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

[pemerton]

So maybe what is needed is a "Tolkienesque" rules variant with a Wise Leader/King class/feat/whatever, as well as other rules and options for supporting Tolkienesque tropes in play.

Perhaps. Though I think it is a strength of a mainstream fantasy RPG that it supports Tolkienesque fantasy, or at least something in the neighbourhood, more-or-less out of the box.

What I don't like about "inspirational healing" is that it's roleplaying my character for me. It's dictating not only a change in mental state, but also what the initial state must have been.

I know of two main mechanical devices for giving expression, in the actual play of an RPG, to emotional bonds between characters.

One is the device used in HeroWars/Quest and The Riddle of Steel: characters can have "relationship" stats, and when a declared action has some bearing upon the relationship (eg the PC is fighting to save his/her beloved from death) then the relationship stat acts as a buff.

AD&D had these sorts of buffs on some monsters (eg certain creatures in the MM get a buff when defending their young) but I don't think D&D has ever had this sort of attribute for PCs.

The other is the device that has long been a part of D&D: a leader-type character has mechanical abilities (a bard's inspiring song, which goes back at least to Appendix 2 in the AD&D PHB; or a warlord's inspirational abilities) which provide buffs to other PCs.

If you don't use either sort of mechanic, then what you get is a gameworld in which people never try harder, are never driven by emotional need, except when magic is in play. To me that is a very arid world, particularly for fantasy gaming.

I think the reason Bards don't bother me is that I assume it's magical, and music is just the mechanism for casting.

From the bard in the PHB:

"In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain."

In AD&D, I'm pretty sure that a bard's inspiring song still works inside an anti-magic shell. Are you saying that in 5e an antimagic field would shut down a bard's inspirational abilities?

*********************

My concern is that not all actions are equal.

Let's make a simple warlord that can grant a PC an action at the cost of his own action. In theory, a party of five is still making five actions; but one PC forfeits his to give his ally an extra.

What can go wrong?

1. PCs fight a white dragon. Warlord forfeits his turn to allow the wizard to cast fireball twice in one round. 16d6 x2 vs a weapon attack.
2. PCs are fighting a flying foe. Warlord forfeits his own attack to give the archery ranger another shot; 1d8+dex+10 vs 1d8+dex
3. PCs are fighting an archmage. Warlord forfeits his own attack to give the rogue an extra attack; 1d8+dex+Xd6 SA vs. A weapon attack.

Effectively, the warlord becomes a class that can mimic a fighter, ranger, cleric, rogue, wizard, etc once per round. Without a limiter (X/rest, concentration, spell slot, etc) the class can simply spam their best attack twice per round.

That is broken.

Personally I'm not persuaded that it's broken. The spells are nevertheless rationed; and the at-will abilities are already at-will. And there are the inherent limitations implicit in being geographically constrained by the existing location of your wizard, your ranger or your rogue companion.

If playtesting were to reveal that I'm wrong, then some form of rationing could presumably be built in. Rationing class abilities in D&D is hardly a novel idea!

*******************************************

I personally would like to see different style of healing rather then simply HP or THP.

I feel that would be MUCH better represented mechanically with a "die hard" mechanic that lets you stay operational at 0 hp - it's not something that heals injury, so it shouldn't recover hp, but it is something that lets you ignore injury, so removing the consequences for being injured makes sense fictionally and mechanically.

My personal view is that this way, madness lies.

I already think that temp hp add needless complication into the game. Because they're fairly deeply embedded into the 4e system I have to use them when I play 4e, but I think the game would be better without them.

In systems that actually have injury mechanics (the two I know best are Rolemaster and Burning Wheel) having "die hard" mechanics that let you ignore injury make sense. But D&D doesn't need yet a third mechanical device for giving ingame effect to the trope of heroically pushing past injury. Hit point recovery is already sufficient for the job! The narration of the actual injury, and whether it fades away off screen or is still there the next day but with the contents of a healing kit plastered over it is (in D&D) just colour.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

For the record, is my reaction to Bardic Inspiration that it's magical, which offers all sorts of hand-waving possibilities. (Somebody else made the comment about the decision on when to spend it and how.) But it's probably also that the fluff of a Bard...a musical guy supporting the party...just isn't as offensive to me as an officer yelling at me and telling me better ways to do my job.

To me bardic inspiration is in a grey area of being magical.
One group could say it is magical becouse it fits their game style another group could say it is not. ( not sure if it is efected by anti magic field as that mostly speaks of spells and magic items)
At a minimum it can be said that berdic inspiration is not magic in the traditional sense ( being casting spells with components and expanding spell slots).

So a question to people who do want a warlord would be the following.
Does a warlord have to be totaly non magical, or would something that is not magical in the traditinal sense be acceptable ?

In 4th edition the section on martial powers also refered to them as not beeing magic in the traditional sense.
and if the warlord would have been in 3.X may of his powers might be refered to as supernatural.

 

[Eric V]

Sorry but I just don't agree with that analysis, and the constant repeating of it doesn't make it true. If content becomes official it's non-trivial to play without it, especially if the only time you get to be a player instead of a DM is Adventurer's League. I may...in fact probably would...end up choosing between playing a table with a character that taints my experience (as much as Drow currently do, or firearms would) and not playing that night. Or most nights. Who knows?

Or what about Feats? I happen to like Feats, but if I really hated their effect on the game I would still have to deal with their impact when playing with strangers at AL games. (Come to think of it, that already sort of happens: I'm sick of crossbow expert fighters, polearm master vengeance paladins, and 2-dipped Warlocks. But those rules are "optional" so they shouldn't bother me, right?)

The counterargument is that if table rules are allowed, you can just use a homebrew Warlord. (That way you even get to choose from among more versions and pick your favorite!) But of course I understand why that's not a great answer: if I were you I would want the content to be official. I would want to be able to play my favorite class at AL tables.

We both want the official game to be the version of the game we like. Stop acting like you're taking the high road. The official inclusion of content can adversely affect enjoyment just as much as the inverse does.

Oh please, check out the boards here: plenty of DMs play without feats, without multiclassing, etc. It's a mantra for DMs here that "All rules in the PHB are optional." AL doesn't allow UA content, from what we have seen.

People are homebrewing warlords...but it's understandable that we'd want to see what one made by the experts would look like; even if only to kitbash from there.

For all other UA articles, whenever the content gets criticized, people simply shrug and say "Oh well, not in my game." THAT'S IT. THAT'S AS 'DEVASTATING' AS IT GETS.

Don't worry: You'll be able to do the same with any UA content you don't like, including, gods willing, a warlord. Honestly, it really is that simple. Haven't you banned something from your game before?

 

[mellored]

Psionics and magic aren't a whole lot different in this situation because it still removes the martial flavor.

That said, I wouldn't mind having an ardent class as an option as well.

There's room for both the warlord and the ardent.

Both from a mechanics and flavor standpoint.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh please, check out the boards here: plenty of DMs play without feats, without multiclassing, etc. It's a mantra for DMs here that "All rules in the PHB are optional." AL doesn't allow UA content, from what we have seen.

People are homebrewing warlords...but it's understandable that we'd want to see what one made by the experts would look like; even if only to kitbash from there.

For all other UA articles, whenever the content gets criticized, people simply shrug and say "Oh well, not in my game." THAT'S IT. THAT'S AS 'DEVASTATING' AS IT GETS.

Don't worry: You'll be able to do the same with any UA content you don't like, including, gods willing, a warlord. Honestly, it really is that simple. Haven't you banned something from your game before?

Reading comprehension failure. Let me repeat:

Player, not DM

Adventurer's League at FLGS (it's the only time I get to play without DMing)

Ergo, I don't decide what's optional, and I can't ban anybody from my table.

 

[mellored]

The thing about granting free attacks, doesn't actually take anything away from the other player.

Fighter by himself: I move here and attack 3 times.

Fighter with overbearing girlfriend: I move here and attack 3 times.
Abusive Mind Controlling Sithlordflayer: I force* the fighter to attack the enemy again.

The fighter didn't do less, or have less choices. He still took his full turn, with his full actions, and full decisions.


(*not that warlord could force anyone, it's just for dramatization).

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know of two main mechanical devices for giving expression, in the actual play of an RPG, to emotional bonds between characters.

One is the device used in HeroWars/Quest and The Riddle of Steel: characters can have "relationship" stats, and when a declared action has some bearing upon the relationship (eg the PC is fighting to save his/her beloved from death) then the relationship stat acts as a buff.

AD&D had these sorts of buffs on some monsters (eg certain creatures in the MM get a buff when defending their young) but I don't think D&D has ever had this sort of attribute for PCs.

The other is the device that has long been a part of D&D: a leader-type character has mechanical abilities (a bard's inspiring song, which goes back at least to Appendix 2 in the AD&D PHB; or a warlord's inspirational abilities) which provide buffs to other PCs.

Pedantry aside, the Warlord being described by people...as well as Barding Inspiration...don't use relationships as a mechanic. They use relationships as the fluff to traditional mechanics. And even then it's not a cooperative relationship, in the sense that the Bard simply decides to inspire an ally; the ally doesn't participate. (For an example of what I see as a more cooperative mechanic, see my post #22 in this thread.)

If you don't use either sort of mechanic, then what you get is a gameworld in which people never try harder, are never driven by emotional need, except when magic is in play. To me that is a very arid world, particularly for fantasy gaming.

I agree that the world you describe sounds arid, but it's a stretch to say it depends on relationship mechanics.

Are you saying that every D&D game you've played in without Warlords or Bards has been arid and dry? That sounds like a bummer.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The thing about granting free attacks, doesn't actually take anything away from the other player.

Fighter by himself: I move here and attack 3 times.

Fighter with overbearing girlfriend: I move here and attack 3 times.
Abusive Mind Controlling Sithlordflayer: I force* the fighter to attack the enemy again.

The fighter didn't do less, or have less choices. He still took his full turn, with his full actions, and full decisions.


(*not that warlord could force anyone, it's just for dramatization).

It's all in the fluff. Check out Chameleon-X's homebrew and the language he uses repeatedly. This is my favorite, the "capstone" of loss of player agency, if you will:

Those who fight at your side follow you out of respect and admiration, confident that your clever plans will lead them to victory.

Really? I respect and admire you so much that I'm confident your plan will lead to victory? Should I address you as "Your Worshipfullness" or will "Siryessir" suffice? Could you also tell me what I think of our Drow companion, and save me the trouble?

That is not roleplaying a relationship, nor is it a relationship mechanic. It's simple narration. By somebody other than the character's owner.

I don't have a philosophical problem with the mechanics Chameleon-X includes in his class (maybe some balance issues) but it's this kind of fluff that drives me out of my friggin' mind.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My personal view is that this way, madness lies.

I already think that temp hp add needless complication into the game. Because they're fairly deeply embedded into the 4e system I have to use them when I play 4e, but I think the game would be better without them.

In systems that actually have injury mechanics (the two I know best are Rolemaster and Burning Wheel) having "die hard" mechanics that let you ignore injury make sense. But D&D doesn't need yet a third mechanical device for giving ingame effect to the trope of heroically pushing past injury. Hit point recovery is already sufficient for the job! The narration of the actual injury, and whether it fades away off screen or is
still there the next day but with the contents of a healing kit plastered over it is (in D&D) just colour.

You say that, but temp hp and "die hard" mechanics have been a part of the game in every edition (IIRC), and remain part of it today, without major issue (I've seen zero posts complaining about boars, for ex). If we removed every needless complication from the game, we'd be classless and raceless and we'd all have one strictly equivalent resource pool, so I don't imagine you're advocating for a game without complication. The decision that the designers must take into account is which complications add something to the game, which are desirable despite the complexity added. A complication in how one treats the state of 0 hp due to an activated class ability, or a pool of hp that go away after a short time coming from an activated class ability, are both exceptionally useful for showing effects that allow you to soldier on in spite of wounds, or temporary adenaline rushes that fade quickly. It is certainly much less divisive than the idea of inspirational healing, and remains applicable in games where hit points are wounds and where they are morale.

That seems a desirable thing, a reason to have some different ways to keep a PC soldiering on after 0 hp, and a potential way forward. It'll require more to convince me it's a poor idea than "they're not strictly necessary."

 

[mellored]

It's all in the fluff.

Glad we got to the root of the problem.
Here's some 4e warlord fluff.

You trick your adversary into making a tactical error that gives
your comrade a chance to strike

Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy

You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your
weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack
doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to
match your ferocity

You trick your adversary into making a tactical error that gives
your comrade a chance to strike

Like a leaf caught in the autumn wind, your foe is driven by the
flow of battle. Your fierce attacks force him to give ground.

You land a ringing blow against your foe, inspiring a nearby ally
to strike a blow of his own

Under your direction, arrows hit their marks and blades drive
home.

You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success
to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your
comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display
true teamwork.

A timely critical hit affords you the opportunity to rally a wounded
ally.

You direct your ally’s charge, allowing him to strike a deadlier
blow and push his foe backward.

You fortify your allies with a few words of encouragement.

Despite the chaos of battle, you see a golden opportunity for an
ally to make a surprising attack.

You level your weapon at your enemies and utter a grim threat
that leaves them fearing for their lives. With great words, you
turn yourself or an ally into a battle-hardened juggernaut.

The one that i feel that causes the most resentment is probably commander's strike.

With a shout, you command an ally to attack.

But, as you can see, "command" is not common warlord fluff. Mostly it's a mix of "inspire" or "trick".

Which does step on the bards toes a bit, but not as much as sorcerer/wizard does.
Also, i don't have a problem with the psudo-magical power of words.