D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Hussar]

Just to be sure I'm parsing this correctly, you are saying:

Comparing classes, the Fighter is never strictly better than anyone else at any activity other than heavily reducing the HP of individual enemies.

Within just the Fighter class, the Fighter is strictly better at heavily reducing the HP of individual enemies than he is at any other activity he can perform.

Is this correct?

Wordy but essentially correct.

Ok, KM, I misspoke. I said that a fighter would make a terrible ship's captain. And a terrible captain in general. Yup, I said that and that was sloppy.

What I should have said is that a fighter would make a ship's captain, or captain in general, that is no better than the worst of all other classes and significantly worse than the best choice classes for those concepts. Sorry, I shortened that to "fighters make terrible captains" when the more accurate statement would be, "Fighters, of all the classes, are no better or worse than the worst choices, but, considerably worse than the best choices."

Is that clear enough?

Nothing in the fighter class actually makes him a good leader. And, considering that charisma does nothing for a fighter, taking a high Cha actually actively makes him worse at doing his specialisation, which is dealing damage to single targets. Rangers and Bards both benefit from having high charisma. A fighter can, possibly, grant a single move action 1/round at most half a dozen times or so per short rest. A wizard can grant a full action to another character, with a bonus to AC and doubling the target's movement at least 1/day and at higher levels, several times per day.

There is very, very little that a fighter can do, outside of single target DPR that another character can't do as well or better. Expertise makes a Bard a better wrestler than a fighter.

Put it another way, what can a fighter do that no one else can do better?

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I should have said is that a fighter would make a ship's captain, or captain in general, that is no better than the worst of all other classes and significantly worse than the best choice classes for those concepts. Sorry, I shortened that to "fighters make terrible captains" when the more accurate statement would be, "Fighters, of all the classes, are no better or worse than the worst choices, but, considerably worse than the best choices."

That's clear, but there's a few lingering definitions you're not sharing with everyone.

What criteria makes one character a better "captain" in playing a 5e D&D adventure than another?

From where I'm sitting, a "good captain" should do a few things in play:

1. Get NPC's to listen to 'em, which means a CHA bonus (+1-+4, but as long as it's not +0 or -1) and probably training in one of the three CHA skills. Fighters have no less ability to have a high CHA or to get training in Intimidate, Persuasion, or Deception than any other class. So they are the equal of any other class in that regard, with the possible exception of Rogues and Bards. While bounded accuracy means the precise bonus isn't very relevant, 5e does treat rogues and bards as potentially having more persuasive influence and charm than a Fighter. Should a charming rogue or a bard make a better captain than a commander? Is it OK that the fighter isn't equal to the BEST classes at CHA skill checks? Probably open questions.
2. Be able to get access to similarly influential NPC's. Mechanically, the only thing like that 5e uses is background features. Fighters can get any background (including the most appropriate for this purpose, Noble), so they are the equal of any other class in that regard.
3. Maybe have an entourage. Again, the only thing like this in 5e is background features. Fighters can get any background (including the most appropriate for this, the alt Noble benefit), so they are the equal of any other class in that regard.

A character who can do even one of those three things would rate as a "good captain" in my estimation, and the only thing a Fighter isn't the equal of every other class in the game at here is that they don't have Expertise in Cha skills. It's key to note that this has almost doodly-squat to do with what combat abilities or healing powers or enhancing skill checks, and much more to do with their role in the world, how they're seen by NPC's, etc. A CHA 8 Half-Orc Barbarian Noble can still be a "good captain" because she's got three loyal minions who will get things done for her and a big axe to do her persuadin' for her. A CHA 18 Half-Elf Bard can be an equally good captain by doing the same thing.

What else would any character - regardless of class - have to do to be a "good captain" in your eyes? And why would those things be essential to be a "good captain?"

Nothing in the fighter class actually makes him a good leader. And, considering that charisma does nothing for a fighter, taking a high Cha actually actively makes him worse at doing his specialisation, which is dealing damage to single targets. Rangers and Bards both benefit from having high charisma.

That's Old Edition Thinkin', son. We aren't in a world of ever-increasing DC's that you must keep pace with anymore, where you only depend on two ability scores and dump the rest, where if you don't have an 18 you don't need to bother showing up because you aren't going to matter. Characters are not monolithic builds that only do one thing. Despite not having a high Cha and not being trained in Persuasion, your druid keeps making those checks. That's by design. You don't need to be the very best to be competitive.

You want to put your high score in CHA and dump your CON and be a fighter? Go for it. You'll be fine. D&D won't kill you for it or make you fail for it.

A fighter can, possibly, grant a single move action 1/round at most half a dozen times or so per short rest. A wizard can grant a full action to another character, with a bonus to AC and doubling the target's movement at least 1/day and at higher levels, several times per day.

Granting actions doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with being a "good captain." Being in charge of a ship doesn't mean you can make a particular person fight better.

But maybe it's something you want to add. If I were to add it to the list, here's what it might look like

• Grant actions to other PC's. Over the course of a 18-round day (6 encounters, 3 rounds/encounter, rest after every 2 encounters) at 5th level the prizewinner here is a sorcerer with Haste, who can grant a maximum of 3 extra actions in 3/6 encounters for a total of 9 extra actions per day. The closest a Fighter can come to that is to grant an extra attack or half-move in every round in which the Fighter makes an attack for a total of 18 extra attacks or half-moves per day. That seems overly favorable to the fighter (presuming one superiority dice spent on every round), and in practice it'll be more variable, so as a rough measure, lets halve it (the fighter spends one superiority die every other round on average - feels more right): 9 extra attacks or half-moves per day, two per encounter. It looks like, par for the course in 5e, the magic spikes harder (the action is more flexible) but falls apart more easily (Concentration), while the Fighter's ability is less variable, but more consistent (you don't get your entire action, but you'll get to do small things more often). It'd call it mostly a wash - if frequency of offering extra attacks or moves is what you want from your captain, fighters win. If flexibility in the granted actions is what you want from your captain, sorcerers win.

There is very, very little that a fighter can do, outside of single target DPR that another character can't do as well or better.

Looking at the abilities relevant to being a good captain - getting NPC's to listen to you, the ability to get into places of power, the ability to have helpful lackeys, and the ability to grant actions to allies - the only thing a fighter seems to sort of lag on is "I don't have Expertise so I am not THE BEST IN THE GAME at skill checks." Personally, I think I'm comfortable with Bards and Rogues having the highest skill checks in the game, and given bounded accuracy I don't think this is even a huge deal in practice most of the time, but I could see offering 2x Proficiency In Two Skills instead of, say, a Fighting Style if that particular pissing contest was making you feel inadequate.

Put it another way, what can a fighter do that no one else can do better?

Action Surge is the sexiest thing in the game, so there's that.

 

[El Mahdi]

Some like to describe it as a life-threatening wound, and those DM's won't like non-miraculous healing. In my usual book, anything that could reduce you to 0 hp should be something that could kill you, and anything that could give you HP back should be something that could likewise undo an effect that could kill you. Screaming "get up!" is more akin to what Juliet does - ineffective, tragic, and falling upon deaf ears.

It's only "ineffective, tragic, and falling upon deaf ears" if one chooses to ignore certain conceits of the game. It's only "shouting wounds closed" if one chooses to ignore an official aspect of 5E's rules. That's certainly any D&D fans prerogative, but definitely not the system's problem when that choice creates narrative dissonance. This also seems like a good bit of moving the goal posts.

I provided a narrative that makes sense and is consistent with the conceits of the game; one of many such narratives that have been provided by gamers since the Warlord first came out in 4E. If one chooses to ignore certain conceits, or use different conceits, then of course it won't make sense. However, that isn't a failure of the system or class, and is most certainly not a logical argument for it not being included or working the way it does.

So, I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's only "ineffective, tragic, and falling upon deaf ears" if one chooses to ignore certain conceits of the game. It's only "shouting wounds closed" if one chooses to ignore an official aspect of 5E's rules. That's certainly any D&D fans prerogative, but definitely not the system's problem when that choice creates narrative dissonance. This also seems like a good bit of moving the goal posts.
...
So, I'm not sure what your point is?

You asked why it would be a problem. This is why it would be a problem. People are using hit points in a way that is 100% consistent with the RAW ("Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck" - note the very first thing in that combination), interpreting them in a way that means that a desperate scream even from your closest love, the person who influences you the most, is not enough to get you to soldier on.

My only point is to point out that this is why warlords actually healing HP without magic is a problem for some folks (and thus why it's probably overall a good thing that it was kept out of the PHB, even if we get it back through some means). You asked why, so that is why.

(note that this still leaves room for something like "warlords give you the ability to operate normally even though you're at 0 hp or less" - functionally mostly identical, but flavor-wise very distinct)

 

[Eric V]

Incorrect. That is precisely the kind of life-threatening wound that befalls heroic fantasy characters.



I'm pretty sure you've been in enough hp debates at this point to know better than to One True Way it. Why is shout-healing sometimes a problem? Because some folks don't agree with that take on hp. That's not what hp means in those games.

For sure, lots of people have lots of different ideas as to what hp are and everyone is free to describe them differently in their own games. But if one is designing a class ability that interacts mechanically with hit points for a new class, then one has to use the baseline, official definition of hit points found in the rulebook, wouldn't you agree?

Doing so, with the definition of hp in this 5th edition of D&D, definitely allows the restoration of hp through non-magical means. KM, I don't understand why your own understanding of hp for your games should trump the powers of a class based on the PHB definition of HP, I really don't. And I don't understand why everyone keeps saying it's screaming, either. Inspiration from a warlord ca be more than screaming.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For sure, lots of people have lots of different ideas as to what hp are and everyone is free to describe them differently in their own games. But if one is designing a class ability that interacts mechanically with hit points for a new class, then one has to use the baseline, official definition of hit points found in the rulebook, wouldn't you agree?

Doing so, with the definition of hp in this 5th edition of D&D, definitely allows the restoration of hp through non-magical means. KM, I don't understand why your own understanding of hp for your games should trump the powers of a class based on the PHB definition of HP, I really don't.

If you want to stick to RAW, you shouldn't make a healing ability that cannot be interpreted as restoring physical durability, since physical durability is part of hit points. Other things are, too, but if you're getting healed, some of what is happening is meat is being mended. It is right there in the definition of hit points. So if someone yelling at you not to die can't actually restore your physical durability, it probably shouldn't be restoring hit points, if we cling tightly to RAW.

And I don't understand why everyone keeps saying it's screaming, either. Inspiration from a warlord ca be more than screaming.

I keep saying it's screaming because that's the most common way it's been described as happening in fiction ("Don't you die on me!" / "Get up, Soldier!" / etc.) I keep using it for the same reason I keep using "meat." It's a useful shorthand.

 

[Eric V]

If you want to stick to RAW, you shouldn't make a healing ability that cannot be interpreted as restoring physical durability, since physical durability is part of hit points. Other things are, too, but if you're getting healed, some of what is happening is meat is being mended. It is right there in the definition of hit points. So if someone yelling at you not to die can't actually restore your physical durability, it probably shouldn't be restoring hit points, if we cling tightly to RAW.

Interesting. So you think every time someone is healed, all of physical durability, mental durability, will to live and luck(?) are being restored?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting. So you think every time someone is healed, all of physical durability, mental durability, will to live and luck(?) are being restored?

Yeah, I'd say that the RAW supports a reading that every hit point is all of those things at once. Getting cut with a sword blade can be seen as a reduction in your physical durability (you have an injury), mental durability (your mind is coping with the pain), will to live (it would be so easy just to lay down and not feel things...), and luck (you're luck's run out!). That applies equally to your first injury of the day and to the one that drops you to 0 hp.

A game mechanic that only deals with some of those things could probably find a better expression as something other than direct HP manipulation (like a warlord-esque ability to keep an ally on their feet at 0 hp wouldn't mend your body or mind, but it would give you one HELL of a will to live!).

 

[Eric V]

Side note: It's funny; I could have sworn you weren't a big fan of going by RAW.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Side note: It's funny; I could have sworn you weren't a big fan of going by RAW.

I've got a weird relationship with the RAW - I appreciate what rules can do to shape an experience, but I also am arrogant enough to know when I know better than they do. And while I don't favor a morale-based HP model, I don't have any particular problems with it (y'know, I was a kid raised on cartoon fighting and Mortal Kombat and '80's slasher flicks, so I'm cool with my make-believe world having absurd injuries that people recover from over night). I'd welcome it, if only for adding more inclusivity to 5e.

But I don't think that those who read HP as having to do with actual injury are too far out on a limb. RAW easily supports the idea that every instance of HP damage has at least some injury associated with it, and so the idea that every instance of HP recovery should have at least some meat-healing capacity isn't some aberrant house rule, it's just a matter of differing emphases. When the question is why folks have a problem with purely inspirational healing, there's your answer.

Again, personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a full-on narrative HP model with its own inspirational healer, especially now that the PHB doesn't have that, but I get why some folks don't want that as an assumption in their D&D.