D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Tony Vargas]

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

That's not logic, just a double-standard. D&D is a fantasy game. The fantasy genre doesn't cleave to mundane reality. Magic is one of the ways in which it doesn't, but so are heroes who do (and survive) incredible things that'd be impossible by RL standards.

Logically, when you say 'because it's magic,' what you're really saying is 'because it's the fantasy genre (in which magic works).' Apply the same logic to non-magical character types like fighters and warlords and things like 5e Second Wind, 4e Come & Get It, overnight healing and the like, and they're fine.

Would that be "enough?"

No, a solution that relies mainly on temp hps would not be adequate. HD might be a component of any hp-restoration mechanic, but it shouldn't be entirely dependent on them, nor is a single, limited mechanic going to be sufficient.

5e has a lot of open design space available, it doesn't have a consistent overall structure for classes or special abilities, so, in theory, almost anything might be added.

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.

The 5e DM is Empowered to change /any/ element of the game he likes. So, no, it's not practical to try to anticipate every change the DM might make. It's not even practical to assure a new module would work with modules already in the DMG, and it's clear that some options would be antithetical to others. There's no need to worry about how the Warlord would interact with a module intended to nerf non-magical healing into absolute worthlessness, since anyone using such a module wouldn't opt-in to the Warlord in the first place. Even if they did, they'd be inclined to nerf any hp-restoration abilities it had, banning them or modding them to temp hps or the like. Really, having the Warlord link to HD makes sense in that context, unpleasant a context as it is, and arguably irrelevant to the design of the class (optional classes should be designed for people who may want to use them, not people who object to their very existence).

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'd be an optional class, it would be in the DM's wheelhouse, not the players'.

This doesn't mean the warlord should be identical to its 4e interpretation.

It does mean it /could/ be, though. There's no need to remove critical features from the class just because some h4ters are still fighting the edition war, for instance. It also means it could be better, and do /more/. Most 4e classes fell short when it came to having explicitly out-of-combat features, for instance, and the warlord concept could certainly encompass some.

The Warlord should start with the full range of abilities it has always had, and then be explored and expanded to handle those abilities better in the context of 5e's design philosophy (which is much more open and less constrained by balance considerations), and/or add abilities that fit the concept but were excluded for 'gamist' reasons (like followers, for instance, or enemy-manipulation strategies that might have stepped on the toes of the Controller role).

 

[Jester David]

The 5e DM is Empowered to change /any/ element of the game he likes. So, no, it's not practical to try to anticipate every change the DM might make. It's not even practical to assure a new module would work with modules already in the DMG, and it's clear that some options would be antithetical to others.

So... if it's not easy, you shouldn't even make the effort?


Yes, the DM can change anything. But there are some times DMs are much more likely to change. Hit dice healing, the length of healing during a rest, and the duration of rests are high, high up on the list of things people might change. They're the principal optional rules. Not working around those is an unnecessary hindrance in the usability of he class.

There's no need to worry about how the Warlord would interact with a module intended to nerf non-magical healing into absolute worthlessness, since anyone using such a module wouldn't opt-in to the Warlord in the first place.

Unless you want to make a warlord that appeals to them too.

It'd be an optional class, it /is/ in the DM's wheelhouse, not the players.

But you still want to make it attractive to people, make it useful and not more work. If the class looks like it will be awkward to implement or require lots of house rules, people won't use it.

It does mean it /could/ be, though. There's no need to remove critical features from the class just because some h4ters are still fighting the edition war, for instance. It also means it could be better, and do /more/. Most 4e classes fell short when it came to having explicitly out-of-combat features, for instance, and the warlord concept could certainly encompass some.

Just because something was a key point of contention during the edition wars does NOT mean all disagreements on that subject are also the result of the edition war. People fighting against martial healing now might actually just not like martial healing and the fight has nothing to do with the edition war. That particular iteration of the edition war is over.

The Warlord should start with the full range of abilities it has always had, and then be explored and expanded to handle those abilities better in the context of 5e's design philosophy (which is much more open and less constrained by balance considerations), and/or add abilities that fit the concept but were excluded for 'gamist' reasons (like followers, for instance, or enemy-manipulation strategies that might have stepped on the toes of the Controller role).

Then do it! Prove it can work! Instead of just shooting down people's ideas for not meeting your "must start with everything it had in 4e" criteria, do it yourself and show us it can be balanced.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So... if it's not easy, you shouldn't even make the effort?

Not practical and not easy are two very different things.

Unless you want to make a warlord that appeals to them too.

There's no such thing. Or rather, there's already the fighter - minus Second Wind, of course.

Just because something was a key point of contention during the edition wars does NOT mean all disagreements on that subject are also the result of the edition war. People fighting against martial healing now might actually just not like martial healing and the fight has nothing to do with the edition war.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The fight 'against' anything, now, as then, is about depriving others of options. That's against the spirit in which 5e was conceived.

The same tortured logic attacking the same ideas seems like a 'continuation.'

And also incorporating elements of the marshal or 2e kits would also be a good idea to make a more rounded class.

Not really, they didn't bring anything to the table not already done, and done better, by the actual Warlord class. They were just early, failed attempts at nibbling around the edges of the concept, that didn't go far enough to succeed, either on their own, or in terms of viability alongside existing classes.

(Though, obviously, and unrelatedly, kits make a fine source for the closely-related idea of Backgrounds.)

Then do it! Prove it can work!

Still not a professional game designer. I'm just a fan talking about what I'd like to see. A fan since 1980, who knows enough to speculate about the forms it might take and the challenges and limits of game design, sure, but not a pro.

Instead of just shooting down people's ideas for not meeting your "must start with everything it had in 4e" criteria, do it yourself and show us it can be balanced.

Balance is not an important issue for a 5e class, especially an optional one. (Even if it were, no approximate port of a 4e class is going to stack up 'imbalanced' next to 5e neo-Vancian casters. The latter have more resources, and those resources are both more powerful and much more flexible.)
To the extent that balance considerations might come into the design process at all, it'd probably be on the playtest end.

 

[epithet]

Couple of follow-up questions:

1-What does this have to do with "edition wars"? The Warlord is, as I understand it, an iteration of the Marshal from the Miniatures Handbook, no? That was a 3.5 class, Warlord was a 4e class, and I haven't seen anyone suggest that there shouldn't be a 5e iteration because gosh, 4e just ruined it forever. In fact, it seems to me that the discussion in this thread has pretty much accepted that a Warlord/Marshal class for 5e was worth developing and fine-tuning. The only real issue being debated seems to be how much a mundane character should be able to heal an ally in combat. Even that debate seems to be between "a little bit" and "a lot."

2-If it is so important to you that this class be able to heal, why not just create a Paladin oath that features the leadership auras? The easiest way to get around the issue people-myself included-have with mundane healing is to make the class somewhat magical. I mean, if your character leans over a dying ally and says something that instantly makes that ally healthy again, it seems like magic to me. Why not call it that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think for me there are two factors involved. First is, simply put, an issue of role-playing. I can role-play a scenario where someone is miraculously healed by magic, because hey... it's magic. It's much more difficult for me to role-play a situation where a non-magic-using Warlord persuades an ally to not be wounded any more.

Couple of follow-up questions:

1-What does this have to do with "edition wars"?

Your above misrepresentation of Inspiring Word as "persuading an ally not to be wounded anymore," is a perfect example of edition warring. It's almost like you were there, took notes, and re-posted that tired old "h4ter" talking point.

The Warlord is, as I understand it, an iteration of the Marshal from the Miniatures Handbook, no? That was a 3.5 class

There was something called a Marshal in the Miniatures Handbook, which was technically a separate game from D&D 3.5 (it was written to be compatible with 3.0, but released at about the same time as 3.5, IIRC).

No, it didn't contribute much (if anything) to the concept or implementation of the Warlord. It may have been shooting at the same target, but it missed by a wide margin.

, Warlord was a 4e class, and I haven't seen anyone suggest that there shouldn't be a 5e iteration because gosh, 4e just ruined it forever.

The Warlord was established by 4e, and was actually a very good class, quite popular with fans of 4e, mechanically sound, performed it's role well, and was a lot of fun to play. There are no /good/ reasons to exclude it from 5e - only edition-war era talking points being re-hashed against it.

The only real issue being debated seems to be how much a mundane character should be able to heal an ally in combat

'How much healing?' is more properly a gamist/balance question, one that would really only come up when the class is being refined late in the design phase and during playtesting. Not really that relevant. The Warlord needs enough capacity to restore hps to be able to live up to the concept established in it's only appearance in the game to date. That's probably not literally as much as the Cleric could have (devoting most/all slots to healing, that'd be a /lot/), but a party that has no healer, but does have a Warlord, should be able to get through encounters about as well as a party with a single healer, instead.

(I suspect most 5e parties have two or more PCs with cure wounds on their lists, though, if that matters.)

2-If it is so important to you that this class be able to heal, why not just create a Paladin oath that features the leadership auras? The easiest way to get around the issue people-myself included-have with mundane healing is to make the class somewhat magical.

Also makes it not a Warlord, since the concept is not of a caster. We don't need another caster sub-class, we have like 30 of 'em already, half of 'em can cast cure..wounds.

Also, remarkable things fantasy-genre heroes do that ordinary people can't, even if not magical, are certainly not 'mundane.' The Warlord was a D&D class, a character from a fantasy game, not a representation of people IRL.

Magic is not the only fantastic thing in fantasy.

I mean, if your character leans over a dying ally and says something that instantly makes that ally healthy again, it seems like magic to me. Why not call it that?

And that's exactly what we listened to throughout the edition war.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, if your character leans over a dying ally and says something that instantly makes that ally healthy again, it seems like magic to me. Why not call it that?

Because "magic," in D&D, has a metric butt-ton of thematic and mechanical baggage that, for most Warlord fans, is entirely unwanted. Unwanted to the point of "call it magic and you defeat the whole purpose." The Warlord was fun, extremely good at its specialty (with several tools specifically geared for making it so), and completely nonmagical. The first is too subjective to really be much use as a design guide. But the other two? Most people "opposed" (note quotes) to including a distinct Warlord seem to expect steep concessions on one or the other, whereas most people calling for one feel that those two things (and fun, of course) are the only completely non-negotiable principles.

To put this another way: one of the most frequently repeated joys of 4e Warlord fans was that the class finally made it possible to run a 100% no-magic party in a low- or no-magic world without ANY need for special action in the DM's part. No need to specially customize monsters, drop special items, pull any punches, or modify the healing rules. Many people specifically made mention of "ancient Greece/Rome"-inspired campaigns getting a huge boost from this, as well as those trying for a semi-historical style (e.g. no spells unless you're a servant of the Devil, for medieval Europe; no spells unless you have a captured djinni in Caliphate Arabia, e.g. the Abassid era).

 

[Jester David]

The Warlord was established by 4e, and was actually a very good class, quite popular with fans of 4e, mechanically sound, performed it's role well, and was a lot of fun to play.

None of those are reasons to include a class. The same could be said for any of a half-dozen classes from any edition.
Really, the strongest and most honest reason anyone can give for including the warlord boils down to "because I like it!" Which is great. I'd kinda like the jester class from Dragon magazine to be officially updated too. Or the shadow assassin class; the assassin is a classic that was in the 1e PHB.

There are no /good/ reasons to exclude it from 5e - only edition-war era talking points being re-hashed against it.

There are lots of good reasons to exclude it that have NOTHING directly to do with the edition wars, they were just coined during the edition wars. That doesn't invalidate them. Just because you've heard an argument before or are tired of it, doesn't mean people don't have the same opinions.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The fight 'against' anything, now, as then, is about depriving others of options. That's against the spirit in which 5e was conceived.

It's not about depriving others of options. It's about excluding elements people don't want in their game, and instead designing something they do want in their game. People are pretty accepting of new things, so long as they work with the lore and tone of their game. The sorcerer was accepted, the warlock was accepted, and even the dragonborn were accepted. People like good ideas, and the popular good ideas stick around.

Really, it's as much about a lack of compromise than anything.

Not really, they didn't bring anything to the table not already done, and done better, by the actual Warlord class. They were just early, failed attempts at nibbling around the edges of the concept, that didn't go far enough to succeed, either on their own, or in terms of viability alongside existing classes.

Just because something failed once doesn't mean it's an invalid source of inspiration and new ideas, or can form the basis for a functional class. Arguably, the warlord grew out of the so-so marshal. If you just ignore the good ideas with bad implementation, you seldom succeed at anything.

Still not a professional game designer.

Is anyone here? But we're still making the effort.

I'm just a fan talking about what I'd like to see. A fan since 1980, who knows enough to speculate about the forms it might take and the challenges and limits of game design, sure, but not a pro.

Then why are you here?
Seriously. The first paragraph of the first post of the topic says "what sort of tweaks to the fighter class would support the Warlord play style? The purpose of this thread is to propose and critique minor variations on the fighter that would help." The thread is a game design thread. If you're just here to poop on other people's designs without offering any improvements or mechanics of your own, then you're not really generating any constructive and useful feedback.

Which is the problem with threads like these. 275 posts and 90% are people arguing and anyone who does attempt any real design work is ignored or shouted at and scared off for not meeting some arbitrary design goals of the class.
It's been a year since the launch of the game, plenty enough time for someone to design a half-dozen fan classes. There's probably a few dozen warlords out there. Where's the definitive fan warlord? How come one hasn't been embraced as "the best"?

Balance is not an important issue for a 5e class, especially an optional one.

A fan class has to be even more balanced than an official one to be considered for anyone's game. If it's not rock solid, no one will look at it twice.

 

[epithet]

...
'How much healing?' is more properly a gamist/balance question, one that would really only come up when the class is being refined late in the design phase and during playtesting. Not really that relevant. The Warlord needs enough capacity to restore hps to be able to live up to the concept established in it's only appearance in the game to date. That's probably not literally as much as the Cleric could have (devoting most/all slots to healing, that'd be a /lot/), but a party that has no healer, but does have a Warlord, should be able to get through encounters about as well as a party with a single healer, instead.
...

See, that's the thing. If I had to choose between a healer like a land druid, or really even a life cleric, and a Warlord who could

• fortify the party with a butt load of temporary hit points;
• keep the party conscious at zero;
• make a few hit dice available for healing if necessary;
• grant extra opportunity attacks;
• grant extra movement;
• make the party less susceptible to stealth, surprise and ambush;
• negate an occasional critical hit;
• Administer a potion or use a healer's kit as a bonus action;
• grant advantage on saves vs charm, fear, mind control;
• grant resistance to psychic damage...

Hell, I'll go with the Warlord. Personally, I think that until you get knocked unconscious, temporary hit points are superior, since you can pre-load them before the first hit.

I guess my point is that I can very easily imagine a Warlord class that I would want to play--and that I would really want to have in my party--without a big heal feature.

 

[Tony Vargas]

None of those are reasons to include a class. The same could be said for any of a half-dozen classes from any edition.

It wasn't included, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Classes that were in a PH1 were up for inclusion, only one, the one class that appeared only in 4e, was cut.

reasons to exclude it that have NOTHING directly to do with the edition wars, they were just coined during the edition wars. That doesn't invalidate them.

That alone does not invalidate them, no. It's really the opposite effect going on, though. They are invalid. They keep coming back because they were repeated so often in the edition wars.

It's not about depriving others of options. It's about excluding elements people don't want in their game

The mechanism for that is exceedingly simple: the DM declines to opt-in to modules he doesn't want in his game.

I guess my point is that I can very easily imagine a Warlord class that I would want to play--and that I would really want to have in my party--without a big heal feature.

Then don't choose that feature.

Then why are you here?
Seriously. The first paragraph of the first post of the topic says "what sort of tweaks to the fighter class would support the Warlord play style?

That's where we started the discussion. The short answer is that you couldn't just 'tweak' the fighter enough to create a warlord, but you might be able to get to something that's as close to the Warlord as the EK is to the Wizard.
Obviously, the topic has drifted, as it always does...

 

[Hussar]

See, that's the thing. If I had to choose between a healer like a land druid, or really even a life cleric, and a Warlord who could

• fortify the party with a butt load of temporary hit points;
• keep the party conscious at zero;
• make a few hit dice available for healing if necessary;
• grant extra opportunity attacks;
• grant extra movement;
• make the party less susceptible to stealth, surprise and ambush;
• negate an occasional critical hit;
• Administer a potion or use a healer's kit as a bonus action;
• grant advantage on saves vs charm, fear, mind control;
• grant resistance to psychic damage...

Hell, I'll go with the Warlord. Personally, I think that until you get knocked unconscious, temporary hit points are superior, since you can pre-load them before the first hit.

I guess my point is that I can very easily imagine a Warlord class that I would want to play--and that I would really want to have in my party--without a big heal feature.

I think I could live with this as a warlord. I'd add in something that helps with party skill checks and call it done.