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

[GameOgre]

We had one player who liked to play a healer type and that type was Warlord. He loved his Warlord and it really was a great character. When 5E came out with no warlord he just shrugged and played something else but both of my gaming groups now have no set healer. They get by without one by using potions and having some healing by secondary healers like ranger and paladin but both groups have had MANY deaths. The entire game is MUCH more brutal.

Many a time have the players lamented the lose of Captain Manny the Warlord. They at least would love to see the class brought back.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yep.

If someone feels the need to use ridiculous hyperbole to try and get their point across, it tells me they're afraid their point isn't that strong to begin with.

If you have a strong point you don't need to embellish it. The point can stand on its own.

And yet the rest of his post does stand on its own. In entirely separate paragraphs even. So you avoided responding to it and instead singled out the throwaway lead-in. If you ask me, that's telling to the lack of strength of your own point. Avoidance is a thing just like hyperbole.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

One, the Warlord cannot be forced back into the game. If it does get included, it will be because the designers chose to.

Second, if one would quite playing a game they enjoy, because of inclusion in the game of something they can simply ignore, then they have a problem much bigger than presence of an undesired class.





Odd? Not really.

Nothing else he said really matters after opening with that. If he would leave because a Warlord is included, his commitment and interest are suspect at best. Honestly, why should anybody even care about his opinion of a game he would so easily leave just because others had something they wanted? It doesn't affect him or his game at all, yet he'd leave anyways?

His opening statement concedes or nullifies any ethos he has on the topic. With no ethos, why waste the time listening to his argument?

All of your reasoning is spurious and illogical. Or do I now have to disqualify everything you ever say from this point on because I don't like what you just said? Equally ridiculous, no?

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm slowly beginning to realize this whole issue might have an answer sitting right there in 4e: the 'bloodied' mechanic. If you're not yet bloodied things like Warlord inspiration will have an effect as most if not all of your h.p. loss could be described as fatigue. But once you're bloodied (i.e. below half h.p.) then your h.p. loss is becoming more of a physical thing and inspirational words won't help...or only have half effect, or whatever. The last few points before reaching 0 can be defined as nearly all physical, so let's say if you're at or below 5 h.p. the only things that'll help you are either magic, a good rest, or someone taking some time (several minutes at least) over you with a healing kit.

Howzat?

While it mostly makes sense in the context of how inspirational healing works, I don't think it's a feasible addition to the game.

Having a Warlord works best if it's just a drop-in class - one which people can ignore as much as they want. It's probably the only way it can work.

But having to change the base game mechanics? That's almost certainly a no-go.

I'm not saying one has to change the base game mechanics. These conditions (half h.p., 5-or-less) would only matter for the one purpose of defining how well inspirational recovery might work; and never appear anywhere else in the game if so desired. I used the term 'bloodied' to tie it in with 4e and so people could quickly realize what I meant; that, and the term itself kinda suggests that once you're below half h.p. you're starting to leak just a little bit.

Are you saying this would be something only presented in a Warlord feature? Including something like your above conditions in the text of a Warlord's "Inspirational Recovery" ability?


If so, there's still a significant problem, and the reason why I said "it mostly makes sense" in my last post.


To begin with, defining Hit Points or Hit Point loss in this manner goes against the game's definition of Hit Points. However, the game's rules do at least, unofficially, endorse viewing Hit Points in this manner with it's sidebar Describing the Effects of Damage.

But, we still have a problem, leading to...

Even if one views the first 50% of Hit Point loss as mostly fatigue, mental durability, will to fight/focus, etc. - and even if a character has lost more than 50% of their Hit Points (dipping into meat) - saying that only magic (etc.) can now heal you, ignores the fact that a large portion of those lost Hit Points are still recoverable through inspiration (because they are fatigue, loss of mental durability, loss of will-to-fight/focus, etc.).

In other words, let's say a character has 50 Hit Points.

Hit Points 26-50 mostly represent fatigue, loss of mental durability, loss of will-to-fight/focus.

Hit Points 1-25 mostly represent meat.

If the character's Hit Points drop to 10, meaning 15 Hit Points that were lost are real physical damage, that means that 25 of the lost Hit Points are still just fatigue, loss of mental durability, or loss of will-to-fight/focus (etc.).

Despite being below 50%, 25 Hit Points are still recoverable through Warlord Inspiration.


Now without adding significant granularity to Hit Points, or additional tracking of how many physical Hit Points are lost versus non-physical Hit Points, how do you implement the mechanic you proposed?


Not to mention, as Tony and I have said, even if the remnant of physical damage still persists (scrapes, cuts, bruises, etc.), if the effect of those wounds has been negated (blood loss stopped, blood pressure restored by adrenalin and seratonin, pain mitigated by endorphins, etc.), then Hit Points have been recovered.

Or are you saying that as long as their is any physical manifestation or remnant of wounds (scabs, bruises, redness, even open but clotted wounds), then their is also a persistent loss of Hit Points?

What about the continued existence of a scar?

And most importantly, why does that matter when the game itself does not go into that level of granularity? How does one ignore that implementing that level of granularity is stepping outside of the games' definitions and mechanics?

How is an argument based on premises outside of the game's definitions and mechanics, a logical reason to exclude a concept that is consistent with the games definitions and mechanics?

 

[El Mahdi]

All of your reasoning is spurious and illogical. Or do I now have to disqualify everything you ever say from this point on because I don't like what you just said? Equally ridiculous, no?

Am I just supposed to take your word that my reasoning is illogical? (Which by-the-way is a False Authority logical fallacy...)

How is it illogical?

Why is it illogical?

I gave a basis for my statement about TrippyHippy's comment. That basis was from Aristotle's rhetorical model.

What's your basis?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

What's your basis?

My basis? That we are not having a formal debate here. So all your fancy "fallacy" claims and Aristotolian models are misplaced. At best.

Is this how you talk to your friends around the game table when they make a comment about something they don't like? I seriously doubt it. And if you do, you should consider stopping such behavior. Its rude and inappropriate for the kinds of discussions normal people have.

 

[Imaro]

We had one player who liked to play a healer type and that type was Warlord. He loved his Warlord and it really was a great character. When 5E came out with no warlord he just shrugged and played something else but both of my gaming groups now have no set healer. They get by without one by using potions and having some healing by secondary healers like ranger and paladin but both groups have had MANY deaths. The entire game is MUCH more brutal.

Many a time have the players lamented the lose of Captain Manny the Warlord. They at least would love to see the class brought back.

Why can't he play a Battlemaster with the Rally maneuver and the Healer + Inspiring Leader feats + take a background with the Herbalism Kit proficiency to make healing potions? Or is there something besides healing ability that he is looking for?

 

[Lanefan]

Are you saying this would be something only presented in a Warlord feature? Including something like your above conditions in the text of a Warlord's "Inspirational Recovery" ability?

Yes, to begin with; there might be other places in the game where it also fits but for these purposes let's start with the Warlord (which henceforth I'll call Marshal, a much better name someone suggested upthread).

If so, there's still a significant problem, and the reason why I said "it mostly makes sense" in my last post.


To begin with, defining Hit Points or Hit Point loss in this manner goes against the game's definition of Hit Points. However, the game's rules do at least, unofficially, endorse viewing Hit Points in this manner with it's sidebar Describing the Effects of Damage.

But, we still have a problem, leading to...

Even if one views the first 50% of Hit Point loss as mostly fatigue, mental durability, will to fight/focus, etc. - and even if a character has lost more than 50% of their Hit Points (dipping into meat) - saying that only magic (etc.) can now heal you, ignores the fact that a large portion of those lost Hit Points are still recoverable through inspiration (because they are fatigue, loss of mental durability, loss of will-to-fight/focus, etc.).

In other words, let's say a character has 50 Hit Points.

Hit Points 26-50 mostly represent fatigue, loss of mental durability, loss of will-to-fight/focus.

Hit Points 1-25 mostly represent meat.

You missed a step. I had three stages, you hit two. 0-5 represent mostly meat, 6-25 are a mix (and Marshal-type inspiration is at half effect), and 26-50 are mostly fatigue etc.

If the character's Hit Points drop to 10, meaning 15 Hit Points that were lost are real physical damage, that means that 25 of the lost Hit Points are still just fatigue, loss of mental durability, or loss of will-to-fight/focus (etc.).

Despite being below 50%, 25 Hit Points are still recoverable through Warlord Inspiration.


Now without adding significant granularity to Hit Points, or additional tracking of how many physical Hit Points are lost versus non-physical Hit Points, how do you implement the mechanic you proposed?

Easy. The fewer h.p. you have left the harder they are to cure...fluff it that physical injury has to be fixed before fatigue, or something. Then just go the all-half-none route.

are you saying that as long as their is any physical manifestation or remnant of wounds (scabs, bruises, redness, even open but clotted wounds), then their is also a persistent loss of Hit Points?

Not at all. You just need these things to be seen to before you're truly up and at 'em again.

Lanefan

 

[El Mahdi]

My basis? That we are not having a formal debate here. So all your fancy "fallacy" claims and Aristotolian models are misplaced. At best.

Is this how you talk to your friends around the game table when they make a comment about something they don't like? I seriously doubt it. And if you do, you should consider stopping such behavior. Its rude and inappropriate for the kinds of discussions normal people have.

Logic is Logic, whether part of a formal debate or mere conversation. It's not misplaced in any context - excepting Pythonesque humor.

However, since ENWorld is the very definition of a discourse_community, I'd say that beyond the fact that logic is not misplaced in any context, it's most definitely at-home within the context of a discourse community.


Now, I provided a logical reason for why I considered the rest of TrippyHippy's comment as irrelevant. You did not provide a logical reason for your response. By no means does that mean you are required to, just as I'm not required to consider your comment as relevant without a logical basis.

And, I wasn't attacking TrippyHippy's dislike of something. I was responding to his claims with logical argument and discourse, and specifically responding to the illogical position of quitting something that he does like because of inclusion of things he doesn't like.

TrippyHippy has every right to like or not like whatever he wants and for whatever reason. But if he decides to express those reasons here, I have every right to respond to them, and even point out the faulty logic in the statements.

Now if you - or TrippyHippy - want to disregard my comments because you don't like them, then feel free to do so - though you certainly don't need my permission.


Lastly, as far as Normal goes, I'm just as normal as anyone else - even if I'm not your kind of normal. If you have a problem with that, you are free to not read my posts.

And my friends like me just fine the way I am.


Cheers.

 

[Gadget]

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.

No archetypal role? The beloved King/Knight/Hero jumps on the wall and defies the enemy inspiring the rest of the warriors to fight more vigorously and harder. The Dark Lord that comes wrapped in shadow that causes his underlings to fling themselves carelessly upon their foes and opponents to doubt, hesitate or stumble. Some people have a presence that affects others around them. While admittedly, there are many ways to represent this in D&D (the bard's inspiration, certain buffing or debuffing spells, paladin auras, etc) I don't see it as an invalid archetype, particularly in D&D. Warlord having negative (especially in modern usage) connotations is a valid, though rather weak argument. Yet it is more evocative and fantasy sounding than 'commander' or some such. They could have gone with 'marshal' but that can have other associations, particularly in the US with regards to law enforcement. I would posit that taking the name, and assuming that fighters can't be lords because there is another class that has 'lord' in the class name is rather a spurious argument. Further, assuming that the meta-game role classification of 'leader' denotes rank over other PCs (in direct contrast to the explanation of said roles in the Player's Handbook) really just seems to be arguing for the sake of argument.

However, I have gone on record (in this very thread even) that I would not want a warlord that mimics exactly the mechanical implementation of the 4e warlord as I feel it unnecessary in 5e. This was mainly due to the change in Hit Point recovery and the plethora of hit point 'healing' classes provided. And I will admit that the archetype described above could be combined with other classes, such as fighter, paladin, or bard (though I still have a problem with associating bards with strumming a lute in the background and singing "brave, brave Sir Robin" or some such, but that's my personal thing). It may be that more options (or subclasses) for those classes would help alleviate the need. But there will always be those who feel differently.