D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Pedantic]

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.

Yeah, the Fighter would be much more defensible if most of the other martial classes were mid-late game advancements built on top of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As my favorite edition to date, I didnt mind all the mechanical fuss about 3E. I liked NPCs being developed same as PCs. I can certainly admit the weaknesses and tediousness of parts of it though. I'm looking at you BAB!

I didn't really like 3e, but NPCs being built like PCs just makes sense to me. But it is a tad too tedious, so I can accept NPC statblocks being simplified and only "approximating" PC builds. But in 5e I have ended up giving humanoid enemies stuff lie sneak attack and rage etc, and I think it makes them play more interestingly. I also dislike how the newer statblocks in 5e have moved away from giving NPCs proper spells. I really don't understand it. Write the whole spell effect to the statblock for ease of use if you want, but give them same spells the PCs get. It just is bizarre that an NPC wizard has some weird spells that the PC wizard cannot learn!

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

You would pretty much have to write your own phb for a 4E style warlord. The basic concept works but duplicating the 4E version of said concept doesn't. Attack granting for example is kinda weak unless there's a rogue involved then it's awesome.

 

[Minigiant]

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

It works in 5e term though.

The mechanic are in the PHB. And WOTC wants to make them stronger.

All you need to do is

1. Increase the number of support Maneuvers
2. Increase the Superiority Die
3. Let a warlord spend an action to spend the HD of allies. Probably with a bonus.

 

[Zardnaar]

It works in 5e term though.

The mechanic are in the PHB. And WOTC wants to make them stronger.

All you need to do is

1. Increase the number of support Maneuvers
2. Increase the Superiority Die
3. Let a warlord spend an action to spend the HD of allies. Probably with a bonus.

I said the basic idea is fine an exact replication does not.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

100% this. Imagine trying to create a 5e fighter modeled after the 4e Fighter.

 

[Zardnaar]

100% this. Imagine trying to create a 5e fighter modeled after the 4e Fighter.

That would be easier but you woukd probably need it's own class.

5E fighter is kind of built around being able to layer around 1/3rd of another class on top of it.

So your battlenaster is basically your 4E type combined with some feats. More of a dip than dedicated 4E class.

4E would probably work better dumping dailies for non magical classes but no edition can really dump dailies.

Level 1-10 with cool down powers would be your best bet for a balanced D&D but can't really that.

 

[Minigiant]

100% this. Imagine trying to create a 5e fighter modeled after the 4e Fighter.

Second Wind, Action Surge, Superiority Die, and incoming Weapon Masteries and Tactical Shift and Tactical Mind.

The only part missing is Marks which is optional in the DMG and Opp attacks on Marked foes..

 

[Zardnaar]

Second Wind, Action Surge, Superiority Die, and incoming Weapon Masteries and Tactical Shift and Tactical Mind.

The only part missing is Marks which is optional in the DMG and Opp attacks on Marked foes..

With tashas you can come very close. Sentinel feat for marking?

 

[Tony Vargas]

You would pretty much have to write your own phb for a 4E style warlord. The basic concept works but duplicating the 4E version of said concept doesn't. Attack granting for example is kinda weak unless there's a rogue involved then it's awesome.

Nod. 5e contracted design space around melee, and balanced around DPR, with most martials getting that DPR scaling via Extra Attack, the Rogue being odd duck out. That makes granting a single attack all but non-scalling, unless the grantee is a well-done Rogue with CA. Granting an Action would scale for everyone, tho, and as Keanu-Reaves-saying-"Whoa" as that may seem, the most potent use of it would, realistically, probably be letting someone cast an additional spell in the round - something simply playing an additional caster would duplicate... in addition, of course, to adding another full slate of spell slots to the party's resources.

And, well, I didn't say it that long ago.

Unfortunately for anyone trying to add a Warlord to 5e, the support-capable classes are, well, the Paladin (as a support character, most notable for its aura), and multiple full-casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, the odd sub-class of other full casters). The Paladin is also, in 4e terms, a striker and as close as 5e comes to a defender, in addition to a leader. The full casters are Controllers powerful beyond the dreams of 4e controllers, non-combat problem-solvers, and so forth.

And, we're back in the crab-bucket. A faithful 'port of the 4e Warlord would be a lethal trap for any party that relied on it as their only support character, far too weak and limited to take the place of a Bard, Cleric or Druid. At the same time, it would leave every other martial character in the dust (except, if done right, in terms of DPR). It falls right into the wide & bottomless abyss of the martial/caster gap.