D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[Ratskinner]

If you can forgive me some Forge labelling, those sound to me like a type of simulationist preference. Also a preference for "lite" techniques. Out of curiosity, have you ever tried Runequest or HARP?

Anyway, it makes sense that 4e would irritate you. (And Burning Wheel as well?) Neither does a good job at "not slowing things down".

Btw, why do you say that hp punish someone paying attention to the fiction/story?

Certainly its a preference for "lite"...otherwise I have trouble placing it very clearly in the GNS model. For instance in the Right to Dream article, Some parts of the "Internal Cause is King" section seem right on it, but there's a lot else that seems superfluous to me. I could buy calling it Simulationist, if you can Sim what Terry Pratchett calls Narrative Causality, but that doesn't seem to be where most of Sim goes. I suspect, though, that "Internal Cause is King" is just the part of Sim that I include in my particular playstyle. (I am also, for instance, perfectly comfortable working with "metagame" mechanics.) I haven't really tried those games you've mentioned, although I think at one time or another I've read rules for them.

I say that HP punish the attention-payer because of the discouragement of narrative detail or consequence that we mentioned. So, if you are paying attention, you can't really escape the image of energy bars above the characters' heads that turn from green to yellow to red as they shrink with each blow, or reverse that upon the healing of wounds which are at best entirely cosmetic (at least I can't). If such a player presses for details of injuries and the like, or attempts to invoke a DM's often spurious descriptions of injury: "Wait, didn't you say he just got sliced in the forehead with blood running into his eyes?" they are, at best, met with a polite "The system doesn't work that way." DMs quickly learn to avoid giving any substantive narration, which then makes the player look like he's always fishing for a bonus even if not. (This can be especially true if an event happens that makes more sense mechanically than fictionally.) Similarly, if such a player attempts to utilize such spurious descriptions while Narrating their own actions, they are often rounded on for not being "team players" or the like. IME, this kind of thing most irritates the Munchkins, Min/Maxers, and Power Gamers* who often seem to view it as a form of cheating or anti-social play.

I say this not as merely a disgruntled player. I've many times been on the other side of the screen (often with new players) telling them how "it doesn't work that way". I've shepherded many people into the hobby, and excepting those who've played a lot of video games HP seem to be a big sticking point. I can't even number the times I've had to respond to a comment like "Wait, didn't he just get hit with a sword? Is his arm off or what?" After the explanations of the HP system, I can often watch the skepticism blossom in their faces. I often suspect that the prevalence of HP mechanics in rpgs is a subtle deterrent to more folks like me being involved in this hobby.

That all makes plenty of sense. It reminds me quite a bit of Marvel Heroic RP (Distinction and Complications rather than Aspects and Consequences), which I imagine was FATE-inspired.

Cortex Plus and FATE share a lot of DNA contributor-wise. I was often struck while reading MHRP at how much it reminded me of FATE, with some added/altered niftiness of its own. Plus you don't need to find Fudge dice...

*Please choose whichever term(s) you find least offensive, Dear Reader. I'm just trying to indicate a player type, not impune it.

 

[Cyberen]

I can't now remember. I think it ws something like "Limited by limbs rather than able to fly and teleport."



The point is that our hypothetical fight between a fighter and a cleric is unlikely to happen at my table. The question is what both can contribute to the party.

And there are more or less two categories of fights. Big intense fights that take just about everything. In these under your model the fighter and buffed cleric will be equal. I have very seldom seen a buff spell run out in the middle of a fight.

And small fights which chip away at the hit points and you want to use as few resources for as possible. The sort of thing that the fighter not being restricted by spellcasting should put them at an advantage at. After all they can keep swinging their sword. But in these little fights (and there's time to rest between them) the fighter's hit points get chipped away. Every so often the orc will get a lucky shot in even on someone in plate armour. And with this sort of stream of minor fights the Cleric simply brings far more hit points to the party than the orc does. The fighter's ability to keep hitting things assumes that no one is hitting back.

I think you nailed precisely how free healing creates a fundamental imbalance in the game. It has to be priced carefully in order to avoid CoDoWzilla (fighters having staying power only because they are plugged on the walking divine or mundane power plant) and Stainless Heroes never having to worry about being worn down.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think you nailed precisely how free healing creates a fundamental imbalance in the game. It has to be priced carefully in order to avoid CoDoWzilla (fighters having staying power only because they are plugged on the walking divine or mundane power plant) and Stainless Heroes never having to worry about being worn down.

Ironically, CoDzilla exists because the 3e designers deliberately overpowered clerics and druids. The reasoning was that being able to cast healing spells is actually a negative as it forces the player to use up a lot of spell slots that could otherwise be spent on fun stuff such as Flame Strike. Healing spells are seen as a party resource, which the healer PC happens to be carrying.

Around the time 4e came out, I recall some formulation of the phrase, "You don't get plaudits for the assist, you get plaudits for the score", being used in relation to support characters. This is why leaders in 4e heal as a swift action and get powers that both deal damage and heal simultaneously.

 

[Cyberen]

Yes, I know !
But :
1) wrinkles appear when you don't play in the "party healer" mode, because the party has several healers, no healer, or you're deviating from the party model and start wondering why you're still playing a stupid fighter !
2) if healing is broken and not fun, the obvious solution is *less* healing, not *more & easier*

 

[Manbearcat]

A significant difficulty in handling long-term consequences ("costume damages") is perhaps one of the bigger weakness in 4e, because that matters even within its narrow scope of focus. It all falls to the GM to handle through the framing and narration of subsequent encounters. There's no straightforward mechanical system. ( @Manbearcat and others have pushed the disease/curse track fairly hard, but I don't know if they've used that to model things like "embarassed in front of Angela").

pemerton and @Ratskinner I've done quite a few things with the Disease/Curse Track in 4e (primarily horror, and travel attrition/environmental exhaustion to create tension at attempted Extended and Short Rests) but nothing equivalent to "embarassed in front of Angela". However, I do use a simple house rule in my home game that is akin to this. It has extremely minimal overhead and is very rewarding to our playstyle; the functional equivalent to invoking Aspects negatively in Fate to earn Fate points and Distinctions in MHRP to buff the Doom Pool for Plot points. Its strictly non-combat conflict resolution.

During a player's panel in a Skill Challenge, they can choose willingly to fail. Doing so provides them 3 rewards:

1) Narration rights to the result of the failure of the panel.
2) An encounter power that is the equivalent of the human racial power Heroic Effort except only for skills;

Encounter
No Action Personal
Trigger: You fail a skill check.
Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to the skill check.

The player can have only one of these at a time. When they invoke this, they get a card upon which they write a short thematic phrase (the equivalent of an Aspect or Distinction) that captures the essence of the failed panel. When they cash it in for the Encounter power above, they write a short thematic phrase on the other side that captures the essence of the outcome of the current panel and hand it in to me. We have a collection of these for posterity and amusement. After that cash-in, they can then earn a new one for the future.

3) Narration rights to the result of the current panel of which the Encounter power was invoked.

So kind of along those lines I suppose. But, again, not in the official ruleset nor in any Dragon that I'm aware of (and I'd know it if it was).

 

[Mike Eagling]

I can't now remember. I think it ws something like "Limited by limbs rather than able to fly and teleport."

No worries

The point is that our hypothetical fight between a fighter and a cleric is unlikely to happen at my table. The question is what both can contribute to the party.

Well it was really no more than a contrived example to help illustrate my take on class balance.

I really do suspect we approach this from very different directions. I'm of the opinion that magic, being magic, will always have the edge over the mundane. The mundane is the natural order, whereas magic is that supernatural force that rearranges the natural order. It's obvious to me that magic will win out, left unchecked. However, there are checks and balances built into magic-using classes that limit their use of it, and there are other checks and balances elsewhere in the system (this is one very good reason for using spell components, for example!). There can also be checks and balances in the game world too. In my experience these have all tended to even out. YMMV.

 

[Starfox]

Not if your warlord player decides that the only abilities he's taking are two specific ones each level (like Bless and Healing Word) that he will use to recreate a warlord. So there's no list to select from... those are it as far as he's concerned.

Bless, Healing Word, Aid, and Mass Healing Word do not require material components, and as far as verbal and somatic components... the warlord needs to use those himself (since he needs to direct and inspire his allies.)

Not if your warlord player decides that the only abilities he's taking are Saving throws are not required, and the DM handwaves away using Detect or Dispel Magic on a "warlord's" Bless or Aid, and in exchange, the warlord can't use a Pearl of Power.

Please don't force me to repeat myself by repeating old arguments; a "warlord" that is a reskinned cleric with a very narrow selection of powers is not equivalent to a cleric in competence. It also lacks the style of a warlord. I cannot do cool wardlord-y things like organize a shield wall or group charge (or whatever). It is a lose/lose idea. Sure, we could create a lot of new "cleric" spells only available to the warlord variant of the clerics. In general I like class variants such as the like Pathfinder archetypes. I like archetypes, but in this case the gap between the two concepts that the "archetype" must gap just seems to wide.

My whole point is this: You can create a reasonable facsimile of a warlord if you need to. Manbearcat and others have done similar work elsewhere. Now yes... I know that what your point and Neonchameleon's point is that you shouldn't have to create a reasonable facsimile and that the game should just include it.

The problem is not if I (or anyone else) can create a warlord. I can pull a new class for the games I know out of my head pretty easy. But that won't have any pull when I come to another DM's table. Having a class in the game rules will. Having a self-made option works when I DM, but not when I want to play one. And this is not a question of forcing a DM to accede to my class preferences - it is easy to ban one particular class if the Dm has an agenda. Many, many DM's don't, they just play the game as presented. That's why we call that the default. And I want the warlord and inspirational healing as a part of the default.

As an aside, having a warlord increases the DM's worldbuilding options. Without a warlord, you HAVE to have divine healing in your game, or make rather big changes to the basics of adventure construction, such as team endurance.

Finally, I was on your side of the argument about 4E - I had a problem with a lot of the 4E-isms you mention. But I see no reason why NEXT should be held responsible for 4E's mistakes. That something was bad in 4E is not a reason something else should be bad in Next. Every game should be the best the designer can make it. Anything else is plain silly.

 

[Mike Eagling]

The problem is not if I (or anyone else) can create a warlord. I can pull a new class for the games I know out of my head pretty easy. But that won't have any pull when I come to another DM's table. Having a class in the game rules will. Having a self-made option works when I DM, but not when I want to play one. And this is not a question of forcing a DM to accede to my class preferences - it is easy to ban one particular class if the Dm has an agenda. Many, many DM's don't, they just play the game as presented. That's why we call that the default. And I want the warlord and inspirational healing as a part of the default.

I think this is fair. Throughout this thread I've come to the conclusion that a warlord-y inspirational class has a lot of merit.

I'll admit I'm not convinced by the "shout him better" mode of healing but that's purely my personal preference. The discussion of HPs clearly shows there's a case to be made in its defence and I've yet to see a convincing argument against it that doesn't strike me as personal preference.

 

[pemerton]

I've shepherded many people into the hobby, and excepting those who've played a lot of video games HP seem to be a big sticking point. I can't even number the times I've had to respond to a comment like "Wait, didn't he just get hit with a sword? Is his arm off or what?" After the explanations of the HP system, I can often watch the skepticism blossom in their faces. I often suspect that the prevalence of HP mechanics in rpgs is a subtle deterrent to more folks like me being involved in this hobby.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. The idea that hit points are the most simple or intuitive way to handle damage, which I often see asserted in this sort of thread, strikes me as simple projection of existing players' familiarity with the mechanic.

On one of the "death of MHRP" threads on RPGnet, Cam Banks commented that new players found MHRP very easy to get into and understand, whereas players experienced with trad RPGs found it hard/confusing. That seemed pretty plausible too.

I've introduced new players (not that many) mostly via Rolemaster. It has a lot of moving parts, which can be hard to work out the details of, but at its base I think it's simpler than 3E or 4e D&D - the higher your number in the relevant skill the better you are, you want to roll high on your d100 to succeed, and when you get hit you suffer bruising/fatigue (concussion hits) or wounds (which play as debuffs - so simulationist, rather than the metagame "invocation" aspect of a FATE consequence or MHRP complication). The basic structure is pretty intuitive, I think, and doesn't have the weirdness of hit points or (pre-3E) saving throws.

 

[Ratskinner]

The idea that hit points are the most simple or intuitive way to handle damage, which I often see asserted in this sort of thread, strikes me as simple projection of existing players' familiarity with the mechanic.

I very much agree. In fact, I had almost included a near-identical comment in my previous post.

On one of the "death of MHRP" threads on RPGnet, Cam Banks commented that new players found MHRP very easy to get into and understand, whereas players experienced with trad RPGs found it hard/confusing. That seemed pretty plausible too.

I don't doubt it at all. Many FATE GMs have commented over the years about how easy it is for kids or newcomers to pick up. By the same token, the "How do I get D&D players to understand this?" question is so common that I think some FATE advocates have "form letters" ready to cut and paste into the forums.