D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[epithet]

It's weird that people who would not allow warlords in their game (as is their purview as DMs of those games) keep trying to prevent those who would allow the warlord in their games to be as efficient as we remember them from 4e.

Bizarre, really.

I think if Warlords are done right, everyone (excepting a few extremists) would allow the class in their game. If a proposed class is banned from a significant number of games, that might be your first hint that something's wrong with it.

 

[Eric V]

I think if Warlords are done right, everyone (excepting a few extremists) would allow the class in their game. If a proposed class is banned from a significant number of games, that might be your first hint that something's wrong with it.

Not at all. That's a fallacy of appealing to the crowd.

There are plenty of people who would dismiss the warlord because a) It's from 4e; and b) They have a really limited view of what hp are

Neither are good enough reasons to say there's something wrong with the warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

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

Sounds like you're in complete agreement. Hussar asserts that the fighter is the 'worst' possible choice for a ship's captain, in the sense of 'worst' that allows him to share that distinction with a number of non-fighters, as well. And, you have a definition of 'good captain,' that sets the bar so low any character that walks in it's general direction can clear it - all it takes is a CHA 12 or the right Background. Absolutely any PC could do that. Even the ones worst-suited to being a Ship's Captain - like the fighter.

I'm glad to see you've resolved your differences.

Screaming "get up!" is more akin to what Juliet does - ineffective, tragic, and falling upon deaf ears.

Well, of course, there are going to be examples like that. Part of the point of a class ability is that not everyone can do it, otherwise it'd just be a generally-available action.

A class should work with the basic game and be balanced. That's a certainty.

Well, those are matters of degree. Only 4 classes are actually in the Basic Game. And 5e's bar for 'balanced' is not set particularly high, even for D&D. As long as a class has some opportunity to shine in the spotlight-balance sense, some of the time, and doesn't entirely eclipse any other class, it's balanced enough for 5e. The only balance risk in introducing a Warlord would be doing it as a Fighter sub-class, since it would readily eclipse the fighter if given much of it's traditional functionality, while still retaining the Fighter's primary (multi-attack DPR) feature.

But, yes, balance aside, any class in the PH should work seamlessly with the standard game, by definition. Optional classes should, at least, work with the standard game, otherwise unmodified. Compatibility among all modules, though, is not something that's practical. It's nice if you can do it, but it's not always going to be possible or called for.

And where incompatibility is a logical impossibility, there can be no expectation the two modules would ever be used together. It makes no more sense to be concerned with how a Warlord hp-restoration mechanic might work within a module that makes healing even a single hp without magic take a day, for instance, then it does to worry about how Cure Wounds would work in a module that does away with magic, entirely. In both cases, the point of the module is to remove the mechanic in question.

5e classes seldom do exactly what they did in past editions.

Mainly because those classes were present in multiple editions, even if they were only in a PH1 once. Also, in the case of the Sorcerer, because their original shtick - spontaneous casting - was given to prepped casters for free.

The Warlord, OTOH, has only one past-edition source, so the vision of it is much clearer.

Because it doesn't heal injuries - it doesn't restore physical durability, which is a part of hit points.

One part. There's nothing about the ratio among them being fixed, though. So if you get topped off with extra morale-based hps, you're still at full.

If you get a night's rest in the Standard Game, you're up to full hps, even if you were beaten to within a single death save of your life repeatedly over the course of the day - multiple severe injuries, in your paradigm. You can't be fully-recovered, physical/durability wise from that kind of trauma after only 8 hours, so, inevitably, that ratio has shifted.

The level of abstraction of hps just leaves too much room to quibble over what 'kind of hps' are being lost or restored, the detail isn't there.

One could easily envision a system with a higher level of granularity and detail, in which different hp pools were tracked and restored separately, with some pools, like morale or divine grace being over-fillable and others, like physical durability, being static.

So, Tony & El Mahdi, I suppose the question comes down to how much direct restoration of hit points you believe a Warlord should be capable of. You've said that you don't necessarily think the WL should "heal like a Cleric," but then you also advocate for the WL to be able to take an ally from 0 to full HP. How do you reconcile those things, and how much healing do you conjure a Warlord should be able to provide to his allies?

The answer is, 'enough.'

The Warlord could keep a party fighting in the face of a tough battle, and probably even turn around a disastrous one with good use of his resources. That absolutely means being able to stand up fallen allies, which requires restoring hps rather than temp hps, and restoring them in downed allies.

Asking 'how much healing,' presupposes that the Warlord will work like the Cleric, with a pool of healing resources (like spell slots) that can provide a total amount of extra healing over and above what the party could do without the Cleric - or, can be expended for other uses. That represents both a lot of potential healing, and a tremendous amount of versatility for the Cleric.

No Warlord design is likely to match either. Porting the Warlord as directly as possible from 4e wouldn't come close, for instance - Casters, like the Cleric, have far more spell resources than 4e characters had 'powers.' Conversely, no martial character in the PH has close to the resources/versatility it had in 4e. That's another reason why 'balance' is really a pretty minor concern.

One idea that's been floated is having the Warlord use the 5e HD mechanic (which bears a resemblance to 4e surges, though they're much less mechanically significant, both in total hps provided and in their importance to the rest of the system) in a way similar to what it did in 4e. So the Warlord might 'trigger' HD in combat. That provides the ability to restore hps, in combat, and get fallen allies back in the fight - but, unlike casters' slot-based healing, doesn't increase the total hp reserve available to the party. See how that /both/ gives one of the Walord's functions, /and/ is nothing like the way the Cleric heals? Not only that, but, by itself, it leaves Caster Supremacy untouched, since there's none of the tremendous versatility of neo-Vancian casting.

And that's just amateurs spit balling on the internet. I can't see how a skilled designer could have any problem with this challenge.

A more specific example, from just the other day, was based on the Fighter's Second Wind (1d10+level hps healed, 1/rest, no action). That's an example of 'instant' non-magical healing, in combat, so there's a precedent for it in the Standard Game. The fluff is that the Fighter digs deep into some hidden reserve of vitality or something like that. The Warlord's "Inspiring Word" had a similar idea, that the Warlord got his allies to 'dig deep' that way (4e gave all characters a lot more such capacity, of course), even if they couldn't, on their own. So, doing the same thing in 5e would correspond: The Warlord uses his Inspiring Word, the ally rolls 1d10 (or, more reasonably, his HD size, so d6 for wizard, for instance), plus, say, the Warlord's level, and recovers that many hps. The Warlord could inspire someone else, later, but not that same ally until the ally had taken a rest (short or long, like the Fighter getting back Second Wind). To help it keep up with the large numbers of hps at higher levels, the ally could kick in his own HD, as well - until he was out of HD, of course. The advantage of this idea, over /just/ triggering HD, is that it still works in games that don't use HD - it's just much less effective in such games, which is the intended effect of doing away with HD: "nerfing" non-magical healing to make magical healing more critically important.

It's weird that people who would not allow warlords in their game (as is their purview as DMs of those games) keep trying to prevent those who would allow the warlord in their games to be as efficient as we remember them from 4e.

Bizarre, really.

It's neither weird, nor bizarre, just a natural continuation of the edition war.

 

[epithet]

...
Here's my thoughts on the matter: let the Warlord spend an action motivating an ally, at the end of which the ally could spend one of its total hit dice to restore hit points. If its total hit dice are 5 or greater, it can spend 2; 3 if 11 or greater; 4 if 17 or more. The ally can't regain hit points again from this feature until it completes a rest. Since this would require the ally to be conscious, it is important for the Warlord to be able to prevent an ally from being knocked out at zero. Perhaps a reaction to grant Relentless Endurance, or perhaps a command aura that lets allies remain conscious until the first death save failure. Or both. This would be like the Warlord giving an ally a "Second Wind."

Beyond that, the Warlord should be handing out temporary hit points. That's my current view.

...
The answer is, 'enough.'
...

Would that be "enough?"

What if, in addition to the ally's CON mod, he could also add the Warlord's CHA mod to each HD rolled?

What if a Warlord class feature gave the ability to administer a potion or use a healer's kit (including using it with the Healer feat) as a bonus action instead of an action?

 

[El Mahdi]

Because it doesn't heal injuries - it doesn't restore physical durability, which is a part of hit points.

RAW HP's include physical durability. Everything that gains or takes off hit points should have an element of that. It should also have that other stuff, but it can't ignore physical durability and still be consistent with how the RAW defines hit points.

Since it doesn't restore physical durability, it doesn't restore what 5e defines hit points to be.

What about Cure Wounds.

By its title it narratively designates Wounds - Physical Durability/Injury - yet indiscriminately heals all hit points. Now one can make the argument, as I believe you've intimated at also, that physical healing will have an impact on mental states. And I agree with that. But it still, narratively, focuses on physical durability to the exclusion of other aspects of hit points. Yet it works because even though it's not healing those other aspects, it doesn't matter because D&D doesn't distinguish between types of damage. It lumps them all in together.

What I've been saying is that same logic applies to a Warlord being the catalyst for restoring mental durability and not physical durability, yet still increasing hit points. Besides which, as I said before, restoring mental aspects can and does have an effect on physical aspects, such as adrenalin reversing physiological shock and thus allowing the body to return to homeostasis. That's a real world example of mental action "healing" physical damage.

They are opposite sides of the same coin. If the logic of Warlord healing fails, then so does the logic of Cure Wounds.

For that matter, Warlord healing is no less logical than short and long rests. Though that can be contentious also, and often for the same reasons.

Actually, if you choose to remove physical durability from what hit points are, then you're the one going off-book.

I'm not removing - or ignoring - anything. I'm simply focusing, narratively, on a specific aspect for a specific application. Lots of things in the game narratively focus on specific aspects of things, yet affect larger quantifications (again, Cure Wounds for example). Doing so does not break the logic of the game.

 

[epithet]

Cure Wounds is magic. The logic of Cure Wounds is, "it's magic."

 

[El Mahdi]

So, are you saying that a Warlord should not be able to heal an ally to full?

Please state, as simply as possible, how much healing ability you believe the Warlord class should provide.

I haven't said that either. I'm not going to answer a loaded question, or be locked in to a level of healing before I actually get to that part of designing the class. I'll just leave it at: I don't advocate for full healing, especially as some of that hit point loss is actual physical wounds that are beyond the ability of the Warlord to affect (IMO); and I haven't determined how much healing works for the class and the system yet.

Your idea feels too clunky for me. I'd want something simpler and easier to remember. Something that doesn't require determining how many hit dice can be used based on the recipients total hit dice, but instead is a flat amount with a consistent progression rate.

 

[El Mahdi]

Cure Wounds is magic. The logic of Cure Wounds is, "it's magic."

You're missing the relevant portion. Yes, it's magic. Yes, it magically cures wounds. It also narratively limits itself to only curing wounds - not mental durability, will to live, and luck - yet it cures all hit points indiscriminately, in contravention of its own narrative.

I'm being told that a Warlord's healing breaks the logic of the game because it narratively focuses exclusively on mental durability and will to live, yet heals all hit points indiscriminately.

If one is illogical, both are illogical.

 

[epithet]

You're missing the relevant portion. Yes, it's magic. Yes, it magically cures wounds. It also narratively limits itself to only curing wounds - not mental durability, will to live, and luck - yet it cures all hit points indiscriminately, in contravention of its own narrative.

I'm being told that a Warlord's healing breaks the logic of the game because it narratively focuses exclusively on mental durability and will to live, yet heals all hit points indiscriminately.

If one is illogical, both are illogical.

That might be true, but my point is that only one of them needs to be logical. The other one is magic.

 

[Jester David]

But, yes, balance aside, any class in the PH should work seamlessly with the standard game, by definition. Optional classes should, at least, work with the standard game, otherwise unmodified. Compatibility among all modules, though, is not something that's practical. It's nice if you can do it, but it's not always going to be possible or called for.

And where incompatibility is a logical impossibility, there can be no expectation the two modules would ever be used together. It makes no more sense to be concerned with how a Warlord hp-restoration mechanic might work within a module that makes healing even a single hp without magic take a day, for instance, then it does to worry about how Cure Wounds would work in a module that does away with magic, entirely. In both cases, the point of the module is to remove the mechanic in question.

It is practical! It's as simple as not touching the elements of the game designed for the DM, the mechanics that can be adjusted to customize the tone of the game. It's as simple as finding an alternative mechanic that doesn't touch on rests or Hit Dice or the like, because the nature of those belongs more in the DM's wheelhouse than the player's.
It's like making a class that creates permanent magic items or has a mechanic that modifies how experience is gained or alters the inspiration system. Those could all be cool, but they step on the DM's toes and should be avoided.

If a class design does not let it fit as many different games as possible (such as a class designed for online publication for other people to use), then the class needs to be redesigned and a compromise found in its abilities or the class shouldn't be added.
If individual DMs want to make a class that fits their homegame that's different, as they don't need to design content that accommodates other rules modules.

It's fine if you want to make a class for you and your game that doesn't mesh with other rules modules but the ones used in your campaign. But you've been arguing with people designing warlord classes for almost a year and I don't recall seeing your warlord class.

Mainly because those classes were present in multiple editions, even if they were only in a PH1 once. Also, in the case of the Sorcerer, because their original shtick - spontaneous casting - was given to prepped casters for free.

The Warlord, OTOH, has only one past-edition source, so the vision of it is much clearer.

This doesn't mean the warlord should be identical to its 4e interpretation. A good designer would look at the warlord as a whole and evaluate what worked, what didn't work, and what could work. Then make changes. And also incorporating elements of the marshal or 2e kits would also be a good idea to make a more rounded class.
Just copying the class isn't updating it to 5e or converting it, it's playing a 4th edition class in a 5th edition game. There's always room for improvement.