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

[urLordy]

You have my case completely wrong.

My case is D&D does include non-magical spike healing.

First, I'd ask what non-magical spike healing does every previous edition and the current edition of D&D have?

And what does that have to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market? The question is what will it take to make the Warlord.

Edit: Never mind, it took me a while to figure it out. I was baffled.

Edit #2: I thought the OP was discuss if the 4e healing warlord as is "should" be in D&D Next, and not what will it take? The latter is a different premise, and sort of bulldozes over the other concerns. Perhaps this is the root of the conflict.

Edit #3: Asking "what it will take" isn't about arguing one angle over and over. It's about listening to the opposing angles, putting yourself in other people's shoes, and negotiating. Or just trying to crush the opposition. Take your pick

 

[I'm A Banana]

And what does that have to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market? The question is what will it take to make the Warlord. And the major metagame ability, as I have made clear right from the first post, is the ability to function without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency.

You said: "My case is D&D does include non-magical spike healing."

So, that's not: "what will it take to make the Warlord."

It seems from your posts that you think "what will it take to make the Warlord" is non-magical spike healing as a class feature.

Which is not "the ability to function without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency."

I believe there are many answers to functioning without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency that don't involve non-magical spike healing as a class feature, and I also believe there are many answers to what it will take to make a warlord that are not functioning without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency.

So it has not been as clear as perhaps you intend. I want to be specific and clear about your case, here. If I can't understand what you're babbling on about, I can't very well reply coherently.

So let me try to state what I perceive to be your case again: "I believe that, for me to enjoy 5e, there must be a class by which I can remove the need for a spellcaster to heal the party without significantly reduced efficiency, through including a member of this class in the party. For me to be satisfied that I can do that, such a class must include non-magical spike healing as a class feature."

Is that accurate?

We've been playing with D&D Next for more than a year now. And it's meant to be the edition to unite the editions.

A playtest isn't a preview, and uniting a broad D&D base is going to require some new innovations -- that act in and of itself is something that has never been tried before.

And I've provided a second one in the post you were replying to.
...
Did you even read the post you are replying to? I provided another method by which the Warlord might work.
...
Re-read the post you are replying to. I've provided a suggestion as to how you can provide the utility of spike healing to a party without providing spike healing itself.

So, your idea there is to provide an alternative to non-magical spike healing.

But let us, for the sake of argument, and because this appears to be what 5e is actually doing, instead allow for non-magical spike healing (hell, the exact mechanics of Inspiring Word) and examine the claim that such a mechanic must sit inside a unique class feature.

Does there need to be a class with a class feature by which you can forgo clerical healing without reduced efficiency via non-magical spike healing? Or can there simply be an option by which you can accomplish that?

Or is a class a requirement for you that you are unable/unwilling to question?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You said: "My case is D&D does include non-magical spike healing."

So, that's not: "what will it take to make the Warlord."It seems from your posts that you think "what will it take to make the Warlord" is non-magical spike healing as a class feature. Which is not "the ability to function without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency."

What it will take to make the warlord is the ability to organise a non-magical party to function without significantly reduced capacity. A significant part of this is something with the utility of spike healing.

I believe there are many answers to functioning without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency that don't involve non-magical spike healing as a class feature, and I also believe there are many answers to what it will take to make a warlord that are not functioning without a spellcaster without significantly reduced efficiency.

I belive that there are significantly fewer than you think due to the power and utility of clerical healing. Which is why I opened this thread to be as much about the cleric as the warlord.

So it has not been as clear as perhaps you intend. I want to be specific and clear about your case, here. If I can't understand what you're babbling on about, I can't very well reply coherently. So let me try to state what I perceive to be your case again: "I believe that, for me to enjoy 5e, there must be a class by which I can remove the need for a spellcaster to heal the party without significantly reduced efficiency, through including a member of this class in the party. For me to be satisfied that I can do that, such a class must include non-magical spike healing as a class feature." Is that accurate?

Not even slightly. I believe that for something to be a meaningful Warlord we must be able to function as a party without significantly reduced efficiency while not including a cleric or magical equivalent.

I do not need to play a warlord to enjoy D&D. And I play plenty of games which don't have warlord equivalents. The lack of a Warlord will, however, demonstrate that D&D Next isn't serious about uniting the editions because it isn't even covering the classes in the 4e PHB.

Further I believe that without a meaningful warlord D&D's range of worlds it covers effectively is significantly limited. Clerical magic isn't common (nor is Vancian casting - D&D works best IMO when outside specific D&D worlds or anything Exalted-style the best PC caster is normally the Bard (2e, 3e, or 4e), and there may not even be any of them with the party.

But what if, for the sake of argument, and because this appears to be what 5e is actually doing, we instead allow for non-magical spike healing (hell, the exact mechanics of Inspiring Word) and instead examine the claim that such a mechanic must sit inside a unique class feature.

If you mean that the Fighter can get Inspiring Word in place of most uses of expertise dice and the rogue can in place of sneak attack I do not consider that meaningfully different from a unique class feature. It'll be ... interesting ... to balance. But that's details.

If you mean that everyone gets Inspiring Word, that would have a very bad impact on the game. It means any smart NPC is going to confirm kills with a coup de grace. And it's going to render focus fire a very weak tactic.

 

[urLordy]

What it will take to make the warlord is the ability to organise a non-magical party to function without significantly reduced capacity.

For those of us who haven't followed the complete subthread, what are some examples of "significantly reduced capacity"? Is that like being forced to go back to town between every encounter?

 

[urLordy]

If you mean that the Fighter can get Inspiring Word in place of most uses of expertise dice and the rogue can in place of sneak attack I do not consider that meaningfully different from a unique class feature. It'll be ... interesting ... to balance. But that's details.

This is 1st time I recall a 4e guy like yourself say that there's no meaningful difference between a Warlord class vs a cross-class Inspiring Word ability. That is very meaningful to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For those of us who haven't followed the complete subthread, what are some examples of "significantly reduced capacity"? Is that like being forced to go back to town between every encounter?

That's one. For all people claim that the fighter can keep going forever, they are only like the energiser bunny when you continually charge them up with wands of Cure Light Wounds. Otherwise they are limited by the amount of healing the party has available and are a drain on the healing, able to go little longer than the cleric's spells hold out. Not having spike healing to compensate for the slings and arrows of outrageous dice rolling and take the edge off them is another - if a stray arrow scores an unlikely and nasty hit on the wizard things are overwhelmingly different based on whether you have spike healing available. Or if some lucky orc gets a critical hit against the fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Those are significant details. Significant enough that pages and pages and countless hours have been invested into it over the years. This is 1st time I've heard a 4e guy say that there's no meaningful difference between a Warlord class vs a cross-class Inspiring Word ability.

I didn't say there was no meaningful difference. I said that that was what it would take. There's more to the Warlord than just that, but they seem to be giving a lot of what was Warlord stuff to the fighter including the ability to grant attacks. And this thread started when KM asked in another thread what the fighter in the playtest would need to be able to be a warlord that it didn't already have. (@Pemerton has pointed out that they wouldn't then be a good warlord as they stand now). But the Next fighter has absorbed to some degree a lot of Warlord stuff already so I didn't feel the need to go into that.

 

[urLordy]

That's one. For all people claim that the fighter can keep going forever, they are only like the energiser bunny when you continually charge them up with wands of Cure Light Wounds. Otherwise they are limited by the amount of healing the party has available and are a drain on the healing, able to go little longer than the cleric's spells hold out. Not having spike healing to compensate for the slings and arrows of outrageous dice rolling and take the edge off them is another - if a stray arrow scores an unlikely and nasty hit on the wizard things are overwhelmingly different based on whether you have spike healing available. Or if some lucky orc gets a critical hit against the fighter.

What is the baseline for significant reduced capacity or for a fighter's health state?

For example, you have a party that includes a Warlord, a Cleric and a Druid, and 3 Fighters. They fight off 12 orc-somethings.

Then the player of the Cleric goes on vacation, and the player of the Druid is always off with his girfriend. Now you have a Warlord and 3 Fighters. They fight off another 12 orc-somethings. Are they at "significantly reduced capacity"?

What if the DM only had them face 6 orc-somethings instead of 12. Effectively setting an easier challenge. Like playing a video game at Normal or Easy instead of Hard. Is that "significantly reduced capacity"?

 

[urLordy]

If you mean that the Fighter can get Inspiring Word in place of most uses of expertise dice and the rogue can in place of sneak attack I do not consider that meaningfully different from a unique class feature.

I didn't say there was no meaningful difference. I said that that was what it would take.

You baffled me again.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What is the baseline for significant reduced capacity or for a fighter's health state?

For example, you have a party that includes a Warlord, a Cleric and a Druid, and 3 Fighters. They fight off 12 orc-somethings.

Then the player of the Cleric goes on vacation, and the player of the Druid is always off with his girfriend. Now you have a Warlord and 3 Fighters. They fight off another 12 orc-somethings. Are they at "significantly reduced capacity"?

What if the DM only had them face 6 orc-somethings instead of 12. Effectively setting an easier challenge. Like playing a video game at Normal or Easy instead of Hard. Is that "significantly reduced capacity"?

Wrong analogy.

You have a party that includes a Warlord and 3 Fighters, and one that includes a Cleric and 3 Fighters. Will the party with the Warlord be able to chew through as many orcs as easily, have the Fighters have at least as good odds of survival, and be protected against random orc critical hits as effectively?

If the answer is "no" then it's back to the drawing board for the Warlord. Because due to being a caster the cleric is always going to be able to do other stuff.

You baffled me again.

"You have to be this tall to ride" (i.e. the Warlord needs a functional equivalent to spike healing) is not the same thing as saying that anything over the set height is a kid and so can ride the rollercoaster. A cardboard cut out picture of a kid passes the height check but isn't a kid.