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

[mellored]

TSo 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 ?

I wouldn't have a problem with warlords borrowing the bard's "In the worlds of D&D, words are not just vibrations in the air, but vocalizations with their power all their own", and letting them dip their toes into the inspiration magic fluff.

But, i'm a fluff-mutable guy, and not a hard-core warlord fan (still a fan, just not my favorite). So i'm not the one to please.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Its one-dimensional in that the only option PCs have to effect one another in any way is, by your logic, magic. That's pretty limited, and many of us got thoroughly tired of the very kitsch D&D-specific trope of the healing battery. It feels like all the PCs are addicts taking hits of god juice after every fight.

In some sense we 'get' the whole 'use a different mechanic' argument. However its a game, and I want a practical and fairly simple and straightforward game to play. I also don't think that the sort of inspiration mechanics you were presenting before actually removes the necessity of the god juice addiction mechanic. This is why many of us DO want BASICALLY the same sort of mechanics, a hit point boost (IE mechanically 'healing'). Its simple, orthogonal, and does the job. 99% of the time nobody will have an issue with it in a given narrative. I just don't feel that giving all that up is worth it just to cater to the 1% corner case where you don't want to be inspired by the pathetic kobold warlord. If that ONE corner case comes up, then by gosh do it, just say 'nope' and call it role play. If you do that I fully support you in asking the DM for a benny that makes up for taking that hit.

I just don't think it comes up that often and its become this hot button issue that is completely overblown.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've been saying it's all in the fluff this whole time! (Fluff that's necessitated by the fluff of "non-magical, non-supernatural", even.)

I bolded the bits I find objectionable in the list you posted:

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.

Each of those things suggest, to me, that the Warlord is causing my character to do or think something that I haven't chosen myself. That's what I mean by loss of agency.

*The one I marked with an asterisk bothers me for a different reason. Ok, so the Warlord sees this opportunity and then what...conveys it in words? "Ralphie! His chainmail underwear slipped down, now's your chance!"

I can totally buy that one character might see this and another one doesn't, and that sharing the information would be useful. But why is that an ability, and not just an Action that anybody can take? By restricting it to one class it suggests that only that class can see opportunities, opportunities that are apparently simple enough to both convey and understand in a couple of seconds. That, in turn, suggests that other classes are unable to see those opportunities, since they apparently are unable to convey them. And it kind of sucks to think that my highly trained warrior or rogue is such a novice that he doesn't see these things.

Hmmm. Maybe the fluff that could alleviate that is something to the effect that the Warlord has honed the ability to watch multiple things at once, so he can keep an eye on what everybody is doing without dropping his own guard. Whereas other characters might, for example, lose their Dex bonus or something (ok, not applicable to Plate wearers, but whatever) if they tried to do the same thing.

Ok, maybe I'm ok with that particular ability after all. My concern is that it not sound like "The Warlord knows more about my job than I do, so he needs to coach me."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

Hmmmm, I don't remember anything like THP or any 'die hard' mechanic in classic D&D at all. I don't recall the details of the UA Barbarian class really well, we never used that stuff, so POSSIBLY it has something like "keep fighting at negative hit points for a while", but there's no THP anywhere in D&D officially before 3.x (and I'm not really a 3.0 expert, so it may not even be in there). Officially up through the end of 1e you just fell dead at 0 hit points, with an optional "maybe you can be revived if you're above -10" that the DM could allow starting in the 1e DMG.

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.

This is certainly an argument of the excluded middle. The game would not meet its design goals without classes and races, so claiming the absurdity that we have to have all or nothing where nothing isn't even a playable game is a useless rhetorical device. Clearly some degree of complexity is required, and some degree of complexity beyond that is less desired.

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.

YOU find it less divisive. Clearly many of us find it MORE divisive, and since we have hit points already we don't find it a necessary complication. We just have to agree to disagree on that point.

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."

I've already made my primary argument above. They aren't SUFFICIENT. Once the fight is over the inspired characters, using your mechanic are still at a grave disadvantage, and every time the fight is resumed the 'warlord' will perforce have to reinstate his 'battle cry' (or whatever) and maintain it, simply to restore the PCs to roughly their normal power level. Meanwhile clerical healing is instant, doesn't require ongoing actions, and lasts forever. Truthfully what is LIKELY to happen is that with this design BOTH the cleric AND the warlord will become mandatory (at least until someone invents the guy that combines both features in one PC). IMHO the simplicity and relative elegance of the 'martial healing' paradigm outweighs the corner cases where you might not like the resulting narrative, and you can ALWAYS demur for the sake of narrative, yet I have NEVER seen a player complain "I don't want that magical healing from Bane, he's the enemy of my god Moradin!" so how big a deal is this really?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Its one-dimensional in that the only option PCs have to effect one another in any way is, by your logic, magic. That's pretty limited, and many of us got thoroughly tired of the very kitsch D&D-specific trope of the healing battery. It feels like all the PCs are addicts taking hits of god juice after every fight.

Oh, I see. By "affect other characters" you're specifically talking about increasing their HP. Well, you forgot healing kits. But, yeah, if you limit it to this one little narrow definition then you're right: other than bandages I only see one way of increasing another character's HP, which is magic. (Which seems ok to me in an imaginary world that's completely filled with, you know, Magic.) So maybe this whole thing really is a proxy war about Meat vs. Mojo.

But more broadly, when I think of "affecting other characters" I think about it happening through roleplaying. E.g., my buddy is in trouble so I do something gallant and foolish and burn my Action Surge and Second Wind to save him. My backstory involves a stolen inheritance, and he helps me get it back. That's what I think about when somebody mentions "affecting other characters" and "relationships".

So I can see how if the only interaction you have between characters is the spell-like effects that you place on each other, then having some be about personality not magic would be important.

In some sense we 'get' the whole 'use a different mechanic' argument. However its a game, and I want a practical and fairly simple and straightforward game to play. I also don't think that the sort of inspiration mechanics you were presenting before actually removes the necessity of the god juice addiction mechanic. This is why many of us DO want BASICALLY the same sort of mechanics, a hit point boost (IE mechanically 'healing'). Its simple, orthogonal, and does the job. 99% of the time nobody will have an issue with it in a given narrative. I just don't feel that giving all that up is worth it just to cater to the 1% corner case where you don't want to be inspired by the pathetic kobold warlord. If that ONE corner case comes up, then by gosh do it, just say 'nope' and call it role play. If you do that I fully support you in asking the DM for a benny that makes up for taking that hit.

I just don't think it comes up that often and its become this hot button issue that is completely overblown.

Honestly I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about in this part.

Are you saying you want to ban magical healing from the table?

 

[Guest 6801328]

yet I have NEVER seen a player complain "I don't want that magical healing from Bane, he's the enemy of my god Moradin!" so how big a deal is this really?

Really?!?!

Wow.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My concern is that it not sound like "The Warlord knows more about my job than I do, so he needs to coach me."

Hehe, but that was exactly the most awesome use we got out of the warlord, was when the character 'Sarge' was giving the other PCs the ropes. "No, idiot, don't push that orc back, FLANK HIM!" (followed by some power or other, I forget which one, that slid the fighter into flanking position). Etc. This was quite possibly the most awesome narrative device I've ever seen mechanically enabled in an RPG.

Given that practically every party is a team of characters working for a common goal (certainly this is virtually assured in combat, with counterexamples being pretty much corner cases) exactly when is it that the fighter would NOT carry out the warlord's advice or take advantage of the opening created? Given that the mechanics literally make the reality such that it IS advantageous to do so (IE the warlord's power never gives 'bad advice', though I guess you could spin things that way now and then) exactly when would you REALLY, ACTUALLY be wanting your character to NOT participate in any of the narrative flavor that was listed above?

 

[mellored]

Hmmmm, I don't remember anything like THP or any 'die hard' mechanic in classic D&D at all.

THP existed. Though it wasn't called THP, and only absorbed specific damage type.

complete invulnerability... until an accumulation of 12 hit points of potential damage per level of experience of the druid has been absorbed by the Protection From Fire spell

Protection from lighting also absorb a certain amount of lightning damage.

 

[mellored]

Also, the original barbarian could double the normal healing rate. (1/day -> 2/day).

So martial healing is very much a part of tradition.

Edit: also, apparently, they could get flower arrangement as a skill....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I see. By "affect other characters" you're specifically talking about increasing their HP. Well, you forgot healing kits. But, yeah, if you limit it to this one little narrow definition then you're right: other than bandages I only see one way of increasing another character's HP, which is magic. (Which seems ok to me in an imaginary world that's completely filled with, you know, Magic.) So maybe this whole thing really is a proxy war about Meat vs. Mojo.

I guess 'meat vs mojo' is relevant. I can't see hit points as meat, it just doesn't work, the whole notion is beyond silly. Even a 1e level 9 fighter can literally stand in front of a bunch of orcs and laugh at them for 10 minutes while they fill him with longbow shafts. Granted, that's a little bit of a silly example, but its only the extreme. So 'mojo' is certainly a part of hit points, and I don't see that there should be a huge problem with 'mojo restoration' as being modelled using hit point restitution (IE a 'healing' mechanic).

In terms of things like healing kits, I have no issue with that kind of thing. I think there's room for clerical healing, inspirational 'healing', and mundane mechanical healing (though I would point out that if there's any degree of realism to be had that bandages are only marginally effective at getting people back to a functional level, mostly they just keep you from dying right away).

But more broadly, when I think of "affecting other characters" I think about it happening through roleplaying. E.g., my buddy is in trouble so I do something gallant and foolish and burn my Action Surge and Second Wind to save him. My backstory involves a stolen inheritance, and he helps me get it back. That's what I think about when somebody mentions "affecting other characters" and "relationships".

So I can see how if the only interaction you have between characters is the spell-like effects that you place on each other, then having some be about personality not magic would be important.

Nobody is suggesting that there should be no RP or that we don't have RP in our games, that's missing the point. The point is that RP in and of itself, does not carry mechanical weight. At most the GM of a game may or may not decide to grant some situational mechanical benefit (or penalty) based on RP considerations. As I have already pointed out, a warlord built on some sort of RP mechanics different from clerical healing probably just leads to a necessity of having BOTH, or perhaps the warlord remains simply a secondary option, given that hit points are the central mechanic of the game.

Honestly I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about in this part.

Are you saying you want to ban magical healing from the table?

Ban? I don't care to 'ban' anything, but the notion that you're 'forcing' me to RP a certain way by playing a warlord is no more or less true than that you 'force' me to RP a certain way by accepting your cleric's magical healing. I don't really want to drag things into a whole other side discussion about 4e's magical healing mechanics and how they radically differ in a flavor sense from other edition's version. I'd be happy to be able to play a game without the absolute necessity to have a healbot cleric though, given 5e's healing concept. As it stands it is infeasible, and the 'THP only' type of warlord wouldn't really change that.