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

[Alzrius]

Indeed. The problem isn't a gamist one in the way you are defining it. It's that if gamist concerns are not met then the Warlord doesn't do its job and becomes a tier 5 choice.

That's true, but insofar as the issue of fluff matching with crunch goes, would you say that the idea works?

That depends how easy it is within the context of the gameworld to get people back up. Which is why I mentioned this specifically to the idea everyone should have spike healing when it was floated earlier in the thread. If spike healing is very common you confirm your kills. If it's rare and you don't expect people to get back up then you don't. And this is another reason to make it class based.

Presumably most game worlds will have some sort of method for allowing downed characters to get back in the game, whether it's by spike healing or having warlords inspire them to be able to keep acting via "delayed death" or something similar. That's leaving aside the issue of smart enemies realizing, regardless of rarity, that your PCs can do just that, and so making sure to finish off downed characters anyway.

An awesome example of good world-building and thinking things through, thanks for the idea!

I'm glad to be able to contribute. I've always had my NPCs do this - presuming that they were intelligent and had any sort of basic tactics - and it made combat much more deadly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It would.

Bam. Yes. Awesome. We're on the same page for that. If we live in a world where there is something big enough to contain the non-magical spike healing other than a class feature, the non-magical spike healing can go into that, and thus we don't need a warlord class.

So it seems like I grok your goal, here. You seem to believe that this goal can only be realized in a class feature, but in a world where something else was big enough to contain it, you'd be cool with it going in there.

We have entered a world where a warlord class isn't necessary for you, just a way for players to get a non-magical equivalent of the cleric's healing. Lets work with that.

I think we're agreed that non-magical spike healing probably isn't going to work for the HP-as-meat crowd. That crowd may be right or wrong or whatever, but we can agree that they would not want such a mechanic, even if they're idiots for not wanting it -- non-magical spike healing does require a particular view of HP-as-not-meat to work, yes? While magical spike healing could really be either or both or whatever?

If we're agreed, is there any objection in your mind to tagging the HP-as-not-meat non-magical healing options (feat or item or new bucket or whatever) with something? Maybe an [Inspiration] keyword? So that people who want HP-as-meat know that they shouldn't pick it and that the people who want HP-as-not-meat know they should?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't get the idea that classes NEED to be balanced. This isn't Dragon Age or Skyrim, where you need to worry about beating the Boss Fight. If classes had to be balanced, no one would've played a Rogue in Second Edition.

The dynamic in D&D was that if you wanted healing have a cleric in the party, or access to potions and the game survived for a long time with that status quo. This idea that every class and character has to be equally "good" seems to have gotten way overblown.

It sounds nice, but the term "balance" has been so perverted by a certain crowd as to be meaningless at this point. And certainly, you're right that it's not what D&D needs.

 

[Weather Report]

In 26-years of DMing I have never felt a cleric/"leader" was necessary.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

If your point is that since you've never felt a need for them, therefore there is no need for them; I'd say you couldn't be any more wrong.

So...what's your point...?

There is no NEED for them. If there was the game wouldn't have functioned for decades and across multiple editions without them. Do they have a use or utility? Maybe, but personally, that utility seems to be overstated. YMMV.

 

[Weather Report]

And not all games of D&D are played at your table or DM'ed by you.

If your point is that since you've never felt a need for them, therefore there is no need for them; I'd say you couldn't be any more wrong.

So...what's your point...?

Okay, Mr Passive-Agressive-Emoticon-Person, Clerics/Healers are not necessary to D&D.

 

[Starfox]

Tho those stating a cleric is not needed; I find the need of a cleric irrelevant to the warlord class really. If a player wants to contribute to the team by healing instead of by defeating enemies faster, that is a valid role-playing choice. If said player wants to play a mundane character to do this, that is also a valid RP choice. The to me the question is if the rules can live up to the player's expectations, not if the role is necessary. I am GMing a homebrew game where PC's cannot die under normal circumstances, and all hits are recovered trough a 15 minute short rest. There should be very little need for a healer for tactical reasons. I still have a player playing a healer character because that is what the player wanted to play - and spends his time keeping fallen enemies alive because of his code.

the position of "continuing to act below 0 hit points gets you killed" strikes me as missing the point. You're already going to get killed, you're at 0 hit points! How does falling down unconscious at 0 hit points, versus continuing to act, make death less likely?

The basic premise here is that the warlord should be able to fill the survial-boosting role the cleric does. An ability that gets people killed clearly does not do that. In NPCS in your game waste time killing downed foes, that is a feature of your campaign. I don't think that is a common DM attitude and one that I'd not enjoy either as player or DM, and frankly it is irrelevant - the ability to let a "dead" character get one final shot off does not meet the stated survial-boosting goal of the warlord.

If we live in a world where there is something big enough to contain the non-magical spike healing other than a class feature, the non-magical spike healing can go into that, and thus we don't need a warlord class.

So it seems like I grok your goal, here. You seem to believe that this goal can only be realized in a class feature, but in a world where something else was big enough to contain it, you'd be cool with it going in there.

We have entered a world where a warlord class isn't necessary for you, just a way for players to get a non-magical equivalent of the cleric's healing. Lets work with that.

That world is not DnD tough, neither Next nor any other edition. And the thread deals mainly with warlords for Next.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That world is not DnD tough, neither Next nor any other edition. And the thread deals mainly with warlords for Next.

Spoiler alert: I think it's possible that D&D Next is creating that world.

I also think that certain elements of 4e aren't even that far from that world. Imagine a version of 4e where your class doesn't give you a role mechanic. Instead, every character just gets to pick one of the major ones (you gain a mark, or you gain a 2/encounter HP recovery, or you gain striker dice). I don't even think I'd need to re-balance anything to do that to my 4e game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So...what's your point...?

Okay, Mr Passive-Agressive-Emoticon-Person, Clerics/Healers are not necessary to D&D.

Remember that post upthread where I told everyone to settle the heck down? We'd all be better off if we kept it in mind.