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

[Neonchameleon]

Almost no magic in fiction that isn't D&D derived is like Vancian Casting - it doesn't even bear more than the most superficial resemblance to mages written by Jack Vance. But far, far less even than the resemblance of D&D wizards to D&D worlds is the D&D Cleric to ... just about anything. Looking through Appendix N, I've read about half the sources - and can't recall one single character who looked like a Cleric.

Clerics got their start with a Peter Cushing inspired vampire hunter, intended to take down a vampire PC called Sir Fang. And then the healing got added to them. And since then the cleric has been central to a lot of D&D settings - with this being possibly at its most obvious in the way Dragonlance had to contort itself early on with methods like the Obscure Death Rule to make up for not having one.
And Clerics were an incredible gamist success. von Moltke's The First Law of Battles states "No plan survives contact with the enemy." Or, more prosaically, " happens." Rolls go badly, people get hurt unexpectedly - and games would be boring without this. And part of managing the sort of chaos adventurers meet is having expedients to handle predictable problems, something Clerics with their healing are superb at. Quite simply a party without fast healing, able to get someone (a) back on their feet and (b) keep someone who's suffered bad luck or focus fire in the fray so they can take the enemy down is going to suffer much, much more from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than a party that has at least the ability to mitigate focus fire.

Which is why Everquest then World of Warcraft took the cleric as a priest, and Final Fantasy turned it into the White Mage. All excellent from a gamist perspective, but almost nothing to do with the inspiration provided by appendix N, or the overwhelming range of fantasy worlds.

So 4e took a slightly different route. As an alternative to the Cleric it gave a character class that provides the tactical benefit of healing, but to do so without actually healing people. Instead, as well as tracking immediate impact by hit points, 4e tracks inner strength and resillience through healing surges (lousy name). And provides a class that encourages people to draw on their inner strength - something that is in line with a lot of fiction and especially Appendix N.

Which means that with the Warlord we finally had the ability to run a low magic campaign, or a campaign not set in a D&D specific universe (or a CRPG universe) without crippling the party's ability to compensate for misfortune. Or we could play a party without significant magic (like, for example, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) in a magical setting, and not be looking round desperately for a healer to join the party.

And this is why 4e fans want a Warlord resembling the 4e Warlord in D&D Next. So we can continue to play the vast range of settings and campaigns into which D&D Clerics simply don't fit. And do it without the gap in our abilities sticking out like a sore thumb.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Starfox]

I'm ok with the Warlord, even if I'm not ok with 4E. And not really fond of the name either. But I will call the mundane buff class warlord here to simplify the discussion.

The trouble people seem to be having with the warlord is not really about the warlord, but about what hit points represent. How serious is 10 hp of damage (to a lvl 1 wizard, to a lvl 20 barbarian) and does it take a miracle to cure it?

I liked the "bloodied" mechanic in 4E. My reading of that was that was "first blood". An unbloodied character had not been physically hurt yet - everything up to that point was just fatigue and loss of confidence. I'd not mind if this was official - a character cannot be poisoned (by a bite) unless he is bloodied first, and so on. But barring some such global agreement on what damage represents, the question of mundane healing will never be resolved.

Another way to do a warlord is to not make it a healer at all - instead it adds temporary hit points. I did something like that with an archetype of the Cavalier class for Pathfinder [Officer. Modeled on the bard's ability to Inspire Greatness, this ability reads like this:

Inspiring Leadership (Ex)

Once per day, an officer can inspiring use leadership on nearby allies. The officer uses inspiring leadership as a standard action or as free action taken during a round in which the officer charges an enemy. The officer exhorts himself and his comrades to fight with renewed vigor and determination. This affects the officer and any allies within 30 ft. Targets must be able to see or hear the officer. A creature thus inspired gains 1 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target’s Constitution modifier, if any, to these bonus Hit Dice), and a +1 competence bonus on attack rolls and armor class. The bonus Hit Dice count as regular Hit Dice for determining the effect of spells that are Hit Dice dependent. Inspiring leadership is a mind-affecting ability and lasts for 1 minute per class level.

The officer can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day for every three levels beyond 1st, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. (This is as many times as a regular chevalier can use challenge.) Bonuses from multiple uses do not stack, but temporary hit points overlap; use the better value if you gain temporary hit points from several different sources, including multiple uses of Inspiring Leadership.

At level 5, and each 5 levels thereafter, the bonus from a inspiring leadership increases, giving one extra hit dice and increasing the attack and armor class bonus by one.

Finally, someone mentioned that the latest playtest package contains warlord-esque options for the fighter. Can someone quote them for this discussion?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it's really true that D&D clerics are their own unique kind of beast.

And yeah, I think that you should be able to play D&D without a cleric and not miss the healing.

I don't think inspirational healing and metafictional hit points are necessarily THE solution to that (though they are A solution), and I don't think that these need to necessarily and exclusively be tied to a character archetype of a brilliant military strategist and inspirational commander. Given 10 minutes, I could probably spit out a half-dozen alternative mechanics that would accomplish those goals without using anything much like the 4e warlord.

You can get to the endpoint you want (low magic games, emulation of other fiction) and bypass the warlord character class, and even bypass inspirational healing, entirely.

Which becomes kind of the point: if you want the archetype, you don't need the class. If you want the mechanic, you don't need the class. If you want the archetype and the mechanic together, you still don't need the class.

 

[TerraDave]

KM pretty much has it.

There is certainly a "warlord" archetype beyond D&D. And leaders that push followers. But shouting wounds closed, not so much.

You go from very general to very D&D very quickly. Maybe that is ok. But if you really want to adapt a particular genre, then you may need something else (could be as simple as using the heal skill to recover damage taken in the last hour). If you want classic D&D, you don't really need the warlord.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You can get to the endpoint you want (low magic games, emulation of other fiction) and bypass the warlord character class, and even bypass inspirational healing, entirely.

That you can. But it would be almost unprecedented for D&D to do so - meaning it's unlikely to come from Next and certainly hasn't turned up so far. The Warlord is both one way to do it and a very well liked way by a large proportion of the Next audience (and disliked by another one).

And if we're talking about unnecessary classes, why start there? Especially as the huge difference between a fighter and a warlord is niche protection for both the fighter and the cleric. (Not that letting the fighter sprawl would be terrible).

 

[urLordy]

The trouble people seem to be having with the warlord is not really about the warlord, but about what hit points represent.

Hit points is definitely part of it, but the contentions are more involved than that, just going by all the various content of those warlord threads.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That you can. But it would be almost unprecedented for D&D to do so - meaning it's unlikely to come from Next and certainly hasn't turned up so far. The Warlord is both one way to do it and a very well liked way by a large proportion of the Next audience (and disliked by another one).

A recent Legends and Lore article notes at least four potential variations on the HP mechanic to accommodate different styles of games. It includes specifically a quick HP refresh for heroic play (pretty much "HP-as-metafiction"), low/no magic options (presumably including inspirational healing but likely not limited to it), and fate points (I see a potential deathless game in that).

So it certainly seems to be something well on their radar.

5e's trying a few unprecedented things. Carefully and cautiously considered, but a few. Changing HP modules does appear to be one of those things.

And if we're talking about unnecessary classes, why start there? Especially as the huge difference between a fighter and a warlord is niche protection for both the fighter and the cleric. (Not that letting the fighter sprawl would be terrible).

Once you remove inspirational healing from the warlord and relocate it in the HP system, it seems like you're left with the archetype of a persuasive tactical commander. In pre-4e editions of D&D, people used the fighter to play to that archetype, though without much mechanical support. I mean, they could raise an army, but that had its own problems and was exclusive to high-level characters. If we support the brilliant and inspiring tactician better within the fighter class, do we also need a different class?

The most recent playtest indeed has warlordesque fighter moves: essentially giving allies your bonus dice for various purposes. If we accept that 5e doesn't need a class for inspirational healing, how do those abilities measure up to what warlord fans feel they should be?

 

[Neonchameleon]

A recent Legends and Lore article notes at least four potential variations on the HP mechanic to accommodate different styles of games. It includes specifically a quick HP refresh for heroic play (pretty much "HP-as-metafiction"), low/no magic options (presumably including inspirational healing but likely not limited to it), and fate points (I see a potential deathless game in that).

Still missing the "We're using skill and steel in a magical world" a la Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser without feeling like chumps.

Once you remove inspirational healing from the warlord and relocate it in the HP system, it seems like you're left with the archetype of a persuasive tactical commander.

Who carries the panic button? This is the question that doesn't even get touched on by that article.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Still missing the "We're using skill and steel in a magical world" a la Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser without feeling like chumps.

I'd imagine the low/no magic might include that. "Make a CON check and get some HP back." Heck, bring back healing surges. Use a healing salve made of mud, perhaps. Depending on how you define it, faster healing and fate points might also hit those notes. The exact mechanic isn't quite the point. Ultimately, the point is that they're thinking about this stuff independent of any one particular class, but more as a table decision. Which seems smart to me.

Who carries the panic button? This is the question that doesn't even get touched on by that article.

I'm guessing by "panic button" you mean specifically a big spike recharge of HP?

You could have each character carry their own panic button (fate points, second wind). You could have an environmental/circumstantial panic button (kill the orc, get HP back). You could have a panic button based on time (everyone gets a big HP burst after 4 rounds!), or a panic button that triggers with a given event (an ally drops below 1/2 hp). There's infinite ways to hit that button.

You could also have a panic button in the form of a mechanically-identical defensive buff. You can ignore X attacks, or gain X temp HP. There's a lot of different forms that button could take.

You could also not have a panic button. You can get regen, you can up your AC, you can fight defensively, but the adventure is a process of whittling away your HP, killing you by slow cuts, inspiring a survival mindset. There's a galaxy of ways to keep PC's fighting so that they don't NEED to hit a panic button in the first place.

You could mix and match or combine all of these kinds of abilities, traits, mechanics, and tricks. Each one has its own different feel and style and psychology.

Take a look at what Guild Wars 2 does with healing: there is no class that will keep you alive with HP recovery. While support does exist, support doesn't take the form of counter-acting enemy damage primarily, which means each player must actively dodge and predict and pre-empt. What healing there is mostly is distributed to the individuals, to heal themselves as appropriate.

To me, D&D5e seems to be on-track for allowing a lot of different kinds of defense and recovery as appropriate to the given genre, playstyle, and setting. The panic button being in one character's hands is one way to do it, and that's suitable to the D&D cleric, but it's not always suitable beyond the D&D cleric.

By default, we'll probably have a cleric with a panic button, because that's very "D&Desque." But that's the beginning of the story, I think, not the whole story.