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

[mellored]

If I had to guess, I think the big reason they made the Rune Scribe so light on internal mechanics is that it's like a weird compound of Wizard and Warlock--since it essentially gains the equivalent of a package of invocations from each Rune it acquires. I really do think they should've given it a meatier capstone though. Assuming you can find even one more Major Rune you haven't learned, you may never benefit from the 5th level stuff at all.

It's more that the mechanics don't mix well.

i.e.
Reroll fire damage, then give you air and cold spells.
Or inscribing fire onto a blade, then cold overwrites it.
Inscribe a rune that makes you and creatures around you immobile, then flying.
Or freezing a lake to cross it, then getting waterbreathing to swim though it.

Hmm.. actually freezing water and water breathing could be a powerful combo in certain campaigns. But still, most features are competitive too much with each other, not complimentary.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

you don't need WotC to do anything... but them doing it gives an air of officalness...

Yeah, OTOH I'm just saying, there's really nothing to this beyond them saying "yup, a PRC is a thing, its a class with restrictions on who can MC into it", which is when you think about it essentially no mechanics at all. Its not exactly really a significant addition to the game, and being in UA its officialness is even kinda pretty much zip. If they release an "Official Book of Unearthed Arcana" some day and the basically one sentence that 'implements' PRC is in there, then it will be some sort of 'official advanced rule' or something. Probably still won't exist in organized play, but who knows?

I do understand your point, people will suddenly feel "allowed" to unleash a torrent of PRCs. Whatever!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, OTOH I'm just saying, there's really nothing to this beyond them saying "yup, a PRC is a thing, its a class with restrictions on who can MC into it", which is when you think about it essentially no mechanics at all. Its not exactly really a significant addition to the game, and being in UA its officialness is even kinda pretty much zip. If they release an "Official Book of Unearthed Arcana" some day and the basically one sentence that 'implements' PRC is in there, then it will be some sort of 'official advanced rule' or something. Probably still won't exist in organized play, but who knows?

I do understand your point, people will suddenly feel "allowed" to unleash a torrent of PRCs. Whatever!

yes now imagine hoe this thread would react to a tweet from mike mearls saying "Did a lot of work on the new inspireing word class feature, new warlord out soon"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess. I heard very "mixed" responses to the Favored Soul, and have seen no signs whatsoever that it is going away. Particularly since this is their first stab at the idea, I would think they'd expect some mixed responses and would intend to iterate at least a couple more times, unless the response was distinctly negative. But, as stated, what-the-fudge do *I* know about WotC's design choices at this point? *shrug*

This is the sum total of the PrC rules in 5e:

A prestige class uses the normal D&D multiclassing rules (see chapter 6, “Customization Options,” in the Player’s Handbook). When your character is ready to advance a level, you can choose to gain a level in a prestige class.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for 'iterating'! I mean what are they going to tweak? They could of course settle on a different format for actual PrCs, they needn't model them after the Rune Scribe class, but those aren't general rules. The essence of 'PrC' is pretty much set.

Living Rune is fairly nice as well, IMO--perhaps not "devote 4 levels to a class" nice, but still. Instead of getting a standard ASI, you get floating stat points. Extremely flexible. If you're able to frequently get a decent idea of the kinds of challenges you'll be facing in the next day or two, that can mean a +1 to whatever ability is most relevant each day.

In practice this is almost assuredly going to be used to pick your primary stat or one (or two) other fixed stats and leave the bonus in them all the time. Its pretty rare that it would be worth lowering your primary or a good secondary stat in order to boost a tertiary stat. Most adventures consist of a variety of situations. I mean, sure, anything is possible, but very few players are going to go through the exercise of changing all the bonuses written on their sheet to get some dubious advantage that probably won't materialize anyway. Its like the 4e wizard's spellbook, almost nobody ever swapped out spells. It was used VERY rarely. You take your best stuff, all the time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

yes now imagine hoe this thread would react to a tweet from mike mearls saying "Did a lot of work on the new inspireing word class feature, new warlord out soon"

There's a big difference between a class design and a 'rule' that says "Yeah, we might make up some other different classes sometime". Its the DESIGN that we'd like to see from Mike. There's nothing to PrCs, no design there, its a placeholder. The Rune Scribe is something to think about, if you were wanting something like that, then you might be thrilled.

 

[Remathilis]

s for my feelings on the original question: I'm really torn. On the one hand, even if it were merely a prereq like "you must be at least 3rd level and be able to make at least two attacks when you take the Attack action," or "you must have the Inspiring Leader feat," or something similar...it still forces every Warlord fan (Variant Humans potentially excluded) to wait 6+ levels before getting to the meat of the class. On the other hand, I can't think of a better way to put a giant, flaming, strobing neon sign, five thousand feet high, bearing the words "THIS IS OPTIONAL MATERIAL" than making the Warlord a low-bar-of-entry PrC, because the concept of PrCs has been so thoroughly stigmatized by the rampant abuse they enabled in 3e. People who hate the class have a multitude of options for ignoring it (up to and including "there just isn't anyone available to train you"), they have a clear in-text basis for doing so. And by being "not a class," it can theoretically push boundaries that people would get (and have gotten) too touchy about for the base-class suggestions.

Ooh, I hadn't considered the "no subclasses for PrCs." That's kind of a problem. Particularly because I was so enjoying the idea of branching out the Warlord's archetypes to include the suggested ideas like a "covert ops" person that contributes to stealth and deception (almost) as much as it does to combat.

Well, my suggestion was that rather than have A single warlord class, there could be like three prestige classes. Set the bar fairly low (3rd level, Int 13, Cha 13, History proficiency) but have the three classes focus on different aspects (effectively, acting like mini subclasses).

1.) A healer/inspirer/cleric replacer
2.) A straightforward buffer
3.) A maneuvers and action granter

This has the advantage of allowing the DM to pick which types of warlords he'd allow in his game. He might be fine with buffs and actions, but ban inspiring healing, for example. Rather than ban the whole warlord class, he just bans the healer PrC. Similarly, it could allow the PCs to custom tailor his warlord (focusing on buffs, but ignoring maneuvers) or bounce between them as they want to get some features from both. Lastly, the 3rd level limit (on par with when most classes get a subclass) can be used to eliminate the "neophyte, wet-behind-the-ears 1st level PC being a combat leader" problem. As an extra bonus, it doesn't need to use the warlord name either; for those who find it distasteful.

 

[pemerton]

It still needs to be actual wound-healing, so we're looking at something at least as magical as lay on hands or bardic inspiration- something that can be interpreted as supernatural.

<snip>

Or we're looking at die-hard mechanics: ignore the effect without healing the wound.

Because, again, "healed enough to not affect you" is not he same as "completely healed." There is healing going on even if the wound hasn't vanished - specifically, some small amount that makes the wound not lethal anymore.

I am stuck on this point, and I get the sense that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] might be also.

If you are willing to accept that it is possible for a D&D character (i) to be injured, but (ii) not to be impeded by that injury, then what is the basis for rejecting (iii) that this can be achieved by way of a rousing speech or reasurring word? As a matter of abstract principle, you are not mandating that full hp = uninjured. Nor are you mandating that recovering all hp taken from a given hit = fully healing the injury inflicted by that hit.

The fact that you allow Second Wind, which permits regaining hit points, and thereby overcoming the burden of an injury, without requiring the expenditure of any material resources, further increases my puzzlement.

The only answer I can come up with is that you think that wounds that drop someone to 0 hp have a special status, and don't fit within principles (i) and (ii) stated above. But that then takes us to this:

Regaining 1 hp by rolling a 20 is essentially a bit of that long-term healing kicking in early by a fluke of fate or the luck of the gods or some other heroically-supernatural response. In this respect, it's important that it is something YOU do, not something someone else does for you, because it is a moment for you to be an awesome unkillable hero.

When you say it is important that it is something YOU do that seems to have nothing to do with your narrative framework for hit points at all. It's that you prefer modernist Conan-esque style fantasy (in which heroes are self-reliant and carry what they need within themselves) compared to romantic Tolkien-esque fantasy (in which heroes have needs that they can't satisfy on their own).

I've already said upthread that if you prefer modernist to romantic fantasy then the idea of inspirational healing won't fit within your game. But that has nothing to do with hit point models. It's about the metaphysics of persons and their relationships.

 

[pemerton]

"Hit", "Damage", "Cure Wounds", "Potion of Healing", etc, these aren't ambiguous terms.

In all pre-4e versions of the game, Cure Light Wounds has the potential to restore any wound delivered by a sword to a 0-level NPC that is not potentially fatal (ie that leaves at least 1 hp remaining, and hence did at a maximum 8 or fewer points of damage). I would suggest, then, that the phrase "Light Wounds" was ambiguous, encompassing as it did some wounds that weren't light.

Conversely, Cure Critical Wounds will not be enough to heal the typical name-level fighter from half to full hit points, although such a character - not being in any danger of death - can hardly be described as critically wounded.

The technical use of "hit" - meaning a successful attack roll - and "damage" - meaning depletion of hit points - is pretty well known. Back in 1979 Gygax's DMG explained that not all successful attack rolls result in actual physical injury - hence, he said, a hit location table would not make sense, and hence the possibility (as determined by a saving throw) that a successful attack by a snake or spider can still result in the character not being poisoned.

(The intial logic of the "saving throw" was that it indicated avoidance. The idea that a successful save vs poison generally means being poisoned but toughing it out, as opposed to generally meaning that the threat of poison was avoided, is a 3E-ism. In AD&D the role of toughness in resisting poison was confined to dwarves, halflings, and characters with 19+ CON.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you are willing to accept that it is possible for a D&D character (i) to be injured, but (ii) not to be impeded by that injury, then what is the basis for rejecting (iii) that this can be achieved by way of a rousing speech or reasurring word? As a matter of abstract principle, you are not mandating that full hp = uninjured. Nor are you mandating that recovering all hp taken from a given hit = fully healing the injury inflicted by that hit.

0 hp = "you are impeded by the injury, because now you are dying." The injury that drops you to 0 hp is something that impedes you, terminally!

So...

The only answer I can come up with is that you think that wounds that drop someone to 0 hp have a special status, and don't fit within principles (i) and (ii) stated above. But that then takes us to this:

They certainly have special status in their effects on the narrative!

When you say it is important that it is something YOU do that seems to have nothing to do with your narrative framework for hit points at all. It's that you prefer modernist Conan-esque style fantasy (in which heroes are self-reliant and carry what they need within themselves) compared to romantic Tolkien-esque fantasy (in which heroes have needs that they can't satisfy on their own).

I've already said upthread that if you prefer modernist to romantic fantasy then the idea of inspirational healing won't fit within your game. But that has nothing to do with hit point models. It's about the metaphysics of persons and their relationships.

I do expect D&D heroes to be pulp heroes, by and large, so they do not need others to be heroic. The standard rules are comfortable with that narrative, and, I believe, should continue to be so in the material they add to the standard game. Which isn't to say that there's no place for inspirational healing, just that it should be part of a campaign style choice you make, not something decided for the table when someone opts into a particular class that seems neat. Rather, a conscious choice of campaign tone, just as horror or wuxia or steampunk is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess. I heard very "mixed" responses to the Favored Soul, and have seen no signs whatsoever that it is going away. Particularly since this is their first stab at the idea, I would think they'd expect some mixed responses and would intend to iterate at least a couple more times, unless the response was distinctly negative. But, as stated, what-the-fudge do *I* know about WotC's design choices at this point? *shrug*

Eh? How could the Favored Soul go away when it's not even "here" yet? All that exists is a playtest thing, on the same level maturity as the mass combat rules, which is to say "it's been given somewhat more design thought than rules scratched on the back of a napkin." There is no Favored Soul subclass yet.

What would "go away" even mean? Delete the link to UA?