Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Tony Vargas]

For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot

They inevitably come up a lot in discussions about why the addition of something might be good for the game. If something is flawless, you can't improve upon it.

and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.

Never said any such thing. Loving /for/ flaws rather than in spite of them, or being in denial about their existence, is an emotional thing, nothing to do with intelligence.

 

[outsider]

I will continue to maintain my stance that a party of entirely Skills & Powers clerics is one of the best D&D experiences possible. Outside of the abomination that was split stats, I loved that system.

As long as everybody was playing clerics, Skills and Powers was great, for sure!

 

[Zardnaar]

May have been after my time. While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time. AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.

In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities. Clerics had 125. Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).

Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.

Points meant something different though. We had fighter with d12 hit dice and multiple weapon specization for example. It was also up to the DM to allow that stuff and we did not allow to abusive cleric builds. Basically we let them swap spheres not rebuild into a better fighter with spells.

 

[TwoSix]

For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.

I don't think I'd come to this forum if it was nothing but "I love this system" and "This is how my party ran Tomb of Annihilation Part DCCXXXVII" threads, though.

It's not dumb to say "These flaws don't impact my game, so they're not a real priority for me". But, to say "These flaws aren't flaws, you're just playing incorrectly" is more problematic.

 

[Kinematics]

What? No, Godzilla was a nominally unintended consequence of trying to address a symptom, "no one wants to play the cleric," of the problem(s).

Sorry, I was playing a little snarky after that grand historical recounting. It kinda got lost as I drifted into a long response to FrogReaver.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Never said any such thing. Loving /for/ flaws rather than in spite of them, or being in denial about their existence, is an emotional thing, nothing to do with intelligence.

I guess this is just a difference in viewpoints between us then.

I try to look at reasons why I should enjoy something, not to why I should hate something.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry, I was playing a little snarky after that grand historical recounting.

I honestly tried, but I was flagging towards the end there, and kinda wrapped it up without solidifying everything. It's a surprisingly deep topic, really, early D&D and it's legacy.

I try to look at reasons why I should enjoy something, not to why I should hate something.

Cool! Share some of the reasons why you'd enjoy a warlord! Like the one Mearls is designing, say, since that is theoretically the topic?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Cool! Share some of the reasons why you'd enjoy a warlord! Like the one Mearls is designing, say, since that is theoretically the topic?

Well more subclasses is pretty much always nice for one thing. I also love team support and anything that adds to that is good in my book.

More specifically to the Warlord as it's being designed: The Overhealing thing is honestly great, and helps separate it from the other healers in the game. The Zone of Control idea is also really good, and fits the class very well. I also like the "cantrip" idea so you're always helping you're party members if you can help it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

More specifically to the Warlord as it's being designed: The Overhealing thing is honestly great, and helps separate it from the other healers in the game. The Zone of Control idea is also really good, and fits the class very well. I also like the "cantrip" idea so you're always helping you're party members if you can help it.

We agree on two out of three, that's not bad. Overhealing is good on several levels, some of them subtle - for instance, it could mitigate against the tendency towards whack-a-mole, since healing early runs less of a risk of inefficiency.
And, some at-will support is definitely a plus. At-wills have been a solid addition to 5e, across the board, really, helping classes express their concepts consistently, rather than wizards falling back on crossbows or darts, for the tired instances from past editions.

The Zone I'm not so sure about. It feels like conflating 'the grid' with tactics. Tactics are independent of your choice of play surface, or at least should be. That and it's the character that's meant to be the tactician, so I hope to see benefits based in 'tactics' in the character's narrative, not the player's use of game-tactics (though that's fine, and there should be room for it, the class shouldn't over-emphasize them or depend upon the player being the DM's idea of tactically savvy to work). OTOH, it reminds me a bit of reservations I had about the Shaman's spirit companion, that turned out to be fine, in play.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

We agree on two out of three, that's not bad. Overhealing is good on several levels, some of them subtle - for instance, it could mitigate against the tendency towards whack-a-mole, since healing early runs less of a risk of inefficiency.
And, some at-will support is definitely a plus. At-wills have been a solid addition to 5e, across the board, really, helping classes express their concepts consistently, rather than wizards falling back on crossbows or darts, for the tired instances from past editions.

The Zone I'm not so sure about. It feels like conflating 'the grid' with tactics. Tactics are independent of your choice of play surface, or at least should be. That and it's the character that's meant to be the tactician, so I hope to see benefits based in 'tactics' in the character's narrative, not the player's use of game-tactics (though that's fine, and there should be room for it, the class shouldn't over-emphasize them or depend upon the player being the DM's idea of tactically savvy to work). OTOH, it reminds me a bit of reservations I had about the Shaman's spirit companion, that turned out to be fine, in play.

I feel like with how early the Warlord is in development (hasn't even been playtested yet I think) I feel like there's plenty of time to clear up the language of it.