Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Tony Vargas]

YOu guys need to back down om some things as you lacl popular support.

The irony of D&Ders appealing to popularity, when our little hobby is one of the least popular recreational activities in human history (some forms of actual torture not excepted) is amusing, but still invalid...

Give em martial healing in exchange for at will attack granting.

When you step in and demand concessions on an issue you have no interest in, that you can always choose simply never to opt into, that is not compromise.
Building a consensus among people who may actually use the class may be.

Opt-in instead of standard is the ultimate compromise. In the PH, the BMs 'Rally' that doesn't rally at all, for instance is a compromise on a standard sub-class (as is it being a sub-class, in the first place, rather than the fighter chassis getting maneuvers and only a Champion or Slayer sub-class stripping them out in favor of a simpler alternative).

For those who don't care for the narratives behind martial hp-restoration, the option is always there to simply not use an officially optional sub-class like the PDK, or even a less-compromised standard class ability like the PH fighter's Second Wind.

Though, the latter does highlight the value of designs that leave options open to the player, as Second Wind has no alternate use nor any alternate feature that a player might swap it for.

The at will attack granting thing on a support character is a problem though. Support characters in 5E give up a lot of damage...

When it comes to grinding out damage consistently, sure, but action grants are quite situational, even if they don't have arbitrary useage/rest limitations. And, it's questionable to what degree the damage done on a granted action even goes on the grantor's side of the ledger, or for that matter where the spotlight of the games loose balance even shines...

...arguably, it's shared, but, IMX, it very often goes primarily or wholly to the character actually taking the action & displaying it's prowess. (Which, if you enjoy contributing support in the first place is just fine..)

It's endemic to support, really. Pop a Healing Word to stand up a fallen ally and his next action's damage has also been granted by you, give a Rogue advantage vs an enemy, and his SA has been granted by you, etc...

 

[Guest 6801328]

That "controversial" aspect already exists in the game. 2nd Wind. Short rest healing dice use. There is already non-magical healing that doesn't operate at will but instead operates on short rests. I don't hear any complaints like that about those mechanics do you?

I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself. I'm fine with that. It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.

Really the simple solution is to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit. Except that when I read these proposed Warlord mechanics the language tends to make it every explicit that it is non-magical, and the result of inspiration/leadership/orders/etc.

Tony will jump in and say, "It has to be defined because of things like anti-magic fields and counterspell." And my response is to let the DM adjudicate those edge cases.

Now you are getting more to your point. I understand that position and where it comes from. You want to be able to decide what inspires your character. At face value that makes perfect sense. But let me ask, Do you demand to a decide when your character is non-magically frightened? Do you demand to decide when your character is non-magically knocked prone? Do you demand to decide how much HP the enemies attack removed from your PC? If you've never brought any of these things up, then why do you ignore them and focus only on demanding that you decide if your character is inspired?

Because (for the gazillionth time) those other examples* are instances of physics & physiology, not thoughts. The very clear boundary for me is that I, and only I, decide what my character thinks and feels and even knows (or thinks he knows). If I don't get to decide that, it's not really my character.

*Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that. Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear? I would very much object if a DM had a monster make a contested Intimidation check and, if I failed, require me to have the Fear condition.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another. I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward. There isn't really a compromise position.

There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions. (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")

I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals. There are some participants, though, who won't budge on any of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions.

I think I've seen solutions to almost every single desire/expectation that I'd be ok with, except for this non-magical healing thing. And I've seen the same from other posters as well. It really is the sticking point. Ok, I suppose that plus at-will action granting. I would have thought that Warlord proponents would be willing to temper those two demands, so that "action granting" has some limitations, and "healing" is a composite of damage prevention, temp HP, and maybe short rest bonuses, if by agreeing to that they could have an "Int-based support/tactical martial fighter."

But, no, that's not good enough. It has to have everything.

As long as some people think of listening and compromise as "backing down", this discussion will...well, just look at well that's turned out in Washington D.C.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself. I'm fine with that. It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.

Really the simple solution is...

...to leave the effect optional at the player level. For instance a phrasing like '...the ally may spend a HD, and receive additional hps equal to your CHA mod...' leaves it entirely up to you how your character feels about it.

That actually was how Warlord exploits tended to be phrased, healing or otherwise.

to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit.

That's not just telling another player how his character feels, it's telling him who he is. And, I don't see how you could make it voluntary so easily ...

*Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that. Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear? .

Intimidation, obviously, but using social skills on other PCs is often frowned upon, you're supposed to be allies, and intra-party conflict can be bad for the table dynamic.

There could be a compromise,

There already has been a huge compromise: the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH. Any Warlord class is going to be opt-in optional, so anyone disliking the idea has been met more than half-way.

if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions. (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")

From the announcement of Next, the idea has been to support more play styles. That was in response to 'playstyle' becoming a rallying cry against 4e in the edition war. As you suspect, it's never really been entirely about wanting a playstyle to be supported in the sense that the game allows those who wish it to play in that style, rather it was about the affirmation of a traditional style as correct(really D&D), or the over-rewarding of another 'style' (system mastery).

That was also some of the same underlying stuff as DM vs Player 'Empowerment' - the classic game heavily empowered DMs, the prior WotC eds, players.

5e Empowers DMs, and the playstyle supported by 5e D&D at a given table will be, for all practical purposes, chosen by the DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There already has been a huge compromise: the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH. Any Warlord class is going to be opt-in optional, so anyone disliking the idea has been met more than half-way.

Hatfield: "As soon as I kill one more McCoy, then we'll be even and we can talk about compromise..."

Neither of us...in fact nobody on these forums...was part of that decision. So you didn't "meet me" more than halfway, and I didn't ask you to.

On the other hand, I totally get that there's anger and resentment from that decision. That's human. But making that reaction the starting point for discussion is...non-productive?

From the announcement of Next, the idea has been to support more play styles. That was in response to 'playstyle' becoming a rallying cry against 4e in the edition war. As you suspect, it's never really been entirely about wanting a playstyle to be supported in the sense that the game allows those who wish it to play in that style, rather it was about the affirmation of a traditional style as correct, or the over-rewarding of another 'style' (system mastery).

Yeah. They stated a goal, everybody interpreted that to mean what they thought it would mean, and not everybody got everything they wanted. Some of that might have been due to insincerity or their part, or a change of plans along the way, or simply unreasonable expectations from both sides. That happens.

So...what are you going to do about it? Stew and seethe and make demands that will never be met? Or start with a clean slate and try to design something that garners so much support, and so little opposition, that it becomes a meme* in the community and has a chance of becoming official?



*In the Dawkins rather than the Reddit sense of the word.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Neither of us...in fact nobody on these forums...was part of that decision. So you didn't "meet me" more than halfway, and I didn't ask you to

Nor will we be part of any other decisions, so asking for a compromise in that sense is absurd, anyway. There's no need or point in random strangers on the internet 'compromising' between one wanting a product and another not wanting it. And, "hey, you can want it, if you settle for an inferior version" wouldn't be a compromise, anyway.

In the sense of what the game presents, an element presented as opt-in optional, like feats, is already a compromise between having & not having a rule in the game.

3.x fans who wanted feats and old-schoolers who didn't were met half-way, there.

 

[TwoSix]

So...what are you going to do about it? Stew and seethe and make demands that will never be met? Or start with a clean slate and try to design something that garners so much support, and so little opposition, that it becomes a meme* in the community and has a chance of becoming official?

Why not? Nothing we would "design" here is going to impact anything official. If an official warlord ever comes to fruition, they'll put it up as a UA, take a survey, redesign it again, and then maybe it will be in the next book of player material in 2021 or so. Our opinion doesn't really matter.

If we want to rehash edition war arguments for fun while we pretend that we can build some kind of consensus about a class designed for the most polarizing edition of D&D, that's as good a way to pass the time as any.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why not? Nothing we would "design" here is going to impact anything official. If an official warlord ever comes to fruition, they'll put it up as a UA, take a survey, redesign it again, and then maybe it will be in the next book of player material in 2021 or so. Our opinion doesn't really matter.

If we want to rehash edition war arguments for fun while we pretend that we can build some kind of consensus about a class designed for the most polarizing edition of D&D, that's as good a way to pass the time as any.

Oh, my bad. I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?" Only because that's always my approach.

If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it. Sorry for butting in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?" Only because that's always my approach.

It seems like most discussions are speculation and/or commentary like that.

If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it. Sorry for butting in.

Theres likely elements of both, but a homebrew seems the main thrust of this particular thread.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, my bad. I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?" Only because that's always my approach.

If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it. Sorry for butting in.

You can certainly use that as a criterion for your discussion, I just don't see much use in trying to puzzle out what WotC might actually use for "official". There's no way I saw a concept like Hexblade being official back in 2014, for example.

If your argument is that there's no way that a class with non-magical inspirational healing will make the 80% acceptance criteria that WotC says they like to use as a ballpark metric, that's something that could discussed in further detail.