D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Lanliss]

Me neither. I'm not criticizing what you said; it just surprised me. Inspiration and Song of Rest strike me as fine features for a warlord class. Although at that point it's starting to look like a "nonmagical variant bard" akin to the elusive nonmagical ranger, and I'm sure some of the people clamoring for warlords would take objection to them being passed off as a mere variant.

EDIT: Sorry, [MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION], responded to Hussar before reading your post. It seems we're thinking along the same lines.

Glad that I actually have some designing chops. Makes me feel more hope for all my homebrew ideas.

 

[mellored]

Yeah, but that is on the player end. It doesn't have that hint of "You got unlucky? This skill makes you EXTRA unlucky" that the fumbles would. Making the player look extra lucky is on the other end of the spectrum, and at most might make the DM unhappy that his player is so lucky, after which I would personally feel a bit like a dick for getting mad just because someone got good luck. It is the difference between mocking and congratulating.

Hmmm.... I guess. Maybe.

 

[mellored]

Me neither. I'm not criticizing what you said; it just surprised me. Inspiration and Song of Rest strike me as fine features for a warlord class. Although at that point it's starting to look like a "nonmagical variant bard" akin to the elusive nonmagical ranger, and I'm sure some of the people clamoring for warlords would take objection to them being passed off as a mere variant.

IMO they are close enough they can fit a non-magical bard, non-psionic ardent, and non-magical ranger in the same modular non-magical base class.

i.e.
Choose 3 from inspiring, singing, dancing, tactics, stratagems, defender, dualists, throwing, grappling, stealth, poultice, beastmaster, and favored enemy specializations.

And you can make a singing, tactical, beastmaster.

 

[Garthanos]

It's not a new or unfamiliar or unjustified idea. Back in the day (for those who weren't there), that's very much how we did things. There were a few mechanics, like morale, that determined how a character felt or reacted, and they often exempted PCs, explicitly. A PC could stand and fight to the last every time, never checking morale, because they're the heroes, they're made of sturner stuff than the NPCs. Now, for whatever reason, we don't have morale checks, at all. We have magical effects that impose the frightened condition. :shrug:

Personally, I think it blows that classes which are presumably meant to represent fearless heroes of legend lack proficiency in WILL and CHA saves.

In Fate one might have a bribe of fate points for the players for different responses to a dragon. One might do it with specific effects, kind of D&D flavor that way

For instance

Get 1 fate point for Flight response you gain extra speed for motion away from the dragon,with chances of stumbling but are slowed if within distance X.

Get 1 fate point for Shaking response you gain a penalty to hit (like the Devas Astral majesty)

Get 1 fate point for Fascination response you react late to its attacks initiative and defense penalty.

Want to stand boldly? no Fate points

Maximum player control with the Dragons potency expressed in a flavorful way

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, the problem is, you already lost this argument. Sorry, but, in 5e, you simply are wrong. There's a non-magical healing with the bard and you have the Inspired Leader feat. Never minding the Battlemaster and the Mastermind, both of whom can do these things without any magical support whatsoever. There's no nice way of putting this. That ship has sailed. These mechanics are now part of the game. You might not like them, but, that doesn't put the genie back in the bottle.

Wait, my opinion is wrong? Whuh?

The irony is that you're right, there's no nice way of putting this:there isn't gonna be a Warlord in 5e. This discussion is interesting (or can be, for those who actually want to discuss it) but that's really all that it is. I don't have to voice opposition because it's not necessary. Y'all can keep cryin' about it, but that ship ain't sailing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Power points and spells are daily resources. It's hard to refluff it as martial. I mean, you do this cool maneuver, and then... what? Sprain a muscle and need to rest to do it again?

It's better at higher level, when you have enough to do the cool maneuver all day. At least then if you run out of PP you can more reasonably chalk it up to fatigue. (Or reduce your max HP to keep going, that fits).

Now if you did something like having a max of 5 PP, but regained 2 PP a turn, then it would fit a martial character much better. Or just at-will.

Wait...is this the basis of the whole "non-magical" requirement? That if it's non-magical it also can't be X times/rest? Is this really about having at-will abilities with no limits on use?

(P.S. When I came back to D&D during Next there was a prolific, animated poster named Emerikol...I seem to remember him being very into debating AEDU and "martial healing", etc. Is this what that debate was about?)

 

[TwoSix]

Wait...is this the basis of the whole "non-magical" requirement? That if it's non-magical it also can't be X times/rest? Is this really about having at-will abilities with no limits on use?

(P.S. When I came back to D&D during Next there was a prolific, animated poster named Emerikol...I seem to remember him being very into debating AEDU and "martial healing", etc. Is this what that debate was about?)

It's become generally accepted as part of the discussion around the edition war that non-magical abilities with strict resource caps trigger the feeling of "disassociation" for a group of players. E.g. if I could do this maneuver last round, why can't I do it again this round? 4e martial powers, only able to be used once per encounter or once per day were the primary culprits around this bad feeling. Things like barbarian rage and 5e superiority dice don't trigger this feeling, for reasons I can't quite clarify, as I wasn't part of this faction during the war.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think it's worth separating them in that context. The mechanics aren't the problem for you, the fluff is where you have an issue. It's OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept and how you picture him, as long as they use supernatural means. It's only someone pulling one over on you using a skill or natural ability (however extraordinary, however poorly your character may be defined as being able to cope with such things) that's unacceptable. Someone fooling your -1 WIS, untrained Insight character when you think he shouldn't believe them. Unacceptable. Someone slipping you a Helm of Opposite Alignment and turning your do-gooding Paladin into an inhuman fiend, no problem.

Actually, no. I'm most definitely not saying it's "OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept". Ever. Even if it's magical. I stop at "it's ok for your character's actions to have a beneficial effect on my character as long as it doesn't dictate how my character thinks." I'm never, ever ok with any sort of PvP unless both parties agree to it and are having fun. (That includes the use of social skills, from PCs or NPCs: a PC at my table never has his thoughts or actions dictated as the result of a good Intimidate or Persuade roll.)

It's not a new or unfamiliar or unjustified idea. Back in the day (for those who weren't there), that's very much how we did things. There were a few mechanics, like morale, that determined how a character felt or reacted, and they often exempted PCs, explicitly. A PC could stand and fight to the last every time, never checking morale, because they're the heroes, they're made of sturner stuff than the NPCs. Now, for whatever reason, we don't have morale checks, at all. We have magical effects that impose the frightened condition. :shrug:

RIP morale checks for NPCs! (I just improvise it now. "Ok, when the Captain collapses in a pool of blood the rest of them try to flee...")

It's not. "I'd like to be able to play a good 5e version of a class I could play from the PH1 in a past edition, one that enables styles of play that edition did, and this one doesn't do as well, yet" is not unreasonable or invalid at all. It's something anyone who wanted to play /any other class from a past-edition PH1 already has/. Telling everyone who will ever play D&D what classes they can and can't play, ever, by contrast, is not reasonable. Dealing with table issues with global system solutions is not a valid approach.
I'm not saying you're the bad guy here. I'm saying, wanting to play a certain character a certain way is a personal thing. It's not right for the game to say 'no you can't,' especially when you've been able to in the game, before. It's not right for one player choice to mechanically dictate another. An LG Paladin in the group doesn't mechanically mean you can't have a CE Walock, they're powers won't cancel out or anything, but they are going to have to figure out how it's going to work RP-wise. It's something that needs to be worked out at the table level. Which classes does the DM find appropriate to the campaign, which do the players want to play, which set certain players' teeth on edge, which concepts have compatibility issues, how can we work it out so we can all enjoy a game of D&D?

Yeah, we keep circling around on this one and I disagree. Adding options changes the game. It's perfectly valid to be opposed to options that change the game in a way you don't like.

I hate Drow, and if WotC had asked my opinion I would have said, "Don't make that a player character option." It lessens the game for me to get stuck in parties with Drow (pretty much every AL table I sit at, really) in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with mechanics. Just like it would lessen the game if one of the other characters had a laser pistol, even if it did exactly the same damage as EB. (Actually, don't get me started on EB...) I just don't want to play in a shared illusion that includes laser pistols. The content creates the setting.

So no matter how many times people try to cut off the discussion by saying, "You are just being selfish/arrogant and there is no reason to oppose the inclusion of options", that argument is simply false. Ok, I'm not being generous. I'm not offering to lessen my own experience to heighten somebody else's, but if that's your definition of "selfish" then we're both being selfish because you apparently want to do the same thing to me. You (the plural, abstract "you" meaning the Warlord proponents) seem to think I should be able to just roll with the Warlord, name and all, and not let it bother me, and I equally think you should just be able to use one of the magical, Warlord-esque options already out there. I think you're being overly fussy and demanding by saying "it must include these 7 features and can't be magical" and you think I'm being overly fussy and demanding by not wanting to have to play in a game with this particular class.

What astounds me in all of this is that you think you are on the moral high ground.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's become generally accepted as part of the discussion around the edition war that non-magical abilities with strict resource caps trigger the feeling of "disassociation" for a group of players. E.g. if I could do this maneuver last round, why can't I do it again this round? 4e martial powers, only able to be used once per encounter or once per day were the primary culprits around this bad feeling. Things like barbarian rage and 5e superiority dice don't trigger this feeling, for reasons I can't quite clarify, as I wasn't part of this faction during the war.

And is that the "playstyle" that keeps getting referenced? The ability to use abilities without limit?

 

[Garthanos]

E.g. if I could do this maneuver last round, why can't I do it again this round? 4e martial powers, only able to be used once per encounter

Always thought that tricks which could only be used once before becoming obvious and easily countered made some sense for a lot of powers.