm not going to do so silently when my opinion is actually relevant to the topic of discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

reminds me of some of those DnD horror stories about how 'the atheist party member refused to be healed by my cleric'

Flip side: I once played a Cleric who refused to heal anyone not of her faith. Nobody else in the party was of her faith, and they didn't want to convert.

She didn't make it through her first adventure; the enemies got her, but had they not the other party members were lining up to kill her...

 

[Lanefan]

But now another player has influenced my decision, which is a horrible violation of player agency! /s

The difference, though (and without sarcasm), is that magical mind control vs another PC tends to fall squarely into CvC (or PvP) territory, where the martial controlling abilities for some reason do not.

 

[Alzrius]

Leading to arguments like "I didn't choose Cleric for the obligations, I chose it for the powers" and "the PHB only says druids don't wear metal armor, not that they can't"... which people might argue are subjective playstyle/culture preferences, but which I would argue are objective faults in the ruleset-as-written, and a mindset that is so corrosive to my desired playstyle (regardless of what game we're playing) that I will not countenance it at my table. I don't mind practically any degree of mechanical optimization in my games, but when you combine mechanical legalism with disregard for narrative constraints, the result is something that is no longer a roleplaying game.

This is somewhat tangential (and specific) to what you were saying, but things like that remind me of 3.5's Magic Item Compendium.

For the most part, I loved that book. Yes, it had several pages of errata fixing specific instances of its central conceit (i.e. the prices of magic items) but its design philosophy was a thing of beauty. The very fact that it was one of the previews for the book, rather than the book itself, which gave us the term "Big Six" was a perfect demonstration of that, giving a name to an aspect of play that most of us were aware of but struggled to articulate. Throw in its points about lowering the price of "sexier" items so they could be picked up alongside the useful ones, and how adding some of the most common enchantments to existing items shouldn't bring in a cost multiplier, alongside numerous other brilliant points, made it a very valuable addition to the game. To this day, I think it's a shame that it came out near the end of 3.5's life and that its ideas were never released under the OGL.

But then we come to the fly in the ointment, as shown in the second preview (emphasis mine):

In some cases, the fixes were pretty simple; in others, they required more mental gymnastics. I’ve collected three of the entries from my list of items from the DMG II to explain the reasoning behind some of the changes.

1. Domain draught: remove last sentence of effect; change price to 3,000 gp

This example shows two kinds of fixes we made. The most obvious one is the price—less than half the item’s original 8,000 gp cost. While gaining access to a domain’s granted power and spell list is pretty useful, this is just a one-shot item that doesn’t dramatically increase the character’s power level. Dropping the price to a mere 3,000 gp means you still think twice about downing one of these, but it’s now viable to a much broader range of characters.

The other fix is more delicate and goes to the item’s playability. Here’s the original sentence in question: “If the imbiber gains access to a domain that is opposed to her alignment and prepares domain spells from its list, she might need to atone for that deed (DM’s discretion).” Removing that sentence eliminates a statement that put the DM in the position of having to adjudicate the effectiveness of the item. While DM adjudications are a crucial part of the game, there’s no need for the rules to go out of their way to complicate his life.

That last paragraph just drives me up the wall every time I read it. No no no you should not give clerics the ability to grossly violate their god's tenets with impunity like that! The original version of the sentence gave the DM leeway ("might need" and "DM's discretion") already! Removing that does nothing except make their job harder, and damage the game's verisimilitude. It makes me shake my head and sigh at the idea that its the rules that are "go[ing] out of their way" to complicate the DM's life, rather than the player doing something they know goes against the ethos of their character without consequence.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not to that extreme, but that pretty much sums up my real-life personality as well.

I've never liked anyone telling me what to do, even less so when they can't provide a good reason or rationale for doing (or not doing) that thing if not already obvious.

that your characters are all in a fight for your lives is not a good enough reason to take the extra attack?

 

[Lanefan]

that your characters are all in a fight for your lives is not a good enough reason to take the extra attack?

Take the extra attack? Sure (assuming I get to choose the target, if a choice exists).

Move to my left when I'd rather go right as that's where I - rightly or wrongly - see the tactical advantage? No. I'm going right.