D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Vaalingrade]

Insiring leader us fine but the people kinda insist on the 4E warlord.

Because they were good at it and let you actually play out the class fantasy rather than rationing out the opportunities to be your class rather than just making static attacks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, people who love 4e and are not satisfied until 5e is turned into 4e clone: just go play 4e. The game you want already exists.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, people who love 4e and are not satisfied until 5e is turned into 4e clone: just go play 4e. The game you want already exists.

Good advice for everyone who doesn't like what's most popular. Sometimes hard to follow in practice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And here come the 'get out of the space' declarations!

 

[Zardnaar]

And here come the 'get out of the space' declarations!

Wwll they keep insisting in a mechanic that doesn't work in 5E terms. Look at the difference in rogue damage.

Our party has a sword and board fighter he's already feeling the left out part because I very rarely give him an extra attack via VoA. Usually only when rogues in the wrong space.

Most are arguing from theoretical positions I'm doing it in a real game. 1d6+6 vs 2d8+4d6+8. I cant do that at will and it's already magnificent. Battlemaster can do it as well order clerics kinda better as you're not giving up anything. 9.5 vs 31 average damage potential.

That's why it doesn't work at will or it's unbalanced.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it is a reasonable question as to whether Inspiring people is a strong fictional trope as a moment-by-moment thing in a fantasy small unit tactical scenario.

It'd be an equally reasonable question as to whether applying magical healing of the traditional laying-on-hands variety is a strong fictional trope as a moment-by-moment thing.

It's really not, is it?

What about the sheer variety of spells D&D casters gain access too, and the frequency with which they use them?

The D&D movie, the last one, the only one to be at all successful, had a Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer on the heroes' side. Honor Among Thieves, yeah, that one. Only the Sorcerer cast spells, and that with a bit of difficulty (I wasn't counting, how many spells did he cast?) Why didn't the Druid & Bard cast spells? It'd've just been too much to convey to the audience, wouldn't it? Establishing that one character does magic and another shapechanges and a third was a "Harper" spy was quite enough, as it was.

But those aren't issues when deciding to include the Cleric or Paladin, or give casters hundreds of spells to choose from, are they?

 

[cbwjm]

Just catching up on the thread and thought I'd pop in with some comments.

Thac0. This is really easy to use, roll the die, subtract the lowest number out of thac0/die roll from the highest, if the lowest number was thac0 then chuck a - in front of the result, that's the AC you hit. I get that people find addition easier than subtraction, but this way of doing thac0 I find dead easy.

NPCs and monsters in 3e. I wish I realised this at the time, but you didn't have to build them exactly like a PC. Remember how if your Intelligence bonus increased you'd get more skill points, but not retroactively (though maybe that changed in 3.5)? You could just ignore that, add int bonus to skill points and give them that many skills at their level, ignore cross class skills (pathfinder 1e did skills much better by doing away with cross class skills costing 2 points). Same with feats, just give them a feat or two that you think will be relevant, ignore the rest.

3e and iterative attacks. Yeah, this was dumb, should have either kept the same attack bonus as the first attack or implemented something like in star wars saga where you got a -2 penalty if you wanted to attack twice. Each time I got a new attack, I kind of didn't care, probably wasn't going to be high enough to hit what I'm fighting anyway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The reason I'm not that keen on warlord as a separate class, is that to me in stories such leader characters are often evolution of some sort of warrior or soldier character type and tend to be "high-level" characters. And in D&D it used to be that high level fighters became lords and leaders of men. I.e. warlords.

Low level warlord really isn't a concept that makes much sense to me, and making it a separate class removes it as potential evolution of the fighter, which is where I feel it should be.

In this thread and many others there has been plenty of complaints about fighters, but one reason why they are just dum dums that hit things that other concepts have been siloed into their own classes. Now 5e doesn't do leadery fighter terribly well, and I don't think all high level fighters should become "warlords" but I think that should be a path that exists for them.

Furthermore, I feel that people are way too stuck to the exact 4e interpretation of the concept. You can do the concept differntly, it doesn't need to be exactly the same.

 

[payn]

The reason I'm not that keen on warlord as a separate class, is that to me in stories such leader characters are often evolution of some sort of warrior or soldier character type and tend to be "high-level" characters. And in D&D it used to be that high level fighters became lords and leaders of men. I.e. warlords.

Low level warlord really isn't a concept that makes much sense to me, and making it a separate class removes it as potential evolution of the fighter, which is where I feel it should be.

In this thread and many others there has been plenty of complaints about fighters, but one reason why they are just dum dums that hit things that other concepts have been siloed into their own classes. Now 5e doesn't do leadery fighter terribly well, and I don't think all high level fighters should become "warlords" but I think that should be a path that exists for them.

Furthermore, I feel that people are way too stuck to the exact 4e interpretation of the concept. You can do the concept differntly, it doesn't need to be exactly the same.

I'm with you in the sentiment, but I think allowing paladin to be a full class instead of a prestige class pretty much killed any idea of this pathing existing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, people who love 4e and are not satisfied until 5e is turned into 4e clone: just go play 4e. The game you want already exists.

Y'know, all through the edition war, it was "why don't you just play Pathfinder, it's an outright clone of 3.5 with ongoing support, literally everything you want," why keep hate'n on the current ed for being balanced and having a Warlord?

Made no impression. And, really, why shouldn't a fan of D&D expect to reprise his past glories in the latest ed? It's not really too much to ask. 5e mostly does that, anyway. You can play about any 2e character, even a Bladesinger, any 1e character - who wasn't psionic - 3e characters are, well, there was a lot to 3e, but, everything in the 3e PH1 you can absolutely play, 4e, no, no Warlord (even tho from PH1), no Avenger, no Warden, no Shaman, no Invoker, no Swordmage, no Psion, Battlemind or Ardent,
...But, at the time, in 4e, similarly, every class that was in 1e or 2e was in 4e; the 3e PH1 classes, were all there, even a lot of the PrCs became Paragon Paths, and there actually was psionics.

And, while 3.5 was cloned, and is still covered by the OGL/SRD, anyone can publish yet more support for it at any time; and the TSR era has scads of OSR imitators, 4e is limited by the much less permissive GSL, which requires WotC approval... and last I'd heard they'd stopped answering inquiries about it. Technically, under the GSL, and 4e supplements or clones for 4e can be ganked at any time, WotC hasn't bothered doing that, but for anyone thinking about entering that underserved 3PP market, it's a consideration.

It actually is a different situation.

Oh, 5e. 5e.2014 is about to be rolled to 5e.2024 - it already has an OGL/SRD, tho, and even went into the creative commons. Shouldn't be a problem if something in the one doesn't show up in the other? They're even compatible.