Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7363343" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Yep. With Essentials, they gave the Thief SA /per turn/ and 'updated' the Rogue to work the same way, from then on, if you were a Princess Build*, and there was a rogue in the party, you used Command the Strike or whatever on him every round, heck, at least every round, if you could maybe slip him an attack with your immediate action you'd do that, too, because, y'know, dam<s>n</s>(age). At release, the 4e Rogue's SA was /per round/ and the dynamic with the Warlord was kinda cool, and not even arguably broken. When the Rogue missed or couldn't get CA on his turn, his SA was 'wasted' - unless he got an OA, or the Warlord granted him an attack with Commander's Strike or Hammer & Anvil (preferably while flanking) or Surprise Attack (free CA as a bonus). </p><p></p><p>That was nice, and, yeah, the structure of 'powers,' including Basic attacks and the three-action turn did make it simple. The way each power and feature worked was clear, the structure of the round was defined, and the dynamic came together naturally. Nearly to the point of elegance, even. </p><p></p><p></p><p> Really, though, the flavor was up to the players. That was one of the things about the way 4e presented 'powers.' They were bundles of mechanics, they came with an evocative name and a bit of sample flavor text, but you were free to change it. Some Warlords' "Commanders Strike" could be a literal command. Others could be a tricky maneuver. Others could just be a cry for help. </p><p></p><p>Putting a little wiggle room between the mechanics and the narrative opens up a lot of freedom & creativity for the player in expressing his character and contributing to the fiction - but, it needs very clear mechanics, so that freedom doesn't bring the game up short, mechanically. /That/ is antithetical to 5e's style of DM Empowerment. </p><p></p><p>But, it's not a problem, it's an opportunity...</p><p></p><p> Actually, it does, it's little more than nuance, really. You get an action, which can be almost anything you care to declare, a move, which can't it's just moving, well and standing up & moving and maybe something else if your DM says so, and may or may not get a bonus action, a ruled-not-an-action-action, an object-interaction-action, and, between times, (one and only one) reaction action. Really, it's action-packed. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> But it's not neatly structured or carefully balanced, it's just a guideline, a starting place like everything else in D&D. </p><p>Ultimately, players declare actions and DMs decide how to resolve them. </p><p></p><p> I don't see it that way:</p><p> </p><p>If you're a fighter, it's your /Extra/ Attack & action surge.</p><p>If you're a rogue it's your SA.</p><p>If you're a Paladin, it's your smite.</p><p>If you're a Barbarian, it's your Rage.</p><p>etc...</p><p></p><p>A simple attack isn't a "god-action" (a 'bring-it!' A-game, peak power, whatever you want to call it). 5e just lacks a simple term for simple attack. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>Because 5e doesn't really do simple. It does familiar, it does natural language, but it does it all with a familiar, natural helping of classic-D&D-evocative complexity.</p><p></p><p>Just an attack in 5e is just an attack. It's not simply defined in one word - "Basic" like in 4e - it's described in natural language, so it's a more complex concept to state, but it's an intuitive one. In 4e, you'd say something like "Effect: An ally of your choice w/in 5 squares can make a Basic Attack as a free action." That's blindingly simple, but it's loads of information & restrictions. In 5e, between reliance natural language and the more nuanced, less structured system, it just has to be spelled out in more detail, even at the risk of being a tad complicated. "You can use your action to command an ally who you can see, and who can hear you, to make an attack with a weapon he has at hand against an enemy you designate, or if he has not used a spell slot to cast a spell on his last turn, to use a cantrip that takes an attack roll, (and insert more if new classes insert their own unique alternatives to regular & enhanced attacks). The ally you choose must have his reaction available, but does not expend it to make the attack. The ally can make only a single attack inflicting damage based on his weapon and his STR or DEX as appropriate, only. Even if normally entitled to Extra Attacks or using two weapons, and cannot expend resources like spell slots or CS dice to it, nor make the attack into an SA (insert more his as needed to get the simple idea of a 'basic attack' across in natural language).</p><p></p><p>OK, maybe I hammed that up a little. Point is, 5e doesn't make it impossible to do anything, just potentially more complicated. And, with a late-addition, non-core, optional class, that's not a major downside. You won't be using a class like the Warlord (or any caster, or anything but a Champion Fighter, really) if you're all that allergic to complexity.</p><p></p><p> One of the major differences with 5e is that balance isn't so much of an issue. </p><p></p><p> Not too sound too defensive, here, but, again, 5e is not gimped, it is not incapable of handling an awesome class concept just because that concept's primary appearance was in a more structured edition. It'll just handle it differently. </p><p>Every class in 4e was build around the structure of 4e, and a bunch of them, including 3 that, like the Warlord, were 'Leaders' in 4e, have been successfully done in 5e. The impediment is illusory. </p><p></p><p>The Bard is a particularly good example, I think. In prior eds, the Bard was a lackluster, much-mocked 5th-wheel 2nd-rate caster with a goofy schtick giving out a minor bonus. But, built into the Role/Source structure of 4e it gained a clear functional vision, an Arcane Leader, and kept it's schtick (with less goofy, or at least optional fluff) while becoming an equal to other 'leaders.' It worked pretty nicely, as did the Skald (now Valor Bard), and when the 5e Bard was developed, it wasn't just cloned from prior-ed's fuzzy, mildly ridiculous, 2nd-rate magic-dabblers and made a Rogue sub-class, instead it was made a full class, a full caster and a functional support alternative, while keeping the positives of it's fluff and heritage. In the process, it's /more/ than the 4e bard was - for instance, it can go a lot further in the 'control' direction than would have been 'balanced' or Role-appropriate in 4e. </p><p>The Warlord would have to be, too</p><p></p><p> And modeling that will take more design space than is available on the Fighter chassis. Mearls seems to acknowledge that, really, when looking at the fighter and realizing that there's nothing in it that supports the Warlord concept prior to wedging in the sub-class. And, again, when deciding on the EK as his template based on it doing 'healing' (hp restoration). </p><p></p><p> While a Fighter sub-class might only have room for just enabling an ally to roll to hit once more per turn, the result wouldn't be a Warlord.</p><p></p><p>In spite of all the pointless angst over attack-granting, it's not the only thing Warlords did, nor even a defining thing. It was defining for a fan hack that arose on top of the official builds...</p><p></p><p></p><p> A warlord does, to call back the original, definitely. All 5e Warlord sub-classes, OTOH, not s'much. One thing 5e does, quite profligately, is to cover quite specific concepts that, in 3e would require MCing (or Hybriding in 4e) or 20-level feat-tree builds, with a one-and-done sub-class choice. Nothing stopped you from taking an MC feat, or even hybriding your Warlord with a class from some other source ('caster' in real-D&D parlance), in 4e. Something very well could in 5e: called the DM not using feats or MCing! Instead (or, rather, as well), sub-classes. </p><p>It's the 5e way, and another way 5e is, in fact, potentially able to handle characters from all prior eds.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Mearls, apparently, couldn't think of a third variation on beatstick before resorting to the EK. ;P</p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, 4e gave us 6 official 'builds,' plus an alternate feature, each of which would map to a 5e sub-class:</p><p></p><p>Tactical</p><p>Inspiring</p><p>Resourceful</p><p>Bravura</p><p>Skirmishing</p><p>Insightful</p><p>and Archery</p><p></p><p>Add to that the fan-favorite 'Lazy' build and that's 8 Warlord sub-classes, minimum.</p><p></p><p>Then there's all those Warlord-focused Paragon Paths, any of which might also inspire a sub-class. (Or a PrC. Have I mentioned, lately, that 5e could really benefit from 3.5-style PrCs? I think I have.)</p><p></p><p>That could get the class over 10 before Mearls even has to come up with anything actually new, himself.</p><p></p><p>But 5e classes aren't as focused as 4e classes were. The Warlord could stray into 'controller' and striker functions, as well, could literally lead bands of NPCs (perhaps under the sub-class name 'Marshal' as in "marshalling the volunteers"), and, of course, could go ahead and like the Fighter & Rogue, have a spell-casting sub-class or two. </p><p></p><p> I'll believe it at year 11, but it is nice to hear. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p> Bundling is a possibility. Bundle the Artificer & Alchemist together, for instance. Psionics shouldn't be a problem. I mean, from prior eds we have: Psionicist, Psion, Wild Talent, Soul Knife, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Battlemind, and <s>Monk</s>. Plus all the PrCs, PPs, Themes, and whatnot. /Plus/ the 5e penchant for MCing/hybridizing with sub-classes. Really might need at least two Psionic classes (and I say that as someone who's never much cared for psionics).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* Garthanos coined that one, I like it better than 'Lazy'</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7363343, member: 996"] Yep. With Essentials, they gave the Thief SA /per turn/ and 'updated' the Rogue to work the same way, from then on, if you were a Princess Build*, and there was a rogue in the party, you used Command the Strike or whatever on him every round, heck, at least every round, if you could maybe slip him an attack with your immediate action you'd do that, too, because, y'know, dam[s]n[/s](age). At release, the 4e Rogue's SA was /per round/ and the dynamic with the Warlord was kinda cool, and not even arguably broken. When the Rogue missed or couldn't get CA on his turn, his SA was 'wasted' - unless he got an OA, or the Warlord granted him an attack with Commander's Strike or Hammer & Anvil (preferably while flanking) or Surprise Attack (free CA as a bonus). That was nice, and, yeah, the structure of 'powers,' including Basic attacks and the three-action turn did make it simple. The way each power and feature worked was clear, the structure of the round was defined, and the dynamic came together naturally. Nearly to the point of elegance, even. Really, though, the flavor was up to the players. That was one of the things about the way 4e presented 'powers.' They were bundles of mechanics, they came with an evocative name and a bit of sample flavor text, but you were free to change it. Some Warlords' "Commanders Strike" could be a literal command. Others could be a tricky maneuver. Others could just be a cry for help. Putting a little wiggle room between the mechanics and the narrative opens up a lot of freedom & creativity for the player in expressing his character and contributing to the fiction - but, it needs very clear mechanics, so that freedom doesn't bring the game up short, mechanically. /That/ is antithetical to 5e's style of DM Empowerment. But, it's not a problem, it's an opportunity... Actually, it does, it's little more than nuance, really. You get an action, which can be almost anything you care to declare, a move, which can't it's just moving, well and standing up & moving and maybe something else if your DM says so, and may or may not get a bonus action, a ruled-not-an-action-action, an object-interaction-action, and, between times, (one and only one) reaction action. Really, it's action-packed. ;) But it's not neatly structured or carefully balanced, it's just a guideline, a starting place like everything else in D&D. Ultimately, players declare actions and DMs decide how to resolve them. I don't see it that way: If you're a fighter, it's your /Extra/ Attack & action surge. If you're a rogue it's your SA. If you're a Paladin, it's your smite. If you're a Barbarian, it's your Rage. etc... A simple attack isn't a "god-action" (a 'bring-it!' A-game, peak power, whatever you want to call it). 5e just lacks a simple term for simple attack. ;) Because 5e doesn't really do simple. It does familiar, it does natural language, but it does it all with a familiar, natural helping of classic-D&D-evocative complexity. Just an attack in 5e is just an attack. It's not simply defined in one word - "Basic" like in 4e - it's described in natural language, so it's a more complex concept to state, but it's an intuitive one. In 4e, you'd say something like "Effect: An ally of your choice w/in 5 squares can make a Basic Attack as a free action." That's blindingly simple, but it's loads of information & restrictions. In 5e, between reliance natural language and the more nuanced, less structured system, it just has to be spelled out in more detail, even at the risk of being a tad complicated. "You can use your action to command an ally who you can see, and who can hear you, to make an attack with a weapon he has at hand against an enemy you designate, or if he has not used a spell slot to cast a spell on his last turn, to use a cantrip that takes an attack roll, (and insert more if new classes insert their own unique alternatives to regular & enhanced attacks). The ally you choose must have his reaction available, but does not expend it to make the attack. The ally can make only a single attack inflicting damage based on his weapon and his STR or DEX as appropriate, only. Even if normally entitled to Extra Attacks or using two weapons, and cannot expend resources like spell slots or CS dice to it, nor make the attack into an SA (insert more his as needed to get the simple idea of a 'basic attack' across in natural language). OK, maybe I hammed that up a little. Point is, 5e doesn't make it impossible to do anything, just potentially more complicated. And, with a late-addition, non-core, optional class, that's not a major downside. You won't be using a class like the Warlord (or any caster, or anything but a Champion Fighter, really) if you're all that allergic to complexity. One of the major differences with 5e is that balance isn't so much of an issue. Not too sound too defensive, here, but, again, 5e is not gimped, it is not incapable of handling an awesome class concept just because that concept's primary appearance was in a more structured edition. It'll just handle it differently. Every class in 4e was build around the structure of 4e, and a bunch of them, including 3 that, like the Warlord, were 'Leaders' in 4e, have been successfully done in 5e. The impediment is illusory. The Bard is a particularly good example, I think. In prior eds, the Bard was a lackluster, much-mocked 5th-wheel 2nd-rate caster with a goofy schtick giving out a minor bonus. But, built into the Role/Source structure of 4e it gained a clear functional vision, an Arcane Leader, and kept it's schtick (with less goofy, or at least optional fluff) while becoming an equal to other 'leaders.' It worked pretty nicely, as did the Skald (now Valor Bard), and when the 5e Bard was developed, it wasn't just cloned from prior-ed's fuzzy, mildly ridiculous, 2nd-rate magic-dabblers and made a Rogue sub-class, instead it was made a full class, a full caster and a functional support alternative, while keeping the positives of it's fluff and heritage. In the process, it's /more/ than the 4e bard was - for instance, it can go a lot further in the 'control' direction than would have been 'balanced' or Role-appropriate in 4e. The Warlord would have to be, too And modeling that will take more design space than is available on the Fighter chassis. Mearls seems to acknowledge that, really, when looking at the fighter and realizing that there's nothing in it that supports the Warlord concept prior to wedging in the sub-class. And, again, when deciding on the EK as his template based on it doing 'healing' (hp restoration). While a Fighter sub-class might only have room for just enabling an ally to roll to hit once more per turn, the result wouldn't be a Warlord. In spite of all the pointless angst over attack-granting, it's not the only thing Warlords did, nor even a defining thing. It was defining for a fan hack that arose on top of the official builds... A warlord does, to call back the original, definitely. All 5e Warlord sub-classes, OTOH, not s'much. One thing 5e does, quite profligately, is to cover quite specific concepts that, in 3e would require MCing (or Hybriding in 4e) or 20-level feat-tree builds, with a one-and-done sub-class choice. Nothing stopped you from taking an MC feat, or even hybriding your Warlord with a class from some other source ('caster' in real-D&D parlance), in 4e. Something very well could in 5e: called the DM not using feats or MCing! Instead (or, rather, as well), sub-classes. It's the 5e way, and another way 5e is, in fact, potentially able to handle characters from all prior eds. Mearls, apparently, couldn't think of a third variation on beatstick before resorting to the EK. ;P Seriously, though, 4e gave us 6 official 'builds,' plus an alternate feature, each of which would map to a 5e sub-class: Tactical Inspiring Resourceful Bravura Skirmishing Insightful and Archery Add to that the fan-favorite 'Lazy' build and that's 8 Warlord sub-classes, minimum. Then there's all those Warlord-focused Paragon Paths, any of which might also inspire a sub-class. (Or a PrC. Have I mentioned, lately, that 5e could really benefit from 3.5-style PrCs? I think I have.) That could get the class over 10 before Mearls even has to come up with anything actually new, himself. But 5e classes aren't as focused as 4e classes were. The Warlord could stray into 'controller' and striker functions, as well, could literally lead bands of NPCs (perhaps under the sub-class name 'Marshal' as in "marshalling the volunteers"), and, of course, could go ahead and like the Fighter & Rogue, have a spell-casting sub-class or two. I'll believe it at year 11, but it is nice to hear. :) Bundling is a possibility. Bundle the Artificer & Alchemist together, for instance. Psionics shouldn't be a problem. I mean, from prior eds we have: Psionicist, Psion, Wild Talent, Soul Knife, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Battlemind, and [s]Monk[/s]. Plus all the PrCs, PPs, Themes, and whatnot. /Plus/ the 5e penchant for MCing/hybridizing with sub-classes. Really might need at least two Psionic classes (and I say that as someone who's never much cared for psionics). * Garthanos coined that one, I like it better than 'Lazy' [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top