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

[mellored]

here's my general idea... though not neccicaraly in this order.
call it a tactician. d6 hit dice, with light armor, simple weapons.

let people spend hit dice, with bonus based on Cha.
you can help as a bonus acton.
you get at-will tactics, say.. the same amount as warlock invocation. these use Int, some have minimum level requirements.
at level 5 you can use your reaction to give advantage or diavantage to 1 attack.
you give a bonus (+Int? advantage?) to inititive.
you let people move 5'/10'/15' when they roll initive.
if an ally has a skill, all allies get 1/2 proficency in that skill.
expertise in warfare

sub-classes
bravada: medium armor, weapons, multi-attack, can attack and use a tactic on the same turn.
medic: 1/3 cleric spells, maximize HD.
general: gains follower(s), similar to the beastmaster.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The fighter's second wind already defines this. At level 1 they can go from "death's door" to "Fully healed" a few times a day (with a bit of luck). If we go with hit points are flesh then we already have to compromise that definition somewhat to accommodate the fighter.

That does not necessarily define hit points as pure inspiration. Hit points involving wounds is still consistent with this (ie, the action represents binding your own wounds, staunching your most greivous cuts, putting your arm back in your socket, etc.). I think it could even be extended to other PC's and still be consistent with wounds, honestly.

This advocate argues that people should simply ban the warlord class if it doesn't fit their style of game. Frankly I find hit dice, the fighter's second wind and rapid overnight healing much more troublesome for those who are in the "hit points are flesh" group (it is for this reason that during the playtest I advocated that second wind not be baked into the core fighter class).

None of these are inconsistent with wounds, though if you use them with wounds, they certainly can cast the game in a bit of a "heroically gritty" light, where a blow might reduce a character to 0 hp through some actually deadly wound, but, given some short time, because we are talking about heroic characters and not normal people, they can recover completely (perhaps with the relevant awesome scar still in place!). "Aye, lad, me heart stopped there for a moment, and I saw the white light, but I figured, it's not my time yet. And don't worry none about the dried blood around me leg - most of it is the other guys'."

Letting a class spend someone else's hit dice in the middle of battle can still futz with that narrative - the idea being that it takes time to heal. Anything that recovers hit points needs to be able to be seen as mending wounds, and yelling at you to get up isn't mending wounds, so it can't heal hit points.

What it can do is let you regain consciousness even though you're at 0 hit points. It could stabilize you, let you take actions, give you a pool of "negative hp's" that you're allowed to go, and thus model the Sarah Connor-style scream at someone to get back up. D&D's had some effects like this in it before (like the Boar's Relentless, or the zombie death save, or the like) that could certainly be looted for an inspiring leader who needs to be able to scream people back to consciousness if you don't want to invalidate the idea of hit points including wounds.

 

[mellored]

Too late, bards are already better! Lore Bards outclass the cleric by 250% at healing efficiency once they hit 6th level and get Aura of Vitality.

life cleric + goodberry is the winner

 

[MechaPilot]

This advocate argues that people should simply ban the warlord class if it doesn't fit their style of game. Frankly I find hit dice, the fighter's second wind and rapid overnight healing much more troublesome for those who are in the "hit points are flesh" group (it is for this reason that during the playtest I advocated that second wind not be baked into the core fighter class).

Some may find those things more troublesome. However, I will say they are easy to fix. The warlord class is a much easier fix in that's it's easier to say no mustard than it is to scrape it completely off your sandwich.


Hit Dice? Just remove them. The adventuring day will be shorter, but some people won't mind that. Alternately, you could give the characters more HPs or reduce monster damage to compensate. Or, you could simply boost PC ACs.

Overnight healing? Replace it whatever method one prefers, whether that's 1 HP per level as per 3e or something more old-school.

Second wind? Simply give the fighter about five more starting HPs.

The fighter's Survivor is more complicated to remove, but far from impossible. I have proposed a Desperate Defense ability that jacks up the fighter's AC when she's below half HPs. Higher AC = less HP loss, and less HP loss is approximately equal to being healed by the difference.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

life cleric + goodberry is the winner

Life Cleric + Aura of Vitality (Lore Bard) beats it by 20% in spell point efficiency. (And Goodberry doesn't benefit from Disciple of Life anyway by RAW.)

No matter how you slice it, single-class clerics are only mediocre at healing compared to bards. The only thing the cleric has to contribute is a one-level dip for Disciple of Life, and then you are better off with the Lore Bard. Even without multiclassing, you are still better off with a bard instead of a cleric.

Clerics have other uses though. Warding Bond is kind of cool, and of course Bless and Death Ward have obvious utility.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Another idea into the pot: I've been playing Pillars of Eternity, and that very D&D-esque game has its own short term and long term health resources (the short term is called Endurance, the long term is called Health).

You have a pool of health points that are from 4* to 6* your endurance total (very analgous to class-based healing surge values in 4e).

When you get hit in combat, you lose both HP and EP at the same rate - something that hits you for 20 damage takes 20 HP and 20 Endurance. You'll run out of endurance faster, and when you run out, you fall unconscious, but you aren't dying. You'll recover endurance after a short rest. When you run low on HP, that can kill you, permanently.

To model this in D&D, you might get rid of Hit Dice and introduce an Endurance pool equal to your current HP. Then, multiply your HP by some value (say, 4, but maybe varying with class) to get your new HP. Every time you're hit, subtract both HP and Endurance - run out of Endurance, you're KO'd, run out of the HP, you die. Warlords can replenish Endurance, but only time and magic can heal HP. You could ditch death saves - you can't go "negative endurance," but if someone hits you when you're out of it, you'll just take HP damage until they've slaughtered you.

As a result, you have BOTH inspirational Endurance that can knock you out and that you can imagine a warlord screaming you back from (since you're not dead, you're just a bit out of commission), and HP that is very evidently some form of injury and that only time or miraculous magic will restore. A cure wounds spell might be able to target either Endurance or HP so that you can wake 'em up in the middle of a fight, but also keep them from actual death.

Just a thought-ball tossed into the ring.

 

[Aldarc]

I can understand the desire to not need one of those classes, to allow for broader choice. But that doesn't explain why it would have to be non-magical.

Because some people like playing support but don't like playing magical classes, particularly given the usual D&D support archetypes: tree-hugger, televangelist, and the music man.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't play 5E, but one of the things that made me uninterested in it was that it didn't look like a class like the Warlord would be existing in it. The Warlord was my favorite class introduced in 4E. There were several concepts about it that I think are generally good:

• The general role of having a "fighter" that is a leader and inspires his crew. In 3E, most fighters tended to be low on Charisma because they didn't need it, but it means that a role often associated with the Fighter character - the leader - wouldn't really fit mechniacally. OOTS Roy in 4E terms might have been a Warlord.
• A non-magical class that can fulfill the healer and buffer role. (I think the latter is often a bit underappreciated in discussions, but I played 3E heavily and the prime purpose of many lower level spells of spellcasters used to be buffing the team and make the non-magical characters devestating in combat- and only spellcasters could provide that service.)
• he Action lending-mechanic the Tactical Warlord granted was interesting and it has application outside of a martial class. It could actually be a "meta" way to have what are basically non-combattants fulfill a role in combat.

Not everyone will agree on the value of these ideas. But I do value them highly and think the Warlord was a great class to introduce them.

 

[pemerton]

What if "above and beyond what the battlemaster can do" makes it a thing too good? Because it seems what's already there is what the devs have determined is balanced?

<snip>

It's not that people want a warlord. Because in many eyes (including the devs) the warlord is already there. It's that a few people want more than that. They want better than balanced. They want it all.

No one on any of the warlord threads that I've read is saying that the warlord should be a battlemaster fighter but with better manoeuvres. Much like all the other non-fighter but combat-capable classes in 5e, the idea is that some of the fighter's raw combat oomph (number of attacks, hit points, lack of dependence on mental stats) might be replaced by alternative abilities.

This is the same reason that a fighter sub-class won't work: because sub-classes are additive, not substitutive.

Toying with 5e's tight action economy is a delicate thing. Almost universally breaking it in the trying. At least, by the vast majority of armchair game designers who haven't even bothered to extensively playtest their creation before pronouncing it as the answer to everyone's prayers.

The Haste spell exists. The battlemaster's action-granting abilities exist. Cunning Action exists. The WotC team put out the UA ranger with an action economy boost. There is clearly no general principle of 5e design that precludes mucking around with the action economy.

 

[pemerton]

Part of the scandal of the warlord is that if one class heals HP and it is fluffed as "you are inspired to keep fighting!", that defines what HP must be for everyone at the table. No longer can your hit points have a grounding in flesh - if they did, then inspiration wouldn't heal.

That does not necessarily define hit points as pure inspiration. Hit points involving wounds is still consistent with this (ie, the action represents binding your own wounds, staunching your most greivous cuts, putting your arm back in your socket, etc.).

<snip>

None of these are inconsistent with wounds, though if you use them with wounds, they certainly can cast the game in a bit of a "heroically gritty" light, where a blow might reduce a character to 0 hp through some actually deadly wound, but, given some short time, because we are talking about heroic characters and not normal people, they can recover completely (perhaps with the relevant awesome scar still in place!). "Aye, lad, me heart stopped there for a moment, and I saw the white light, but I figured, it's not my time yet. And don't worry none about the dried blood around me leg - most of it is the other guys'."

Letting a class spend someone else's hit dice in the middle of battle can still futz with that narrative - the idea being that it takes time to heal. Anything that recovers hit points needs to be able to be seen as mending wounds, and yelling at you to get up isn't mending wounds, so it can't heal hit points.

You slightly overstate your case.

Inspirational healing is quite consistent with treating every episode of hit point loss as corresponding to some sort of physical harm: what the inspirational healing does is permit the victim of the harm to go on despite the harm, and unimpeded by it. Rocky and Die Hard are often mentioned in this context.

A thought that is related to this is that, if the characters are heroic enough to get to such a state on their own in a pretty short time, then with a bit of inspiration they cn get to that state in an even shorter time!

So for inspirational healing to be at odds with hit point loss corresponding to physical harm, it has to additionally be the case that a player regards hit point recovery as actually undoing that physical harm, not just overcoming its debilitating effects. Which then makes the healing times start to look more like Wolverine-ish or newt-ish regeneration ("I sleep my arm back on!"). (Because if the physical harm is anything less than this, where the short times and lack of surgery nevertheless are sufficient fro it to be undone, it follows that it can probably be overcome by someone acting with sufficient determination.)

This is just semantic nonsense.

1) a warlord "heals you for 2d8 HP with his inspirational blabbity blab."
2) a warlord "grants you 2d8 temp HP with his inspirational blabbity blab."

Either way, you are getting 2d8 HP...either free and clear or "back."

It's not semantic nonsense.

Healing = hp recovery. In the fiction, this is coming back from adversity.

Temp hp = buffing. In the fiction, this is preparing to confront adversity.

They're completely different things.

I have a question: why is the Warlord contingent so keen on cleric-level healing that has to be non-magical? Is it for playing in campaigns without magic? Otherwise why is that aspect so vitally important?

For the reason that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] stated: non-magical healing conveys that not only magic, but also inspiration, permits coming back from adversity.

In 4e nearly all healing is inspirational, and so non-magical in this sense. For instance, when a 4e cleric speaks a Healing Word or a Word of Vigour, what heals is not magic per se - that is the province of the Cure Wound line of daily powers - but the inspiration of the cleric's benediction. These abilities model the cleric being infused with divine grace (that's the magical part) and as a result being able to inspire allies. (Mechanically, the signal that it's inspirational rather than magical is the requirement for the recipient to spend a healing surge.)

As a feature of the game, it conveys a world in which emotions and relationships, rather than conduits to the positive material plane, are central to confronting challenges. Thematically it fits with D&D's emphasis on party play, and with the presence in the game of the cleric/paladin archetype.

I can understand the desire to not need one of those classes, to allow for broader choice. But that doesn't explain why it would have to be non-magical.

There is an argument, of course, that all love and friendship is magical. That the emotional life of human beings is, per se, miraculous.

But in the D&D context magic has a technical meaning. (4e is perhaps an exception to this; 5e is not.) It is the sort of thing that can be detected with a Detect Magic spell, dispelled or countered with a Dispel Magic or Counterspell spell, and suppressed with an Anti-Magic Shell. The idea that emotion is magical in this sense is just silly.

It's not the healing thing that seems to bother everyone else that gets me though. It's the fact that their main reason to exist is to direct and inspire people. That may work in a wargaming type situation where you have a leader type directing and inspiring the actions of a bunch of zero-level nobodies, but adventurers are a very skilled/educated/crafty lot already and the idea of someone trying to 'improve' them through verbal direction just falls flat with me.

This gets back to the fundamental point of theme/genre that I mentioned a long way upthread.

If you think of the characters in a D&D game as essentially self-contained entities who don't need anybody else, than the idea of inspirational healing or leadership will seem silly. Conan doesn't need a leader, for instance! Though he can lead other, weaker characters.

But if you take an approach which puts humility and providence closer to the heart of things, then the idea that even someone like Aragorn might be inspired by Gandalf - and vice versa - makes more sense. Characters in Tolkienesque romantic fantasy aren't self-contained or self-sufficient. They do not already bring to the conflict, within themselves, all the determination that is required. They have needs - emotional needs, providential needs - that only other characters can meet. The warlord (together with the paladin/cleric archetype of the charismatic holy warrior) belongs to this genre.