D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I was referring primarily to the 5e Fighter's Rally maneuver and the 4e inspiration for it, the Warlord's Inspiring Word feature. Both these powers are fluffed as delivering a rousing verse or two that boosts the target's morale. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense that an inspiring phrase (explicitly non-magical ones) can heal debilitating wounds of allies.

Delivering first aid is a different story. You are actively attending to the target's physical injuries. It may be a tad unrealistic since first aid in the real world tends to have slower effects, but it is more of an acceptable break from reality that healing wounds by shouting at someone.

HP do not purely equal physical wounds. For a high level PC I'd say most of them are not actually cuts and wounds.

 

[MoonSong]

You're assuming that the Noble fills that warlord niche - I disagree. In 4e, I played a dragonborn warlord, and I absolutely included martial attacks. The noble can't do anything approaching that. That's another issue I have with the cries for a new Warlord class. Most of those cries seem to revolve around remaking the lazy'lord almost exclusively. That particular style never interested me.

As such, I see no need to bother paying for something I'd never use and find out. From the beginning, its failed for me. So, unless someone wants to go over how it works as a warlord, I won't be finding out, and I remain skeptical.

From the top of my head, Brave nobles gain medium armor, shields, martial melee weapons, a bunch of bonus hit points, a combat style, two attacks, and that is on top of the basic healing, saving throw and granting attacks. The noble class is a skeleton class, with the archetypes defining more and more features. Only the path of the heart is close to the lazylord, the tactician is also more martial leaning, with some good weapons, and a lot of manuevering and altering the battlefield.

 

[El Mahdi]

I see the fact that martial healing cannot bring someone back from unconsciousness as a feature, not a bug. To me hitpoints are a combination of meat, luck, awareness, etc. And when you drop to 0 it makes the most sense that your character has been physically wounded in some way. After all, you don't become incapacitated when you suddenly run out of luck. So when you're out for the count after you get stabbed or hit by lightning it does not make much sense that someone can shout at you to make you stand back up. The Rally option inspires morale to make others feel tougher, but morale doesn't help you when you're potentially mortally wounded.

Read here - this was linked on page 2 of the thread, but maybe you missed it...

 

[El Mahdi]

I just have my doubts that its possible to reproduce the Warlord without completely destroying the action economy of the game, or requiring significant use of DMG alternative tactics rules.

Did you look at what we're working on in the Warlording the fighter thread? There are links in the OP to exactly what we have so far; and we're looking for feedback on it... here and here

 

[aramis erak]

Says you. Fortunately, you are not the lead designer of D&D.

Whether you like it or not, we are going to pursue an official Warlord. If that bothers you to the point of trying to stop people from pursuing it, that says more about you than those that want a Warlord...

Nice trolling there.

Wisards asked about a warlord as an addition... I recall it didn't fare well...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I just have my doubts that its possible to reproduce the Warlord without completely destroying the action economy of the game, or requiring significant use of DMG alternative tactics rules.

Eh, that's already accomplished through core spellcasters. I see no reason to impose harsher limits on an optional martial class that haters are going to ban anyways. As you note, make it for the fans, which means it can be as complex as a caster.

The only place someone would be forced to even have one at the table is AL, and if they refuse to compromise/adapt in an open game, that's more of a personality problem.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

Read here - this was linked on page 2 of the thread, but maybe you missed it...

An interesting read. There's probably plenty of other examples of characters being revived through the power of inspiration/friendship/adrenaline in other fictional works as well so the idea isn't totally unprecedented. However, it still feels a bit too out there for me. (This is my personal opinion and not a real argument. Play how you want to play.)

HP do not purely equal physical wounds. For a high level PC I'd say most of them are not actually cuts and wounds.

I'm aware, as I mentioned in my previous post that I think of HP as a mix of meat, luck, awareness, etc. But surely the last few hitpoints before falling unconscious should represent physical integrity. When a character falls to 0hp the hit is always described as a physical injury in our games (except maybe for psychic damage).

 

[Imaro]

Nice trolling there.

Wisards asked about a warlord as an addition... I recall it didn't fare well...

Be careful you might be accused of claiming the warlord is pointless and trying to shut down the thread...

 

[Imaro]

HP do not purely equal physical wounds. For a high level PC I'd say most of them are not actually cuts and wounds.

You know I see this stated in D&D/rpg circles... but that's about it. Anywhere else that hit points are used... mainly in videogames which reach and influence the perception of way more people... I have never seen this narrative of loss of hit points as something other than wounding. I've never seen where a character looses hit points but the game doesn't show him/her being physically hit or wounded. I have to wonder if the majority of people, regardless of what D&D claims, are going to regard hit points as physical in nature because that's the perception they've encountered everywhere else...

 

[Mistwell]

Welcome to ENWorld Polls!

Polls here are at best, a rough estimate or highlight a general trend. With even the best formatted polls still involving a self-selecting group, their results are all suspect.

Usually, they're simply entertainment; not to be taken too seriously.

And Thank You for highlighting the absurdity of those getting all worked up by the nature of, or just the mere existence of, this poll...

A poll which lets you only choose from "I want this" or "Lemon Curry" is starting out, from my perspective, with a deeply inadequate and biased set of choices. I voted "I want this" but I regret that choice. Simply out of disrespect for game-playing with polls in that way, I should have voted Lemon Curry. I mean come on, you couldn't have included "I don't want this" in your choices?