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

[Tony Vargas]

It is an alternate physics, just like (A)D&D's binary gravity, and Aristotelian view of elements (vs. the periodic table).

PCs in my game aren't even composed out of cells, although none of the players know this.

I have run campaign settings that went there, myself. In which, for instance, living things were combinations of the 4 classical elements. You weren't a 'warm blooded animal,' you 'contained the fire element.' Or light wasn't rays, it was an element that filled space and didn't mix with the similar space-filling element of darkness. It's your eyes that emit rays. Normal vision: light is transparent to them, darkness is opaque. Darkvision, the reverse.

Fun stuff. The history of science if full of potential ideas.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I have run campaign settings that went there, myself. In which, for instance, living things were combinations of the 4 classical elements. You weren't a 'warm blooded animal,' you 'contained the fire element.' Or light wasn't rays, it was an element that filled space and didn't mix with the similar space-filling element of darkness. It's your eyes that emit rays. Normal vision: light is transparent to them, darkness is opaque. Darkvision, the reverse.

Fun stuff. The history of science if full of potential ideas.

That's a cool way to run darkvision.

 

[mellored]

No, that would make it strictly inferior. There's also no reason for it.

Do warlords need to be equal in raw HP gain to other healing classes?

Or could they be weaker on raw HP gain, and superior with indirect HP gain, like bonus AC/DR/THP?

 

[MechaPilot]

Conversely, the idea that some people take offense at other people taking offense at a cluttered design offends me. I'm a software engineer by trade, and I know from experience that cruft is bad.

I guess we all get offended by something.

One primary difference between those two things is people getting to play what they want. A wealth of options is inclusive and allows for that, while a dearth of options is exclusive and does not allow for that. Also, as has already been pointed out in many iterations of this discussion, it's incredibly easy to ban material that you don't want to use; no one will ever see me complaining about the existence of the Teleport spell, because I can just declare that it's gone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a cool way to run darkvision.

Thanks.

Once you start thinking about re-designing the basic physics of the world, you can come up with all kinds of ways to take a rule oddity, and make it a natural consequence of the world's unique reality, or take an implication of the world's reality, and use it to justify a ruling in the interest of your campaign that's at odds with more literal interpretations of the rules, and so forth. I haven't encountered whole lot of other DMs interested in taking 'world design' quite that far.

One of the things I love about 5e is the way it's attitude is so much more open to DM rulings and to variants, you can get away with stuff like this in 5e pretty easily - you're less likely to get push-back from players because you're messing with 'The RAW' without declaring all your variants up-front in some kind of notarized document.

 

[MechaPilot]

Interesting. I didn't realize the PHB had any such flavor text. Do you have a reference?[/COLOR]

In the combat section it references how hp loss is commonly described. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that's the way HPs are, but it's just one common model of description, and the above or below 50% descriptions in that sidebar are just fluff (even if it's popular fluff).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One primary difference between those two things is people getting to play what they want. A wealth of options is inclusive and allows for that, while a dearth of options is exclusive and does not allow for that. Also, as has already been pointed out in many iterations of this discussion, it's incredibly easy to ban material that you don't want to use; no one will ever see me complaining about the existence of the Teleport spell, because I can just declare that it's gone.

That's not a difference between the positions at all, let alone a primary difference. People can always play what they want. Just because something isn't in the design of 5E doesn't mean they can't play a 5E variant which has whatever cruft they want. You can splice together Shadowrun and 5E if you want to, add certain characters who resolve attacks with dice pools instead of attack rolls on a d20, other characters who do damage according to their margin of success on an attack--but I am thankful that 5E does not attempt to do so. It makes the game much cleaner to have just attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks, with or without advantage/disadvantage.

There may be people who want the option of 3d6 5E or dice pool 5E or diceless 5E (Amber-style), but 5E is better off without those options in my opinion. You can disagree with that opinion but you ought not to be offended that I hold that opinion strongly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do warlords need to be equal in raw HP gain to other healing classes?

I don't think there's a solid number, but comparable, sure. Enough to be the sole support character in a party without disadvantaging them in that area.

By the same token, the player would need the flexibility to divert some/all of whatever resource is consumed to extend hps to other purposes, in case the party composition shifts, and just to be able to adapt to the challenges of the day.

Or could they be weaker on raw HP gain, and superior with indirect HP gain, like bonus AC/DR/THP?

I think it could vary wildly based on build or even player choices in play. In fact, I think it already does, in general, so it won't make much difference.

When you think about it, 5e is very inconsistent when it comes to hp resources. If it were just hp & HD, you probably couldn't make it through the requisite 6-8 encounter day. But there are multiple classes that can extend hp resources, and others that can't. A designer can't know what every party composition will be, some might have little ability to extend their hps, others a lot. Even a the party contains one or more characters with such abilities, many of them could be used for something else - a Cleric or Druid could prepare no healing spells at all, for instance.

You could presumably calculate what a class adds in terms of maximum hp extension, imagine if a cleric cast all his slots as Cure Wounds for instance.

A new class would only be problematic if it greatly exceeded the range of damage mitigation already available to other classes.

All that sounds like the kind of thing that would be of concern in actual design, and maybe fine-tuned in playtesting.

 

[Eric V]

That's not a difference between the positions at all, let alone a primary difference. People can always play what they want. Just because something isn't in the design of 5E doesn't mean they can't play a 5E variant which has whatever cruft they want. You can splice together Shadowrun and 5E if you want to, add certain characters who resolve attacks with dice pools instead of attack rolls on a d20, other characters who do damage according to their margin of success on an attack--but I am thankful that 5E does not attempt to do so. It makes the game much cleaner to have just attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks, with or without advantage/disadvantage.

There may be people who want the option of 3d6 5E or dice pool 5E or diceless 5E (Amber-style), but 5E is better off without those options in my opinion. You can disagree with that opinion but you ought not to be offended that I hold that opinion strongly.

So what's the objection, then? D&D is "cleaner" without the warlord?! Otherwise, it's really not clear why you don't want the designers to give some people an option they want.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's not a difference between the positions at all, let alone a primary difference. People can always play what they want. Just because something isn't in the design of 5E doesn't mean they can't play a 5E variant which has whatever cruft they want.

If a variant exists that lets people have what they want, then that is an option that exists. Is your issue with the warlord based solely on whether or not WotC publishes it? If a 3rd party publisher created a book of options for 5e, and the warlord was in it, would that be okay?