Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9338455" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>That is the point. And no, Strategies are not spells. There would be a new list of them. That was kind of the point of specifying that. They would differ by not scaling as spells do...as you say, that's the whole point of <strong><em>warlock spells</em></strong>, which Strategems are not. They would simply be following the overall mechanical model.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Perfectly well. Sword-and-board might be Vanguard or whatever one chooses to call the "front-line attacker" Warlord subclass. Bows would be an option for any of them, but would work best with those that emphasize stealth or ranged attacks, I'd presume.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, some might, but I'd expect most of that stuff to be right out the gate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at all. But I had thought you disliked people simply dismissing arguments out of hand?</p><p></p><p></p><p>But we design the game for all the people who play. Not just the people who think that anyone who ever cares even the tiniest bit about being effective at what they do is a <em>dirty filthy <strong>optimizer</strong></em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I will not do so, specifically because what you are suggesting is WORSE than the Banneret--I already showed how that was the case with Second Wind. If your suggestion is worse than something you already say was badly made, how can we take your suggestion seriously?</p><p></p><p></p><p>But it does not do that. It is still selfish. That was the whole point of talking about the effectiveness of the actions. Being <em>able</em> to be an enabler is pointless if the game actually <em>rewards</em> being selfish.</p><p></p><p>You must give people a mechanical incentive to do the behaviors you want them to do (or, if necessary, a mechanical incentive to avoid behaviors you don't want them to do, but carrots are better than sticks by far.) If you don't, then most players <em>won't do that thing</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you are relying exclusively on inbuilt player enthusiasm for something--an enthusiasm so strong it overcomes a demonstrable loss of effectiveness. I'm not saying players are perfect logic machines, but come on man, people care about doing what will keep their characters alive, what will further their characters' goals, what will help them succeed better and more. We do not live in some perfect utopia where nobody cares about the possibility that they might fail. D&D players are notoriously anti-risk (except the few that are aggressively pro-risk, but that's a whole different topic.) That's why the 5MWD is a problem even though it actively makes the game less fun for everyone involved. These concerns are not some weird unhinged dedication to perfectionist optimization. They're <em>practical</em>. People care about succeeding. They want more successes and fewer failures.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except you aren't. You haven't changed one thing about how the ability works. You've simply allowed its utterly unchanged effect to be applied to someone else. That is not OP. It is, as I have repeatedly said, <em>completely insufficient</em>, for exactly the same reasons that the Banneret is completely insufficient.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My apologies. I'm not designing for Mephista's table. I'm designing for the typical table, where a realistic spectrum of people will be playing. The majority of that spectrum cares enough about effectiveness to get upset when they feel shortchanged and to pursue options that are powerful even if doing so can lead to a loss of fun. As the saying goes, "people will optimize the fun out of your game if you let them."</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you need to make only one choice to do that:</p><p></p><p>Play a Fighter.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not interested in discussing your tirade against people who care about effectiveness. You've made your point that you think anyone who cares about that is a dirty filthy <em>optimizer</em> sullying the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. It's just a dichotomy you refuse to recognize because you believe nobody ever cares about being effective.</p><p></p><p></p><p>When he <strong>explicitly and openly mocks something with known edition warrior rhetoric</strong>, it's not stupidity and it's not an accident. Whether or not he was joking does not matter. He used those words. He insulted things I care about, and he did so <em>knowing</em> that it pisses people off.</p><p></p><p>There WAS intent.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because it is useful to have a point of negative comparison--as I did above, where I showed that your idea of letting the Fighter give someone else her Second Wind is <em>woefully inadequate</em> because the Banneret gets something (significantly!) better than merely transferring the Second Wind effect to someone else...and you openly admit that the Banneret is bad!</p><p></p><p>Having a point of negative comparison gives us a floor from which to rise, or a ceiling to step back from. This one is a floor. Others are ceilings. We can narrow in on a useful point in the middle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9338455, member: 6790260"] That is the point. And no, Strategies are not spells. There would be a new list of them. That was kind of the point of specifying that. They would differ by not scaling as spells do...as you say, that's the whole point of [B][I]warlock spells[/I][/B], which Strategems are not. They would simply be following the overall mechanical model. Nope. Perfectly well. Sword-and-board might be Vanguard or whatever one chooses to call the "front-line attacker" Warlord subclass. Bows would be an option for any of them, but would work best with those that emphasize stealth or ranged attacks, I'd presume. I mean, some might, but I'd expect most of that stuff to be right out the gate. Not at all. But I had thought you disliked people simply dismissing arguments out of hand? But we design the game for all the people who play. Not just the people who think that anyone who ever cares even the tiniest bit about being effective at what they do is a [I]dirty filthy [B]optimizer[/B][/I]. I will not do so, specifically because what you are suggesting is WORSE than the Banneret--I already showed how that was the case with Second Wind. If your suggestion is worse than something you already say was badly made, how can we take your suggestion seriously? But it does not do that. It is still selfish. That was the whole point of talking about the effectiveness of the actions. Being [I]able[/I] to be an enabler is pointless if the game actually [I]rewards[/I] being selfish. You must give people a mechanical incentive to do the behaviors you want them to do (or, if necessary, a mechanical incentive to avoid behaviors you don't want them to do, but carrots are better than sticks by far.) If you don't, then most players [I]won't do that thing[/I]. Again, you are relying exclusively on inbuilt player enthusiasm for something--an enthusiasm so strong it overcomes a demonstrable loss of effectiveness. I'm not saying players are perfect logic machines, but come on man, people care about doing what will keep their characters alive, what will further their characters' goals, what will help them succeed better and more. We do not live in some perfect utopia where nobody cares about the possibility that they might fail. D&D players are notoriously anti-risk (except the few that are aggressively pro-risk, but that's a whole different topic.) That's why the 5MWD is a problem even though it actively makes the game less fun for everyone involved. These concerns are not some weird unhinged dedication to perfectionist optimization. They're [I]practical[/I]. People care about succeeding. They want more successes and fewer failures. Except you aren't. You haven't changed one thing about how the ability works. You've simply allowed its utterly unchanged effect to be applied to someone else. That is not OP. It is, as I have repeatedly said, [I]completely insufficient[/I], for exactly the same reasons that the Banneret is completely insufficient. My apologies. I'm not designing for Mephista's table. I'm designing for the typical table, where a realistic spectrum of people will be playing. The majority of that spectrum cares enough about effectiveness to get upset when they feel shortchanged and to pursue options that are powerful even if doing so can lead to a loss of fun. As the saying goes, "people will optimize the fun out of your game if you let them." But you need to make only one choice to do that: Play a Fighter. I'm not interested in discussing your tirade against people who care about effectiveness. You've made your point that you think anyone who cares about that is a dirty filthy [I]optimizer[/I] sullying the game. Nope. It's just a dichotomy you refuse to recognize because you believe nobody ever cares about being effective. When he [B]explicitly and openly mocks something with known edition warrior rhetoric[/B], it's not stupidity and it's not an accident. Whether or not he was joking does not matter. He used those words. He insulted things I care about, and he did so [I]knowing[/I] that it pisses people off. There WAS intent. Because it is useful to have a point of negative comparison--as I did above, where I showed that your idea of letting the Fighter give someone else her Second Wind is [I]woefully inadequate[/I] because the Banneret gets something (significantly!) better than merely transferring the Second Wind effect to someone else...and you openly admit that the Banneret is bad! Having a point of negative comparison gives us a floor from which to rise, or a ceiling to step back from. This one is a floor. Others are ceilings. We can narrow in on a useful point in the middle. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
Top