D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[MoonSong]

Don't have any dog in this fight at all anymore, but the most fascinating aspect of the last 3 years (the evolution of the playtest from all angles including forum behavior, the nature/framing of the questionnaires, and the retreating/morphing design goals...each subsequent iteration and finally the finished product) has been the weird gatekeeing aspect of our cute little nerd culture.

In the beginning it was full court press of outrage over various "controversial" elements that were included in various iterations. This outrage was framed in "BUT, BUT, BUT you can't taint MY D&D with your NOT D&D stuff...you can have it, but only in the modules...oh you're crying about this?...you reactionary baby, 5e is modular and there will be an onslaught of modules to recreate your preferred play experience...you'll have to build a friggin ark to survive the deluge". The "NOT D&D" stuff was removed or retreated from in subsequent iterations. Gatekeeping.

Fast forward a year later and (presumably) interested parties are still waiting for various modules so 5e might recreate their preferred play experience so they can buy-in (they're posting in these kinds of threads, afterall). The reasoning for modular design provided was that a light, mostly neutral chassis would be agile enough to plug in add-ons without too much second and third order wonkiness which might cause the system to crash. A nice side-effect would be that "controversial" elements (D&D is serious business) could be siloed away from "D&D is serous business and we don't take kindly to your kind around here" guy so he won't have any fits of uncontrollable nerd rage or perhaps an aneurism (uh oh liability!). Makes sense. Fair enough.

So now that certain official modular stuff isn't here, our nerd culture gatekeeping goalposts have shifted from "5e is modular, just be patient and you can have your nice things too" to "ok, so you didn't get your modules...tough break...oh and any of those prospective modules that you want the devs to spend their time working on (rather than something else)...they have to pass my smell test...what, are you unreasonable now and you can't compromise!!!"

One day, when aliens do a fly-by and nuke us from orbit (its the only way to be sure), they're going to download these last 3 years of our nerdom into their cool alien ship hard-drives and have a good laugh on the way home to Alpha Centuri 0009er.

Silly WereTedyKitty aliens ain't real... n_n

But truth is that, people who don't want a warlord don't need a warlord, they can go by with the valor bard, the cleric and the battlemaster. when designing a warlord we oughta focus on the excluded ones, the ones that need a more faithful port. That's why I went for a straight port, scaling hp recovery on par with the cleric from first level, hardcodded as a class ability.

 

[Hussar]

What's wrong with HD with bonuses? You can simply increase the bonus to individual HD to the point where it's comparable.

Forex if 1 HD gives you back x% of hp, then the warlord bonus should increase that to be comparable to what a group would heal with a cleric using Y% of his daily spells on healing.

Someone more mathy than me should be able to work that out.

 

[El Mahdi]

One take-away from all the above. Give players /options/ with your class or sub-classes. Don't hard-code in hp restoration or temp hps or any other mechanics (whether spurious objections were raised about them in the edition war or not) or specific concepts, but make your class & sub-classes /flexible/. There's a tremendous amount of versatility - at chargen, level-up, and even day-to-day, in most 5e classes. The Warlord, a leader, tactician, & strategist, needs to be designed to be resourceful and flexible. You can't just throw some big-number at him like you can the fighter and call it a day and expect to do the concept justice, let alone have a worthy successor to the original.

Thank you for this advice. It's quite good. One reason I'm exploring so many different vehicles/platforms is that I've found I have a tendency to focus on a specific background narrative. I need to consciously avoid this. Different platforms makes me view it from different perspectives. Including flexibility and options as a guideline would help do that also, and result in a better product.

You've been providing a lot of good advice. Thanks.

Now if you and epithet could bury the hatchet, I wouldn't have to wade through all the "invective" to get at the good advice.

It takes two to tango, you know...

 

[Uchawi]

Fast forward a year later and (presumably) interested parties are still waiting for various modules so 5e might recreate their preferred play experience so they can buy-in (they're posting in these kinds of threads, afterall). The reasoning for modular design provided was that a light, mostly neutral chassis would be agile enough to plug in add-ons without too much second and third order wonkiness which might cause the system to crash. A nice side-effect would be that "controversial" elements (D&D is serious business) could be siloed away from "D&D is serous business and we don't take kindly to your kind around here" guy so he won't have any fits of uncontrollable nerd rage or perhaps an aneurism (uh oh liability!). Makes sense. Fair enough.

One day, when aliens do a fly-by and nuke us from orbit (its the only way to be sure), they're going to download these last 3 years of our nerdom into their cool alien ship hard-drives and have a good laugh on the way home to Alpha Centuri 0009er.

Maybe the aliens should try to neutralize the forums. If we don't have our nerd outlet the forum may implode and create a worm hole to make the trip a lot easier. Or maybe 5E was so close to a flexible system you could taste it, but because of developer bias or relying too heavily on supposed survey data to make the easy choice versus taking a risk means a future product may have to explore new horizons. Either way, we need to explore this alien travel concept in depth when considering relativity as written (raw) or relativity as intended (rai).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not interested in making a 4e Warlord class, because it seems like 4e already has one. I'm interested in a 5e class, and I play and DM in 5e games... so I'm qualified.

5e classes strongly resemble their earlier counterparts. The Wizard is still Vancian because he's always been Vancian (even in 4e), the Sorcerer is still Draconic because that background's been their since it's inception, and on down the line. No 5e class has deviated meaningfully from it's original incarnation, nor quite entirely ignored the contributions of each past edition where it's made an appearance.

In the case of the Warlord, that past is the 4e Warlord, because there are no others. A 5e Warlord that failed to live up to that legacy would represent a major break from 5e design philosophy, as well as disappointing warlord fans.

Of course you are qualified to comment on 5e - we've all had a year to mull it over - and I never said you weren't. But all you seem to know about the 4e Warlord is what you've heard, possibly 2ndd-hand, if you really weren't around for it under some other handle, from the edition war. Either educate yourself more thoroughly than glancing through one class feature looking for a 'gotchya' to base a personal attack on, or trust those of us who do know & love the class to articulate what's needed to capture it's legacy.

If you do care to focus on modeling the Warlord concept in 5e, rather than on rejecting, denying, and blocking it, you could even make useful contributions to a discussion. But you really have to drop the edition war BS.

I'm not going to respond further to you baseless personal attacks, or obvious edition warring, (though I will re-post refutations as I have time to dig them up).
Instead, I'll just cross them out and respond to anything else relevant you have to say.

You, on the other hand, seem like you're having problems discussing this issue without having flashbacks to 2009 and becoming defensive over imagined hostility to what seem to be your favorite edition and class.

One thing I've noticed is that while you are consistently dismissive toward just about everything I have to say on this matter, you never actually provide anything to back up your dismissal. You say that the amount of healing I suggest is inadequate, but refuse to quantify what you want to see.

The answer is, 'enough.'

The Warlord could keep a party fighting in the face of a tough battle, and probably even turn around a disastrous one with good use of his resources. That absolutely means being able to stand up fallen allies, which requires restoring hps rather than temp hps, and restoring them in downed allies.

Asking 'how much healing,' presupposes that the Warlord will work like the Cleric, with a pool of healing resources (like spell slots) that can provide a total amount of extra healing over and above what the party could do without the Cleric - or, can be expended for other uses. That represents both a lot of potential healing, and a tremendous amount of versatility for the Cleric.

No Warlord design is likely to match either. Porting the Warlord as directly as possible from 4e wouldn't come close, for instance - Casters, like the Cleric, have far more spell resources than 4e characters had 'powers.' Conversely, no martial character in the PH has close to the resources/versatility it had in 4e. That's another reason why 'balance' is really a pretty minor concern.

One idea that's been floated is having the Warlord use the 5e HD mechanic (which bears a resemblance to 4e surges, though they're much less mechanically significant, both in total hps provided and in their importance to the rest of the system) in a way similar to what it did in 4e. So the Warlord might 'trigger' HD in combat. That provides the ability to restore hps, in combat, and get fallen allies back in the fight - but, unlike casters' slot-based healing, doesn't increase the total hp reserve available to the party. See how that /both/ gives one of the Walord's functions, /and/ is nothing like the way the Cleric heals? Not only that, but, by itself, it leaves Caster Supremacy untouched, since there's none of the tremendous versatility of neo-Vancian casting.

And that's just amateurs spit balling on the internet. I can't see how a skilled designer could have any problem with this challenge.

A more specific example, from just the other day, was based on the Fighter's Second Wind (1d10+level hps healed, 1/rest, no action). That's an example of 'instant' non-magical healing, in combat, so there's a precedent for it in the Standard Game. The fluff is that the Fighter digs deep into some hidden reserve of vitality or something like that. The Warlord's "Inspiring Word" had a similar idea, that the Warlord got his allies to 'dig deep' that way (4e gave all characters a lot more such capacity, of course), even if they couldn't, on their own. So, doing the same thing in 5e would correspond: The Warlord uses his Inspiring Word, the ally rolls 1d10 (or, more reasonably, his HD size, so d6 for wizard, for instance), plus, say, the Warlord's level, and recovers that many hps. The Warlord could inspire someone else, later, but not that same ally until the ally had taken a rest (short or long, like the Fighter getting back Second Wind). To help it keep up with the large numbers of hps at higher levels, the ally could kick in his own HD, as well - until he was out of HD, of course. The advantage of this idea, over /just/ triggering HD, is that it still works in games that don't use HD - it's just much less effective in such games, which is the intended effect of doing away with HD: "nerfing" non-magical healing to make magical healing more critically important.

You rail against my invalid criticisms, but can't be bothered to invalidate them.

Since you seem to have these 2009 debates so fresh in your mind, why don't you favor us all with a few highlights, demonstrating why everything I have to say in this thread is without merit? Take your time, I'll be here.

Just from this thread:

Al Mahdi was very patient in carefully and repeatedly refuting the idea that there's anything wrong with 'martial healing' and that the edition-war 'shouting wounds closed' sound byte you latched onto is in no way valid:
[sblock]

That's not entirely true. They are suffering from a life threatening condition - not necessarily a wound - or they may simply be knocked unconscious (if the DM decided an enemy did so with the hit that took the character to zero, or the DM just arbitrarily decides this is how they want it - players can choose this also when they take an enemy to 0 HP, per the rules).

A life threatening condition could just as likely take the form of shock (physiological shock), a dangerous level of exhaustion, etc. - however the DM wants to describe it. The rules don't limit this to just physical wounds, leaving it purposely vague. In fact, the rules highlight this in a sidebar, presenting it as optional or supplementary information - guidance, not a directive, on how to adjudicate and narrate hit points.

Also, 0 HP is not only that last blow that took them to zero, or even that last wound (if that's how you've narrated it or envision it), it's an accumulation of everything that brought them to that point. Since Hit Points are defined as "...a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck", that means that all the damage one takes is not necessarily in the form of wounds. A Warlord "shouting" at a character can be "healing" those non-wound hit points, of which the net effect is a recovery of HP. This especially works in D&D since the system doesn't differentiate between the different forms of damage one might take.


It may not make sense to you, but that doesn't mean it's not sensible.

The Sidebar:

Describing the Effects of Damage

Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduced you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

It's only "shouting wounds closed" if one chooses to ignore an official aspect of 5E's rules. That's certainly any D&D fans prerogative, but definitely not the system's problem when that choice creates narrative dissonance. ...

I provided a narrative that makes sense and is consistent with the conceits of the game; one of many such narratives that have been provided by gamers since the Warlord first came out in 4E. If one chooses to ignore certain conceits, or use different conceits, then of course it won't make sense. However, that isn't a failure of the system or class, and is most certainly not a logical argument for it not being included or working the way it does.

I asked, specifically in response to epithet, why martial hit point restoration doesn't fit with the logic of the game; and neither he nor you have answered that.

What you've said is martial hit point restoration doesn't fit the logic of the game when you choose to ignore part of the logic of the game.

That doesn't answer the question, it changes the question; thus, moving the goal posts.

That's like saying the existence of a screwdriver doesn't make logical sense because I only use nuts and bolts, not screws; despite the fact that things you might need to work on are assumed to use both.

I however did show how a Warlords "healing" is consistent with the logic of the game; and nobody has provided a logical or factual refutation of that.

Actually, they are not using hit points 100% consistent with RAW if they ignore the mental durability, will to live, and luck aspects in favor of viewing hit points as only physical durability. That's not 100% at all.

A Warlord's "healing" works by restoring that mental durability. Since D&D doesn't differentiate between types of damage, the net effect is a restoration of Hit Points. And frankly, if that's the source of the dissonance, then why is a spell like Cure Wounds not a source of dissonance either? It's name specifically designates wounds (physical durability) and not mental durability - yet nobody bats an eye at it healing hit points indiscriminately - including the unspoken mental ones.

Even in the real world a Warlord's abilities make sense. It's a fact that physiological shock (circulatory shock) can kill just as much as physical wounds; and maybe even more. Physiological shock can be caused by intense pain, and even extreme emotional shock, same as it can by traumatic wounds. Focusing the mind away from the mental aspect or away from the pain can reverse physiological shock. People can mentally hang on long enough for the body to regain homeostasis on its own; often only needing a short period of time in which to do so. More than likely it's the effect of epinephrine (adrenalin), but there's certainly an aspect of mind-over-matter that takes place. Once homeostasis is achieved, typically the body doesn't relapse unless something new occurs. That means it's generally permanent, and why temporary hit points are inconsistent with what a Warlord does.

Granted, the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is fictional, but it is grounded in reality. As someone who has actually been to war, who has seen such traumatic situations first hand, I can vouch for the veracity of this. Emergency personnel see this all the time. Even my wife, a hospice nurse, has seen this. She's lost count of the number of times she's seen a patient hang on long past what was believed possible, just in order to see a loved one before they pass.

I think the dissonance that many feel concerning this is more a failure of imagination and lack of experience, than it is one of illogic. A paradigm problem, not a logic problem.

Real world dying, represented by 0 hit points in D&D, is often a many-layered thing. Even dying of a gun-shot wound isn't completely black and white. Oft times an actual gun-shot wound isn't what kills, but is instead heart-attack or stroke, or even heart failure due to circulatory shock or hypovolemic shock.

But D&D hit points aren't that granular; and that's a good thing. The game would be far to complicated if it were. But just because the things that a Warlord "heals" aren't explicitly visible (though technically, no damage is explicitly visible), it doesn't mean they don't exist and don't have a profound effect.

I've touched on this before, but I think it keeps getting lost in the mix.

I agree completely that "healing is about recovery", but I disagree that Warlords don't stimulate recovery from damage, or that the fiction that the Warlord is based on doesn't support this.

First, there is no one source of fiction that a Warlord draws on. Some are consistent with your statement, some are not. For instance, the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is one such fictional source that is contrary to your statement. Reese does far more than just soldier on despite being wounded. His energy level returns to almost normal. His ability to fight returns to almost normal. He is no longer in danger of succumbing to his wounds. That is most certainly recovery from damage - from a fictional and real-life perspective.

This highlights the second part, as you've said, damage is not just wounds. Wounds themselves don't kill. Wounds themselves don't cause death. What causes death is the loss of homeostasis.

Homeostasis is the ability of an organism to regulate its functions; things like maintain blood pressure, blood volume, heart rate, circulation, neurological activity, waste processing, resist toxins and agents, etc.

For example, a vicious sword cut doesn't kill. The body can still structurally/mechanically continue to operate. What fails is the bodies ability to maintain blood pressure and volume. When homeostasis is sufficiently lost, the organism ceases to function (usually heart failure and/or brain death).

Even a heart attack itself doesn't kill. A heart attack leads to the inability of the heart to maintain blood flow. Homeostasis is lost as a result, and the organism dies.

Inability to maintain homeostasis is also damage, and is not necessarily precipitated by injury.

In the case of Reese, he is suffering from an accumulation of damage: exhaustion, blood loss, circulatory shock from extreme pain and intense prolonged fear, actual structural damage/wounds, etc. He passes out because his body is losing homeostasis.

When Sarah yells at him using mental triggers he's conditioned to respond to, his brain responds by stimulating the production of epinephrine (adrenaline), serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and others.

The epinephrine immediately raises his heart rate and blood pressure. It was low before, the primary reason why he passed out, and is now back at normal levels.

The dopamine motivates Reese - in this specific circumstance, motivated to fight and survive.

The norepinephrine focuses Reese - allowing him to focus on the threat at hand and respond accordingly - allows him to access and utilize his training and knowledge to fight.

The serotonin floods his system to aid in blood clotting, vasoconstriction for purposes of homeostasis, and generates a sense of optimism.

As these hormones/neurotransmitters flood Reese's body, he revives - recovers - and gets back in the fight.

Homeostasis, though being supported by a surge of chemicals, has been restored.

And here's the kicker, just because homeostasis is being directly stimulated, doesn't mean that homeostasis won't remain after the surge is over.

If, while the surge is taking place, the body is able to clot enough to stop or limit blood loss, and thus allow for functional blood pressure without adrenaline stimulation, then homeostasis will be maintained.

The body has recovered from damage.

Now granted, in real life, there is a significant if involved. Such as, if sufficient clotting hasn't taken place, homeostasis won't persist after the adrenaline has worn off, etc., etc.

But D&D doesn't differentiate damage this way. It doesn't get this granular (and doesn't use persistent wounds or their effects - so we have to ignore this for the official rules - though I think it's inclusion would solve a lot of the disconnect being experienced).

We use an abstract quantification that encompasses all of that so we don't have to get that time-consumingly involved. As long as one understands Hit Points to be an abstract quantification, it supports any level of granular examination or interpretation one wants; including recovery from damage because somebody exhorted another to do so. Anyone who says there is only one interpretation of Hit Points - only one thing they represent and only one way to think about them (not you, epithet; I'm referring to a certain height-challenged divine-wind) - they simply couldn't be more wrong.

So, in conclusion, Warlord action can stimulate recovery from damage. It's present in both fiction and real-life.


However, I will stipulate that just because recovery from damage can occur, it's not guaranteed.

With that in mind, I propose this for both proponents and opponents of Warlord healing:

Would it be acceptable - a tolerable compromise - assuming the use of real Hit Points rather than Temporary Hit Points - for Warlord healing to require a saving throw after a certain amount of time or following combat, or risk reverting to the previous Hit Point level unless one has received magical healing or use of a healer's kit?

(A saving throw that reflects the uncertainty - the lack of a guarantee - that homeostasis can be maintained.)

[video=youtube;N71d7BF1fZ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71d7BF1fZ4[/video]

[/sblock]

The truth is, Tony, that your efforts to drive me and others from this thread and this discussion prove that you are only interested in one thing: finding people who agree with you and your very particular concept of what a Warlord ought to be. Anyone who disagrees with you is spouting "rubbish." Anyone who suggests an alternative to your Shining Perfect Platonic Form of a Warlord (which you seem unwilling to actually describe with specificity) is being "counter-productive."

There has been a lot of "edition war nonsense" in the past several pages of this thread, Tony. It's all been from you. And so, instead of exchanging ideas about a class we all might enjoy having in the 5th edition of D&D, we're instead talking about the asinine way you've turned this into an argument. You're out of line. If you don't agree with something I have to say, fine... express a contrary position and back it up. If all you have to say is "that's nonsense from 2009" then I can only interpret that as "I don't like what you are saying but I can't argue with your reasoning."

Well, nothing else, this post. Better luck next time.

That was me being nice. The stream of invective would have much more creative, descriptive, and sincere.

Keep trying, third time's the charm....

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you for this advice. It's quite good. One reason I'm exploring so many different vehicles/platforms is that I've found I have a tendency to focus on a specific background narrative. I need to consciously avoid this.

That sounds interesting, what do you mean by 'background narrative' in the context of class design? Class concept? Narration of specific class abilities?

 

[epithet]

What's wrong with HD with bonuses? You can simply increase the bonus to individual HD to the point where it's comparable.

Forex if 1 HD gives you back x% of hp, then the warlord bonus should increase that to be comparable to what a group would heal with a cleric using Y% of his daily spells on healing.

Someone more mathy than me should be able to work that out.

HD also provide an unequivocally non-magical resource to burn.

All 3rd party healing in 5e burns a resource; there are no healing cantrips, and even the Healer feat requires charges from the healer's kit. The only "free" heals are reflexive. Magical healing obviously uses spell slots, not a resource available in this context, but HD seem ideal, since they are a non-magical resource that is designed to be converted into hit points.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's wrong with HD with bonuses? You can simply increase the bonus to individual HD to the point where it's comparable.

Not much. For instance, you still need to have HD to trigger for them to apply.

Forex if 1 HD gives you back x% of hp, then the warlord bonus should increase that to be comparable to what a group would heal with a cleric using Y% of his daily spells on healing.

Someone more mathy than me should be able to work that out.

1 HD restores, /on average/ (and it's pretty swingy, by definition, being a discrete uniform distribution) slightly less than 1/(level+1) total hps, how slightly less depends on the die size. If your first HD were rolled instead of maximized, it'd be simpler, just 1/level. Of course, that's assuming no CON bonus, which would vary things based on CON bonus relative to die size. 1 HD + Con mod, though, is going to approach 1/level as a fraction of hps as you rise in level. At 1st level, closer to 1/2, the lower your CON mod and larger your HD. Again, on average, when you're as likely to roll 1 or max as to roll within half a point of average. FWIW.

Seems like a mathematically precise correlation to the Cleric's healing potential in excess of HD is impractical. Especially give that the Cleric side of the equation will vary wildly based on spells prepared and how slots are used in the course of the day. In theory, a Cleric could prep no healing spells, so provide no extra healing, at all. About the only way to do it would be the way 4e did: give the Warlord per-rest resources comparable to the Cleric's.

Rather than trying to get extra healing from a bonus to match some benchmark, just picking a mod that's simple and makes sense would be a good starting point. Then, in playtesting, it could be evaluated to see if it was too much or too little. Obvious candidate modifiers would be the targets CON mod (per usual for spending HD), the Warlord's CHA mod (since he's doing the inspiring), and the Warlord or target's level (or the higher or lower of the two).

 

[El Mahdi]

That sounds interesting, what do you mean by 'background narrative' in the context of class design? Class concept? Narration of specific class abilities?

When I envision a Warlord, I primarily see them as a Warrior Leader; a squad leader/squad officer type of character. I have to keep reminding myself that it's not just Warriors that can be leaders and tacticians. Exploring the idea of an archetype for every class ensures I don't miss something due to my own blind spots. Even if that's not the final form that we, or ultimately WotC (hopefully), settle on, at least I'll feel confident that I explored the concept from the perceptive of every class/role.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I envision a Warlord, I primarily see them as a Warrior Leader; a squad leader/squad officer type of character. I have to keep reminding myself that it's not just Warriors that can be leaders and tacticians. Exploring the idea of an archetype for every class ensures I don't miss something due to my own blind spots.

Even within the martial concept, it's been used for more than that, or could be further expanded. The Bravura Warlord, for instance, was a lead-from-the-front, secondary-defender, 'Warrior' type, the Inspiring build also tended that way. Tactical Warlords, OTOH, ranged from officer types barking orders while fighting in the front line (as originally conceived) to the fan-devised (and latter expanded in Dragon) 'Lazy' (or as Garthanos called them 'Princess') builds that handed out most of their actions to other characters, either as a lead-from-the-rear commander, or as, conceptually, a non-combatant merely inspiring greater heroics in their defense.

Quite aside from the sub-class-of-multiple-classes idea (which also came up in discussions of psionics, BTW, where it was a lot more obvious because 1e psionics could be possessed by characters of any class), even a single-class design of the Warlord needs to be very flexible in the range of builds, genre archetypes, and character concepts it can handle.

(Really, any martial class does, since there are so few non-magical sub-classes, each one has to do a lot of heavy lifting. In fact, one thing that's occurred to me is that the Warlord might very well be the only non-magic-using class added to the game, possibly the first & only class to have no magic-using sub-classes, and that each of it's sub-classes could be devoted to filling some of the many non-DPR/'striker' roles currently restricted to casters. For instance, the Bravura sub-class could be a primary Defender/'tank' with only a secondary emphasis on DPR perhaps partially from enhancing ally's attacks. You could have an Inspiring (though 5e has thoroughly flogged 'Inspiration,' so maybe Icon or Paragon) sub-class that's more like the 4e-fan-devised Lazy warlord, a dedicated healer/buffer/action-granter. You could have a 'Hector' imposing conditions through taunting, intimidation, and deception or even a follower-based (phalanx, pike square, archers, sappers, whatever) Commander blurring the lines between D&D small-unit tactical skirmish game and small-unit tactical wargame, and thus tread around the ground of 'controller'/'spoiler'/'blaster' roles.)


Edit: missing indefinite article, and credit where it's due:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3673491