The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

[Obryn]

I'll do what I can, but it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf. If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant. We are just dorks talking on the internet about a very obscure point of a tremendously nerdy hobby, and it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough.

Oh, come the hell on.

First, calling it a "hyper-emotional response" is ridiculous. I have no idea where in that post you're concluding this, so it just looks like you're disrespecting him, personally.

Second, I think there's a word for being intentionally provocative then mocking the people you provoked for having the temerity to get provoked.

We're all talking about pretend elfgames here, and I think it's safe to say nobody's crying themselves to sleep over it. Implying [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is, is pure BS.

-O

 

[pemerton]

People, for the most part, roughly fall into one of two camps:
- You shouldn't be able to do anything that resembles putting meat back together by shouting because that's unrealistic. Ergo, only magic can heal because realism doesn't apply to magic.
- Everyone should be able to heal all injuries instantly because the game is more fun that way! Who cares what makes sense? It's just a game!

<snip>

I myself fall into the latter group.

I'm in the variant of the latter group that thinks that heroically pushing on through injuries, while sometimes unrealistic, is part of the heroic fantasy genre. (And the superhero genre that is closely related to it.)

The rally is fun, but it shouldn't be a design baseline. It should not be what you design combats, classes, or combat roles around.
What makes epic fights interesting is that they are special and rare.

This may signal a fundamental divergence of preferences. And, to my mind at least, it relates back to [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s post upthread about using certain key design elements as a litmus test.

There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")

At least in my own experience, real life - the weeks between sessions, and the moments during sessions when people eat food or take other sorts of breaks - delivers the necessary downtime to make the pursuit of ingame drama at every opportunity desirable.

If I'm looking at a system, and I'm seeing that in order to get the awesome I'm going to have to game through hours of non-awesome - eg combats or traps that nickle-and-dime away the first third or half of PC hit points; calculating encumbrance, inventory etc - then I don't think I'm interested. Whatever pleasure I am able to get out of that sort of thing I can get solving crosswords by myself.

So for me, the litmus is - when I look at this system can I see where it is going to deliver all awesome, all the time? And for me, the warlord in 4e was one marker of that. The very fact that the game has as part of its core build that class, with those abilities and that function, tells me something about what the game apsires to. (Whether it also meets its aspirations is important too - in my own experience 4e mostly does, though it's not without its flaws.)

I'll do what I can

Thank you.

it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf

Because I thought board rules mandated respect for other posters? And putting that to one side - after all, in the real world we all know people who don't actually warrant respect - because discussion generally proceeds more productively when the ideas in play are described using language that is neutral as between the preferences of various sides, and (where possible) is acceptable to both sides.

If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant.

<snip>

it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough.

I didn't think my response was hyper-emotional - it was a one line request. I'm sorry it came across differently to you.

From my point of view, everyone posting on ENworld is doing so voluntarily and for recreational purposes. I do my best not to make fun of other peoples preferences, even though I don't always share them, and I do my best to describe their play and their play experiences in language they themselves might use, because I figure that's a way to make their recreation more pleasant for them.

 

[Manbearcat]

This may signal a fundamental divergence of preferences. And, to my mind at least, it relates back to @Obryn 's post upthread about using certain key design elements as a litmus test.

There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")

At least in my own experience, real life - the weeks between sessions, and the moments during sessions when people eat food or take other sorts of breaks - delivers the necessary downtime to make the pursuit of ingame drama at every opportunity desirable.

If I'm looking at a system, and I'm seeing that in order to get the awesome I'm going to have to game through hours of non-awesome.

I'll just echo these sentiments here rather than contriving my own. They cross all the Ts and dot all the lowercase js. I don't want to "slog" through 5 or 6 Nazi dinner or classroom scenes of Indiana Jones to get to the horse/cart chases, the crypt crawls and the temple raiding. When you spend only a few hours a month on gaming, concepts such as "the tyranny of fun" and "too much awesome" are a wee bit foreign.

 

[Garthanos]

The solution to this is simple: if you have a dedicated healer in your party, you will have the rally (at least in the big combats).

If you do not, you will not (and it is not necessary for the big combats).

And either way, the game will work.

Ummm completely impersonal I shouldnt have to have a cleric in the party to get a sense of the heroic turn around ( or even a Warlord...) ie yuck dude yuck. Second wind and action points and abilities that trigger on a bloodied state aren't perfect but are better than that and if the game really treats this as an after thought its going in the solid MEH category.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

As for myself, the warlord can work as a bit of a litmus test. It basically needs 3 things:

(1) Exist. It's one of the key classes of 4e, and essential to my vision of modern D&D
(2) Help its allies in a very direct fashion - more than just auras.
(3) Heal.

Pretty much, missing any of these is a (further) indicator I'm not that interested in Next as a whole because it's not what I want from a new edition of D&D.

-O

I'm generally in this boat as well, and I agree that it's implementation can serve as a litmus test, as can several other key 4e-isms.

Regarding point #1 - The warlord was a class that did things which no other edition has been able to accomplish for me; it has enabled an archetype that has been mostly lacking or implemented poorly previously. Suddenly some of my favourite martial characters from 2nd edition can be played effectively again!

No warlord in Next is therefore a bit of a dealbreaker for me, or rather a warlord archetype that doesn't accomplish what the 4e one does would be.

Regarding point #2 - I like the "game-changing" nature of their abilities, though I was actually a bit disappointed that there were not more Aura effects in the game for PCs to use. Their natural home would have been with classes such as the Warlord, Paladin, and Bard. We eventually got constant auras with the Skald bard, but more would have been nice.

Regarding point #3 - I like warlord healing. I know this is the big sticking point for most of the hate directed at both the class and the edition as a whole, but for me, it should be an option, if not mandatory (and from the hackles that were raised yet again by its very mention, I should think we know how this must go, sadly).

Thematically: Needs to be -

1) A cool-headed warrior who leads from the front, with poise in the face of all manner of adversity.
2) A tactician that can tactically change the scope of battle in real time.
3) A strategic magician who can dictate the terms of a fight before the enemy even knows they are in one.
4) A bastion of courage who instills hope and bulwarks morale when normal men fail and demoralize their side.
5) Someone who knows wish buttons to push to provoke surrender and has the mental acumen to draw up terms of surrender and make the other side understand they are lucky to have those terms and wise to accept them.

I like these thematic elements. I think that a "lead from the rear" warlord archetype should also be supported.

Resource-wise: Needs to be able to -

1) Heal morale damage.
2) Prevent, or at least buff resistance to, fear effects.
3) Improve the overall action economy of his side; immediate actions allowing ally attacks or strategic advance, withdraw, or maneuvering.
4) Have skill in warfare based non-combat resolution; parlays, treaties, strategic use of troops (such as recon teams). This needs to have overlap here with other general knowledges and general parlance. Perception and spatial awareness is likely key here as well. The ability to buff others in his areas of expertise; or allow them advantage in their own wouldn't be the worst idea.

An emphatic "yes" from me to all these points, but especially the 4th one; non-combat resolution is most often where the martial characters have been hamstrung in D&D, and I would love nothing more than to see this tradition put to rest (outside of my own houserules).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Second, I think there's a word for being intentionally provocative then mocking the people you provoked for having the temerity to get provoked.

It was never my intention to provoke anyone. I can try to be civil and refrain from those two terms, knowing it is a problem to the folks I'm trying to have a convo with, but I cannot be expected to preemptively be aware of others' sensitivities regarding a flippant term for inspirational healing and a rather awkward description of a combat where each side gives it their all.

As far as warlord healing goes, I think I'm in accord with you and pemerton, and I'd much rather have a convo about how D&D might be able to thread that needle than I am about potentially irritating verbiage.

Apologies for any offense.

Ummm completely impersonal I shouldnt have to have a cleric in the party to get a sense of the heroic turn around ( or even a Warlord...) ie yuck dude yuck. Second wind and action points and abilities that trigger on a bloodied state aren't perfect but are better than that and if the game really treats this as an after thought its going in the solid MEH category.

I think this is totally fair, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see optional mechanics like this in 5e to create that combat arc in more situations. It's not something I personally love in every combat, but if 5e is supposedly going to also support more encounter-based design, it'd absolutely be a smart thing to include.

 

[Manbearcat]

I like these thematic elements. I think that a "lead from the rear" warlord archetype should also be supported.

Could be done in a Sun Tzu or Patton motif (although both of them still scrapped) I suppose, but that might be difficult given the logistics of D&D (small units and correspondingly intimate skirmishes). For my money though, when I think of the 4e Warlord I think of Captain Winters from Band of Brothers and Captain Miller from Saving Private Ryan; coincidentally both with completely non-martial backgrounds thrust into the role of Captains of Army Rangers. Interestingly enough, when an officer with strings artificially advanced through the ranks and tried to "lead from the rear" at Foy, near Bastogne, it almost got Easy Company massacred during the Battle of the Bulge.

Its hard to be a "field captain" and be a "leader of men" and "lead from the rear" but I suppose it could be done. Are most folks thinking of the lazy-lord when considering that niche. The lazy-lord can still lead from the front.

I'm curious what source material folks are drawing on when they think of "lead from the rear" battle captains/warlords. I'm not disputing that it can't be done or that there isn't a precedent (that can map to D&D) but assuming there is, I'm just not familiar with it. Even Gandalf mixed it up on the front lines (class/race, he was a Fighter/Mage Angel, but thematically he was basically a warlord for FotR).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Its hard to be a "field captain" and be a "leader of men" and "lead from the rear" but I suppose it could be done. Are most folks thinking of the lazy-lord when considering that niche. The lazy-lord can still lead from the front.

I'm curious what source material folks are drawing on when they think of "lead from the rear" battle captains/warlords. I'm not disputing that it can't be done or that there isn't a precedent (that can map to D&D) but assuming there is, I'm just not familiar with it. Even Gandalf mixed it up on the front lines (class/race, he was a Fighter/Mage Angel, but thematically he was basically a warlord for FotR).

I am referring to that particular turn of phrase in it's most D&Dish form - one which is most closely associated with the lazy-lord. And when I say that the archetype should be supported, I mean only that I'd like to see a continuation of viable warlords with higher mental stats than physical, which under 4e did not preclude being on the front lines either, thanks to feats like Melee Training.

It's a bit tangential to the conversation, but that was one of my favourite things about 4e, and something that the inherent flexibility of the warlord class highlighted very well for me - that not every class that hit things needed Strength to be effective in combat. I see next has made a half-hearted implementation of this by tying weapon choice to stats, but still we're left with only Strength or Dexterity as options. This is another major point of contention, even among 4e fans, but I'd be very sorry to see it go (and I see nothing to indicate that they'd bring this idea back).

 

[Manbearcat]

@Nemesis Destiny Gotcha. That all makes sense and I agree with it. I too would hate to see those things go.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see next has made a half-hearted implementation of this by tying weapon choice to stats, but still we're left with only Strength or Dexterity as options. This is another major point of contention, even among 4e fans, but I'd be very sorry to see it go (and I see nothing to indicate that they'd bring this idea back).

Honestly, this hits in the Big Win column for me, too. Not having to worry about keeping a given ability score at a decent level frees up a lot of interesting character concepts -- I'd even encourage 5e to go even farther with this than 4e did.

I wouldn't imagine it would be part of the "basic" game (blah blah classic play blah blah), but I can imagine a pretty easy rule that would allow it. Even something as simple as "Use your highest ability score modifier in place of other ability score modifiers when you roll an attack" could work. You'd lose some granularity, but you'd gain a tremendous wealth of character options.

I'm now imagining a STR-based bard who is a half-orc modeled after Animal from the Muppets:

[video=youtube;2cEPydnb0Ns]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2cEPydnb0Ns[/video]

...but the Warlord was the first time you could really have an Int or Cha based non-magical melee character and have it work just fine, mechanically (I mean, 3e had Combat Expertise, but it was kind of a marginal choice, and didn't erase the need for your other ability scores to be tremendous).

MAD is BAD, generally speaking.