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

[I'm A Banana]

I have a player that when playing a class with access to it, regardless if he has a spell that does 10d10 damage, he will try to cast that until the rest of the party yells at him enough about not carrying his weight. When someone gets mocked to death he is in heaven. It took a long time for me to get him to accept that he can't hide and mock people with it, etc.

I really do not like that spell or the concept behind it. For me its stupid. But I try to make sure everyone has fun so...

I tend to describe it one of two ways, depending on how I'm feelin'. In the first case, the spell actually makes wounds appear - the bard's insults are slightly more literally cutting, and as she finishes her pun, the injured creature has cuts and wounds where none were before. A creature that dies from mockery suffers some potentially lethal wound from the bard's words, just as if they were sword cuts.

The second case is a little more "psychic" - I depict it as something that is damaging your head, your mind, making you unable to think, unable to act, it feels like your mind is on fire, or suffering from a hundred little ants crawling all over it, your body is going numb, etc.

Any of these narratives make perfect sense with magic. A class that did the same thing, but was supposed to be entirely "non-mystical" would kick that narrative squarely to the curb, and I'd have problems with it for much the same reason as I have problems with inspirational healing - damage can kill you, and you can't die from getting your feelings hurt, and there's nothing more supernatural than that going on here.

You could suffer all that hp loss, from those sources, roll a 20 on your first death save, take a 1-hr lunch break, blow all your HD (roll reasonably well), and be fully healed.

Clearly, 5e hps don't model wounds with either the level of severity or the level or realism - or both - that you wish they did.

Unless you make 3 successful death saves inside of 5 rounds, or roll a 20 on one of them. So, you can 'naturally,' without supernatural agency (and very little time, from no more than six seconds to 30 sec at the outside), overcome that 'terminal' impediment.

The only class that can remotely 'rally heroically' by itself is the fighter with Second Wind, and that not even from unconsciousness (which requires the blind luck of a natural 20 available to anyone, no matter how un-heroic they may be). Everyone else needs supernatural agency, channeling the power of a god or nature (or primal spirits or whatever you see your Druid/Ranger as doing), or arcane forces (Bard) or a magical healing potion or something.

So, no, the Standard Rules seem downright hostile to individual heroism and pulp action-heroics.

I've explained how all this is consistent with a wound narrative already (and that a 20 on a death save is not seen as non-supernatural in that narrative).

And I've also already explained how it isn't about realism, it's about the story being told.

Why can't we move past that? Why can't you accept that the standard rules are just as fine with a wound narrative as an inspiration narrative (and as a half-and-half narrative which is what is EXPLICITLY called out as "typical" on PHB pg. 197)?

The player class choice of Monk brings wuxia to the table, a tinker gnome (I think you can just barely fake one up in 5e, even as it stands) or Artificer would bring steam-punk, a GOO Warlock, overtones of Lovecraftian horror. So, it looks like that ship has sailed.

I addressed this in my post to pemerton. The cliff notes version is that while being a monk brings in that element, it's compatible with other elements (you don't all have to play a wuxia game just because there's a monk in the party), whereas "normal" inspirational healing is not compatible with other elements (if someone has inspirational healing, you're all using it, like it or not).

 

[mellored]

it is a magic spell given by a deitie... if you don't understand that then you must be very new to D&D... Divne SPELLS are MAGIC... are you argueing for the warlord to use SPELLS and MAGIC?

Many people people find the idea that believing really hard can "magically" mend a broken bone to be rather silly and objectionable.

You are arguing that we shouldn't allow classes in the game that some people find silly and objectionable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

see when I get hit by an attack I assume damage... witch is fine with a cleric, they can heal a broken writs, burnt flesh and clawed backs... but make the warlord healing me a joke

In the case of inspirational hit points, those things don't physically damage you in any great deal - you're maybe burned or cut or bruised, but it's actually not that bad of an injury, but what it is is wearing you down and making you vulnerable and sapping your will to go on. When you hit 0 hp, it's not because you've taken a severe wound, it's because your willpower has given out, your morale is depleted, your energy is just spent, and so you collapse and give into the dark specter of death that you've been keeping at bay (potenitially). So conceivably, someone could rouse you from unconsciousness with an inspiring word and this would have the same effect as a cleric healing your minor wounds - mostly, it restores your will to fight.

There's nothing wrong with inspirational HP in and of itself, just like there's nothing wrong with the narrative that humans made all humanoids through genetic modification in and of itself. These are interesting stories and ways to tell stories that are worthy of exploring! It can be a problem when it's not properly located in the options, though. Picking a race or a class shouldn't force that narrative, but rather should be available for those who opt into this narrative. If we want a warlord that is only available to people who opt into inspirational HP, I think that's an unnecessary hurdle, but I'm open to talking about what that might look like in terms of presentation (I've already mentioned I could see it as a good fit in Dragonlance).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

I had said "prestige classes are here...and we'd better get used to it." Someone else said that no, they're not really "here" because it's just UA, and that the reaction they had seen was mixed. I was replying to that with what you posted. The intent of it was, "Other UA things have gotten mixed responses. We do not yet have any reason to think that UA material is definitely never going to make it into a book JUST because it gets a mixed reaction."

More or less, I had thought PrCs were something WotC wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole--that they weren't even on the table for experimentation. Clearly, they are on the table, an accepted design tool just like "subclass," "feat," etc. that they aren't going to completely avoid using forever and ever, amen. That's what I mean by "here" and that they won't "go away." *This particular* prestige class might not survive, but it seems to me that the fundamental idea of the PrC very much *IS* a part of 5e from here on out, unless the fan outcry is both extreme and negative.

 

[Bluenose]

see when I get hit by an attack I assume damage... witch is fine with a cleric, they can heal a broken writs, burnt flesh and clawed backs... but make the warlord healing me a joke

Just out of curiosity, how well does it work wielding your zweihander with a broken wrist? Does it reduce your effectiveness? Do you find it hurts you more with every thrust, parry, swing or change of stance? Would you say it's the sort of injury that you can sleep off without any treatment and have heal properly?

 

[mellored]

I had said "prestige classes are here...and we'd better get used to it." Someone else said that no, they're not really "here" because it's just UA, and that the reaction they had seen was mixed. I was replying to that with what you posted. The intent of it was, "Other UA things have gotten mixed responses. We do not yet have any reason to think that UA material is definitely never going to make it into a book JUST because it gets a mixed reaction."

I think there's good reason to not expect the artificer sub-class to make it into a book.
And i'm sure not all of the rangers will to.


And while i think that PrC's are probably going to be a core thing, it's still depends on the feedback.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And adding monks adds a level of wuxia, sure. But you can play a D&D paladin without playing a campaign about knights in shining armor, and you can play a D&D monk without defining your campaign as wuxia.

You have Wu Xia and a Knight in Shinning Armor /in/ the campaign, interacting with everything. You can say they're not the focus of the campaign, and the other PC can be different (as those two are different from eachother), but they're right there, bringing their respective idioms to the campaign.

The level they add is localized. You can't, however, have a class that heals HP with inspiration without defining your HP as inspirational for everyone at the table.

Because others will be healed by it, sure. The Paladin would also bring his Holy paradigm to everyone he Lays Hands on. Imagine how an Atheist character would feel about his wounds closing up due to divine power, it's a campaign of 'Smite the Foes of God & Mankind' where God is real, the moment someone chooses Paladin, to the same extent it's pulp/action heroics the moment the Warlord comes into it.

Which is, really, the point. Just as your class choice brings certain contributions to the party's success, it also brings certain genre bits to the narrative. A Monk brings wire-fu Wuxia, a Warlock sinister patrons who offer mortals magical power, a Paladin objectively-existing deities and the whole Galahad idiom.
You don't choose a character class to be bland and add nothing to the campaign.

I've explained how all this is consistent with a wound narrative already

I recall you noting that it couldn't heal from 0 (just like an unconscious Cleric can't heal himself from 0 with a bonus-action healing word), but that doesn't address the problem. But, maybe you could quote yourself where you explained how Second Wind, an ability that is not supernatural, doesn't consume healing supplies, and is a mere bonus action somehow qualifies as either both rest/time & wound-treatment or is supernatural. Because I missed that bit.

(and that a 20 on a death save is not seen as non-supernatural in that narrative).

A potentially lethal wound does need to be turned into NOT potentially lethal. Doing that without something supernatural requires time (rolling a 20 on a death save is "mystical," for instance)

You gave rolling a 20 on a death save as an example of 'something supernatural' to account for it not taking time. Anyone can roll a 20 on a death save, even in an anti-magic field, so I'm guessing you're taking that one back?

Why can't you accept that the standard rules are just as fine with a wound narrative as an inspiration narrative

Because you haven't presented me with a wound narrative that is supported by the standard rules. There's still death saves and Second Wind clearly contrary to it, at least to the extent you've been able to articulate it, and I've been able to understand.

Why can't we move past that?

We could move past it if you withdraw the more general assertion that a new addition to the game must support every possible individual interpretation of every extant mechanic that is not already contradicted by some other bit of the standard game.

That's the basis of your 'no compromise is possible' claim, and setting it aside would probably be a good thing, anyway. Afterall, to that standard, any possible addition to the game could be blocked by the fabrication of an interpretation that conforms to the standard game and, arbitrarily rejects the new addition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

lets take this one step father with Players A,b,c,D,and 1... 1 is already the odd man out...

So player A is going to DM at his local store every Friday night for three months. He has his own world that is pretty generic fantasy... his first adventures are re writes of old mods and ideas...

if players B and C don't like warlords, and one is a fighter and the other a ranger, and player D could care less and is a warlock... then player 1 comes along and says "I'm playing a warlord." it could ruin the fun of player B and C...

imagine a fight where the ghoul slams his claw and hits the fighter... paralyzing him for 2 whole rounds of the fight... after the warlod tells him to 'buck up little camper' and that gives the fighter back 3d6hp... the fighter player says "Hey I'm not depressed
I got hit by a frggin claw"

then imagine a second fight where a red dragon breaths fire on the party, and the fighter drops to 0 and the ranger gets really low... mid fight the warlord pulls out pomp pomps to brighten there spirits and heals both 40hp... the ranger asks "Um I got hit in the face with dragon fire, how does that work?" and the fighter adds "Yea, um I got bit by a dragon the size of an elephant, then burnt by it's fire and I;m dying... most likely bleeding and with 3rd degree burns... well maybe 2nd degree... How does you saying non magical stuff help"


see when I get hit by an attack I assume damage... witch is fine with a cleric, they can heal a broken writs, burnt flesh and clawed backs... but make the warlord healing me a joke

OK, but its equally not appropriate if some of A,B,C, or D want to play in a gritty semi-realistic procedural crawl, and player 1 wants to play a wire-fu monk that leaps over his opponents, runs up walls, etc. and calls it 'skill and discipline' but not magic.

If A can ignore THAT then why can't he ignore or rationalize that being 'hit by a claw' isn't all physical damage, etc. and live with the warlord too?

I am still not at all convinced that this is not an argument about CHANGE and not about the specifics of a given class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see this sharp contrast between "campaign style choice" and class choice. Having a monk in the campaign already adds elements of wuxia. Having a warlock already adds elements of horror. Having a paladin already adds elements of "Arthurian knights in shining armour". MANy of the 5e classes are not flavour/style free.

I completely agree. Some are very or at least nearly flavor-neutral--Fighter and Rogue respectively--while others have a certain kind of...I almost want to call it "meta-flavor," because it's not necessarily the story, but mechanics which feed into the story. I'm specifically thinking of Wizards there. Their stats and "educated" nature make them a good fit for a generically "hermetic thaumaturgy" type, but the distinct nature of discretized Spell Slots is pretty much unique to Jack Vance as far as I can tell. Fiction that includes magic, but isn't magic-centric, often doesn't even bother to explain how the magic works, it just does; and works that are magic-centric almost always employ a mana-like system (which can vary from "just an invisible pool you know you can or can't use" to "visibly draining, even emaciating, the user's body when tapped beyond its limits" and even beyond).

Other than the Bard--and you could make arguments there, as well, considering that "music is magical" is not always acceptable--basically every other class comes with certain prepackaged thematic elements. Pemerton covered some of the big ones, but you also have Barbarian: there are tribes of "uncivilized" beings that live out in Ye Wildernesse, who have a closer communion with the land and their own bodies than "civilized" folk. You have Druid: there are societies of ascetic semi-hermits who tap into the power of the land, frequently drawing on the "old faith/gods." Ranger could sorta go either way--if you strip it down to just mean "person who can live outdoors, maybe tame an animal for hunting," then it doesn't really come with much context...but if you agree that it draws heavily from Aragorn, from the classic Woodsman of European folklore, and from the long tradition of close bonds between man and beast (Odysseus had Argus, after all), then yeah, that too has a certain package of ideas that come with it.

And I think it's pretty much inarguable that, whatever inherent thematic (or...whatever you'd call the Wizard's thing of mechanics that shape behavior) attributes the Warlord might have, as a general concept...they're not particularly different from the more distinctly-flavored classes. Monk most of all, but nearly as much the Druid and Barbarian. Plus, lots and lots of people have complained that putting any particular/special fluff into the Fighter class is a Very Bad Move that the designers should never contemplate--so I feel like if the Warlord is a distinctly flavored thing, that's an argument in favor of it being its own separate class. That way, all the fans of Perfectly Generic Fighters can keep what they love.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Plus, lots and lots of people have complained that putting any particular/special fluff into the Fighter class is a Very Bad Move that the designers should never contemplate--so I feel like if the Warlord is a distinctly flavored thing, that's an argument in favor of it being its own separate class. That way, all the fans of Perfectly Generic Fighters can keep what they love.

I can see this. Eldritch Knights are supposed to be the gish class, and they just don't feel right as someone who came from the 4e Swordmage. There is very little actual blend of weapon and magic going on in the inherent mechanics. At the end of the day, it's very unsatisfying to want to cast a small spell AND channel it through your weapon strikes, but only be able to bash stuff with a weapon to feel like you are utilizing your given features to their maximum potential. And it would be different if there were options that at least felt like they were competitive, but casting a scaling cantrip and getting one bonus attack is just very very "underpowered" when compared with straight Extra Attack. Luckily, cantrips like Greenflame Blade are making big strides in changing that (for me personally).

What I would want is a half-caster (like Paladin/Ranger) that has less spell choice restriction and unique features for blending sword and sorcery. Unfortunately, I don't really have that, and the Eldritch Knight remains the closest in both flavor and mechanics. But I understand the feeling of being underwhelmed when comparing it to how a previous class played and felt.