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

[Aldarc]

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.

Or Action Surge. Or Second Wind. Or Indomitable.

 

[TwoSix]

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

Oh, I agree with you. Or you simply decouple narrative declaration from game ability declaration. You can describe your character doing a Whirling Steel Strike as much as you want, but mechanically it's a normal attack unless you spend the encounter power.

 

[Corwin]

Oh, I agree with you. Or you simply decouple narrative declaration from game ability declaration. You can describe your character doing a Whirling Steel Strike as much as you want, but mechanically it's a normal attack unless you spend the encounter power.

Or, you can even allow your narrative to be informed by the mechanics. Why did the fighter only do a specific trick once that fight? Because he only did it once. He chose to do other things the rest of the time.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe. Personally, I'm find with a warlord that has a lot of short rest and long rest abilities. Although I personally like them to have at least Commander's Strike style ability at-will, but I understand I'm in the minority on that one, even among warlord fans.

 

[TwoSix]

Or, you can even allow your narrative to be informed by the mechanics. Why did the fighter only do a specific trick once that fight? Because he only did it once. He chose to do other things the rest of the time.

Sure, that works too. Lots of ways to handle it, as long as you can embrace "disassociation", or the idea that my character doesn't actually think in terms of "I know this one move, and I can only use it once, and then I have to rest an hour."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, that works too. Lots of ways to handle it, as long as you can embrace "disassociation", or the idea that my character doesn't actually think in terms of "I know this one move, and I can only use it once, and then I have to rest an hour."

Which, in my opinion, is purely a matter of choice. I don't even believe in "disassociative" mechanics: I think it's always a matter of what we choose to be bothered by. There are lots of mechanical effects I'm not a fan of, but none of them "break the suspension of disbelief". Any claims to the contrary are simply attempts to disguise personal preference as something objective.

 

[Aldarc]

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe. Personally, I'm find with a warlord that has a lot of short rest and long rest abilities. Although I personally like them to have at least Commander's Strike style ability at-will, but I understand I'm in the minority on that one, even among warlord fans.

I have also been an advocate for the warlord having "tiered maneuvers," i.e. maneuvers of varying power levels that are structured in spell-like tier levels. There are more complex or tougher maneuvers to coordinate than others. And yeah, perhaps less powerful or basic ones can be "cantrip" maneuvers. The basic attacks (or even cunning action) are functionally "cantrips" anyway. So there could be other basic maneuvers, such as distracting strike (disadvantage on foe's next attack) or something that allowed you to move or swap positions.

 

[Garthanos]

Or Action Surge. Or Second Wind. Or Indomitable.

4e fans are quite used to martial having abilities with frequency limits

 

[Aldarc]

4e fans are quite used to martial having abilities with frequency limits

Indeed, but there was a lot of opposition to 4e regarding features whose presence are marginally unopposed in 5e. That's the issue. I don't want to delve into an exhaustive speculation as to why that may be the case. One simple reason, however, may stem from the difference in writing style and tone between the two editions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have also been an advocate for the warlord having "tiered maneuvers," i.e. maneuvers of varying power levels that are structured in spell-like tier levels. There are more complex or tougher maneuvers to coordinate than others. And yeah, perhaps less powerful or basic ones can be cantrips. The basic attacks (or even cunning action) are functionally "cantrips" anyway. So there could be other basic maneuvers, such as distracting strike (disadvantage on foe's next attack) or something that allowed you to move or swap positions.

I don't really have a problem with at-will abilities conceptually, as long as they can't be manipulated so as to be unbalancing. If the Myrmidon can grant a rogue an off-turn attack every single round that's a problem. So at-will abilities should be situationally advantageous, where the situation isn't something that occurs every round or even every fight. E.g., it could be something that works in conjunction with an AoO.

Otherwise at-will abilities should be approximately equal to cantrips. Right?

I'd be wary of a mechanic that purports to balance a powerful at-will ability by reducing the baseline power of the class itself. E.g., "It's ok if the Warlord gives the rogue an off-turn attack because the Warlord is pretty weak otherwise." That means the balancing of the class is dependent to an unprecedented degree on party composition. That way lies madness.