D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[I'm A Banana]

If it's an item anyone can buy then it's effectively an ability anyone can have so everyone gets spike healing - see my comments earlier about that.

You're wrong there. Plate mail is available, and not everyone uses plate mail, right? Warhorses are available, and not everyone uses mounts, right? Greatswords are available, and not everyone uses bastard swords, right? Not everyone is running around with the same set of equipment. Various costs (gp, proficiencies, various trade-offs) keep them in the hands of people who want to use them. If this was an item akin to plate mail or a greatsword, it would have those same limitations (whatever they were), and wouldn't be any more ubiquitous than any other piece of equipment.

If it's an item that only a warlord can use then for most practical purposes it's a warlord class feature with a minor gear limitation applied. If it's an item you need a feat to use then it's a feat with a minor gear limitation applied.

If it's an item like plate mail that anyone COULD use, but that various trade-offs and hurdles stop EVERYONE from using it?

What are the pre-requisites for using this thing? Because the item nature you've given it is simply a special effect.

What are the prerequisites for warhorses? For shields? For bastard swords? For plate mail? This would slot into that. It would have the same kinds of requirements.

What makes you think that +1 to an ability score is that powerful? First it can get overriden by e.g. Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or the monk capstone ability that sets all stats to 20.

It duplicates one of the most reliable effects of one of the most powerful spells in the game. It stacks. With itself, and with other boosting effects. It is permanent, irrevocable, without a down-side, and of clear and direct benefit. Even if it was only a +1 to hit after two uses, a +1 to hit is nothing to sneeze at in a bounded accuracy system. What's an extra 1d8 hp each encounter, an extra round of fighting?

...but that's kind of a sidetrack. The point there wasn't a direct comparison, but more, again, "Accept that X is true." There's evidence that feats in 5e are going to be big, so accept that they're big enough to contain this (however big that needs to be for you).

A feat that then contains this effect -- does this satisfy your need for a non-magical spike healing effect in the game? Or is your concern something other/more detailed than just a non-magical spike healing effect?

But in Next the value of the feats would be much, much greater because spike healing is fundamentally rare and spike healing is one of those things made more valuable by scarcity.

Imagine they are that great. Imagine this container is big enough. Would you still miss a warlord class? If so, what are your criteria other than non-magical spike healing?

 

[urLordy]

The Bravelord is first in, jumping down the dragon's throat, and leaving the Barbarian impressed by their recklessness.

If the barbarian jumped down the dragon's throat first, is the Bravelord impressed too? Enough to get extra hitpoints? If no, why not, if the Barbarian's actions are just as brave and inspiring? Why does the mechanical expression fail to capture one story but not vice versa? I am not asking just to argue. I would like to know if you understand my POV.

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

I don't get the idea that classes NEED to be balanced. This isn't Dragon Age or Skyrim, where you need to worry about beating the Boss Fight. If classes had to be balanced, no one would've played a Rogue in Second Edition.

The dynamic in D&D was that if you wanted healing have a cleric in the party, or access to potions and the game survived for a long time with that status quo. This idea that every class and character has to be equally "good" seems to have gotten way overblown.

 

[Ratskinner]

Reading this makes me want to reiterate what I said upthread - that the paladin and the battle captain/warlord occupy the same archetypical space, but get wedged apart in D&D because of its very strong magic/not magic divide. So in talking about a warlord I'm talking about a way of achieving this archetype on the non-magic side of things.

Is this responding at all sensibly to your post, or am I off target?

On and off. I don't personally have any objection to the idea that combat inspiration be represented by HP recovery. For me, it doesn't really change anything significantly to break the horrendous fictional-positioning problems that HP and traditional healing magic cause in general, nor does it fix it.

The key issue is "campaign" or "world" as the OP and thread title started off, not "character" or "archetype". Its two separate thoughts. Creating/running a low or non-magic world in 5e might be completely practical with choices in HP modules which have nothing to do with the existence of Warlords-with-spike-healing-panic-buttons (whatever that means, I must've missed that). Speculatively, such modules might eliminate the perceived necessity of having any insta-healer character at all. (IMO, a good thing) Which makes me want to cleave insta-healing from class entirely, make it a Theme or something to flavor as needed with the other class abilities, but that's a separate thought.*


*I sometimes think that, if we're going to keep using such incredibly abstract mechanics as HP, we should drop the pretense of specificity in all the other mechanics. We just make things like "Class" and "Race" sources of flavoring for skeletal mechanical abilities....but then we've made FATE Core d20, or close to it.

 

[Alzrius]

Because fighting on at lower than zero hit points is a killer, and makes the warlord responsible for his team-mates pushing themselves to death.

That's a gamist concern, which is separate from the point that pemerton raised. The more pertinent question is if a "fight on a 0 hit points" rule fulfills the question of the mechanics representing inspiration.

That said, the position of "continuing to act below 0 hit points gets you killed" strikes me as missing the point. You're already going to get killed, you're at 0 hit points! How does falling down unconscious at 0 hit points, versus continuing to act, make death less likely?

If people find it improbable that a warlord could heal wounds, but acceptable that he restore morale, can we quantify how much of Hp is morale? Even roughly? Say half? Then a warlord could inspire a character by removing half of all current damage - once per fight only for each character. Is this more palatable?

I doubt many people would find this palatable. Even leaving aside the "hit points as physical damage" argument, the idea that they're more than that doesn't discriminate precisely what they are, nor the percentages of such a mixture. If hit points are a combination of luck, stamina, divine providence, physical fortitude, "rolling with the blows," and morale, are we going to say that curing morale is worth 16.67% of a character's hit points? Or some other (arbitrary) percentage?

As Starfox says, that stuff gets people killed.

Again, if you're at 0 hit points, you're already getting killed. Being able to keep acting is a good thing, not a liability.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're wrong there. Plate mail is available, and not everyone uses plate mail, right?

The ability to wear plate mail effectively is a class feature of fighters, paladins, and very few other classes. Does everyone for whom it would be a good idea wear plate mail if they can afford it? Normally.

Plate mail is therefore effectively a class feature. With a financial tax (or possibly a de facto level restriction).

Greatswords are available, and not everyone uses bastard swords, right?

That is because the other options you can take in place of a greatsword or bastard sword are about equally good. You need to both show me that other options can be as good as spike healing and that it isn't simply a financial tax.

If this was an item akin to plate mail or a greatsword, it would have those same limitations (whatever they were), and wouldn't be any more ubiquitous than any other piece of equipment.

So you need to come up with a wide range of equipment that's as close to it in power or usefulness as a bastard sword to a waraxe. Now "Everyone gets a significant standard" is an interesting design addition. I don't dispute that. But it's a whole new design layer to add.

If it's an item like plate mail that anyone COULD use, but that various trade-offs and hurdles stop EVERYONE from using it?

Then it's not an item like plate mail that's a class feature that others can get in 3e or 4e. (And not a terribly good class feature in 3e or even 4e). You've made an item slot there.

What are the prerequisites for warhorses?

Ride skill or mounted combat feat, no dungeons to leave the thing outside.

For shields?

Proficiency - i.e. a class feature or feat with prerequisites. Not wanting a two handed weapon.

For bastard swords?

A feat.

For plate mail?

A class feature. Or a feat.

This would slot into that. It would have the same kinds of requirements.

i.e. a class feature or a feat?

It duplicates one of the most reliable effects of one of the most powerful spells in the game.

I went into that. It duplicates one of the least useful effects of a single casting of a powerful spell.

It stacks.

At least every pair of them do. The ones that boost your stat to an odd level aren't that great.

With itself, and with other boosting effects. It is permanent, irrevocable, without a down-side, and of clear and direct benefit.

Just like almost every worthwhile feat.

...but that's kind of a sidetrack. The point there wasn't a direct comparison, but more, again, "Accept that X is true." There's evidence that feats in 5e are going to be big, so accept that they're big enough to contain this (however big that needs to be for you).

Really? There's evidence that they are talking of how feats are going to be big. But the fundamental rule of storytelling is show, don't tell. What they are showing is a +1 to a single attribute. Which is actively weaker than a lot of 4e feats. I'm pretty sure I could make an entire 30 level character in 4e that did not have a single feat that I'd trade for +1 to a single stat. And do it in several classes.

Which means your "Accept that X is true" is an "Accept that X is true despite the fact that all the evidence they've shown is pointing in the opposite direction."

Now if they want to start making feats into fiat abilities with the effects of e.g. Spirit of the Century Stunts then my objection vanishes. If something like the following becomes a feat I will outright cheer.

Master of DisguiseThe character can convincingly pass himself off as nearly anyone with a little time and preparation. Once per day the player temporarily stops playing. His character is presumed to have donned a disguise and gone “off camera”. At any subsequent point during play the player may choose any nameless, filler character (a villain’s minion, a bellboy in the hotel, the cop who just pulled you over, the third guard from the left in the fight you're about to have) in a scene and reveal that that character is actually the PC in disguise!
The character may remain in this state for as long as the player chooses, but if anyone is tipped off that he might be nearby, an investigator may spend a fate point and roll Spot against the disguised character’s Bluff. If the investigator wins, his player (which may be the GM) gets to decide which filler character is actually the disguised PC (“Wait a minute – you’re the Emerald Emancipator!”).

This is the level feats would have to be at to be on a par with meaningful spike healing as a feat. They'd have to be abilities that let the player reach out and change what is going on in the fiction of the game in a non-trivial way. Rather than just +1 to a few assorted die rolls. Which is all a +1 to a stat really is.

A feat that then contains this effect -- does this satisfy your need for a non-magical spike healing effect in the game? Or is your concern something other/more detailed than just a non-magical spike healing effect?

It would. But it would either stick out from the current and proposed feats like a sore thumb or I'd wonder who had replaced the Next team while I wasn't looking because they'd completely overhauled the feat system from anything they'd either proposed or offered in the playtest packets. +1 to a stat is not in this league. (Now the ability to use a Wish however you want rather than in the single manner that gave you the least influence on the fiction would probably be...)

Imagine they are that great. Imagine this container is big enough. Would you still miss a warlord class? If so, what are your criteria other than non-magical spike healing?

If the container is as big as I've just outlined then Next would be such a different game to the one shown so far that I'd need to rethink just about everything about it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a gamist concern, which is separate from the point that pemerton raised.

If the gamist concerns aren't met then the mechanics don't match the fluff.

That said, the position of "continuing to act below 0 hit points gets you killed" strikes me as missing the point. You're already going to get killed, you're at 0 hit points! How does falling down unconscious at 0 hit points, versus continuing to act, make death less likely?

Because someone who drops to 0hp ceases to be a threat. Unless there is serious likelihood of them getting back up the enemy ignores them in favour of the people waving swords in their face or threatening to blow them up with spells. You can safely finish the downed foes after the battle - but they are not high priority targets during the battle.

 

[Alzrius]

If the gamist concerns aren't met then the mechanics don't match the fluff.

Er, what? No, that's not at all what "gamist" means. Having the fluff match the crunch has nothing to do with whether or not something is a good tactical game-play option.

Because someone who drops to 0hp ceases to be a threat. Unless there is serious likelihood of them getting back up the enemy ignores them in favour of the people waving swords in their face or threatening to blow them up with spells. You can safely finish the downed foes after the battle - but they are not high priority targets during the battle.

I strongly disagree here. Smart enemies will make sure that the foes that they've just downed stay down, especially when allies will be working to get them back up and combat-capable, such as a warlord using inspiration.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Er, what? No, that's not at all what "gamist" means. Having the fluff match the crunch has nothing to do with whether or not something is a good tactical game-play option.

Indeed. The problem isn't a gamist one in the way you are defining it. It's that if gamist concerns are not met then the Warlord doesn't do its job and becomes a tier 5 choice.

I strongly disagree here. Smart enemies will make sure that the foes that they've just downed stay down, especially when allies will be working to get them back up and combat-capable, such as a warlord using inspiration.

That depends how easy it is within the context of the gameworld to get people back up. Which is why I mentioned this specifically to the idea everyone should have spike healing when it was floated earlier in the thread. If spike healing is very common you confirm your kills. If it's rare and you don't expect people to get back up then you don't. And this is another reason to make it class based.

 

[urLordy]

I strongly disagree here. Smart enemies will make sure that the foes that they've just downed stay down, especially when allies will be working to get them back up and combat-capable, such as a warlord using inspiration.

An awesome example of good world-building and thinking things through, thanks for the idea!