Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!

[Remathilis]

[snip]. In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it. As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices. Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming.

This man is wise. It would behoove you all to listen to his words.

 

[HeinorNY]

Totally agreed. The fighter doesn't know that one of his powers does 2W, and another does 3w+6, but he does know one hits harder than the other. A rogue doesn't know 'that other rogue has an extra 2d6 SA' he knows 'that rogue is better than I am at taking advantage of opponent's screwups'. The barbarian doesn't know that the wizard has only a +4 fortitude save, but he does know that he's alot more resistant to magical effects that attack the body and poison. In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it. As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices. Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming

This. I was going to post exactly about this POV, so I'll just add a though to it.

The same way the fighter does not know his power does 2W, he also may not even define that specific action as a "Power". Martial powers are called exploits and not maneuvers, and I think, being a concidence or not, it helps this way of rationalizing.

The martial character does not realize that he can perform a special attack each day that deals much more damage to his enemy, he just try to deal lots damage in each attack, and from his POV, from the immersion POV, one of those really was more brutal than the other attacks he made.
He doesn't do it consciously like "Ok, now I'm going to use my special attack. Bruuutaalll Striiiiike!!"

The same with the warlord. He is always trying to give his allies the best course of action, he is always coordinating the attacks, shouting and doing his tactical stuff. But the character, again from the immersive POV, doesn't know that he has a special shout that allows one of his allies to immediately charge an enemy. He is always shouting, always telling other the best way to act, but maybe they just don't obey, or don't hear him in the middle of the fight or they don't understand it. But sometimes they do. That's when the metagamish component takes place and the Power is activated.

That's not intended to be a house rule or solution to everyone, that's how I'll probably "rationalize" most of the martial powers.
I thinks it's much better than the "enemies don't fall for the same trick twice".

 

[Kishin]

Totally agreed. The fighter doesn't know that one of his powers does 2W, and another does 3w+6, but he does know one hits harder than the other. A rogue doesn't know 'that other rogue has an extra 2d6 SA' he knows 'that rogue is better than I am at taking advantage of opponent's screwups'. The barbarian doesn't know that the wizard has only a +4 fortitude save, but he does know that he's alot more resistant to magical effects that attack the body and poison. In my campaign, the rules exist to describe the game world, not define it. As such, they're convenient shorthand for the players, but the characters themselves know enough to make good choices. Playing them as idiots isn't good roleplay, and playing them cleverly isn't automatically metagaming.

Edit: Horrendous spelling errors fixed. I despise laptop keyboards. >.<

Total agreement.

On both points. I also hate laptop keyboards.

 

[Hussar]

This. I was going to post exactly about this POV, so I'll just add a though to it.

The same way the fighter does not know his power does 2W, he also may not even define that specific action as a "Power". Martial powers are called exploits and not maneuvers, and I think, being a concidence or not, it helps this way of rationalizing.

The martial character does not realize that he can perform a special attack each day that deals much more damage to his enemy, he just try to deal lots damage in each attack, and from his POV, from the immersion POV, one of those really was more brutal than the other attacks he made.
He doesn't do it consciously like "Ok, now I'm going to use my special attack. Bruuutaalll Striiiiike!!"

The same with the warlord. He is always trying to give his allies the best course of action, he is always coordinating the attacks, shouting and doing his tactical stuff. But the character, again from the immersive POV, doesn't know that he has a special shout that allows one of his allies to immediately charge an enemy. He is always shouting, always telling other the best way to act, but maybe they just don't obey, or don't hear him in the middle of the fight or they don't understand it. But sometimes they do. That's when the metagamish component takes place and the Power is activated.

That's not intended to be a house rule or solution to everyone, that's how I'll probably "rationalize" most of the martial powers.
I thinks it's much better than the "enemies don't fall for the same trick twice".

You mean, we should apply the narrative AFTER the action not before? Shock and horror. That can't be right.

 

[HeinorNY]

You mean, we should apply the narrative AFTER the action not before? Shock and horror. That can't be right.

Do you apply the narrative in-character or out-of-character?
YOU, the player, know the character will deal 3W in his next attack, and you will describe that super attack the best way you see fit, when you are activating it.
The problem discussed here is not how to narrate powers, but how we rationalize them in-character and how the characters view and understand them.

 

[rounser]

Sure, you could. But then you are just creating even broader roles for all of the classes.

Not in terms of themes. The rogue is still a sneak, the fighter still a whacker, and the wizard still a magician. They just happen to know exactly how to do their job better tactically than anyone else in the party, as they gain levels. That would make sense. But no.

Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc. etc. It strains belief. The class is so anathema to a D&D party that there's not even a name that fits. That's a big clue right there that it should not be core, and should be hidden away in a supplement where it can be ignored...or even better, annihilate it and divide up it's tactical abilities amongst the classes that exist, where they belong.

 

[bramadan]

Pretty much.

The whole sports analogy is necessary because there's nothing there natively, it doesn't fit the genre.

...

And that's where they've lost the plot, IMO. If this isn't self-evidently cross-eyed, I don't know what is. I could design something which was based on providing a laser rifle game experience, but it wouldn't fit D&D's core. Leaving "does it fit" as an afterthought is just plain bad design, IMO. (As it happens, the warlock fits D&D one heck of a lot better than the "warlord".)

Grr. I really, really don't like this stuff. It's looking like the game is in the hands of extremists who shouldn't have been let loose on the core. The pendulum has swung too far, I hope there's a backlash against this kind of design come 5E.

OK - we can agree to disagree about rules and their implementation, but I am baffled as to how one can claim that the martial leader type class does not fit into heroic fantasy.
Just a very few examples that come to mind:

Faramir - certainly not a *great* warrior, but a leader beloved by his men whose very presence increased their effectiveness

Rob Stark and Tuwin Lanister (from "Ice and Fire")

Ibn Khairan - multiclass Rogue/Warlord (from "Lions of Al-Rassan")

Count Brass (from Moorcock's "History of Runestaff")

Benedict of Amber

and many many more.
I would claim that it is probably the third most common fantasy stereotype (after Warrior and Rogue), certainly more common then the adventuring priest, or a bard/musician or even I would claim an arcane spellcaster.

 

[rounser]

I am baffled as to how one can claim that the martial leader type class does not fit into heroic fantasy.

It would fit if he had an entourage of soldiers ready to jump to it, like in the novels. He doesn't. He's only got the other PCs, who are heroes in their own right, and not subordinates to be bossed around or corrected. The military hierarchy exists for a reason, and it doesn't exist in a D&D party by default. That's one of many things wrong with the "warlord".

 

[HeinorNY]

Instead we have this upstart nothing-class that automagically knows how the rogue should be sneaking better than the rogue does, how the fighter should be fighting better than the fighter does etc.

Really?
Show me a Warlord power that tells the rogue how to sneak better or the fighter to swing his weapon better.
All we've seen so far are powers that create different tactics for the whole party, and all of them are about moving, positioning and opportunity tactics.
What we a have is a class the helps his allies to fight better as a group.

 

[bramadan]

Hawkmoon is not a flunky to Count Brass in "Runestaff" but a title-hero of the book. He still benefits from the old man's tactical acumen.

Ditto for Belmonte/Ibn Khairan relationship in the first 2/3 of the "Lions of Al-Rassan".

Similar for Benedict and his brothers (who are arguably as great heroes as him - just not as great tacticians)

Sure, Faramir did not run around adventuring much - but I claim anyone who had read LotR can imagine the ways he would have been helping fellowship if he went instead of his Fighter brother.

Military leaders can exist in the company of equals and often do in heroic fantasy.

However, if your idea of heroic fantasy is "only things that can be simulated with ADnD 1st ed. rules" then sure - anything that is not Cleric/Magic-User/Thief/Fighter is going to rub you the wrong way.