Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm not saying that classes shouldn't have unique and different mechanics, just that mechanics should not be a reason a class exists.

That criteria is precisely why we got the 4e warlord (and others, like warden) in the first place. Niche/mechanic hole-filler.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's no shortage of character archetypes and roles that could be denoted as classes. Some broad and some small. Anything could be a class if you wanted.

Nod. But there's only so many that have made an appearance in a D&D PH1. The Warlord is one of those.

But just because something is a trope, an archetypal character, doesn't mean it needs to be a class.

Classes are how 5e delivers most of a character's capabilities, so the 'need' is really only there when mechanical support for the concept isn't already available from other classes. Since 5e doesn't assume MCing or Feat, BTW, so 'other classes in combination' doesn't cut it, either - thus, for instance, we have Paladins even though a Fighter/Cleric could fit the bill, and an EK even though a Fighter with Magic Initiate might squeak by.

The Warlord concept requires mechanics that don't exist in sufficient number/power in one class. MCing+ Feats + Backgrounds could get pretty close to suggesting the concept, though not as close as a Fighter/Cleric is to a Paladin, and such a build wouldn't be terribly viable if it stuck to doing concept-appropriate things.

The barbarian, paladin, and ranger totally do overlap with the fighter. As does the monk really. Ditto the sorcerer and warlock with the wizard. Really, you only need three classes: the warrior, the expert, and the spellcaster. Everything else is flavour.

Even splitting out warrior and expert is just a matter of cleaving to tradition. Warrior is all combat, expert almost all exploration/interaction - you could combine them without making the result in the least OP relative to the caster. So, really, Hero and Caster could cover things. For that matter, classless systems do a fine job of covering every conceivable concept, anyway.

But stuff like the cleric and ranger get included because tradition. They get grandfathered in because they've been a part of the game since 1st Edition. They've been included for two or three editions and a couple in a row.

And the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Warlord have been in only 1 PH1, yes. 5e was meant to draw from all editions, not just the older ones, and to be for fans of all editions, not just for h4ters.

They're not just fantasy tropes, but D&D tropes.

The cleric is arguably not a fantasy trope, at all, the Vancian caster certainly isn't, FWIW (nothing, in D&D). But, yes, 5e tried very hard to feel like D&D, and that necessarily meant including extraneous and redundant material from the early days of the game.

The criterion Mearls asserted was 'in a prior edition PH1' - all the '1' did was exclude a lot of 3.x and 4e classes, since the few AD&D classes not introduced in the PH (like the Barbarian) were helpfully in later PH1s. The Sorcerer, Warlock, and Warlord were the only classes to appear in only one PH1, the Warlord and Warlock both only in the 4e PH1.

Even then "person who leads people but isn't overtly magical" is a pretty weak archetype. Because it's so very, very easy to have a leader that's also a wizard or paladin.

Actually it's a very powerful (in a storytelling sense) archetype. And one much more prevalent in genre than any sort of magic-wielding protagonist.

 

[mellored]

There needs to be strong flavour paired with the unique mechanics. There needs to me a marriage of crunch and fluff.

Ideally.

But i would rather have 3 classes with the same flavor and different mechanics, then 3 classes with the same mechanic and different flavors.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Actually [person who leads people but isn't overtly magical]'s a very powerful (in a storytelling sense) archetype.

I agree it is a powerful archetype. I've been playing it since the mid '70s.

And one much more prevalent in genre than any sort of magic-wielding protagonist.

This, on the other hand, is completely ludicrous and unsupportable.

 

[Lord Twig]

How does 'can be whatever you want it to be' not imply 'arbitrary?'

It was not at random or a whim. Game systems are reasoned out with a goal of being evocative and fun. 'Whatever you want it to be' is not the definition of 'arbitrary'.

Sure. Gygax came out and said that he chose the 'Vancian' relatively short spoken spell, because it would allow casters to participate, unlike the more true-to-genre-and-folklore elaborate ritual with lots of materials.

Case in point. He wanted the system to be fun and playable. It was not arbitrary.

Then you reckon without the popularity of 3.5, just for one instance. ;P

Just because you don't like 3.5 is no reason to bag on it. Lots of people had a lot of fun with 3.5 and did not consider it arbitrarily broken, overpowered or game-wrecking. Really it is a matter of opinion.

Is it that different? 9 spell levels, spells a daily resource chosen each morning? Sure, it's shed a lot of limitations - easily cast in melee, no interruption or loss, prepped spells plus spontaneous use of slots vs memorizing into a slot, cantrips being at-will, &c. So many of the old standbys still at basically the same level. New spell levels gained at about the same caster levels.

Yes, It is that different. Even the old standbys you get at the same levels many times only passably resemble the original spells. Again, probably a matter of opinion though.

It's not an assumption, EGG came right out and said it in the 1e DMG. Mind you, I suspect he did so in response to criticism of hps as 'unrealistic...'

And this misses the point by breaking up my statement, there was a comma, not a period. The full sentence was:

And you are making the assumption that HPs were always an entirely abstract measure that never represented wounds, but then simultaneously claiming that the Cure Wounds spells were not abstract and only represented healing actual, physical wounds.

Not with my interpretation, no, because I'm OK with hps being very abstract, and that allows everything from spells to short-rest HD to natural 20 death saves restoring hps to work pretty seamlessly. Pointing out the literal interpretation of "Cure Wounds" was just an example of how getting more granular and rigorous than the system itself even tries to be results in silliness - that's all the objections to "shouty martial healing" are. No different from thinking Cure Wounds can only literally heal by making actual, bleeding tissue-damage wounds caused by physical attacks just disappear.

And I'm ok with Hit Points being a combination of physical wounds and abstract damage capacity of some kind. So it works perfectly well and reflects that if you get into a fight, you are actually going to get hurt. Fire and acid actually burn you. Swords really cut. Poison actually poisons you.

The "shouty martial healing" requires that you remove the actual, physical damage. You weren't actually burned or cut or poisoned, you were just almost burned or cut or poisoned. Nothing a good shouting can't fix right up!

Magical healing doesn't require the removal of anything. You can keep both the abstract and the physical. Magic heals both.

 

[mellored]

'Whatever you want it to be' is not the definition of 'arbitrary'.

Semantics arugment time!

Arbitrary:
*based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
*having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law;
*decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.


Name something magic cannot do?

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not familiar with AtLA (I know, I know! I'll get around to it one of these days ), but that sounds like a good example. Out of curiosity, does Sokka ever inspire the group, or is that a separate thing? If it is separate, does Aang do most of the inspiring, or does someone else do it?

Aang is the leader, but inspiring the group often falls on Sokka or his sister Katara (almost to the point of farce). Aang's inspiring has more to do with his status as the Avatar rather than his personal charisma.

I was looking for examples that avoid that scenario, though. The goal is to find examples that don't imply that inspiration and/or tactical ability are inevitably linked to being in a position of authority over the rest of the group.

Of course, and I apologize for that, but I think that often happens in these same tropes. The guy with tactical and strategic know-how often finds themselves leading. It's certainly better than the hero leading simply because he is the hero, the chosen one, or just because.

 

[Lord Twig]

Semantics arugment time!

Arbitrary:
*based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
*having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law;
*decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.


Name something magic cannot do?

Which magic system? If you are talking about D&D magic Wish can cover a lot, but not everything. You can't create a magic item out of thin air. Or even a regular item if it is worth more that 25,000gp. You could tell someone to die with Power Word Kill, but it may not work. You can't levitate a city. You can't make an invading army disappear.

And this assumes a 20th level caster. If you are lower level there is plenty more you can't do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was not at random or a whim. Game systems are reasoned out with a goal of being evocative and fun. 'Whatever you want it to be' is not the definition of 'arbitrary'.

It seems to fit several definitions. But, yes, you can design how magic works in a game system to suit the fact that it is a game. Or not (or set out to and not do so well...).

Just because you don't like 3.5 is no reason to bag on it. Lots of people had a lot of fun with 3.5 and did not consider it arbitrarily broken, overpowered or game-wrecking.

I do like 3.5, I played 3.0 & 3.5 for their full runs, and still play 3.5 on occasion (in preference to 5e, even - while I happily run 5e, but wouldn't want to run 3.5 again, FWIW). I just don't see any point in pretending it's something it's not. And, it does illustrate that a magic system can be wildly overpowered and the game it's in, still quite popular.

Yes, It is that different. Even the old standbys you get at the same levels many times only passably resemble the original spells. Again, probably a matter of opinion though.

A matter of degree & time, perhaps. From 1e to 2e to 3e to 5e has been fairly incremental changes to the magic system.

And this misses the point by breaking up my statement, there was a comma, not a period.

I had to break up your statement, you were taking two different things I've said out of very different contexts, had to break 'em up to put them back into context. One was talking about the way hps were presented as far back as 1e (explicitly, probably how they 'always worked'), the other an example of willfully projecting more precision on that system than it even attempts. Here's another example of doing so:

The "shouty martial healing" requires that you remove the actual, physical damage. You weren't actually burned or cut or poisoned, you were just almost burned or cut or poisoned. Nothing a good shouting can't fix right up!

That makes exactly as much sense as insisting that 'Cure Wounds' cure only wounds (which is obviously the literal case), and the eliminates the possibility of all other sorts of damage. To do that, you first have step outside the level of abstraction at which the system operates.

Name something magic cannot do?

Exist?

 

[mellored]

You can't create a magic item out of thin air.

So bladelocks summing pact-weapons from thin is not magical?

Or even a regular item if it is worth more that 25,000gp. You could tell someone to die with Power Word Kill, but it may not work. You can't levitate a city. You can't make an invading army disappear.

All of those just require more wizards.

And this assumes a 20th level caster. If you are lower level there is plenty more you can't do.

Classes have balance as a limiting factor yes.

What's the limit of magic?