Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[jayoungr]

They can work just fine. No reason they couldn't be balanced and effective.
I didn't mean to imply they couldn't.

I am certainly not the authority on what works for you.

I'm asking why it doesn't work for you. I'm still trying to understand this statement:

To me, auras feel more like a psionic ability then martial abilities.

 

[mellored]

I'm asking why it doesn't work for you. I'm still trying to understand this statement:

Oh.

Even with active flavor it's a passive mechanic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you play the character as a support character then it is a support character.

You can play a Thief as a tank, wearing heavy armor and wielding a greatsword, if you like. He'll just be bad at it. You could play a wizard and refuse to cast spells. There are choices, and then there are viable choices.

Most casters - and all 5e classes have at least one sub-class that can tap spells in some form - can just make spell choices to emphasize the sorts of contributions they want to make. A Wizard could focus on support, a Cleric can generally do the traditional idea of support better. Both could instead focus on blasting. As neo-Vancian casters, they could even change which emphasis they wanted from one day to the next.

The Champion fighter, OTOH, he can contribute DPR to his party's success in combat, or he can radically under-contribute.

It doesn't matter one whit if your character is all support abilities if you take the Great Weapon Fighter feat then charge into melee and punch a dude in the throat.

It matters, since you have more going for you than beating on things in melee.

In fairness, the 4e warlord cracked a few heads. They were a melee combat class. They did their support between and during smacking their enemies in the face.
When you strip away the minor movement, incidental attack bonuses, and the like much of what the warlord did was fairly fighterty.

It is a 'martial' class, afterall.

The pure support warlord only existed after a couple splatbooks, several Dragon articles, and multiple years.

The Warlord was a viable support character ('Leader' Role) from it's appearance in the PH1 on, no less 'pure' in that regard than the Cleric in the PH1. Yes, over time the Cleric got a Pacifist Build and the Warlord got some more conscious support for the 'Lazy' style of build. But both were as 'pure support' as the Leader role needed.

FWIW, likewise, in 5e, none of the extant support classes are anywhere near 'pure.'

 

[pemerton]

If you play the character as a support character then it is a support character. The game is about how things happen at the table, not what happens in the character builder.

I don't really follow this. If someone said "I want to play a buffer - what class should I play?" it would seem odd to me to reply "The game is about how things happen at the table, not what happens in the character builder." For instance, assassins and champions don't buff as much as clerics and bards; wizards are better at ranged AoE than fighters; etc.

I mean, all those different mechanics for the different classes are there for a reason, aren't they? If the mechanics didn't impact the play of the character at the table, why bother with them?

 

[Jester David]

I don't really follow this. If someone said "I want to play a buffer - what class should I play?" it would seem odd to me to reply "The game is about how things happen at the table, not what happens in the character builder." For instance, assassins and champions don't buff as much as clerics and bards; wizards are better at ranged AoE than fighters; etc.

I mean, all those different mechanics for the different classes are there for a reason, aren't they? If the mechanics didn't impact the play of the character at the table, why bother with them?

If someone says "I want to play a buffer" then generally they have an idea how these games work, since they know what a "buffer" is. So they might have an idea anyway.
(Really... Has anyone ever said that sentence ever?)

But, really, in 5e you're better off thinking about *who* your character is and less what role they fill in combat. The focus is different.

If you must build around being a buffer, the response is then "how do you *want* to buff/support?" rather than just "play class X or Y or Z". Because there are different degrees and methods of buffing. You can play a life cleric or abjurer wizard or mastermind rogue or battle master fighter, or lore bard, or several other subclasses or builds.
It's less about picking a class and more about designing your character, picking options, and playing that character at the table. "I want to play a buffer" is the start of the conversation.

 

[pemerton]

"I want to play a buffer" is the start of the conversation.

Quite. But the response to that conversation-opener isn't (typically) going to be "It's all about how you play the character at the table." In 5e, as in 4e, 3E and AD&D, there are PC build options to point to. In AD&D, for instance, you'd point to the description of the cleric on the PHB pp 18 and 20:

Clerics principally function as supportive . . . A study of the spells usable by clerics . . . will convey the main purpose of the cleric. That is, the cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize.​

In 5e, you wouldn't point towards the assassin, would you? Or the champion fighter? There are other builds that it would make more sense to point towards.

in 5e you're better off thinking about *who* your character is and less what role they fill in combat. The focus is different.

What have combat roles got to do with anything? I didn't mention them.

If you must build around being a buffer, the response is then "how do you *want* to buff/support?" rather than just "play class X or Y or Z". Because there are different degrees and methods of buffing. You can play a life cleric or abjurer wizard or mastermind rogue or battle master fighter, or lore bard, or several other subclasses or builds.
It's less about picking a class and more about designing your character, picking options, and playing that character at the table.

Your last sentence could equally be true of 4e, 3E or later, option-heavy 2nd ed AD&D. But "designing your character" and "picking options" seem to me like just other ways of talking about "what happens in the character builder". That is to say, those phrases seem to me to be talking about mechanical design and about mechanical options.

Playing one's character at the table is important, sure - but it's as important in AD&D as in 3E as in 4e as in 5e. I've played at AD&D tables where players don't play their characters - this happens most often with inexperienced or incompetent players of spell users, who aren't able to make decisions about when to use their spells. I've heard stories of it happening in 4e - eg players who don't understand how to use their PCs' powers, and so only declare basic attacks and simple skill checks - but fortunately I've never had the misfortune to play 4e with such players.

 

[pemerton]

Talk is cheap. I say, give it a go. I'd love to see how you manage to pull it off.

I'm not a designer. Especially not for 5e.

But I'm pretty confident that a game that can support barbarians with their rage, monks with their ki, the variety of casting classes that exist (including their various spell lists and spell progressions), and battle masters with their strong multi-attack plus manoeuvres, has the design space for a martial support character who is a second-tier warrior and is able to provide inspirational healing and buffing of both bonuses and action economy.

Your argument that it can't be done - which, somewhat confusingly, you seem to assert simultaneously with the claim that it has already been done - appears to boil down to the claim that different people want slightly different things from the warlord. To me that's no different from the fact that people want different things from the ranger, from psionics, from sorcerers, etc.

Part of the skill of design for a game like D&D that has a vary wide player base with varying desires is to come up with designs that manage to satisfy as many different players as possible, in part by including options and in part by finding clever ways to realise multiple conceptions or aspirations through a single mechanic or class feature. The biggest failure in this respect, as far as 5e is concerned, seems to be the ranger. There's no apriori reason to think that a well-designed warlord would do any worse than this, and it could well do better.

 

[mellored]

Because there are different degrees and methods of buffing. You can play a life cleric or abjurer wizard or mastermind rogue or battle master fighter, or lore bard, or several other subclasses or builds.

I agree, there is difference in degrees and methods.


Clerics, lore bards, and sorcerer's have a high degree of buffing, but all use the spell method.
Battlemasters and mastermind use a martial method, but only have a low degree of buffing.


What I want, is someone with martial method, and a high degree of buffing.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm not a designer. Especially not for 5e.

...he says while simultaneously explaining how things should be able to be designed.

Your argument that it can't be done - which, somewhat confusingly, you seem to assert simultaneously with the claim that it has already been done - appears to boil down to the claim that different people want slightly different things from the warlord. To me that's no different from the fact that people want different things from the ranger, from psionics, from sorcerers, etc.

No. I'm saying (and others have said as well) that the essence of the warlord -- as filtered through a 5e set of design criteria, system aesthetic, and balance considerations -- has been provided already. Via multiple avenues. But what some people are asking for (way more and sooner) is not doable. It is asking for too much. And that cannot be done. At least not without breaking it. I hope I'm making myself clear enough to understand the difference.

Part of the skill of design for a game like D&D that has a vary wide player base with varying desires is to come up with designs that manage to satisfy as many different players as possible, in part by including options and in part by finding clever ways to realise multiple conceptions or aspirations through a single mechanic or class feature. The biggest failure in this respect, as far as 5e is concerned, seems to be the ranger. There's no apriori reason to think that a well-designed warlord would do any worse than this, and it could well do better.

And I keep asking anyone at all to prove it. It's easy to say, "It should be possible to create a balanced <blank>." All I ask is someone show their work. Otherwise, as you confess yourself, it's just non-designers and pie in the sky.

 

[Jester David]

Quite. But the response to that conversation-opener isn't (typically) going to be "It's all about how you play the character at the table."

No, it's going to be "what type of character do you want to play?" which is the exact same meaning but in a more common phrasing.

In 5e, as in 4e, 3E and AD&D, there are PC build options to point to. In AD&D, for instance, you'd point to the description of the cleric on the PHB pp 18 and 20:

Clerics principally function as supportive . . . A study of the spells usable by clerics . . . will convey the main purpose of the cleric. That is, the cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize.​

In 5e, you wouldn't point towards the assassin, would you? Or the champion fighter? There are other builds that it would make more sense to point towards.[/QUOTE]
That's nice. But we're not talking about AD&D. We're talking about 5e. And have you looked at the 5e cleric?

The main role section of the 5e cleric is "Healers and Warriors" and puts as much focus on "call[ing] down flames from heaven to consume their enemies" as using "the helpful magic of healing and inspiring their allies".

There are seven domains: lore, light, life, nature, tempest, trickery, and war. Lore is all about being the knowledge skill monkey, light and tempest are about blasting, trickery is the stealthy skill monkey, war is damage or tanking, and nature is... unfocused. Only life is really the buffer/healer.

The cleric has divine spells that can buff and heal and remove negative ailments. But so does the bard and druid and to the lesser extent the ranger and paladin. There is nothing in the cleric class apart from 1/7th of its subclasses that denotes the class as either a "support class" or a "buffer". So, on paper, "cleric" isn't really a good answer for the question "I want to play a buffer, what class do I play".

What have combat roles got to do with anything? I didn't mention them.

Other than "buffer".