Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Jester David]

If you ask someone what type of character they want to play, they are likely to reply in terms of archetype or function or capabilities.

There are then various mechanical builds that answer to or express those archetypes, functions and capabilities.

If someone says "I want to play Merlin the Magician" or "I want to play Gandalf", would you really tell them "Build a champion fighter and then at the table play it as a wise old mage?" I mean, maybe you would, but I think most D&D players wouldn't.

Yes, not all clerics are top-tier support characters. Nevertheless, top tier support characters tend to be clerics or bards (or, with slightly more trickiness pf build, druids, paladins or maybe rangers or battlemasters). Rather than (say) champion fighters.

So if someone wants to play a support character, absolutely you would point them to some classes - clerics and bards foremost - rather than others. The fact that the advice needs supplementing (eg some sub-classes provide better support than others) doesn't undermine the fact that (i) some PC builds have capabilities that others lack, and (ii) class is an important component of PC build.

I mean, in AD&D not all fighters are good melee combatants (eg some might be built with low-ish STR, high DEX and prof/specialisation in missile weapons), but if someone building a PC for AD&D says "I want to play a hand-to-hand fighter" you would generally point them to the fighter class (or one of its sub-classes).

You seem to be trying to argue that choice of mechanical features in PC build makes no difference to what the PC can actually do in play. If you really think that is so, then what do you think the point of those mechanical features is?

I've always both understood, and eperienced, the point of those varying features to be to affect what it is the PC can do in play. For instance, if I want my PC to be a healer, I choose mechanical features that permit the restoration of hit points. If I want my PC to be a melee combatant, I choose mechanical features that permit the making of melee attacks with good weapons, and that provide my PC with high hp, high AC and/or damage reduction. Etc.

Why would buffing be limited to combat?

Your mangling and distorting what I say so much, it's not worth continuing to discuss this with you.

I will say that while I didn't remotely say that a champion fighter was a bette support class than a cleric, a battle master fighter can work petty darn well as a support character. It's probably a better option than a war or light cleric.

Really, as long as you don't play a barbarian or monk you can probably find a way to add some support.

 

[pemerton]

Your mangling and distorting what I say so much, it's not worth continuing to discuss this with you.

You said that how a character is played at the table is more important to what it does (eg provide support) than what is done at character building.

I disagree - PC build is pretty crucial to what a character brings to the table.

You now seem to be agreeing, but are pettifogging around how important class, as opposed to sub-class, is to 5e PC building. I call it pettifogging because the labels are not more than that: in 2nd ed AD&D they were called groups and classes rather than class and sub-class; and in 4e they were called classes and builds rather than class and sub-class. Nevertheless, the point remains that the capabilities of a PC at the table in 5e, as in earlier versions of D&D going back at least to AD&D and Moldvay Basic, depend heavily upon choices made during PC building.

 

[Jester David]

You said that how a character is played at the table is more important to what it does (eg provide support) than what is done at character building.

I disagree - PC build is pretty crucial to what a character brings to the table.

I disagree with that. Roles were only super important in 4e.
It can be helpful to work out roles in a party, but that's optional. Archetypes (like the Gandalf you mentioned earlier) are much more interesting.

Roles are only useful in combat. That's a third of the game. Archetypes and useable for all parts of a gaming session.

 

[pemerton]

Roles were only super important in 4e.
It can be helpful to work out roles in a party, but that's optional. Archetypes (like the Gandalf you mentioned earlier) are much more interesting.

Roles are only useful in combat.

Again, I don't understand your apparent obsession with combat.

Upthread, I quoted Gygax's description of the cleric's role in AD&D. That has relatively little to do with combat. If I describe my character as a "face", I'm telling you something about what capabilities that character brings to the table, but the capabilities in question have very little to do with combat. (Maybe negotiating truces?)

There are RPGs where it really is true that how the character is played at the table is as or even more important than PC building - Runequest would be the paradigm, because there are no classes, skill improvement depends primarily on generating improvement checks by way of actually using the skill in play, and every character (i) has access to magic, and (ii) achieves that access primarily by actual play decisions (eg meeting a shaman and having him/her help you learn some spirit magic). Burning Wheel is a more recent game that has some similarities, though character growth and development is probably not quite as flexible as RQ.

But D&D hasn't been such a game at least since AD&D and Moldvay Basic. Fundamental build choices around class and the various options that are located within classes - whether that be weapon proficiencies and specialisation, the ability to use spells (and the different spell lists available to different builds), access to various skills and skill bonuses - make a big difference to PC capabilities. Even the allocation of stats, which change not at all in some versions of D&D and relatively little in others, matters a great deal.

The idea that, in 5e, there is no significant relationship between choice of PC build elements and capacity to play a support character, is not one that I can accept.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I guess the whole "can't do it until 7th thing" - especially when a typical campaign stalls out before 10th.

This is not a warlord problem. It's a level based RPG problem. Every single other class struggles with this very same issue. Why should warlords be an exception?

Why do I have to wait until 8th level for my elven swashbuckler duelist to finally realize his shtick?

Plus all the non-warlordy baggage that comes with it. Sneak at +2d6, Action Surge, Second Wind, proficiency in Thieves Tools, must use feats.

You can skin some of those to function thematically. The others you can ask your DM to swap for something more practical for your concept. "Problem" solved.

I'm still reading my way through your 600+ posts as instructed. But I expect to offer more discussion when I finish.

Now that's dedication! Hope you find some insight and/or entertainment in your digging.

Most of the informative "my solutions" posts are buried in the 174 page Warlord thread so I can understand how common people wouldn't have come across them.

Yeah. There's a reason Morrus eventually moved all these monster threads to their own subforum...

 

[cmad1977]

Because maneuvers would.... (IMO).


Tripping someone to give the rogue advantage, distract an enemy so an ally can move without provoking, shouting a word of warning, slam your shield into a dragons mouth right before he breaths fire to reduce it's impact, ect...
.

Most, if not all those actions are available in the PHB to any character.

 

[pemerton]

You can skin some of those to function thematically. The others you can ask your DM to swap for something more practical for your concept. "Problem" solved.

So it can be done with a combo of multi-classing, re-skinning and adhoc swapping - but there's no scope for a single class build to occupy the same space?

Colour me confused.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

My confusion lies in the fact that you think all character concepts, no matter how niche or specialized, must be presented through single class design. And presumably officially published by WotC? And hurry up about it because we are all waiting with bated breath?...

Look, my current favorite PC is a half-(high) elf acolyte assassin/shadow monk/archfey bladelock. These are the paths I took to fully realize my character concept. You don't see me whining to WotC that they need to make a "supernatural holy slayer" class so I can neatly bundle everything I want into one convenient package.

And as for this need to have it all in one class, that's not really the issue, now is it? Its that it needs to be all in one class and have all the bells-and-whistles straight away. A warlord isn't a warlord unless he can do all the warlord-y things now! I don't buy it. And that's why no warlordist is going to be happy with anything remotely balanced and within 5e's design parameters. Because you have to break the 5e class mold to give a "warlord" all its 4e gizmos and quickly enough to appease them. Which is a non-starter. I feel like I keep pointing this out but its like no one is listening.

Anyway, my point being, in the same way that I needed to level up considerably before I could fully realize my supernatural holy slayer, someone who wants a "warlord" necessarily has to do the same. Just as a cleric must wait quite a few levels before he can bring his dead friends back to life. Just like an assassin must advance before being able to deal a special death blow that can kill instantly. Just like a dragon sorcerer must grow into his powers before he sprouts his wings. Just like every single character, regardless of class(es) must grow into their abilities. That's level base for you.

So no. I have no problem with saying that a warlord can be built quite well using the current material. If that means a few classes and a couple feats, so be it. The rules provide for such avenues. Take advantage of it.

 

[pemerton]

My confusion lies in the fact that you think all character concepts, no matter how niche or specialized, must be presented through single class design. And presumably officially published by WotC? And hurry up about it because we are all waiting with bated breath?

<snip>

You don't see me whining to WotC

Can you quote me whining to WotC? No - I haven't even posted anything about WotC in this thread, nor in others that I recall. Other than perhaps mentioning that they are skilled, professional designers.

I also don't understand the force of your must. No class must be in the game. Warlocks and sorcerers, for instance, are both clearly niche in their contrast with wizards, and don't have to be there.

But I thought your claim was an impossibility one - that a warlord class can't be designed. If, in fact, it is that there is no market for such a class, well that's a different claim and not one I personally have any strong view on. Nor care much about.

 

[ZickZak]

Unless I"m mistaken, [MENTION=6748747]ZickZak[/MENTION] agrees with you and is an outsploken opponent of the warlord for 5e.

I wouldnt say I am against warlord. I am against "martial spells". It s completely off for me, martial healing/buffing whatever. If you wanna use it: "Weeeeell for some reason, it isnt magic anymore; otherwise it works just like cleric spell"

Thats my problem really. Why make a class that works exactly like whatever we have, just so we could have no-magic spells.