D&D 5E D&D podcast!

Of course in the novel I can't tell who's a PC.

Yup. We can't tell who's a PC. Who has HP, or how many. Who has what game-abilities (except perhaps broadly). We don't know who has what aspects or when they are being tagged...sorry, wrong board.

I don't agree. A former class that is now being supported by integration into an existing class, in circumstances where other equally-integrable classes are not being integrated, is likely to have fewer of its former abilities replicable, less ongoing support (both at the mechanical and the story level), etc.

Nor will any class compared to their 4e version. 5e is (so far) stripping down the number of fiddly bits and their fiddliness. (Despite what has been recently said, I will be stunned if alternative or additional sets of spells, maneuvers and the like don't appear in later products. Though they may be reduced.)

Well, quite. That's the real reason why I think the 4e-style warlord won't figure in D&Dnext.

<snippage>
You can tighten up the warlord's abilities to make them less-metagamey: for instance you could say that the extra attack is always due to alerting an ally to an opportunity (some will still say that's too metagame-y, because it's a player occupying director stance), so that use of the ability corresponds to a PC choice and an ingame causal process. But it will follow from that that the ability must be at-will. And hence must be limited in power. And hence probably won't recover the full scope of the existing warlord's operations. And that's before we get to healing!

I've tried to explain above why I think the warlord brings metagame mechanics along with it. Also see posts 202 and 203 above (my post, @Campbell 's reply).

I didn't know that Mearls had talked about fate points. I agree that integrating that sort of stuff into classes is pretty key to 4e, so a generic fate point system is likely to play fairly differently.

That seems to be mostly how people use it. I just find it odd since "abstract" is a perfectly good word and seems to cover that better. (Heck, if it didn't have the baggage, "dissociated" would be better.) Especially since D&D can involve issues and problems that are actually "metagame" by the usual usage. e.g. "We need a cleric." or "We're not using that supplement."

I (along with everyone else) am not really sure how adding blanket "metagame" mechanics to the game will make it play. Certainly its possible. People have been adding FATE aspects and FP to D&D since sometime shortly after FATE first came out. ::shrug:: I've been surprised before, though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I love crit hits / miss cards. That was one of the funnest things about my intro to Pathfinder back in '11. Hope they come back, to gruesome effect!
 

In my case, I'm meaning mechanics which have at least one of three features, and often (maybe always? - I haven't thought it through) all of them:
(1) The mechanic operates in the first instance upon the game mechanics rather than the imaginary space;

(2) The mechanic does not itself model any causal process in the gameworld;

(3) The use of the mechanic is a player decision that does not correlate to any decision by the PC.​


That's not a bad framework, but I think the distinction drawn between many class features is based on a subjective level of comfort hand-waving how vague details are. People seem really comfortable with waiving away the causality and details of meta-physical actions (spells), but take a stridently opposite position with physical actions because, hey, physics.

(1) The Haste spell operates clearly upon an object in the imginary space - the target of the spell starts acting faster, like Quicksilver or The Flash;

(1) The use of the ability operates primarily upon the game mechanics, and especially the action economy - we don't know, for instance, whether the extra attack roll is due to fighting harder, or smarter, or more quickly, or more luckily (for a Princess build);

See, I think this is where the subjective preferences guiding arbitrary hand-waiving. "Move faster," begs the question "how much faster?" and carries physics baggage about "what are the consequences of moving faster." These are hand-waived as "magic" because the ultimate point isn't a simulation, it's a meta-game construct - get an extra attack and movement. Things like the consequences to your body, mind, and equipment due to moving that much faster are discarded because they aren't germane to the meta-game goal of the spell's effects. Occasionally, depending on the spell version, they throw you a bone with something like aging as a side-effect.

On the other hand, look at the standard for the Warlord. Attacking is already abstracted into Rounds without the Warlord. There is no physical "swing sword once," assumption in the imaginary space. The imaginary space is already abstract. Modifying an abstract concept just continues the abstraction. Haste gives you more or better opportunities in the abstraction due to speed. Direct the Strike gives you more or better opportunities due to communication.

(2) The mechanical resolution of the Haste spell models a process in the gameworld, namely, the PC caster using magic to make the target of the spell become faster;

"Using magic" doesn't qualify as a process. It's horribly vague, and I'm accepting of that. I think people should be just as accepting of vague (or flexible) process models for non-casters. It's a bad double-standard that comes back to "simulation-based restrictions for thee, but not for me," among the classes that's bad for the game.

But it will follow from that that the ability must be at-will. And hence must be limited in power.

Everything has to be limited in power. The whole "at-will" vs. "encounter" vs. "daily" argument is a red herring because it's completely tangent to the warlord. The "use limit" economy is linked to the game framework, not any particular class. Between the Marshall and the Warlord we've seen implemented classes in for both AEDU and A/D frameworks.

Once a framework is set, you can build an appropriately balanced Warlord / Marshall / Tactician on it.

And hence probably won't recover the full scope of the existing warlord's operations.

I think "full scope" may be misapplied here. The Warlord didn't copy over every existing feature of the Marshall that came before him either. The Fighter in Next lacks Weapon Specialization, Bonus Feats, Iterative Attacks, and Marking. No class carries over every existing feature of all its incarnations prior to Next.

And that's before we get to healing!

Which is really just a matter of the tangent of "I do/don't like the abstracted damage / resilience that HP have explicitly represented in every edition of D&D." The reason magical healing doesn't get dragged into the muck with non-magical healing is that it gets hand-waved. You still see conflict on the fringes though - you can arbitrarily erase mortal wounds (horribly vague - is this blood loss, organ failure, or disembowelment, or what?) on the one hand but you can't reattach severed fingers without a different spell because - er - metaga- LOOKOUTBEHINDYOUAMONKEY!

However important the tangent argument over what the mechanical framework should be, it isn't an existential question to the Warlord. You give him a framework and the mechanics get tweaked accordingly - like every other class. Can't non-magically heal after the fact? Have damage prevention instead, and tweak the raw numbers upward to compensate for reduced flexibility. It isn't a question of "can I" or "what do I" so much as "how do I?"​
 
Last edited:


Modifying an abstract concept just continues the abstraction. Haste gives you more or better opportunities in the abstraction due to speed. Direct the Strike gives you more or better opportunities due to communication.

Actually, it gives you more or better opportunities due to supernatural, or as you put it "meta-physical," speed. Is Direct the Strike giving you more or better opportunities because of supernatural communication?

I think you summed up yourself why some folks don't like magic or supernatural causes having the exact same mechanical effects as purely physical causes:
People seem really comfortable with waiving away the causality and details of meta-physical actions (spells), but take a stridently opposite position with physical actions because, hey, physics.

So, to try and please both sides of the warlord debate [not gonna happen of course] I'd say at least whatever it is should have a mechanic that works a little differently than a spell. Damage prevention instead of direct healing, as you suggested, may be a good start.
 


Actually, it gives you more or better opportunities due to supernatural, or as you put it "meta-physical," speed. Is Direct the Strike giving you more or better opportunities because of supernatural communication?

I hate the term "supernatural" because it can be used two different ways: 1.) possible within the natural order of the Real World, 2.) possible without the use of Magic in the Game World.

At any rate, there's no magic involved in the Warlord granting those opportunities. It's a function of using his personal acumen and directing his attention towards a task - likely at the expense of something else he could have done with his time and mental effort.

So, to try and please both sides of the warlord debate [not gonna happen of course] I'd say at least whatever it is should have a mechanic that works a little differently than a spell. Damage prevention instead of direct healing, as you suggested, may be a good start.

You get more variety, anyway. In most ways its a meaningless nit to pick, but if it makes people happy without adversely impacting the viability of play you might as well throw them a bone. ;)

Where, where? Damn it, I missed it. Not fair.

A wizard did it! That makes it fair automatically. ;D

- Marty Lund
 

I hate the term "supernatural" because it can be used two different ways: 1.) possible within the natural order of the Real World, 2.) possible without the use of Magic in the Game World.
I prefer the term "preternatural" for abilities that exceed human bounds but aren't unbelievable by our natural laws. Like taking 5 bullets but still functional, or super-speed, or super-strength.
"Supernatural" is for stuff that just can't happen normally, like shooting fire beams out of your eyes or making devils appear out of thin air.
 
Last edited:



I hate the term "supernatural" because it can be used two different ways: 1.) possible within the natural order of the Real World, 2.) possible without the use of Magic in the Game World.

At any rate, there's no magic involved in the Warlord granting those opportunities. It's a function of using his personal acumen and directing his attention towards a task - likely at the expense of something else he could have done with his time and mental effort.



You get more variety, anyway. In most ways its a meaningless nit to pick, but if it makes people happy without adversely impacting the viability of play you might as well throw them a bone. ;)



A wizard did it! That makes it fair automatically. ;D

- Marty Lund

Fair enough. For myself, I'd like "supernatural" to be:1.) impossible within the natural order of the Real World, 2.) impossible without the use of Magic in the Game World.

And I'd agree, there should be no magic involved in what the Warlord does.

You get more variety, anyway. In most ways its a meaningless nit to pick,

It's not as meaningless to some as to others.
It's why I don't get so upset and enraged that Mearls could deign to say a warlord "yells a hand back on." He's using hyperbole. We all know hit points don't model amputations, but what if he said "yell a stab wound closed"?
Hit points are vague and can refer to any number of things: physical wound or fatigue, etc.
Magic healing can heal physical wounds or fatigue or determination, etc.
If, mechanically, inspirational healing is exactly the same as magical healing who's to say it's not doing the same exact thing?

Well we all are, obviously, but there's nothing to stop some obnoxious rules lawyer not as versed in the minutia of the rules theory to make argument at the game table based on mechanics and then when he gets shot down argue "well it's all the same mechanically anyway so what do you care?" thus not only annoying the hell out of everyone but also ruining the "immersion" some guys claim to enjoy so much.*
Yes, yes I know this is a corner case, but what would be so awful if there was different mechanic that more accurately described inspirational healing for those who want it?

*Wait, is that how people heard Mearls' comments on the podcast? If so I guess I can better understand some of the offense taken.
 

Remove ads

Top