D&D 5E (2014) For the Record: Mearls on Warlords (ca. 2013)

[EzekielRaiden]

Like, when 30 or so of 38 possible sub-classes all use the same rules to cast spells from the same long list in the back of the book, yeah, it's a design risk. It's a long way from 'niche protection,' for sure.

Particularly when official variants are perfectly happy to steal certain aspects of other classes. The Favored Soul Sorcerer comes to mind, and in a certain sense, so do the Bard (particularly College of Lore) and Tome Warlock. Or heck, that one feat which gives you superiority dice. It's not a complete lifting, but we see subsets of mechanics getting handed out, both to particular subclasses of other classes, and through things like feats. Accomplishing, say, 1/3 of the same tasks as another class/es with greater efficiency, another 1/3 from one or more other classes at lower efficiency, and then a final 1/3 that aren't really quite what anyone else does, seems like a perfectly valid rough, overall idea of a decent class. Perhaps it should spin a little different--maybe 20% "same as other(s), but more or more efficient" and shifting the other parts to compensate--but the overall idea of a bit of "like others, but maybe better," a bit of "like others, but maybe not as great," and a bit of "like no one else" is perfectly cromulent design that appears in several places in 5e. One can argue, for example, that the Devotion Paladin has essentially a "horizontal" or "diagonal" slice of the Cleric's abilities, getting some things that are like the general Cleric, and some that are very similar to Light, War, and Life Domain features. Yet it's pretty much inarguable that the Paladin is not as good a healer as the Life Cleric, a somewhat better melee combatant than the War Cleric, and not nearly as spell-y as the Light Cleric--while bringing a couple of really, truly unique features like Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection.

I don't think it's an issue, though. A few class features, some good fluff, a handful of unique-to-the-class tricks, some 'differences in efficiency' and you do, indeed, have a class that feels quite different. And the gain in efficiency (saving page count & design effort, maintaining some consistency) is well worth it.

Agreed. Hence why my preference for judging whether or not something is worth being a class tends to center more on how interesting or clever the mechanical implementation is, and how well-executed the fluff is, rather than on whether the concept itself "deserves" to be a class or not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Like, when 30 or so of 38 possible sub-classes all use the same rules to cast spells from the same long list in the back of the book, yeah, it's a design risk. It's a long way from 'niche protection,' for sure.

I don't think it's an issue, though. A few class features, some good fluff, a handful of unique-to-the-class tricks, some 'differences in efficiency' and you do, indeed, have a class that feels quite different. And the gain in efficiency (saving page count & design effort, maintaining some consistency) is well worth it.

the part that annoys me the most is after 4e had a large choice of powers that influenced the game and gave you all these options, now we are back to 2e and 3e "If you want interesting fun things by the rules use spells" witch really means "Non spellcasters can't have nice things"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

the part that annoys me the most is after 4e had a large choice of powers that influenced the game and gave you all these options, now we are back to 2e and 3e "If you want interesting fun things by the rules use spells" witch really means "Non spellcasters can't have nice things"

While I think you are somewhat overstating the case, I agree with the general sentiment. If you want substantial breadth and flexibility, you want spells in 5e. And if you also hate being a spellcaster--whether mechanically or thematically--you don't have a lot of options.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

While I think you are somewhat overstating the case, I agree with the general sentiment. If you want substantial breadth and flexibility, you want spells in 5e. And if you also hate being a spellcaster--whether mechanically or thematically--you don't have a lot of options.

yea, that is it in a nutshell...

My group wants a healer but dislikes druid/cleric because we have a hard time role playing religion (and have spent many campaigns basicly playing a cleric as a wizard with a different spell choice) and bard becse of the fluff about music and story telling... the warlord spoke to us...

My group also like the RP of the fighter, the tough strong battle master, but like the options and complexity of the casters... it is why Bo9S and later 4e were so popular with us...

the campaign with only 1 caster was the one we loved the most... 2 warlords, a fighter, a ranger, a rogue, and a pailden

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

While I think you are somewhat overstating the case, I agree with the general sentiment. If you want substantial breadth and flexibility, you want spells in 5e. And if you also hate being a spellcaster--whether mechanically or thematically--you don't have a lot of options.

You do have a lot of options, but they require fleshing out areas of 5E that don't really have a lot of attention from the rules: tactical combat options a la Disarm and Climb Aboard, different ways to Help in combat, object manipulations, diplomacy and negotiation, etc. Concrete example: the PHB really has no guidance for the DM on when and how the Persuasion skill works and what the DCs should be. If you love intricate interacting subsystems as a player, you'll have to get your DM to write up specific rules for Persuasion, a la "asking for something simple and costless like 'do you have the time?' from a neutral party is DC 10; asking for something inconvenient like 'can you give me directions to the nearest police station?' is DC 15; asking for a major favor like 'can you drive me to the hospital' is DC 25; success means cheerful compliance, failure means reluctant compliance and DC +5 on future interactions, failure by 5 or more means refusal".

So when you say "You don't have a lot of options," I think you actually mean, "You don't have a lot of guidance as to your options."

Edit: come to think of it, I'd pay good money for a set of 5E rules (D&D: Social Combat!) for social combat and political intrigue. Imagine certain NPCs who have Status Points, representing their reputation in the eyes of other NPCs and allow them to maintain allies and flunkies. Humiliating them or thwarting their goals can degrade their Status Points to the point where their allies begin to desert them. You can also engage in status contests where you both directly attack each others' Status (spreading gossip, etc.) at the risk of pyrrhic victory which hurts you both. In some other threads (@Aldarc) we've discussed "depth" vs. "cruft", and social/political play is an area that I would enjoy as adding depth in a positive way. So, I'd pay $50 for a Social Combat rules module, if it was well-designed and easy to explain to players. Otherwise I'd just write my own, which wouldn't have as much content.

 

[MechaPilot]

Edit: come to think of it, I'd pay good money for a set of 5E rules (D&D: Social Combat!) for social combat and political intrigue. Imagine certain NPCs who have Status Points, representing their reputation in the eyes of other NPCs and allow them to maintain allies and flunkies. Humiliating them or thwarting their goals can degrade their Status Points to the point where their allies begin to desert them. You can also engage in status contests where you both directly attack each others' Status (spreading gossip, etc.) at the risk of pyrrhic victory which hurts you both. In some other threads (@Aldarc) we've discussed "depth" vs. "cruft", and social/political play is an area that I would enjoy as adding depth in a positive way. So, I'd pay $50 for a Social Combat rules module, if it was well-designed and easy to explain to players. Otherwise I'd just write my own, which wouldn't have as much content.

I'm actually working on something like that.

Back during my run as a 4e DM, one of my favorite campaigns was a courtly intrigue campaign. I'm working on updating that for 5e (taking into account the loyalty and renown rules in the DMG), as well as expounding upon it a bit. Right now I've got a list of noble titles, table of average landholdings for those titles, a table for the results of managing a landhold (as well as a table for special circumstances/complications that arise from the landhold), and record sheets for landholds and for NPC relationships (which includes their loyalty, favors owed to them or due from them, etc).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lists of titles and favors owed is a start, but for players who want mechanical depth, what they will want is some actual mechanics that they can begin to optimize. And I kind of want that myself, as a DM. I actually have a number of things going on in my game that are political in nature, and it would be handy to offer players ways to "attack" various actors politically and feel like they'd done something concrete. "No, you may not have killed Ferrovankoth (adult red dragon) today, but you just cost him 200 status points by embarrassing him in front of his grandfather." Physically attacking someone with a lot of status points might be better than allowing them to crush you, but there would be ramifications if your actions are discovered. In some cases it might be possible or preferable to crush an enemy's status instead of killing him, and then turn him into an ally by offering a way to regain some status.

I should cogitate upon this notion for a while, but if WotC offers me a Social Combat module in the meantime I will almost certainly buy it and possibly even use it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Lists of titles and favors owed is a start, but for players who want mechanical depth, what they will want is some actual mechanics that they can begin to optimize. And I kind of want that myself, as a DM. I actually have a number of things going on in my game that are political in nature, and it would be handy to offer players ways to "attack" various actors politically and feel like they'd done something concrete. "No, you may not have killed Ferrovankoth (adult red dragon) today, but you just cost him 200 status points by embarrassing him in front of his grandfather." Physically attacking someone with a lot of status points might be better than allowing them to crush you, but there would be ramifications if your actions are discovered. In some cases it might be possible or preferable to crush an enemy's status instead of killing him, and then turn him into an ally by offering a way to regain some status.

I should cogitate upon this notion for a while, but if WotC offers me a Social Combat module in the meantime I will almost certainly buy it and possibly even use it.

Well I did say that it was a work in progress.

For now, I'm thinking that status is going to be similar to renown, with the PCs tracking status with different groups.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well I did say that it was a work in progress.

For now, I'm thinking that status is going to be similar to renown, with the PCs tracking status with different groups.

Not a bad approach.

I'm thinking that it would make sense to track status in a given context, e.g. Underworld, Courtly, and Common. Then give status zero mechanical benefits except the ability to alter the status of others within your context, and the fact that other people know your status. Certain NPCs will pursue high status for in-character reasons, so gaining status will give you the ability to incentivize their cooperation, maybe even recruiting them as allies. Embarrassment or failure will penalize the status of all allies involved, unless the embarrassment can be hidden or blame shifted onto a scapegoat. Those who don't seek status for its own sake may seek it to gain power over others, or they may ignore it entirely to pursue their own interests and be none the worse for the lack.

Voila! a reasonable facsimile of either a high school or Washington D.C., take your pick.