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

[Tony Vargas]

So you're fine with shout healing conceptually (as a new-to-5E concept), but you think it's been abused as a straw man in past debates, and it's those conversations and not the concept of shout healing that you find distasteful? Oh, sorry for misunderstanding your distaste.

Just about. I wouldn't find 'shouting wounds closed' objectionable in a class that had that as it's concept - a slightly odd Ki master might do that, for instance. It's just not part of the warlord concept, and, yes, presenting it as part of the concept was a much-used straw man in the past.

There could be other people who find the idea distasteful though--clearly that's part of what Kamikaze means when he says it's not part of the "narrative." It's not that you couldn't have a narrative where wounds close and bones straighten when you shout at them (arguably that's what magic does)--however, he finds that unaesthetic and uncool, unless magic is involved.

There's a lot of things in 5e that someone might find unaesthetic or uncool or un-realistic or un-somthing-that-matters-to-them-personally.

5e has a build in solution: the Empowered DM. You just rule the offending bit of the game into line - or, if you can't think of a way to do that, toss it.

The point is, it isn't true that realism is the only possible objection to shout healing.

And the other part of the point is that it's not what the Warlord does.

I'm a Banana has constructed a bizarre false dilemma, in which literally shouting wounds closed is both an unacceptable narrative visualization, and the only acceptable narrative visualization. It's a neat bit of logical yoga, but I still dare to hope he can be extricated from it....

Magic isn't supernatural in my games. If "supernatural" means "suspending the rules of the universe,"

More of common experience. I assume, for instance, that people in your world don't learn to teleport as part of the natural course of things, but would have to find some magical technique to do it, thus exceding the natural abilities of people? If not, then, sure, you have a different definition of natural in your world, and supernatural would exclude a lot of things it might normally encompass, including magic.

It sounds like you're okay with it being supernatural, but it absolutely must not be magical in order to be Cool in your eyes. If it were presented as magical (but not necessarily supernatural), would you consider that "unplayable"?

Nope, I'm not OK with the Warlord /being/ supernatural in any sense. I just don't feel the need to absolutely force that on anyone. As long as it's clearly presented as merely extraordinary, or even superhuman, I'm fine with it leaving a crack open here or there for it to be re-interpreted as something one individual or other might find more aesthetic, including magic.

 

[Eric V]

but if enough people don't want mushrooms, they are fully in there right to ask the pizza shop owner and baker "Hey can you make a special with no mushrooms" or in this case "Hey can you make an edition with no warlords"

They DID make an official edition with no warlords: 5e. You have it.

Anything else is optional.

And, as many DMs around here like to remind everyone, everything is optional.

So, if the warlord gets released in UA, the DM is free to ignore it, just like everything else in the game.

That last part is important: If you sit down next to someone playing something you think is stupid (be it a warlord, kender, tinker gnome, psion, evil PC, half-ogre, or whatever else your sensibilities react negatively to), it's because the DM allowed it in his/her game.

DMs make calls like this all the time, whether forbidding stuff (like feats or multiclassing), or allowing stuff (like spell-less rangers, swashbucklers, or, yes, warlords). It's all in the hands of the DM how the world works. You, as a player, face the decision any player everywhere has faced since the game began: Does this DM run a game I will have fun in? If yes, proceed. If no, find a different game.

That has always been the case; and waaaay before the existence of a warlord.

 

[JediGamemaster]

They DID make an official edition with no warlords: 5e. You have it.

Anything else is optional.

yes, and I don't want those options...

So, if the warlord gets released in UA, the DM is free to ignore it, just like everything else in the game.

and if I'm not the DM...

That last part is important: If you sit down next to someone playing something you think is stupid (be it a warlord, kender, tinker gnome, psion, evil PC, half-ogre, or whatever else your sensibilities react negatively to), it's because the DM allowed it in his/her game.

that is a great list of stuff I never want to see again...


the compromise is a non official warlord... go get sasquatch or kobold or green ronnin to make one, if you like it use it, just PLEASE don't make WoTC do it...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I didn't want damage on a miss, and hey that one we got mostly rid of...

Out of curiosity, why "mostly"? I can think of spells that inflict half damage even when you save, but I can't think of any attacks that do half-damage on miss.

 

[Eric V]

yes, and I don't want those options...

and if I'm not the DM...

that is a great list of stuff I never want to see again...


the compromise is a non official warlord... go get sasquatch or kobold or green ronnin to make one, if you like it use it, just PLEASE don't make WoTC do it...

WotC writing one up in UA doesn't make it official, is the point. Only the DM makes it official. Same as always. Any time a DM included laser rifles, or evil PCs, I bowed out to find another game, because it's the DM's world (unless it's shared amongst other DMs, but even then...); that's just the nature of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm a Banana has constructed a bizarre false dilemma, in which literally shouting wounds closed is both an unacceptable narrative visualization, and the only acceptable narrative visualization. It's a neat bit of logical yoga, but I still dare to hope he can be extricated from it....

That's not what I saw I'm A Banana write. He said you have pick between:

1.) An inclusive HP model which supports multiple interpretations;
2.) A Warlord with verbal HP restoration.

One of these things has to be "optional" material.

What you call "logical yoga" is actually just him identifying a conflict of interest. I'm not actually sure that you and he have any fundamental disagreement, since you've been clear that your vision of the Warlord is optional material for the Advanced Game. You could just say, "Sure, the Warlord I'm envisioning is incompatible with the version of 5E that you prefer," and I suspect he'd just agree.

 

[Aldarc]

Think this way, you and your bros order a pizza, and one guy hates mushroom, and another hates green peppers but you all like peperoni then you order a large all cheese half peperoni pizza... you don't take a vote and say "Sorry dave and jon, we ordered a mushrrom green peper and cheese pizza" because just because you like something doesn't out weigh us not wanting it...

does that make sense?

Think about it this way, except there are already classes in the PHB that people dislike. The idea that only the warlord gets excluded is the issue, particularly when there may be hated "toppings" that are already included in this group pizza. But analogies are never perfect.

you all make the same mistake, you assume that I have one and only one group that 100% agrees with me... and I bet that is a rare thing in RPGs today.

The problem is that when 5 or 6 of us sit down we all agree to play D&D... now if they publish a warlord I can't force others not to play it, and if I don't want mushroom on my pizza, then if someone else throws it on at an adventure league game... I'm stuck with it, or not eat...

You mean like how I am already stuck with the monk and the sorcerer?

yes, and I don't want those options...

and if I'm not the DM...

that is a great list of stuff I never want to see again...

Now you are just being selfish and immature, at least in terms of "pizza" and tastes.

 

[Minigiant]

but if enough people don't want mushrooms, they are fully in there right to ask the pizza shop owner and baker "Hey can you make a special with no mushrooms" or in this case "Hey can you make an edition with no warlords"

Again you are mistaking the reality of the situation.

This is WotC's Pizzeria. It opens at 12 PM noon.

At noon, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (PHB)
At 1PM, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (MM)
At 2PM, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (DMG)
At 3PM, they make half pineapple pies (EEPC)
At 4PM, they make extra cheese (Sword Coast)
At 5PM, they make mushrooms and pepper pies (warlords and psionics).
Then sausage, then another pie every hour until closing.

Due to popularity, at any time someone can order the Adventurer's League special and get every hourly pie at a discounted price.

You can ask them to not make the 5 PM pie but if there is enough demand, they will still make it. If you don't want the pie, don't buy pies at 5 PM nor buy the special.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Again you are mistaking the reality of the situation.

This is WotC's Pizzeria. It opens at 12 PM noon.

At noon, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (PHB)
At 1PM, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (MM)
At 2PM, they make half cheese and half pepperoni pies (DMG)
At 3PM, they make half pineapple pies (EEPC)
At 4PM, they make extra cheese (Sword Coast)
At 5PM, they make mushrooms and pepper pies (warlords and psionics).
Then sausage, then another pie every hour until closing.

Due to popularity, at any time someone can order the Adventurer's League special and get every hourly pie at a discounted price.

You can ask them to not make the 5 PM pie but if there is enough demand, they will still make it. If you don't want the pie, don't buy pies at 5 PM nor buy the special.

and yet, someone can come sit at my table at my FLGS and not only eat a pineapple or mushroom pizza, but force me to at the same tables....

 

[Bluenose]

That's not what I saw I'm A Banana write. He said you have pick between:

1.) An inclusive HP model which supports multiple interpretations;
2.) A Warlord with verbal HP restoration.

One of these things has to be "optional" material.

What you call "logical yoga" is actually just him identifying a conflict of interest. I'm not actually sure that you and he have any fundamental disagreement, since you've been clear that your vision of the Warlord is optional material for the Advanced Game. You could just say, "Sure, the Warlord I'm envisioning is incompatible with the version of 5E that you prefer," and I suspect he'd just agree.

Multiple interpretations of hit points doesn't mean, "No, hit points will never be restored by anything but time or magic." If anything, quite the opposite should be the case.