Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Tony Vargas]

However, I fundamentally agree with the point made: the core problem with recreating the Warlord in 5E is... 5E.

I have to disagree. For one thing, I don't think it's constructive to try to make a case for 5e being a strictly inferior edition that is simply unable to handle the character concepts of a prior edition, and has thus hard-failed in it's Next-playtest-proclaimed goal of being for fans of all prior editions.

But, for another, 5e is actually a very loose system. It's not that consistent, it's not that "balanced," it's not that locked-in, it has a lot of slack & wiggle-room for the DM - part of empowerment - and plenty of space for the designers.

5E is a very, very, very, very simple game.

No RPG is simple. Some - and 5e is not one of them* - load that complexity on the GM and/or players, some provide tools for dealing with it, but, ultimately, the complexity of the activity is unavoidable.

What 5e is, though, is familiar, that makes it feel simple (easy, intuitive) to those of us long familiar with D&D - and to those whom we introduce to it. The Warlord is not familiar in the same way, it was not in the classic game, even if the Fighter name-level concept presaged it just a bit in retrospect. So it clashes in an aesthetic sense - as do Sorcerers, Warlocks, Dragonborn, etc - rather than a mechanical one.

The core game's engine doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a class like the 4E warlord.

It actually has a lot of bandwidth - like I said above, it's a looser system - most of the classes already in the game (the fighter & barbarian the clear exceptions) consume far more than any 4e class ever did. Now, the fighter absolutely lacks bandwidth or design space to handle a class like the Warlord - or Wizard for an instance like the Eldritch Knight. But that's one class, arguably a very tightly focused one, not the whole game.

You can't simply take concepts from different editions and try to adapt them to games that work with fundamentally different action economies and mathematical engines.

You totally can, and 5e has. 5e's action economy is actually very close to that of 3e or 4e (or any other d20 game). It's just, again, not as tight nor as balanced, there's more room to mess with it, not less.

So to follow from your example (but removing the edition warring bit), if 4E is chess, 5E is Uno. You can't port mechanics from one to the other.

Sounds more like reversing the edition warring. Which, I guess, is a way of countering it.

But, 5e is not some gimped version of D&D.





* edit: OK, 5e /does/ load some complexity on the DM, price of Empowerment.

 

[VisanidethDM]

But, 5e is not some gimped version of D&D.

I'm not suggesting it's "gimped". I understand that hearing "the system you like is simplier and less "powerful" than the others" can trigger that kind of reaction, but I think it's simply a matter of knowing what you want and what you can do. You can't have a system with the level of internal consistency and emulation properties of 3E AND a game that is balanced and easy to run at the table. You can't have the complex tactical nuance and rich decisionmaking of 4E AND a game that is fast and loose at the table.

5E knows perfectly what it wants to be, and it knows what it has to sacrifice to be it. It may not be my favourite incarnation of D&D, but it's definitely the version of D&D I would suggest to a newcomer, and the version of D&D I run when I can't run my actual favourite. There's a few hiccups and some mistakes in the design, but the way the system works and what it can do is the opposite of "gimped". It's focused.

I admit that playing 5E frustrates me to no end because it's too simple and straightforward for my tastes, but that's the beauty of it.

 

[Mistwell]

Still no progress on my all-magic warlord?

 

[Azzy]

Personally, I can't wait to see next week's (and the week's after that) installment to see how this evolves. I eschewed 4e (for many reasons), but from what I've heard of the Warlord from 4e players, I really like the idea and I hope Mike does a good job of implementing it in 5e.

 

[LapBandit]

I assumed the Warlord would be:

Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras

 

[mellored]

The best 'attack granting' I've seen is to let someone reroll an attack as a reaction. Works with the fighter, rogue, and firbolt.
Possibly add +int to the new roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not suggesting it's "gimped". I understand that hearing "the system you like is simplier and less "powerful" than the others" can trigger that kind of reaction

I'm glad you can see how one might get that impression. 5e still isn't simple, though. It's familiar to those who've played a lot of D&D in the past, it's easy for them to wrap their heads around (OK, except for neo-Vancian casting, that take's a little effort), but it's not any less complicated at it's core than any other d20 game. It has less material out, and that slower pace of release gives it less "shelf shock," and, not coincidentally, evokes the feel of the classic game, back when TSR would wait for the proceeds of one book to fund the publication of the next...

I think it's simply a matter of knowing what you want and what you can do. You can't have a system with the level of internal consistency and emulation properties of 3E AND a game that is balanced and easy to run at the table. You can't have the complex tactical nuance and rich decisionmaking of 4E AND a game that is fast and loose at the table.

You could do either or both. OK, it'd be a lot easier to run 4e fast-and-loose (the DM could just do it - heck, I have) than to balance 3e and make it easy to run (that'd be deep re-design).

5e mechanics could conceivably even be used as the core of such a system.

5E knows perfectly what it wants to be, and it knows what it has to sacrifice to be it. It may not be my favourite incarnation of D&D, but it's definitely the version of D&D I would suggest to a newcomer, and the version of D&D I run when I can't run my actual favourite. There's a few hiccups and some mistakes in the design, but the way the system works and what it can do is the opposite of "gimped". It's focused.

I feel like 'focused' isn't exactly the opposite of gimped...

And 5e has had something of an identity crisis. When it was first put forward, the idea was a D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, regardless of edition. But, from the beginning, the focus when they came looking for feedback always seemed to be emulating the 'classic game' (without defining that, I assume TSR era, or 1e or B/X or the like).

Clearly, the Core 3 books and their content point most heavily at the classic game. Catering to those who loved D&D of other editions/periods than the classic one was put off to optional rules and later supplements. The Warlord is increasingly overdue to become part of that.

I admit that playing 5E frustrates me to no end because it's too simple and straightforward for my tastes, but that's the beauty of it.

It is neither. It's D&D. Needlessly complicated and counter-intuitive to the new player. But, yes, that's the beauty of it.

 

[mellored]

I assumed the Warlord would be:

Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras

Except those are all buffs. Something Merls said he wanted to avoid.

 

[mellored]

IMO: And admittedly a somewhat watered down version of what I would really like.

New Fighting Style:
First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature within reach can spend any number of their hit dice, regaining hit points as normal. A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest.


Warlord
Level 3: Direct the strike
When a creature who can see and hear you, other than yourself, misses with an attack, you can use you reaction to let them reroll the attack. If you are within 5' of the target, the new attack gains +Int to-hit.

Level 7: Warlords Gambit: When you roll inititive, select a creature you can see and hear. They gain a bonus or penalty to their inititve equal to your Int modifier. You can use this after you see the results of the rolls, but before battle starst.

Level 10: Tactical Maneuvers: Once per turn, when a creature with 30' provokes an oppertunity attack, you can have them not provoke an oppertunity attack.

Level 15: Onslaught.
If you use direct the strike, you can use it a second time without taking a reaction. You must use it before the start of your next turn, but not on the same attack.

Level 18: Saver: When an ally takes an action that fails, including casting a spell, attack, or ability check, you can expend your action surge to warn them of their impending failure. That action did not happen, and they can take a different action instead. You can use this feature after you see the results of a roll, but before it takes effect.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I assumed the Warlord would be:

Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras

I've always thought the Bardic inspiration Dice and Superiority Dice could be combined to both fuel buffing others and fueling your own abilities.

I also think it could be expanded to include thing like adding the Bardic Insp. die roll to a hit die and regain hitpoints during combat.