I think I straight up don't agree with this. For a few reasons. 1) Nature clerics and Druids to me, aren't doing the same thing 2) I have no issues with two things doing the same thing differently. If two players want to build ninjas but one wants to go shadow monk and another wants to go Assassin rogue, I have no problem. I allows players to have similar concepts but vary in play so no one is doing the exact same thing. But YMMV, I guess.
D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll
- Status
I think I straight up don't agree with this. For a few reasons. 1) Nature clerics and Druids to me, aren't doing the same thing 2) I have no issues with two things doing the same thing differently. If two players want to build ninjas but one wants to go shadow monk and another wants to go Assassin rogue, I have no problem. I allows players to have similar concepts but vary in play so no one is doing the exact same thing. But YMMV, I guess.
My bad. I just assume everyone on the internet is yelling at me.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Reduced max hps doesn't seem to me to map very well to wounds. Nothing really does in 5e (not even failed death saves or actual death, since there are sources of damage that don't conceptually inflict wounds), but being down HD, in part because they are the slowest-recovering of all resources, maybe comes closer:
You get knocked below half your hps and start 'showing signs of wear,' which could include some sort of wounds depending on where the hp damage came from, you rest an hour, patch yourself up, spend HD, you're at full hps, but any wounds are still there, just cleaned/bandaged/whatever.
That said, I also like the idea of a healing mechanic that reduces max hps, it has a neat kind of gritty at-a-price feel to it, could work for surgery, as suggested, and seems just right for magical healing in a darker S&S setting.
Remathilis
Legend
This is why I find myself very quickly tired of these conversations.
Here is my short list for an acceptable warlord.
1.) Has some buffing, healing, and tactical abilities
2.) Isn't Wahoo.
The problem here is that there is no middle ground between "martial leader" and "nomagical fiction re-writing metaclass" in these discussions. There is no compromise. Nothing less than a fully nonmagical cleric-analogue (who can use his powers at-will) will satisfy the warlord crowd. Its not enough to bring the warlord archetype into 5e, it must drag every piece of 4e baggage with it.
And the song remains the same.
Anyway, good luck to you, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION], [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION], and the rest of the crowd. Don't stop the fight until a fully realized 4e-perfect warlord comes down the WotC pipe. Settle for nothing less.
I'll play 5e the way it is and be happy. Good gaming.
I assume that you don't regard yourself as part of "the warlord crowd". Yet you are the only one who has posited that the warlord must be able to use Raise Dead, Silence, etc - ie the full gamut of cleric effects.
The post by [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] to which you replied was doubting your claim in respect of this, yet now you attribute your claim to him as part of your reason for being frustrated.
And as far as the "at will" bit is concerned, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION] and I have been discussing various options for rationing. [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] favours "at wil", but has not given any indication that that is the only way s/he (sorry, not sure what your pronoun is, mellored) will be satsified.
So in the end, I'm not even really sure who you think you're conversing with.
Hussar
Legend
This line of argument really baffles me. It seems to go, "Well, there isn't consensus about X, therefore we should never do X". That's utterly ridiculous. I mean, good grief, we had two years of play testing various, sometimes very, different mechanical versions of different classes. Does that mean we should never have had 5e?
There was a fairly vocal crowd who said that psionics could be done with sorcerers. So, shouldn't that have shut down the development of the mystic? Never minding the ranger.
It's a poor argument for two reasons: 1. It presumes that there really are large numbers of non-starters among warlord fans that would result in any version being put down because it cannot service all these contradictory elements. Unfortunately, there's very, very little proof of that. While numerous versions of the warlord have been put forth, I've yet to see too many lines in the sand being drawn. 2. It ignores the fact that we never, ever have consensus on any mechanical element.
There was a fairly vocal crowd who said that psionics could be done with sorcerers. So, shouldn't that have shut down the development of the mystic? Never minding the ranger.
It's a poor argument for two reasons: 1. It presumes that there really are large numbers of non-starters among warlord fans that would result in any version being put down because it cannot service all these contradictory elements. Unfortunately, there's very, very little proof of that. While numerous versions of the warlord have been put forth, I've yet to see too many lines in the sand being drawn. 2. It ignores the fact that we never, ever have consensus on any mechanical element.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Every single person arguing for a 5e warlord on these forums has explicitly expressed their willingness to compromise, and have acknowledged, usually without being prompted, that no class is going to port directly from one edition to another.
Hell, the text you quoted is the opposite of what you claim. It is a statement that a given potential aspect of a potential warlord *could* be done, and *could be* either be wahoo or not, with wording that directly indicates that none of that is absolute, or beyond compromise, or strictly necessary.
Literally every single claim you make about other posters in this post is factually incorrect. Every. Last. One.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Right.
There wasn't consensus on any single class or mechanic, during the playtest. And yet.
mellored
Legend
I'm arguing 2 liked, but separate things.
1: at-will support can be done. No mechanical reason why it couldn't be balanced. (Except healing, though at-will healing that reduced max HP could work). This applies equally to cantrips, invocations, or martial maneuvers.
2: it would fit the narritive. Getting in and supporting round by round, and not suddenly stopping and being unable to do it.
2b: we have enough x/day based support classes (possibly including the mystic). Something different would be nice.
Though there are still ways to limit something without doing x/day. Like "at the start of each battle", or "when you kill an enemy" or "you can only fool an enemy once", etc...
1: at-will support can be done. No mechanical reason why it couldn't be balanced. (Except healing, though at-will healing that reduced max HP could work). This applies equally to cantrips, invocations, or martial maneuvers.
2: it would fit the narritive. Getting in and supporting round by round, and not suddenly stopping and being unable to do it.
2b: we have enough x/day based support classes (possibly including the mystic). Something different would be nice.
Though there are still ways to limit something without doing x/day. Like "at the start of each battle", or "when you kill an enemy" or "you can only fool an enemy once", etc...
The Old Crow
Explorer
Hey, forget warlord, that's a nifty use for the Medicine Skill.
- Status
