I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.So, let's recap:
Warlord inspirational healing is consistent with the games definition of Hit Points.
Warlord inspirational healing is consistent with real-world examples.
Warlord inspirational healing is an old and common trope in fiction.
Even if Warlord healing wasn't consistent with real-world examples, it wouldn't matter; plenty of things in D&D are unrealistic in a real-world context.
5E fans are not going to suddenly make a mass exodus from the game if the Warlord is included. For the few that might, they have significantly bigger problems than dislike of a class.
Consistency with alternate definitions of Hit Points is not necessary. If consistency with every possible external definition was necessary for the inclusion of a class, there would be no D&D at all.
Anything I missed?
Calling me a 5e fan would be a stretch(more like slight approver of 5e), but I want a 5e Warlord. We have the lololol-I'm-mad-so-I-swing-harder-and-take-less-damage class, so why not Warlords? I mean the inspirational commander is probably more of a common fantasy trope nowadays than medieval Hulk.
I agree. There was something always off putting about the warlord. Especially the lazylord.I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.
The Warlord, as a Class, encapsulated much of what I didn't like about the last edition into one nutshell. It was a contrived Class that had no archetypal role in a narrative sense, but merely existed to fulfil a niche in the rules system. The term 'Warlord' is pejorative in root usage, while the notion of a 'leader' class denoted rank over other PCs. It undermined the functional roles of Fighters (why shouldn't they be Lords?). The healing via inspiring words was not a sole issue of the Warlord Class alone, but it tended to accentuate a lack of realism in the rules rather than mask them.
I would support trying to develop a Fighter subclass - like the Battlemaster or something else - to try and create a more strategic, tactical style of Fighter. Beyond that, I am just happy to see the end of the Warlord Class in the D&D Core rules.
I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.
The hyperbolic opening comment was the only thing you took away from his post? Or felt was worth quoting and responding too?
Odd.
Really? Five years from now... you've been playing D&D 5E for well over half a decade and are in the middle of a two-year campaign... WotC ends up releasing their third 'Adventurer's Guide' setting/character option book, this time based around the Nentir Vale... and within it there's a Warlord class (just like the previous Eberron guide had an Artificer class). Are you REALLY going to get up from the table right at that point, dust off your hands, and tell your tablemates "Well, sorry, that's it for me! WotC released a Warlord class, I'm not playing 5E anymore! Have a great end of the campaign folks, time for me to find a new game."
Really?
I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.
The hyperbolic opening comment was the only thing you took away from his post? Or felt was worth quoting and responding too?
Odd.