Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Sadras]

#Needmorepopcorn

 

[Sadras]

The second issue, in my opinion, is that there are currently no full support classes in the game. You can make characters that do support, but they will still have at least a secondary focus on damage (or other hindering effects). Nobody does support full time. I don't see why the Warlord should be an exception to this.

Do you not believe the Champion focuses on damage full time? Do you believe the Champion is an allowable exception but a full-support class is just too extreme in your personal opinion?

 

[pemerton]

magic does not tell characters how to believe--while mundane inspiration does.

<snip>

Magic can cause a PC to take extra actions, heal, hit better, take less damage, and a multitude of other things and it doesn't change how the PC feels about the character casting the spell that causes it.

with magic, a PC can hear a Bard's song and fight harder while actually thinking the bard is a contemptible worm undeserving of respect. Mundane inspiration has to affect the PC's feelings in order to take effect, no matter how you flavor it.

If a bard's song is inspiring, then - whether or not the inspiration is magical - it surely has to change the way the target character feels. Otherwise where is the inspiration? It certainly seems to me that a character who thinks the bard is a contemptible worm is not being inspired by the bard in any sense at all - and so if the bard can still buff that character, than the bard's buffing ability has been radically mis-labelled.

The bless spell is similar - it has never been about strengthening the target's muscles (that's what a strength spell does) or about enhancing the target's physical speed (that's what a haste spell does). It's about inspiring the recipient. (And in 3E this is reflected by the bonus being tagged as a morale bonus.)

These abilities might magically change a character's feelings, but they are still changing those feelings.

Lord Twig seems to agree with me in respect of this point, here:

If a Wizard casts Haste on you he doesn't force you to make an extra attack. If a Warlord inspires you to take an extra attack he doesn't actually force you to take the attack. Neither are forcing the other character to do anything.

 

[pemerton]

Action surge can be used for any action, and so is neutral.

I don't agree with this conclusion.

Generally speaking, D&D does not have a tight action economy except during combat. So action surge, which buffs the character's action economy, is generally useful only during combat.

And during combat, as a general rule the best contribution to success that the fighter can make is by attacking and trying to deal damage.

Hence, action surge is primarily a damage-boosting ability.

That's not to say that that is all it can do - and I'm sure there are times when players use action surge to do support-y things like helping (eg there's only one chance to shoot the dragon with the dragon-slaying arrow) or healing (eg there's only once chance to stop a fellow PC from dying), etc. But that it has these other uses doesn't change the fact that its typical use - given its location within the combat-centric action economy, and given the nature of the contribution that fighter's are typically best-placed to make in combat - is a damage-dealing one.

Magic items were also assumed in 4e and there was no non-magical controller.

This is something of a tangent, but:

* Replacing magic items in 4e with a fixed, level-based bonus is so trivial that it was being discussed online within days of the core books being released, before becoming an "official" option in the DMG2.

* The only real difference in 4e between a defender and a controller is that the former acts in melee rather than at range - the distinction, therefore, is mostly a legacy one, intended to preserve the classic D&D contrast between the fighter and the wizard. I can tell you from experience that a fighter with multi-target attacks (generally in the form of close bursts) can absolutely function as a (melee) controller. And a good athletics score together with an ability like Mighty Sprint can generally solve the issue of action at a distance.

 

[Lord Twig]

"Sorry friend fighter I must leave you behind because this guy's imaginary beard in the sky makes me a better fighter."

Is the President of the United States imaginary? Is the world flat? You seem to have trouble distinguishing what is real and what is imaginary. In D&D no faith is required to believe that the gods are real. They are. You can go visit them and say "Hi".

So it's more like: "Sorry friend Fighter, your courage and support is beyond question. But I need this priest's magic to face this threat."

Or it could be a wizard or a bard or whatever. Or you could be telling your childhood wizard friend that his magic won't help in this case and you need to bring someone that can fight hand to hand. Or maybe he's out of spells. Or there is an anti-magic field. Maybe a beholder?

So yeah. Lots of reasons you won't bring a trusted friend along. But inspiration probably isn't one of them.

 

[Jester David]

I don't agree with this conclusion.

Okay, let's hear your argument.

Generally speaking, D&D does not have a tight action economy except during combat. So action surge, which buffs the character's action economy, is generally useful only during combat.

Completely agree.

And during combat, as a general rule the best contribution to success that the fighter can make is by attacking and trying to deal damage.

And disagree. That's your opinion.
Now, generally, it's better to do damage than not. For the same reason it's better to do damage than heal. But tanking/crowd control can help as well by preventing damage.
A sword and board fighter specced to tank is not going to deal great damage, even with three attacks. Knocking the enemy prone for the rogue or to keep him off the wizard or light cleric is a better move.

That's not to say that that is all it can do - and I'm sure there are times when players use action surge to do support-y things like helping (eg there's only one chance to shoot the dragon with the dragon-slaying arrow) or healing (eg there's only once chance to stop a fellow PC from dying), etc. But that it has these other uses doesn't change the fact that its typical use - given its location within the combat-centric action economy, and given the nature of the contribution that fighter's are typically best-placed to make in combat - is a damage-dealing one.

Arguably, the same comment could be made about Actions in general. In fact, since Action Surge just gives you another Action, we are talking about Actions.

Are Actions principally offensive? And if yes, that means any class using an offensive mechanic for support is wasteful and inefficient.

This is something of a tangent, but:

* Replacing magic items in 4e with a fixed, level-based bonus is so trivial that it was being discussed online within days of the core books being released, before becoming an "official" option in the DMG2.

Agreed, but it was still not in the rules for a year. And we're talking about playing "by the rules" not "by the houserules" or 3PP content allowing warlord type content would apply.
Similar houserules also existed for 3e and you could patch healing in 1e-2e to reduce the healer need.

* The only real difference in 4e between a defender and a controller is that the former acts in melee rather than at range - the distinction, therefore, is mostly a legacy one, intended to preserve the classic D&D contrast between the fighter and the wizard. I can tell you from experience that a fighter with multi-target attacks (generally in the form of close bursts) can absolutely function as a (melee) controller. And a good athletics score together with an ability like Mighty Sprint can generally solve the issue of action at a distance.

Again, can you do that with *just* the PHB and a tiny splatbook?

 

[Lord Twig]

Do you not believe the Champion focuses on damage full time? Do you believe the Champion is an allowable exception but a full-support class is just too extreme in your personal opinion?

Damage is something all classes can do. Some are focused on it others have other options. It's not my opinion that a full-support class is too extreme. It is WotC that didn't include them in the game, not me.

WotC could add full support classes to the game, that's up to them. My point in bringing it up is that maybe part of the reason you don't see a full-on lazy lord class is not just because of the non-magical or inspiration thing. It might be that they didn't include it because they didn't include any full-on support classes. So the Warlord wasn't singled out for exclusion because it was a Warlord, it was excluded because it is a full support class in a game where they didn't want to have full support classes.

So instead we get subclasses that can do some Warlord things, but can also do their primary thing (damage or skill or whatever). Again, not because they are excluding Warlord just because they don't like Warlord, but because they want support to be a secondary function, whether it is magical or not.

I'm just guessing here though. Maybe that is not the reason WotC left out the Warlord. Maybe they just don't like Warlords.

 

[jayoungr]

If a bard's song is inspiring, then - whether or not the inspiration is magical - it surely has to change the way the target character feels. Otherwise where is the inspiration?

One could argue that "inspire" in this case is just shorthand for "cause to fight more effectively." The bard sings and PCs fight better because magic, with the players deciding whether or not the PCs have any emotional change.

But fair enough, I'll go with it and assume that inspire does mean a change of feelings; that is the most common definition of the word, after all. In that case, a bard's song may change the way the target feels about the battle ("Raaar, I'm ready to go!") or about the enemy ("Hey, they're not so tough!") or about him/herself ("I can do this!") But it offers quite a bit of leeway for the player to decide what form it takes, and more importantly, it still doesn't require the target to feel anything particular toward the bard.

It certainly seems to me that a character who thinks the bard is a contemptible worm is not being inspired by the bard in any sense at all

While I have no trouble separating the song from the singer--especially if the song is musically enhanced.

The bless spell is similar - it has never been about strengthening the target's muscles (that's what a strength spell does) or about enhancing the target's physical speed (that's what a haste spell does). It's about inspiring the recipient.

And once again, if you see inspiring as changing feelings, then the spell changes the target's attitude about the battle, not about the cleric or about his/her deity. (Note also that if bless/inspire means "cause to fight more effectively," that's physical without being about muscles or speed.)

It's also worth noting that the case where a cleric of a deity that is completely repellent to a PC attempts to bless that PC is not a particularly common in-game situation. As such, if it did come up at my table and the player of the target PC objected, I'd be willing to adjust the mechanics to reflect the PC's unwillingness to accept the blessing. I'd work with the players to find a solution that we all liked.

These abilities might magically change a character's feelings, but they are still changing those feelings.

Probably, although I think the use of magic allows a little wiggle room. But even if they do, they don't dictate how the other PCs are expected to relate to the PC who uses the ability, which I think is the big sticking point for some people.

I don't see that leeway with mundane inspiration, but I'm willing to listen if anyone else sees it.

Lord Twig seems to agree with me in respect of this point, here:

I don't see how the passage you quoted supports the idea that multiple classes have abilities that change feelings, which seemed to be your main thought in the post above.

 

[FrogReaver]

I understand your problem with the warlord and warlord-esque concepts already present in DND 5e.

What I don't understand is how you can see all these warlord-esque concepts already present in 5e and then draw the line in the sand at the warlord. If such concepts are already present then what does it matter if we or the devs consolidate such concepts into a single cohesive class?

Bump for the mighty Lord Twig.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, there are people that are inspiring. They can convince people to fight for a cause, but once they are fighting I doubt they can make them fight any better. Certainly not on a blow by blow basis. Someone mentioned a boxing coach. Do you really thing a boxer is twice as effective if the coach is in the corner saying, "Hit him again! Hit him harder!" Really?

Yes, this happens. It doesn't happen in the way you've put it, but it certainly happens in combat sports.

Consider an MMA fight. There is a gameplan going in. You will hear a coach reiterating instructions to a fighter and that fighter, who is currently forgetting their gameplan and just reacting on instinct, will adjust in real time. And these aren't abstract instructions. You're talking about things like:

* Circle left, circle left, circle left (or right)!
* Underhooks, underhooks!
* Hip up, hip up!
* Watch the triangle, watch the triangle!
* Change levels, change levels!
* Lead left > double leg!

Etc, etc, etc. Corners aren't just shouting specific instructions to hear their own voices.

It happens in ball sports.

Consider basketball (effectively squad-based skirmish with 5 participants per squad, much more akin to D&D). I'm 38 and change. I've been playing this game since I was 4. I've played with an enormous number of players of varying athleticism, moxie, and instinct/IQ.

Those latter guys with a high level of moxie and/or instinct/IQ? Despite the fact that they may not have athletic parity with other players on the court, they are force-multipliers in the extreme...and not in some abstract, unable-to be quantified way (the W.A.R. stat in sports these days just that). They do things, in the very moment that improves the players they are playing with. You're talking about things like:

* Calling out picks, communicating them quickly and effectively to the guy getting screened and helping as needed.

* Seeing backscreens and backdoor plays before they manifest and effectively communicating them to remove the offense's potential competitive advantage.

* When in a zone defense, effectively communicating where offenders are cutting and making the zone vulnerable so an unaware teammate can recover (and often briefly covering for them).

* Quickly determining a teammate's deficiencies and an opponent's strengths/weaknesses and communicating how this competitive disadvantage can be mitigated (such as "force him to go left").

* Always hustling after (and typically winning) loose balls where the prospects of retaining/gaining possession are 50/50. This may even involve diving on the floor. This becomes infectious. You invariably see this shaming or inspiring (which is basically the same thing when it comes to utility) teammates to do the same.

* Guiding offensive traffic (cuts, guard-arounds, etc) and setting effective screens (back or ball screens) and eating the (often painful) contact to gain a competitive advantage for his teammates.

Etc, etc, etc. This happens in real time.

Extreme situational awareness and tactical acumen (which go along with the ability to process information staggeringly fast and effectively communicate it with mental shorthand so it triggers muscle memory) are major advantages. Except for with the most self-celebrating, narcissistic little me-first Bs (who are losers that you don't want anything to do with anyway), grit and cool are utterly infectious at an unconscious level (later you can appreciate it consciously).

Guys/gals that possess these traits, whether that be a particular noncoms in a war or a savvy vet on the court, are huge difference-makers for group efficiency/proficiency and morale both in real-time and during brief moments of down-time.