D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[epithet]

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.

How much, and how often? The easiest thing would be to add the WL's CHA bonus to the skill check, but stacking that with advantage from a help action would be huge.

Is it an issue that this takes a unique feature away from the bard?

 

[Hussar]

How much, and how often? The easiest thing would be to add the WL's CHA bonus to the skill check, but stacking that with advantage from a help action would be huge.

Is it an issue that this takes a unique feature away from the bard?

Kinda sorta. But, then again, bards are doing it with magic, and warlords aren't. So, there's an in-game difference built right in. And, if bards can inspire 1-4 times/day (give or take), and anyone with the Guidance cantrip can do largely the same thing unlimited times per day, and neither of those seems to break stacking with advantage, then letting a warlord grant some skill bonuses isn't much of an issue IMO. Maybe we could limit what he can help with - bonuses to using tools, and skills which key off of physical stats. So, a warlord helps people work better, but, wouldn't be much use to a sage, while a bard or a cleric would.

 

[epithet]

I'm imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger looking over an accountant's shoulder as he's balancing a spreadsheet, and Arnold is yelling "Come on! Yes! You can do it! Now balance with shareholder equity! That's right!"

Yeah, limiting it to physical skills might make more sense.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Keeping people conscious at 0 would be cool. That's a solid reaction power. I'd add it to my subclass, but not sure it's worthy of being a maneuver. Hrm... I think I could make it work though. Idea stolen.

Adding extra hit dice during a short rest is an interesting way to heal that would work nicely with modularity.

 

[tuxgeo]

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

That's RAW. That's how the game itself defines hit points. They aren't devoid of meat. When you reduce or increase hit points, you reduce or increase physical durability along with those other elements. If hit points are - in part - physical durability, and a pep talk from your party's sexy elf heals hit points than that pep talk has - in part - restored your physical durability. You can choose to ignore that part of the game, but that's how the game is presented.

. . .

An alternate interpretation doesn't mean it's incorrect. That's an incorrect use of the word incorrect. Correct it.

Following the PHB's model, you see that when an effect is not all of these things, it is not something that affects your hit point total. Things that just give you more durability (like false life) give you temp HPs. Things that give you more luck (like a diviner's foretelling) are usually d20's. Morale-based effects like Rally are also temp hp's. You change hit points from being all of these things, and they're no longer hit points, they're other things.

If that were to remain the case, then any use of hit points that did not include an element of physical durability would be incorrect.

. . .

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

. . .

I think the problem is that you don't want hit points to have a physical element and to pretend that the rules sanction your position and render alternatives "house rules", when the reality is that anyone who wants to ignore the physical element of hit points is actually changing the definition of the thing.

"Fallacy of Division": the notion that a property of a collection of things is also therefore a property of each of those things taken individually.

Here, you're saying that, since Hit Points considered as a universal type of thing at known to consist of physical damage, morale, determination, and luck, then it must also be true that each individual Hit Point must also represent all of those same things.

Given example at the link: Because this company is so corrupt, so must every employee within it be corrupt.
Textbook example: That stand of very thin and scraggly trees casts a dense shadow, so each one of them casts a dense shadow, despite the fact that each one is very thin and scraggly.

When you say that each individual HP must contain some portion of physical damage, you are committing the Fallacy of Division. Correct that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Keeping people conscious at 0 would be cool. That's a solid reaction power. I'd add it to my subclass, but not sure it's worthy of being a maneuver. Hrm... I think I could make it work though. Idea stolen.

The 4e Revenant had a fairly clean mechanic for staying up at 0, without just being completely unaffected by the fact it was at 0 hps. You'd probably need a special rule or two, since the character is able to defend himself...

Porting the revenant mechanic might look something like:

"The ally reduced to 0 is not rendered unconscious, instead, on their turn, the ally can take either a move or an action but not bonus action. At the end of their turn, the ally makes death save. Hits against the affected ally force an immediate death save instead of an automatic failed death save, even if he has stabilized. If the ally gains temporary hps, any hit suffered while he has at least 1 temp hp remaining does not force a death save. If they ally fails any death save before it regains hps, it falls unconscious and the rules for being at 0 hps are applied normally from then on."

I think that might about cover it. I've generally found 'stay up at 0' mechanics to be a great way to get a character, killed, BTW, since it continues to draw attacks. Even giving death saves for hits instead of automatic failures, as suggested above, leaves it pretty likely (more likely, the more attacks your enemies can generate per round) that the character you use such an ability on is going to be genuinely dead before your next turn comes around.

Adding extra hit dice during a short rest is an interesting way to heal that would work nicely with modularity.

I thought you'd been arguing, rather stridently, that anything touching HD was bad for modularity?

Compatibility among all modules, though, is not something that's practical.

It is practical! It's as simple 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.

Yes, it appears you did.

I'm imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger looking over an accountant's shoulder as he's balancing a spreadsheet, and Arnold is yelling "Come on! Yes! You can do it! Now balance with shareholder equity! That's right!

You do seem to have a bit of comedic talent when it comes to imagining absurd examples of otherwise reasonable mechanics.

Kinda sorta. But, then again, bards are doing it with magic, and warlords aren't. So, there's an in-game difference built right in.

Nod. Conceptual difference count, as well as mechanical ones.

And, if bards can inspire 1-4 times/day (give or take), and anyone with the Guidance cantrip can do largely the same thing unlimited times per day, and neither of those seems to break stacking with advantage, then letting a warlord grant some skill bonuses isn't much of an issue IMO. Maybe we could limit what he can help with -

One, perhaps too-obvious, possibility would be limiting it to combat, or to non-combat tasks that bear on tactical and strategic objectives. Kind of pointless, really, though, to take a plausible non-combat mechanic and cut off the other two pillars. I suppose a simple, logical, restriction would be that he could enhance only what ordinary, mundane help could. Maybe: You can Help another character as a bonus action, when you use a regular action to Help, you also grant a bonus (+1d4/+1d6/CHAmod/+1d10 the lower roll if under 10/+1 to the higher roll/+2 except +6 on Tuesdays when facing East/whatever works)

 

[epithet]

Keeping people conscious at 0 would be cool. That's a solid reaction power. I'd add it to my subclass, but not sure it's worthy of being a maneuver. Hrm... I think I could make it work though. Idea stolen.

Adding extra hit dice during a short rest is an interesting way to heal that would work nicely with modularity.

It could be a reaction power that might work like the half-orc racial ability "Relentless Endurance." It could also be a component of the Warlord's command aura. Any ally within the aura would not lose consciousness until/unless he failed a death save, and would remain conscious for at least one round in any event. Thus, even if a second hit gave the ally an automatic failure, he would not lose consciousness until that initiative mark on the next round. That would give him the opportunity, if all else fails, to use an action to stabilize himself with a healer's kit.

You do all carry healer's kits, don't you?

Regarding hit dice, I did not contemplate adding extras, rather granting an ally the ability to use 1 or more during combat. I described what I had in mind a couple pages back in the thread:

...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. ... This would be like the Warlord giving an ally a "Second Wind."
...

 

[epithet]

"Fallacy of Division": the notion that a property of a collection of things is also therefore a property of each of those things taken individually.

Here, you're saying that, since Hit Points considered as a universal type of thing at known to consist of physical damage, morale, determination, and luck, then it must also be true that each individual Hit Point must also represent all of those same things.

Given example at the link: Because this company is so corrupt, so must every employee within it be corrupt.
Textbook example: That stand of very thin and scraggly trees casts a dense shadow, so each one of them casts a dense shadow, despite the fact that each one is very thin and scraggly.

When you say that each individual HP must contain some portion of physical damage, you are committing the Fallacy of Division. Correct that.

Your comparison is flawed.

A tree, or an employee, is a discrete thing which may be described by its own characteristics independently of its participation in the group (forest, company, etc.) In the case of hit points, however, an individual hit point may only be described or understood as a unit of the whole - "hit points" have characteristics, while "a hit point" has only the characteristic of being one of "hit points."

By contrast, "a point of damage" may have a characteristic (e.g., fire) separate from the characteristics inherent to "damage" generally. Resistance, therefore, can be specific; healing is necessarily general.

 

[tuxgeo]

Your comparison is flawed.

A tree, or an employee, is a discrete thing which may be described by its own characteristics independently of its participation in the group (forest, company, etc.) In the case of hit points, however, an individual hit point may only be described or understood as a unit of the whole - "hit points" have characteristics, while "a hit point" has only the characteristic of being one of "hit points." . . .

[Emphasis added.]

RAW does not warrant your conclusion that "an individual hit point may only be described or understood" as a unit of the whole.

Instead, other possibilities exist. The other possibility of main concern in this connection is that the father of D&D, Gary Gygax, described some hit points as being physical and others as not being physical.

Examine your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the case of hit points, however, an individual hit point may only be described or understood as a unit of the whole - "hit points" have characteristics, while "a hit point" has only the characteristic of being one of "hit points."

[MENTION=61026]tuxgeo[/MENTION] can also explain .... Edit: Nevermind, clearly, he types faster than I do

Not that it matters: even were the imaginative re-definitions of hps we've seen in these discussions logically valid, they're still only one of many such that are possible. It's just as easy, and just as meaningless, to dream up logically invalid hp definitions that work smoothly with non-physical sources of healing, and run into problems with magical healing, for instance.

Besides, all that such circumlocutions accomplish is to close off design space. If we set them aside and just look at hps as presented in the standard game, we open up the possibility of anything that might reduce hps (even one imagined type of hp) working simply as hp damage, instead of needing special rules and separate tracking, and, similarly, to anything that restores hps being able to restore as many as the target can normally have, instead of needing special rules, restrictions, and separate tracking. Makes modeling a wide variety of concepts much cleaner and simpler, and it's not /changing/ anything, just not picking at it in search of imagined precision that isn't there.