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

[MechaPilot]

Otherwise, it's really not clear why you don't want the designers to give some people an option they want.

Or why he doesn't want the option available through a third party publisher.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

I want a clean design for 5E. I'm pretty happy with what we've got today. I wouldn't mind more monster content, but I think the current design is in a pretty good place.

Therefore, a third party "Warlords for 5E" would be fine by me--it's not really in 5E. A WotC publication could be okay as long as it wasn't in 5E--you could make 5.2E or "Warlords! a D&D 5E-compatible game of tactical fun" and then include any mechanics that you wanted in it, from Inspiration Healing to forced movement, and that wouldn't bother me even if it's published by WotC. You can even call that D&D 5B if you want. I just don't want the basic design of 5E changed.

Note that I can even think of versions of the Warlord archtype that I'd be fine with, because they don't change the basic design of 5E. E.g. +CHA bonus damage to allies within 30' is consistent with paladin auras.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What Hemlock is calling 'cruft' is probably what we'd call bloat. There's probably very little in 5e that is outright problematic or worthless to everyone who plays the game, as 'cruft' might imply.

I think if WotC can summon up the design discipline to stick to what they've been doing: relatively slow in releasing new material, putting new stuff in AL circulation for the season, but not adding it officially to the Standard Game, they can avoid a lot of that. Individual DMs can keep what they like of optional material as they go. AL players will have something new in some seasons, but they won't accumulate and bloat the system.

It's a huge concession for it's fans (but we are talking about compromise atm), and runs the risk of creating the appearance of appeasing edition warriors, but keeping the Warlord in the "Advanced Game" stable of out-after-the-PH optional classes even after it sees print, would make sense as part of a strategy to avoid bloat while providing options. Genasi, Psions (OK, Mystics), Warlords, Dragon Shamans, Avengers - Jesters - whatever comes out after the Core 3 can stay out there, as options for those who decided they liked them, while keeping the Standard or 'core' game from bloating.

You saw that a lot in 3.5 - 'core only' was a legit way to run your campaign (so was E6, but I don't think 5e has it that bad).

 

[MechaPilot]

Therefore, a third party "Warlords for 5E" would be fine by me. . .

Then you don't have a problem with the option simply existing, and you don't fall into the category that I find offensive. What I find offensive is when people say "no, it can't exist at all." That behavior is selfish, exclusionary, and it has no place in a community of fans.

Simply saying that you don't want it to come from WotC, while odd to me, is a wholly different animal than saying the option simply cannot exist in any resource for players of 5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

HD, Second Wind, and overnight healing are already contrary to the idea that hps represent serious wounds, and that restoring those hps them must include the wounds disappearing. No wound heals with a little rest and untrained first aid in an hour, no nearly-fatal wound heals on its own in 1d4+1 hours, and no remotely serious wound disappears while you sleep.

The first sentence is flatly untrue - I do it every week, sometimes multiple times a week, and the game is entirely coherent being played that way. The second sentence is true if you want "realism," but no one is proposing that, so it's pretty meaningless.

While hp damage can be narrated as including wounds, hp recovery cannot, under the standard rules of 5e, be construed to requiring those wounds to disappear.

Of course they can. I do it every week, sometimes multiple times a week, and the game is entirely coherent being played that way.

Those who are adamant about this issue can resolve it by using those modules, the do not have to prevent the addition of the Warlord to preserve an interpretation that already doesn't work, and already has options to make it work.

It works without those modules. I do it every week....etc....

All of the above amounts to trying to tell me hp-as-wounds is not playing "the Standard Game," which is an assertion without any support. There is no reason anyone has to use inspirational HP if they use the game as normally played - they can, but it absolutely is not required. Wound HP requires no module or adjustment in any rule. 5e is even explicit about this when it describes the "typical" way of describing HP loss (below 50%, you're suffering some injury, and an attack that makes you hit 0 is a traumatic injury).

The intent is clear to me: the designers wanted to leave room for multiple HP interpretations, without invalidating either of the main narratives.

Which means any addition to the game, I believe, should also leave room for multiple HP interpretations. If an addition requires one model or the other, it's proper home is likely behind the wall of an optional module (one that is more explicit about what HP narrates as), not in a class ability.

Compare, for example, a paladin's Lay on Hands. It is not defined in the rules as a "magical" ability (it works in anti-magic fields, can't be dispelled, etc.). It is, however, pretty obviously supernatural and extra-normal. That works under both HP models: one who likes inspiration can describe it as a reassuring hand up, an encouraging touch, etc. One who prefers wounds can describe wounds mending because of the power of the paladin's convictions. A Warlord who had a similar ability would be fine, as long as it left room for a supernatural description of the effect.

But I'm under the impression that such a warlord would violate another tenant of of the warlord (ie, that it is purely non-supernatural).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then you don't have a problem with the option simply existing, and you don't fall into the category that I find offensive. What I find offensive is when people say "no, it can't exist at all."

Simply saying that you don't want it to come from WotC, while odd to me, is a wholly different animal than saying the option simply cannot exist in any resource for players of 5e.

I don't find it quite as different as you do. And I do find the resistance to the idea that optional material would really optional to be - well, not as bad as 'in bad faith,' but definitely more disquieting than just 'odd.'

I didn't get this impression of Hemlock, but someone way upthread (can't recall who) did say something about 'not wanting to feel like a jerk' when rejecting a player's request to bring in a Warlord, as a reason to block the class from ever being added to the game. Which would mean being an actual jerk to everyone who might ever want to play a Warlord. I guess people who aren't right there at the table are easier to think of as not being people at all.

:shrug:

I want a clean design for 5E. I'm pretty happy with what we've got today. I wouldn't mind more monster content, but I think the current design is in a pretty good place.

I'm glad you're satisfied with the game as-is, but you're not everyone who has ever loved D&D - 5e is not exclusively for you. And, added optional content (even added Standard content, if you ignore/ban it) will not change how you play it, it won't be any less 'for you' for also expanding to include others.
OTOH, denying that additional content to others will keep the game from ever getting to the 'pretty good place' /for them/ that they've been waiting for it to reach.


I do understand wanting an elegant game, and one that is 'just enough' can be ideal. As a DM, I could run with nothing but the Basic game - and often do - but I don't think the rest of the game has no right to exist, just because I may not use some of it.
Conversely, as a player, 5e, even with available options, is not where I need it to be yet, so much so that I see no point in spending any of my time on the other side of the screen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first sentence is flatly untrue - I do it every week, sometimes multiple times a week, and the game is entirely coherent being played that way. The second sentence is true if you want "realism," but no one is proposing that, so it's pretty meaningless.

Then there is no possible objection to "Inspirational Healing." None. Such objections rest entirely on exactly that sort of 'realism.'

I mean, if you can imagine a character impaled on a spear, with his spleen flopping on the point of it, relaxing for an hour and being fine, then you can imagine the same character being exactly as fine after a Warlord says 'buck up, spleen's not a vital organ!'

I wouldn't push it that far, but if you're good with it, then I'm glad that's out of the way.

A Warlord who had a similar ability would be fine, as long as it left room for a supernatural description of the effect.

But I'm under the impression that such a warlord would violate another tenant of of the warlord (ie, that it is purely non-supernatural).

I would have no problem with an Inspiring Word that was described/implied as being non-supernatural and working via Inspiration to the same level of rigour as the Paladin's Lay on Hands is implied/described as being supernatural and working via divine power. If you can squint hard enough at Lay on Hands to convince yourself it'd work in an anti-magic field, then I'd be fine with an Inspiring Word that required a similar effort to judge it as not doing so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then there is no possible objection to "Inspirational Healing." None. Such objections rest entirely on exactly that sort of 'realism.'

Incorrect. My objections, at any rate, rest on narrative. If I narrate the hit at 0 hp as a potentially lethal wound, pure inspiration doesn't heal wounds, and so doesn't fit the narrative. Magical inspiration would fit the narrative, but this seems to violate a stated requirement of the warlord. Non-healing inspiration (die hard mechanics, temp HP) also would fit the narrative, but aren't healing and so violate a stated requirement of the warlord.

I mean, if you can imagine a character impaled on a spear, with his spleen flopping on the point of it, relaxing for an hour and being fine, then you can imagine the same character being exactly as fine after a Warlord says 'buck up, spleen's not a vital organ!'

Imagining that isn't a problem - that's what die hard mechanics are good for. The objection is healing. Time heals wounds (even exceptionally quickly), so with time, you can stick your spleen back in and stitch yourself up. Someone yelling at you to put your spleen in, isn't going to do anything about it, though, since yelling at your wounds doesn't heal them. If the scream was magic, though, maybe. That would fit the narrative.

Narratively, being inspired doesn't heal wounds, so inspiration shouldn't heal hit points. It can still help you cling to life without a spleen for a while, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Incorrect. My objections, at any rate, rest on narrative. If I narrate the hit at 0 hp as a potentially lethal wound, pure inspiration doesn't heal wounds, and so doesn't fit the narrative.

No, realistically, it doesn't. Likewise, neither do one hour rests, nor even a full night's sleep. If realism is thrown to the winds, then it could.

Imagining that isn't a problem - that's what die hard mechanics are good for.

The impaled character rests one hour, rolls all his HD, and is back to full hps - 'narratively' what just happened? The wound couldn't have healed, humans don't heal that fast.

The objection is healing. Time heals wounds (even exceptionally quickly)

If wounds can heal /that/ quickly - 1 hr from impaled to fully healed - clearly the person healing has some extraordinary vitality, and, if he received sufficiently inspired encouragement, couldn't that vitality work even faster?

Narratively, being inspired doesn't heal wounds, so inspiration shouldn't heal hit points. It can still help you cling to life without a spleen for a while, though.

I'm afraid, at this point, that you're using 'narratively' to mean 'arbitrarily.'

...

Edit: I'm trying to imagine what else you my have actually meant.

Are you trying to draw a line between the supernatural and preternatural or superhuman?

For instance, it's natural to be able to jump, jumping across a 3' wide stream is fairly ordinary. Jumping across the Mississippi River at flood stage, on the other hand would be superhuman by a large margin - but not supernatural, because people /can/ jump. Conversely, teleporting across even a 3' wide stream would be supernatural.

So, are you assuming that HD are superhuman, but not supernatural? Time heals wounds, so healing a wound that would take weeks overnight isn't supernatural?

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, realistically, it doesn't. Likewise, neither do one hour rests, nor even a full night's sleep. If realism is thrown to the winds, then it could.

No need to bring realism into the scene. Narratively, it doesn't. I'm not really aware of any example in fiction where someone's wounds are healed because of encouragement and inspiration. There are examples where people ignore their wounds because of it - even wake up from unconscious because of it - but notably, the wounds are not healed, they're simply ignored. That points at die-hard mechanics, not healing. OR, alternately, it points at that inspiration being magical, because there are also narrative examples of wound-healing magic also being analgesic and making you feel good in addition to knitting flesh.

The impaled character rests one hour, rolls all his HD, and is back to full hps - 'narratively' what just happened? The wound couldn't have healed, humans don't heal that fast.

Heroic fantasy protagonists can and do. Narratively, they have taken the time to repair the damage long enough so that it isn't life-threatening. There's maybe some tenderness, some scarring, maybe soreness, maybe it still oozes blood a bit. It requires bandages, salves, to be cleaned, but it's not going to kill you, so you power through the winces and the moans. Narratively, it's no more a stretch than the routine savage concussions that I've been seeing on every other episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that people recover from within a few hours. Bodily trauma like that is a short-term danger, and once you're stable, you'll be fine with time, if you don't take more trauma.

If wounds can heal /that/ quickly - 1 hr from impaled to fully healed - clearly the person healing has some extraordinary vitality, and, if he received sufficiently inspired encouragement, couldn't that vitality work even faster?

I don't know of any real narrative examples of people being encouraged and having their vitality sped up such that wounds heal within seconds without the application of some kind of mystical force. I know of examples of people ignoring the effects of injury, but, again, that's not healing.

Edit: I'm trying to imagine what else you my have actually meant.

Are you trying to draw a line between the supernatural and preternatural or superhuman?

For instance, it's natural to be able to jump, jumping across a 3' wide stream is fairly ordinary. Jumping across the Mississippi River at flood stage, on the other hand would be superhuman by a large margin - but not supernatural, because people /can/ jump. Conversely, teleporting across even a 3' wide stream would be supernatural.

So, are you assuming that HD are superhuman, but not supernatural? Time heals wounds, so healing a wound that would take weeks overnight isn't supernatural?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but that sounds close. If you wanted to make a "martial" character who teleported across a 3' wide stream, I think that would break the narrative (there's no narrative precedence for teleporting without, essentially, magic, ultra-tech and the like included). If you want to make someone who can inspire wounds close without something supernatural, that would break the narrative in much the same way.