D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Imaro]

Exactly how I feel... listening to the logic of your conclusion. My dog started whinning and then I heard thunder and saw lightning... ergo my dog's whinning must have caused the thunder and lightning...

 

[El Mahdi]

Exactly how I feel... listening to the logic of your conclusion. My dog started whinning and then I heard thunder and saw lightning... ergo my dog's whinning must have caused the thunder and lightning...

Is your dog's name Zeus or Thor?


I had a dog that could use the Jedi Mind-Trick at will to get food and attention...

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree with you on point (a). I don't think they are inherently nonsensical, and you can run a game where they would make sense. Within the context of my game world physics as I interpret 5E it would be nonsensical, but that won't hold for everybody.

I also agree with (b), so much so that if there is controversy over it I'd be surprised. Ironically.

So as far as discussion between you and I goes, it looks like there is nothing to contest.

Swell!

Where problems arise is when you're non-magically forcing someone else, not within your physical reach, to move. That's where you lose me, though I may be a lone voice in the wilderness. Sure you can *suggest* your ally move to a better position or yell at the left-flank fighter to shove her foe into your reach, but it should be up to them-as-characters whether or not they follow those suggestions (or orders) unless you're doing it by spell or charm effect or whatever. And non-magically forcing enemies to move at a distance makes no sense at all.

I agree that in many combats more overall movement would be nice, but forcing movement at range without magic breaks it for me.

Lan-"the one exception I'd make is a really intimidating fighter might force a weaker foe to flee the field by his mere presence"-efan

I suppose you're looking for anecdotes that support this phenomenon (I've posted about this many, many times in the past with such anectotes).

First, PCs don't have to move if an ally uses an ability that force moves them. It seems that there is a position out there that it violates player agency (thus violating social contract) for such mechanics to exist. That sort of makes a base assumption and then begs the question regarding social contract. If you're using such mechanics (or classes that possess such a suite of resources), then you've accepted the social contract (and the genre tropes that those mechanics support) in the first place! If you don't want them in your game, then don't use them! No social contract violated either way!

I think forced movement at range (without skin-to-skin, physical contact with the enemy) is an extremely common one that you see in all manner of physical exchanges:

1) You see it in the ring/cage all the time. Standard "contact with the enemy" is not in physical exchange range. You're talking 12ish (+) feet is where "ring/cage control" begins. In D&D that is 2-3 squares of melee control. There are many subtle ways to exert control no an adversary. If you have a nasty clinch game, your opponent will be "forced" to attack and retreat to distance. If you have a big right hand, your opponent will be inclined (for their own good) to circle (right) away from it and maintain distance from that side. If you have a big takedown/ground game, your opponent will be "forced" to constantly be ready to sprawl and back off to avoid getting taken down. If you have great footwork/speed, are a big counterattacker, and have a long range game (kicks, long jab, and retreat to that 12-15 ft range...see Anderson Silva and Lyodo Machida in their primes), then you will "force" guys to have to work to "get inside" and engage you. These are just a few examples.

2) You see it in American Football. Safeties play 12-15 yards off the line of scrimmage and often have an initial drop of 5 more yards. They influence play at the line of scrimmage and in the 5-7 yard "in-cut" range (WR routes) dramatically because American Football is a "collision sport" (contrast with "contact sport") and Safeties and Linebackers are the primary "colliders." Their mere presence influences the behavior of Running Backs toting the ball (where they run and how they run) and Wide Receivers who are forced to make those "in-cut" routes over the middle. That is martial control at a distance.

3) You see the same phenomenon occur in Basketball with weak-side (opposite side from where the ball originated) defenders either (a) trapping a play, (b) cutting off a lane to a dribbling defender, (c) shooting a passing lane and breaking up the pass or making a steal, and (d) "big men" (eg Forwards and Centers) protecting the paint by blocking shots or merely affecting them. This occurs "away from the ball". It is martial control at a distance.

4) You see the same phenomenon occurs with hockey in the neutral zone (not as much anymore due to some rules changes but that isn't relevant). Two of the biggest names in hockey in the last 30 years, Eric Lindros and Paul Kariya literally had their careers (and lives) altered due to getting absolutely crushed by big hitting defenseman. Scott Stevens mere presence on the ice (one of, if not the, biggest hitters in hockey history) extends a "zone of martial control" probably at a good 25 ft radius (the entire neutral zone +).

5) These are all "defenders." Offensively there is an analogue for each of these. Barry Sanders forced teams to game plan against him. His mere presence on the turf "forced" teams to play different defensively (strategically) and forced individual players to play differently. Same goes for MJ and the rampant triple teams that he would receive whether at the top of the key, on the base line or in the post on the left or right block. They put teams and players in multiple "catch 22s". They "force" them at the strategic and tactical level.

That is what martial forced movement does. And to be honest, most of it doesn't take place in a 5 ft radius. Most of it occurs at a radius much larger than that (and outside "reach" range).


Quick aside. The below is not at you Lanefan. This is just general.

Finally, as I said before, it seems to me that all of this stuff is still about gatekeeping and controlling the narrative of what is orthodox D&D and siloing away what is "aberrant, fringe D&D." And the progression of the narrative during the playtest to now is pretty transparent. No, no, no, you can't have this stuff and taint the game > OK, you can't have it in the "core game", but you can have it in the modules that are coming out so just be patient guy and don't make a mess of this playtest > Actually, retract that...forget about your modules/options that can be cordoned away from "real D&D" and tagged with "caution, this is aberrant not D&D"...I've changed my mind...you just can't have this stuff....I mean at all. /Declare victory.

 

[cmad1977]

So basically what I've gathered from this embarrassment of a thread

1: people who want the warlord are whiny
2: people who don't want the warlord are whiny.

Good chat guys.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

l about gatekeeping and controlling the narrative of what is orthodox D&D and siloing away what is "aberrant, fringe D&D." And the progression of the narrative during the playtest to now is pretty transparent. No, no, no, you can't have this stuff and taint the game > OK, you can't have it in the "core game", but you can have it in the modules that are coming out so just be patient guy and don't make a mess of this playtest > Actually, retract that...forget about your modules/options that can be cordoned away from "real D&D" and tagged with "caution, this is aberrant not D&D"...I've changed my mind...you just can't have this stuff....I mean at all. /Declare victory.

5E has a well-established pattern of "variant rules" throughout the DMG: spell points, resting variants, initiative variants, etc. You will get less pushback against trying to push a niche idea as a variant ("we're using the Ambuscade ranger variant") than if you seem to be pushing it into core. C.f. the way Tony Vargas, in this thread, is trying to marginalize anyone who doesn't like his view of Warlord Healing. You could take all of Tony's ideas and preferences and package them as a variant, and those who don't like the variant would just shrug collectively instead of bothering to argue.

Personally, I use spell points and Speed Factor-ish (AD&D-style) initiative. That describes my game in a nutshell, and I don't have to say "With no Ambuscade, and no Shout Healing, and Warlords exist but don't get forced movement, and HP are real, and no Awakened Mystics" because those conditions are already implicit in the core. If I had to houserule those rules back out of existence instead of having them be unused variants, 5E would be relatively less attractive and closer to the threshold of "why pick 5E over some other activity?" House rules have a cognitive complexity cost and a communication cost.

 

[Scorpienne]

I really, REALLY loved the 4E warlord. (I know, I know, I hear, understand, and accept the traditional rants about 4E). While I like the warlordy variants of the 5E fighter, I wish they had a little more oomph.

Paige

 

[Tony Vargas]

You could take all of Tony's ideas and preferences and package them as a variant, and those who don't like the variant would just shrug collectively instead of bothering to argue.

At this late date, the Warlord, at best, could be added to the Advanced Game. Opt-in optional. There hasn't been a possibility of it being anything else since the PH hit shelves.

We're already there.

Personally, I use spell points and Speed Factor-ish (AD&D-style) initiative. That describes my game in a nutshell, and I don't have to say "With no Ambuscade, and no Shout Healing, and Warlords exist but don't get forced movement, and HP are real, and no Awakened Mystics" because those conditions are already implicit in the core.

If you're not using one of the alternate-healing modules that reduce or do away with HD and overnight healing, HP are no more 'real' than they would be if the Warlord were core. Which it's not, and can't be, at this point. I get your angst over the new Ranger, as it might be errata'd into the PH or something. There's no danger of that with the Warlord, and probably none with the Awakened mystic. If a decent take on the Warlord were introduced tomorrow, you wouldn't have to change how you talk about your game, because, unless you say "and we're using the Warlord," it's just another option, like marking or the tactical module or whatever, that you're not opting into.

If I had to houserule those rules back out of existence instead of having them be unused variants, 5E would be relatively less attractive and closer to the threshold of "why pick 5E over some other activity?" House rules have a cognitive complexity cost and a communication cost.

Spell Points are a module (unless you're using your own version of them), and Speed Factor an outright house-rule. If that's the only change you made too the Standard Game, fine, but you /are/ changing it. There's some level of that 'cost' you're OK with paying. If more stuff is added to the Advanced Game - Psionics, Warlords, WereBeagles, Spelljammers, Wound Modifiers, the Glaive-Glaive-Glaive-Guisarme-Glaive - nothing changes for you. You're still playing with just those two variants. Only if you look into and adopt one of these new options do you increase the cognitive complexity cost of running your game with 5e.

Anything I missed?

Calling it 'healing' is part of the source of confusion, I think. Warlords give you back hps, they don't make any wounds you might have gotten in the course of losing those hps disappear.

I suspect that's one reason the less-than-helpful suggestion of exclusively temp hps get floated, it more clearly isn't closing wounds, even though it's not suitable for rallying fallen allies. (Temps are ideal for the odd St. Krispin's Day speech before battle, though.)

Consistency with alternate definitions of Hit Points is not necessary. If consistency with every possible external definition was necessary for the inclusion of a class, there would be no D&D at all.

Flexibility is nice though. If the class were customizeable enough that DMs could exclude/tweak or players decline to choose, specific abilities when using the class in a campaign that, for instance, uses alternate healing rules that do away with HD, overnight healing, and second wind, that'd be a plus. Not necessary, but nice to have - in any design really.

For example, if you were running a campaign and decided to do away with magical healing, you wouldn't have to ban the Cleric class, just ban or tweak a domain or two, and remove some spells from it's list. Similarly, a player of a Druid could choose to simply never prep a healing spell, if he didn't see his character as 'having' that kind of magic. It's just a function of the versatility and flexibility inherent in the neo-Vancian magic system. A 5e Cleric can choose not to prep Healing Word, or a DM to remove it from the Clerics' spell list, secure in the knowledge there are plenty of other good 1st level spells for the players to choose from. A 4e Cleric got Healing Word automatically, and removing it meant taking away a significant class ability, not something to be done lightly.

 

[Lanefan]

While it mostly makes sense in the context of how inspirational healing works, I don't think it's a feasible addition to the game.

Having a Warlord works best if it's just a drop-in class - one which people can ignore as much as they want. It's probably the only way it can work.

But having to change the base game mechanics? That's almost certainly a no-go.

I'm not saying one has to change the base game mechanics. These conditions (half h.p., 5-or-less) would only matter for the one purpose of defining how well inspirational recovery might work; and never appear anywhere else in the game if so desired. I used the term 'bloodied' to tie it in with 4e and so people could quickly realize what I meant; that, and the term itself kinda suggests that once you're below half h.p. you're starting to leak just a little bit.

Lanefan

p.s. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - I'll reply to your post when I've got more time - interesting food for thought.

 

[Jessica]

Calling me a 5e fan would be a stretch(more like slight approver of 5e), but I want a 5e Warlord. We have the lololol-I'm-mad-so-I-swing-harder-and-take-less-damage class, so why not Warlords? I mean the inspirational commander is probably more of a common fantasy trope nowadays than medieval Hulk.

 

[Lanefan]

I think forced movement at range (without skin-to-skin, physical contact with the enemy) is an extremely common one that you see in all manner of physical exchanges:

1) You see it in the ring/cage all the time. Standard "contact with the enemy" is not in physical exchange range. You're talking 12ish (+) feet is where "ring/cage control" begins. In D&D that is 2-3 squares of melee control. There are many subtle ways to exert control no an adversary. If you have a nasty clinch game, your opponent will be "forced" to attack and retreat to distance. If you have a big right hand, your opponent will be inclined (for their own good) to circle (right) away from it and maintain distance from that side. If you have a big takedown/ground game, your opponent will be "forced" to constantly be ready to sprawl and back off to avoid getting taken down. If you have great footwork/speed, are a big counterattacker, and have a long range game (kicks, long jab, and retreat to that 12-15 ft range...see Anderson Silva and Lyodo Machida in their primes), then you will "force" guys to have to work to "get inside" and engage you. These are just a few examples.

I know nothing about MMA so I can only take your word for this.

2) You see it in American Football. Safeties play 12-15 yards off the line of scrimmage and often have an initial drop of 5 more yards. They influence play at the line of scrimmage and in the 5-7 yard "in-cut" range (WR routes) dramatically because American Football is a "collision sport" (contrast with "contact sport") and Safeties and Linebackers are the primary "colliders." Their mere presence influences the behavior of Running Backs toting the ball (where they run and how they run) and Wide Receivers who are forced to make those "in-cut" routes over the middle. That is martial control at a distance.

Not necessarily. Receivers often run their routes with a "cut" because that's what the called play expects them to do. Running backs just try to go where the defenders aren't; quite different than most D&D scenarios where the intent on both sides is usually to engage. Probably a better example here would be what happens right on the line of scrimmage, about the closest thing we have to melee combat in the modern world.

But even without that, while the presence of Kam Chancellor and-or Earl Thomas in the backfield may influence your choice of path as a running back, that's all it does: influence your choice. They're not forcing the RB to go somewhere else; the RB could choose to try and run right at one of them with a straightarm, for all that. So, no forced movement here; just more data to process when choosing where to go.

3) You see the same phenomenon occur in Basketball with weak-side (opposite side from where the ball originated) defenders either (a) trapping a play, (b) cutting off a lane to a dribbling defender, (c) shooting a passing lane and breaking up the pass or making a steal, and (d) "big men" (eg Forwards and Centers) protecting the paint by blocking shots or merely affecting them. This occurs "away from the ball". It is martial control at a distance.

Perhaps, but here we're talking about what is on paper a non-contact sport where positioning is all you have. The defense tries to give the ball carrier a path of least resistance which, if taken, will put him in a disadvantageous position - pass options blocked, no good path to the hoop, etc. Howver, again the ball carrier isn't being forced to move anywhere (ignoring, for the moment, certain rules of the game that do force movement); he can still choose, for example, to try and drive past his man; or fake it and make a quick unexpected bounce pass. Same as the football example, it's just more data to put into decision-making, rather than forcing.

4) You see the same phenomenon occurs with hockey in the neutral zone (not as much anymore due to some rules changes but that isn't relevant). Two of the biggest names in hockey in the last 30 years, Eric Lindros and Paul Kariya literally had their careers (and lives) altered due to getting absolutely crushed by big hitting defenseman. Scott Stevens mere presence on the ice (one of, if not the, biggest hitters in hockey history) extends a "zone of martial control" probably at a good 25 ft radius (the entire neutral zone +).

That's just a matter of knowing who's on the ice. Sure, if Stevens is out there you might want to dump the puck past him into his corner and get him turned around rather than try to carry it in...but it's still your choice as attacking forward.

5) These are all "defenders." Offensively there is an analogue for each of these. Barry Sanders forced teams to game plan against him. His mere presence on the turf "forced" teams to play different defensively (strategically) and forced individual players to play differently. Same goes for MJ and the rampant triple teams that he would receive whether at the top of the key, on the base line or in the post on the left or right block. They put teams and players in multiple "catch 22s". They "force" them at the strategic and tactical level.

All true...but...unlike probably 98% of all D&D combats these are situations where the enemy has been deeply pre-scouted - you've seen Barry Sanders many times before and you know what you have to try to do in order to contain him. On meeting a random batch of Orcs in the woods most parties won't immediately know which one has the brains; and by the time you've done enough "scouting" to figure it out the fight's over anyway.

That is what martial forced movement does. And to be honest, most of it doesn't take place in a 5 ft radius. Most of it occurs at a radius much larger than that (and outside "reach" range).

Except none of these (except maybe the MMA example...shrug) are forcing movement the way D&D has/had it. Eric Lindros can't force Scott Stevens to suddenly skate 5' to his left thus leaving a clear path to the net (though he probably often wishes he could have!). Scott Stevens, by the same token, can't force Eric Lindros to skate 10' closer to him than he otherwise wants to; he can instead move himself 10' closer to Lindros and if Lindros doesn't see him, lower the boom.

In broader terms, on-the-fly tactical positioning* is something done independently by each (at least quasi-intelligent) participant in a battle once the battle has begun and the fog of war makes giving and receiving orders difficult if not impossible.
* - as opposed to pre-planned tacitcal positioning set up before battle commences, in cases where such can be done.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that in many ways we're fighting the system here: a rigid turn-based game doesn't do "fog of war" as well as it could, or probably should, nor does it reflect the fluidity and randomness of melee very well. There's ways to tweak it so it does these things a little better; I see the ability to tactically force-move people as a step in the wrong direction here.

Lan-"for such a big man Scott Stevens was sure good at making stealth checks"-efan