D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
- Thread starter Evenglare
- Start date
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Wait, now it's not just that they categorically can't heal, even the damage mitigation has to be purely opt-in? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.
I'll address this more later, but two quick things. One, is there actually any desire for a "simple" healer? Two, is it really appropriate to call it a simple healer if, as you've repeatedly said, it can't "heal" (that is, restore HP)?
First-level Fighters have Second Wind. Don't see why first-level Warlords couldn't have something too.
Uh, what? No, I'm not at all convinced of that. A single spell and a slot to cast it is equivalent to a single, reduced-size die (1d6, if you aren't already a BM) and two maneuvers--as far as feats are concerned. By 3rd level, when the BM is first getting its four dice, the Cleric has four first-level spells *and* two second-level spells, plus all their other class and subclass features (including Preserve Life for Life Clerics, which is a pretty hefty chunk of healing). How are you determining the equivalence between "one level of spellcasting" and "one level of superiority dice"?
I wouldn't call them "weak." They're still substantial--not large, but substantial. Often bonus armor or weapon profs; specific domains get bonus skills, fairly substantial bonus HP from heal spells*, fairly substantial magic damage boost (+Wis to cantrips--Warlocks pay invocations for that kind of bonus), or bonus attacks (Wis mod times per day). They're not build-defining, to be sure, but they make a very solid commitment to whatever the domain should be doing, and matter most in the earliest levels while still doing useful work even at 20. I'll grant you that Trickery is a touch on the weak side (a single ally gets advantage on Stealth? Really?) and Nature's benefit is mostly for charop (nicking a Druid cantrip basically means "you can get Shillelagh"), but otherwise the domains seem to be a solid start on the domain's core focus.
*The minimum bonus is +3 (2 + first-level spell), which is equal to your spellcasting modifier at that level (max stat, absent a lucky roll). This is more than a 50% bonus to Healing Word, and exactly 40% bonus to Cure Wounds--hardly what I'd call "rather weak." It doesn't scale well, but at levels 1 and maybe 2, it's enough to turn lucky-to-average spells into full 0-to-max heals for many classes: CW gives 7.5 average HP with 16 Wis, or 10.5 average HP with Disciple of Life.
The former is flat-out wrong--it can be solved by the 5e Warlord, since the class is not yet set in stone; or, rather, it would be better to say it may or may not, depending on how one was created. How you can make the claim that it should not--an evaluative judgment--I'm not sure.
Agreed. Though personally, I'd call it "adaptability" rather than "flexibility" per se. Each support class has access (sooner or later) to a variety of benefits, but can also focus, to one degree or another, on dealing with particular issues. Clerics are best at Big Heals if they specialize, Bards can create a unique package of magical benefits, Druids...I'm honestly not quite sure about, though my only practical experience with them has been Moon Druid so I don't quite know how the more spellcasty ones would work.
I see nothing wrong with a Warlord that can opt into restoring HP, as one choice among a palette of other options, supplementing rather than replacing their other, native sources of "day extension" (THP and/or defense bonuses, frex) and "force amplification" (which may, or may not, include attack-granting). One Warlord may double down on the THP, another may instead go for greater force amp--the latter is, after all, what most 4e Warlord guides advised.
I probably shouldn't have used quotes. I was trying to mark off the argument from the rest of my words, not indicate that I'd actually heard someone say that specific thing, but clearly I did that poorly. Though it has come up, here and elsewhere, that it is kind of sucky to design a feature for a particular class or subclass...which interferes with the most natural feat(s) one would take to improve one's abilities. Shield Master is perfectly compatible with the Protection Fighting Style, for example; having a feature for defending with a shield that used up your Bonus Action, for example, would conflict with that feat despite it being a (if not the) logical choice for such a character. Similarly, forcing a Warlord to focus primarily on THP makes Inspiring Leader largely a wasted investment, since it actively conflicts with any other sources of THP.
My thoughts exactly.
Thank you. This is what I was trying and failing to say. Bolded for emphasis.
I am willing to accept "we overextended ourselves beyond the resources we had available." Such a problem is, as you've noted, shared by all support classes, and thus it is no big deal that a new class also suffers from the same problem.
I am not willing to accept a class which suffers from this problem every single time a party member is reduced to 0 HP, when 100% of other support classes can address it if they haven't completely depleted their resources for the day--even at level 1. Why should the 5e-Warlord be saddled with such an onerous burden, being completely unable to fix a common problem faced at all levels (but especially level 1 and 2)?
As I said above: Can we really call it a "low-complexity healer" if, by your own words, it wouldn't actually "heal"?
Also: "complex martial character" is definitely an absent thing to fill. And how is "high-complexity martial" any different from "low-complexity healer"? If the former counts as mere "checkbox filling," why doesn't the latter, when they're effectively identical (combining a description of complexity and a particular kind of playable character, one thematic, one mechanical)? The similarity is so fundamental, I'm struggling to understand why you'd even try to use this argument.
Beyond that, even if "simple healer" is a desirable thing (and I'm not arguing it's undesirable, merely that I don't know that there is yet call for it), the Warlord doesn't have to be that class. We've already seen one Divinely-reflavored arcane class, so why not have an "Angel" pact Warlock that gets special healing-related invocations? Or perhaps the Mystic, which we know is coming and is intended to embrace a wide variety of "psionic" classes, could include a healing-focused subclass (possibly cribbing notes from the 4e Ardent?) Hell, one could even go for a heavily Healing-focused Paladin subclass, just as the Oath of the Crown is apparently a pure tank (haven't seen or read about its specific features so I cannot say for sure), though that might not be "simple" enough since it still uses spells.
Last edited:
Aldarc
Legend
Are other reasons needed? IMHO, one of the problems with martial classes has been a lack of complex options available that are comparable to casters. Casters have simple and complex class options, so, in turn, I would like to see a martial class with a higher level of complexity and choice comparable to spell selection. The warlord via maneuvers would provide an excellent means of providing a martial 'non-caster' with comparable strategic options. It's not as if this sort of thinking would be outside of Mearls's purview. We are talking about the designer who gave us Iron Heroes and The Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. He also worked at Malhavoc Press, whose Arcana Evolved gave us the Ritual Warrior, which had spell slot-like combat maneuvers.
Jester David
Hero
Not everyone wants classes with high complexity. Many people want low complexity options. Right now you can play a complex or simple damage dealer and tank, but there's no simple healer. That's a much larger gap in the game than no complex character of a very specific flavour.
Aldarc
Legend
Plenty of low complexity options already exist in-game. Not everyone wants classes with high complexity, but magical casting should probably not be the only means for playing a more complex class. You are placing the emphasis on a low-complexity healer. I am placing the emphasis on a higher complexity martial class. That in itself will inherently limit its complexity in comparison with a caster. So you could have a less complex healer via the Warlord while still having a higher complexity martial class via maneuvers and multiple healing options.
Jester David
Hero
Why should damage mitigation be built in?
Clerics are the healer class in D&D. They're always associated with being the healbot. But even they don't have built in healing that is mandatory.
Why should the warlord have more assumed healing than the cleric? How is the warlord healing people more essential to the tone and concept of the class than the cleric?
"Healer" is just a quick term for the role. If I say "leader" if causes extra problems. "Healer" in the accepted MMO term.
There seems to be a strong desire for classes with varying complexity. And it's useful. I know the one time I told a replacement player they had to play the healer was in a game of 4e. Level 9 or so. Brand new player. Took forever to make his character. Essentials was out but it wasn't in the Builder, and man did that suck.
They would. Maneuvers.
The spellcasting of an eldritch knight is equal to a level one caster in terms of power and spells per day. At the same level the battlemaster gets maneuvers. WotC has decided that the battlemaster is effectively a 1/3 maneuvers class. That the two are roughly balanced against each other.
You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with WotC and I'd be very cautious about making something overtly more powerful that WotC's baseline without heavy, heavy playtesting.
So either the warlord is a full maneuver class and gets that at 1st level or a 1/2 maneuvers class like the ranger and paladin and half-casters and gets maneuvers at second level. But in that second case probably all the warlord would get at 1st level would be rallying cry, so a 1st level warlord could not do anything you would assume a warlord should be able to do. They'd be unable to do anything warlordy.
Because you shouldn't patch rules with classes. That's like fixing the DRP problem of two-weapon fighting with a whole new class. You patch rules with rules so they can help everyone, not just people with a particular class.
Didn't I already give a super easy one-sentence fix for that problem? Repeatedly. Give the warlord a class feature that says when creations have temp hp from him they're treated as being above 0?
It's different because if someone wants a high complexity damage dealer or tank right now they have an option. It may not be martial, but they can still play something. But if someone wants a low complexity healer they SOL. It's filling the needs of players who have no choice vs players who have a choice but want more options.
Because new classes add bloat to the game, and balancing them consumes a lot of resources, so they should be added very, very sparingly. And coming up with flavour for a simple leader class that doesn't make them feel tacked on is also awkward. The warlord is a leader, it has established flavour, and it's martial which has a history in the game of simplicity. It seems like a good fit.
It makes more logical sense than making it complex.
Tony Vargas
Legend
There's nothing wrong with options. Damage mitigation and hp restoration should both be available, in whatever pool of maneuvers or whatever other mechanic the class uses. Pick lots of either, some of each, switch them up based on the situation, ignore both in favor of full-bore offensive buffing - that's the kind of flexibility support classes need, and existing ones have (and then some, since they can also whip out all sorts of other spells).
There's never been any demand for one, but you never know how much that's just because there's never been one. The archetypes for it certainly exist: empathic or gifted healers with no other magical abilities, or only a few very closely-related ones. They're not nearly as commonplace as the concepts the Warlord covers, but they're out there in genre, more so than clerics or other vancian casters.
Adaptability works. The Resourceful Warlord build was the poster child for that approach, too, now that I think of it.
A mystic sub-class could be a simple class based on the empathic healer not uncommon in science fiction. But it would also make sense to have a 'simple caster class' that has several sub classes with very different, distinctive, specialties - one of which could be simple healer, though I suspect straightforward blasting would be more popular.
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
My idea of warlord class is a fighter but with the poses and maneuvers of the school of White Raven from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Battles".
The warlord may be a interesting class for a module about allies/henchmen, skirmishes and mass battles.
Class or subclass? and why not a list of optional subtitutive class features?
The warlord may be a interesting class for a module about allies/henchmen, skirmishes and mass battles.
Class or subclass? and why not a list of optional subtitutive class features?
airwalkrr
Adventurer
Here is why I do not like the concept of having a warlord, at least not as a core character class or a primary character class (the minimum I would tolerate in the current incarnation of the game as a Fighter archetype): the fact that it is there means my players will badger me into allowing it no matter how much I want to run a classic style D&D game that doesn't have such things.
This is the same reason I am opposed to the tiefling, dragonborn, drow, warlock, and sorcerer being in the Player's Handbook. These are not classic or even essential concepts. When I proposed that my Pathfinder group (which was before that a D&D 3.5 group) start playing 5e, I also proposed that I would disallow these options. Some of my players were almost riotous at the very idea that I would consider disallowing something from the Player's Handbook. Now, I want to go back to a classic style Greyhawk game where things are simpler, the player characters are defined by their actions, not catlike ears and special faerie powers, and the "weird" belongs with monsters and villains. I want old school Sword & Sorcery. Even allowing some of the things from the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook is a compromise from my position because I have a hard time wrapping my head around wuxia-style monks and mischievous PC gnomes in my Sword & Sorcery. But I always end up going along with it because the resistance from players is simply too great once something is in a core rulebook or presented as an option for a core class. Do I think the warlord (or its progenitors like the marshal from 3.5) are contrary to my vision of a Sword & Sorcery game? Not necessarily. Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery? No way.
There are a lot of things in the Player's Handbook that I tolerate for the very reason that they are in the Player's Handbook. Players have come to see it as somehow sacred, and it's hard to pull any of that away once it infects the game.
This is the same reason I am opposed to the tiefling, dragonborn, drow, warlock, and sorcerer being in the Player's Handbook. These are not classic or even essential concepts. When I proposed that my Pathfinder group (which was before that a D&D 3.5 group) start playing 5e, I also proposed that I would disallow these options. Some of my players were almost riotous at the very idea that I would consider disallowing something from the Player's Handbook. Now, I want to go back to a classic style Greyhawk game where things are simpler, the player characters are defined by their actions, not catlike ears and special faerie powers, and the "weird" belongs with monsters and villains. I want old school Sword & Sorcery. Even allowing some of the things from the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook is a compromise from my position because I have a hard time wrapping my head around wuxia-style monks and mischievous PC gnomes in my Sword & Sorcery. But I always end up going along with it because the resistance from players is simply too great once something is in a core rulebook or presented as an option for a core class. Do I think the warlord (or its progenitors like the marshal from 3.5) are contrary to my vision of a Sword & Sorcery game? Not necessarily. Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery? No way.
There are a lot of things in the Player's Handbook that I tolerate for the very reason that they are in the Player's Handbook. Players have come to see it as somehow sacred, and it's hard to pull any of that away once it infects the game.
Tieflings as a weird near-human race with a reputation of being descended from strange magic effects would be much closer to "Old School Sword & Sorcery" than the elves, dwarves and halflings that are accepted as part of D&D. So are Warlocks in many ways. They're not classic D&D concepts, but then D&D wouldn't be my choice for a Sword and Sorcery game system. D&D is its own thing independent of other genres,
