D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[El Mahdi]

5e is still exception-based design, so some exceptions are going to be inevitable, though maybe that's not exactly what you meant by 'exceptions.'

I meant something like if one made a mechanic for the Warlord class that allowed them to restore a character at 0 hit points by using temporary hit points, for it to seamlessly drop in for an official class it would likely require adding an exception to the text of the basic rules for clarity purposes. Like: If you have 0 hit points, receiving temporary hit points doesn't restore you to consciousness or stabilize you. (exception: the Warlord's Inspiration ability)

Essentially anything that requires altering the text or rules of the basic game.

P.S.: the temporary hit points idea above is purely hypothetical and not an idea I'm pursuing.

Another possibility is making some things, especially 'tactical exploits' say, more situational than usual for D&D abilities (even compared to spells, which get highly situational), and correspondingly more numerous/available/powerful.

The problem I see with this is it sets up a need for both player and DM to remember or list a bunch of different situations or triggers that may be exploited. DM's so they can plan challenging encounters with a Warlord character in the group, and for players so they don't miss an opportunity and get disappointed/frustrated when they do.

I don't want a Warlord to slow the game down, but do what they do while keeping the game moving as clean and fast as it already does.

At the risk of seeming as pessimistic and cynical as I actually am, Mike Mearls has publicly expressed disdain for the very concept of the class.

This doesn't seem pessimistic or cynical to me, just inaccurate. Mearls has not expressed disdain for the Warlord. However, I don't deny that many have chosen to interpret what he has said in this manner.

Fascinating idea, but how would you get something that meshes well with both the Fighter's multi-attacking and casters' spell progressions?

The multiclassing rules already take care of that; and I'll provide a section within the class outlining its specific multiclassing guidelines (ones in-line with the multiclassing rules).

 

[El Mahdi]

Because this is DnD, we have hit points but not wounds. I say, when a warlord uses inspiring word (which I guess could be modeled after healing word with a number of uses/short rest) that the target is healed. No ongoing wound, no temporary hit points, just healed and then the game goes on.

Healing word smacks of magic, and Warlords are, from a narrative standpoint, expressly non-magical. For some that's not an issue, for some it is. I'm not going to exclude some by ignoring this aspect, nor tell people they have to ignore it for the game to work for them.

After reading the last half dozen or so pages, I think people got bogged down in irrelevant rubbish, such as what if the target is unconscious, or their wounds remain but they are inspired to keep fighting. Who cares, it's DnD, keep it simple, have the warlord heal some hit points and keep moving forward.

Marginalizing others concerns as rubbish is a bad way to approach designing a class. Not to mention that it's insulting.

If you have advice or feedback on how to make a Warlord faithful to the concept, other than ignoring people's concerns, I'd love to hear your ideas.

I kinda wish that the subclass abilities were gained at the same level for each class so that generic subclasses could be made and slotted in to any class.

More than likely, if for nothing other than convenience sake, that's probably what will happen. 5E doesn't have them, but conceptually I envision this as almost a 3E template.

 

[MoonSong]

Healing word smacks of magic, and Warlords are, from a narrative standpoint, expressly non-magical. For some that's not an issue, for some it is. I'm not going to exclude some by ignoring this aspect, nor tell people they have to ignore it for the game to work for them.



Marginalizing others concerns as rubbish is a bad way to approach designing a class. Not to mention that it's insulting.

If you have advice or feedback on how to make a Warlord faithful to the concept, other than ignoring people's concerns, I'd love to hear your ideas.



More than likely, if for nothing other than convenience sake, that's probably what will happen. 5E doesn't have them, but conceptually I envision this as almost a 3E template.

Well, I took a different approach. Starting from the point of view that a warlord should be able to stand for a cleric in combat. I know it is a controversial choice, but aiming for only thp doesn't give a party a reason to want warlord over a battlemaster. I know this excludes people, but these people are the ones who don't care or hate the concept.

The warlord is already a niche character, not giving them the ability to heal in combat waters them down, and if we are going to settle for a wattered down version, the battlemaster is already there, so why bother?

Of course wanting to make it more attractive for people who don't like is good, but only if the actual players wanting/needing a warlord are satisfied. I understand not wanting to insult warlord detractors, but if you listen to them too much you risk alienating the warlord fans, and could end up with something that won't work for them but pleases the haters who won't play it anyway, which is insulting to the fans who now get a mockery of a warlord, the only thing worse than no warlord.

 

[Uchawi]

If they implemented maneuvers for the martial classes, and keep the controversial stuff contained within it, and then implement hit dice healing, that would open up the door for versatility and also be able to remove stuff without re-writing the class. That is my main complaint with the fighter class. At least with the wizard, you have variant classes (wizard, warlock, sorcerer).

 

[epithet]

I had considered simply avoiding this thread, because the only thing I wanted to post here was a stream of invective.

I got better.

For perspective, I went and looked up "Inspiring Word" from the 4e Warlord, and it was then that I understood how hypocritical and disingenuous Tony has been in this thread. He's asserted, or at least strongly implied, that the class should be modelled closely after the 4e Warlord, but dismissed my suggestions regarding the Warlord's "martial healing" simply granting access to hit dice as being unacceptable. It turns out, that's exactly what Inspiring Word does in 4e. The 4e Warlord is limited to 2 of these per encounter, 3 after level 16. They come with a bonus, 1d6 at level 1 and another 1d6 every 3 levels or so.

That sure does look a lot like what I was suggesting, back before Tony declared an "edition war" against me.

So, I suppose the bottom line is this: I have nothing against 4e, nor against the Warlord, but I'm not going to abide any more "edition war" nonsense, nor being told that I'm not qualified to have an opinion, despite playing D&D since Bon Scott was singing for AC/DC. So, let's all play nice, shall we?

 

[Uchawi]

Hit dice from 5E does not equal healing surges from 4E.

 

[epithet]

Hit dice from 5E does not equal healing surges from 4E.

No, they're not. At low levels, hit dice are much more powerful. They are, however, a very comparable resource.

Also, the healing surge in 4e was what you got when you used Second Wind. When I suggested the Warlord might "heal" allies by giving them Second Wind, that too was shot down.

The more I learn about 4e, the more I realise that what I've been thinking of across the last several pages of this thread is a much more faithful recreation of the 4e Warlord than I've been given credit for.

 

[Eric V]

Nah. All healers used Healing Surges for their main healing mechanic (cleric got access to some dailies that didn't use up surges, but still used surge numbers for the healing).

If clerics/bards/druids also used HD for healing in 5e, you might have a point, but they don't, so...

 

[Ashkelon]

That's why I said modelled on healing word. It would act in a similar way, a ranged heal but it would be inspiring word and non magical. Unless you want it modelled on the 4e version and have the target spend a hit die to regain hitpoints with a bonus to the heal then I'd say just use a reskinned healing word which, for the purpose of the warlord, is non-magical.

Edit: I just looked up Healing Word and Inspiring Word for the 4e cleric and warlord and they are exactly the same, so I'd say stick with healing word with a X uses/short or long rest.

You could also give inspiring word infinite uses (aka at-will), but limit their usage per PC to once per rest (similar to how the Healer and Inspiring Leader feats work). Maybe at level 11, you could be able to use inspiring word on an individual twice between each rest.

 

[epithet]

Nah. All healers used Healing Surges for their main healing mechanic (cleric got access to some dailies that didn't use up surges, but still used surge numbers for the healing).

If clerics/bards/druids also used HD for healing in 5e, you might have a point, but they don't, so...

So what?

Not to belabor the point, but clerics/bards/druids use magic for healing. It does make sense for non-magical healing to be mechanically different. If you want to heal like a cleric, bard, or druid... those classes are available already.