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

[JediGamemaster]

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.

go start an anti monk thread, you will get more discussion then the anti cleric one... but still not as much as the anti warlord one...notice the major diffrence

 

[mellored]

I am argueing we should not ADD to the game NOW something that people object to... if you want to start an anti cleric thread go see how many people post...

So never make anything new?

 

[I'm A Banana]

First of all, that is a very narrow, specific, thing to focus on. It doesn't prevent you from running in any particular genre.

It wrecks the narrative. That's all it needs to do.

Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that you can't. I know I could: Just narrate inspiration as allowing you to ignore the wounds that correspond to the hp loss restored. Not make them disappear, not heal them, not bandage them right then, just ignore them and finish the fight. Then narrate bandaging them later if it helps add a sense of verisimilitude.

You can't ignore wounds forever. I'd be fine with some sort of die-hard mechanic that lets the warlord's chosen allies ignore wounds for some duration. That's not inspirational healing, though.

Nothing under death saves says or implies any of that. DMs can choose to worry about Death Saves or not for monsters or NPCs, but there's no requirement that he grant them semi-mystical powers or deific intervention or anything, he's just choosing to roll their death-saves rather than hand-wave them.
...
That is not what the ability says, and it is not remotely plausible under the existing mechanics. The ability says the fighter calls upon a limited well of stamina. It does not say he treats his wounds, however quickly. It's a bonus action, that the fighter can use without a free hand, while attacking or even action-surging, it requires no healing kit or other supplies. It is not first aid, no matter how rushed and desperate. And, if it were, the 1/short rest limitation would make no sense, while the 'limited well of stamina' works fine for it.

Yeah, and nothing in the rules implies that at > 50% hp, you're suffering any wounds. It's narratively consistent. That's all it needs to be. That's how inspirational healing fails - it is not consistent with the wound narrative.

Finally, I don't buy that a Monk or Psion or Paladin or Warlock has such an easily-ignored impact on the narrative. Choosing to play a GOO Warlock, makes Lovecraftian entities a mandatory part of the campaign world. And, the Warlock is there using all that freaky Charles Dexter Ward stuff right in front of you - he even crawls into your mind to whisper horrid secrets to you telepathically!

Much like gods, Lovecraftian entities are a presumed part of the game narrative. Entirely inspirational hit points are not a presumed part of the game narrative, though it's not incompatible with the rules as they stand. Entirely wound-based hit points are also not part of that presumed game narrative, though they are not incompatible with the rules as they stand.

You can allow that hps can be restored, without any healing or treating of the corresponding wound, and without magic. Which have the added bonus of working to make Inspiring Word acceptable, as well.

That's a campaign-wide decision, though, not a decision that is in the hands of one player making a class selection.

Even though nothing in a 4e-style Inspiring Word would say or imply that it is anything other than Inspiration restoring hps, you could decide that there is some semi-mystical force behind it, just as you did for Death Saves. Perhaps provided by a deity or force of war, perhaps by the unconscious channeling of life-force through the warlord via his words, to the subject. You're free to come up with a subtle interpretation like that if you want, even as a player.
...
You can imagine, as you did with Death Saves, that there is some subtle, semi-mystical force at work (that 'well of stamina' is not perfectly mundane). And, as an added bonus, you can assume the same for Inspiring Word, even if, as with Second Wind, there is nothing at all in it's mechanics or fluff nor that of the class, to imply that it's 'magic' or supernatural.

Yeah, if that was available within the presented narrative in 5e, that'd work fine. "Your passionate exhortation can restore others to life."

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah, and nothing in the rules implies that at > 50% hp, you're suffering any wounds.

Nothing in the rules implies that < 50% hp you're suffering only wounds.

The only thing that comes close is a sidebar that's presented as one of many different ways to narrate damage. It even starts with "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways."

It's guidance - advice - optional.

That's how inspirational healing fails - it is not consistent with the wound narrative.

How can inspirational recovery fail a narrative standard that does not exist?

There is no official wound narrative.

Officially, it's however the DM wants to describe it. That's it.

Obviously, if inspirational recovery is inconsistent with how a specific DM wants to narrate hit points in their game, then a Warlord is probably inconsistent for their game. But there are plenty of DM's that can say much the same thing about other classes. There are DM's for which Second Wind is inconsistent (Fighters). There are DM's for which Short and Long Rests are inconsistent. There are DM's for which Temporary Hit Points are inconsistent or nonsensical.

All that should matter for inclusion is that a mechanic be consistent with the definitions and mechanics of the actual rules.

Warlord Inspirational Hit Point Recovery is consistent with those.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It wrecks the narrative. That's all it needs to do.

I see some pretty easy ways to work within the 'narrative-wound' model to make Inspiring Word and other such abilities work pretty well, indeed. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to get just a bit enthused about it.

You can't ignore wounds forever.

You don't have to. Assume they're tended to mundanely at the earliest opportunity. Don't even have to do it 'on screen,' very much in keeping with those tropes you posted up thread.

That's how inspirational healing fails - it is not consistent with the wound narrative.

I don't see why the narrative would have to fail to account for inspirational healing: You get wounded. You rest an hour. Your wounds haven't healed, but you're still at full hps. You get wounded. You reach into your deep well of stamina and fight on. Your wounds aren't healed, but you've re-gained some hps. You get wounded. Your friend reminds you what you're fighting for, and you fight on. Your wounds aren't healed but you've regained some hps.
And, if you want to add 'you bind your wounds and..' before 'rest an hour' and '...until you have a chance to bind your wounds' after the other two, for a nod to reality, you certainly could without touching any mechanics.

Much like gods, Lovecraftian entities are a presumed part of the game narrative.

Hypothetically, if they weren't, would that make adding the GOO Warlock objectionable? By the logic you're using, yes it would. Which, sadly, seems to boil down to 'nothing new can ever be added to the game - new takes on existing things, at most, are allowed.' That's just not helpful.

Beside, just because the game has a narrative element, doesn't mean everyone at the table wants to deal with it. The player who brings in a GOO Warlock brings the Lovecraftian element to the party, 24/7, for the whole campaign.

Accepting and even appreciating or at least working with other players' choices is just part of the game. A necessary part. Restricting player choices is also part of the game - part of the DM's role, when he wants to restrict or establish something about the world. If a DM decides he's going to have a less creepy setting, he can toss out the Far Realm and disturbing Lovecraftian monsters - and the GOO Warlock as a player option. If he decides he wants a campaign where everyone graduated from the same Wizard School, he can allow only Bard, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard as player choices.

Entirely inspirational hit points are not a presumed part of the game narrative, though it's not incompatible with the rules as they stand. Entirely wound-based hit points are also not part of that presumed game narrative, though they are not incompatible with the rules as they stand.

And the two turn out to be compatible, in a narrative-wound model like the one you've articulated!

You can accept that, to handle Second Wind in the narrative model, hps can be restored, without any healing or treating of the corresponding wound, and without magic. Which have the added bonus of working to make Inspiring Word acceptable, as well.

You can imagine, as you did with Death Saves, that there is some subtle, semi-mystical force at work (that 'well of stamina' is not perfectly mundane). And, as an added bonus, you can assume the same for Inspiring Word, even if, as with Second Wind, there is nothing at all in it's mechanics or fluff nor that of the class, to imply that it's 'magic' or supernatural.

Any reason either of those couldn't work for your model?

That's a campaign-wide decision, though, not a decision that is in the hands of one player making a class selection.

The player making the class selection wouldn't be making the decision. The decision isn't whether to play a Fighter or Warlord, but how the Second Wind and hypothetical Healing Word abilities would be handled in the narrative.

In the first case, the DM or DM & table realize that the time & tending wounds or magic requirement can't apply to Second Wind, and decide to drop that requirement - or moderate it by letting the wound-tending happen later.

In the second case, the decision can be made independently, since it's just how the individual player (or PC) believes the ability is working. Even as a player, you can decide that a Death Save or Inspirational Healing 'must have been' the work of some semi-mystical agency, something too subtle to be detected or stopped by an anti-magic shell, but more than mundane, none-the-less. Not provable, but you could have endless, pointless, debates about it, and no one's narrative is 'wrecked.'

So, any reason either of those couldn't work for your model?

(Of course, there's also the DM option of house-ruling second wind and death saves to make them conform more closely to the narrative model. But, at that point, preserving the model is not longer an issue to consider when designing the Warlord, the Warlord could be added to the Standard Game, and, like Second Wind, could simply be banned our house-ruled.)

Yeah, if that was available within the presented narrative in 5e, that'd work fine.

In general, 5e presents non-magical, non-supernatural powers in a fairly straight-forward way. It doesn't say they're magical or supernatural. OTOH, Ki or spells, it comes out and says 'look this is magical.' Fans of the Warlord (and it's detractors) may be adamant about the Warlord being non-magical, but all that really requires is the lack of any rule saying or implying that it /is/ magical. Even if the fluff text firmly states that the Warlord is strictly mundane (which'd be pushing it, there's nothing mundane about heroism in the fantasy genre), it's just fluff text, and an underlying mystical rationale (one not mechanically interacting with rules that apply explicitly to magic or other supernatural powers) could effortlessly be assumed, if that helps with visualizing the power. (Hopefully not to 'shout wounds closed,' but to provide a preternatural fig-leaf to ignoring wounds or fighting on for those who just aren't quite satisfied with 'ordinary' heroic fantasy characters doing so unaided.)


At this point, not only do I not see how a compromise is 'impossible,' as you asserted up-thread, because of the hp-modeling issue, I see no related reason the Warlord shouldn't be added to the Standard Game. Those who are already using modules and changing rules to enable a hp model can simply ban or modify the class, since they've already moved beyond the Standard Game, anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

Adding warlord to the standard game has implications for organised play where it apparently caused problems as well.

Other problems with the class would include action economy, healing word type features which is explicitly magical, and expected power levels of 5E PCs.

The 4E Warlord was tied heavily to the 4E mechanics with its role structure and powers which were heavily rejected by the D&D fanbase as AD&D seems more popular than 4E these days. It is a zero sum game at some point I presume you would have to ask yourself that woudl including the warlord gain or lose you sales.

Balance is another issue. There is the battle master fighter which 4E fans do not seem to find an acceptable substitute. The thing is the Battlemaster overall is the best fighter already in terms of power perhaps beaten by the eldritch knight at higher levels. If you want a better warlord than the Battlemaster fighter you more or less need to make a more powerful warlord.

The games fairly light on martial healing. Feats are optional and the healer feat requires a healers kit, Fighter 2nd wind is not a lot of hp and HD are really only slightly faster healing rate. To have an effective wrlord you probably need to bring back to much from 4E most people don't want such as hard coded grids, martial healing, powers and things like that.

Probably doens't help that some people are stillin denial as to the reception 4E got. I actually allow the Noble class into my games and I suspect one of the 3 options is potentially broken, 1 is rubbish and another one looks about right.

 

[Aldarc]

So once more:

Death Saves are semi-mystical, much as bardic inspiration or a paladin's lay on hands or a dragon's flight (or possibly psionics) is semi-mystical. It is not a general feature of the world that people get up from life-threatening injuries, but heroic characters may occasionally gain deific intervention that heals the wound or the aid of fate that knits the wound closed just enough or through sheer force of will they'll regenerate 1 hp by some fluke of that one time you got troll's blood on you. It's not reliable, but it's been known to happen in legends where a knight grabs their spleen from the ground next to them, eyes rolled back into their head, and jams it into themselves, and it starts working again, like it was never removed. The wound is healed, so something supernatural happens, but there are plenty of supernatural, mystical things that happen in this world that don't rely on proper "magic."

I'd be cool with a warlord that operated in that sphere, but that would mean waffling on the "not supernatural" bit of the class.

That's not necessarily "waffling" since a lot of that "semi-mystical" nature of death saves comes from your own reading of what they represent. I don't see why you could not extend a similar courtesy or reading to inspirational healing. Just call it "semi-mystical" and be done with it. Provide enough room, much like with bardic inspiration, for people to claim that it's mundane, semi-mystical, or magic. Perhaps the inspiring words of the Warlord blurs the line between the ordinary and the supernatural? Does the divine blood of kings flow through their veins? Do they draw upon similar arcane utterances of power used by the bard? As per the bard's own flavor text:

In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own.

Doesn't that suggest that there is room for the warlord's inspirational healing or even "shout healing"? If 'bardic inspiration' is semi-mystical, existing in a space that can be used within anti-magic zones and such, why can't the warlord's own support capabilities? Perhaps the words of the warlord triggers a person's closer affinity to the positive plane (or whatever it is in 5e)? I'm okay with the Warlord being semi-mystical leaning towards mundane (i.e. extraordinary).

Adding warlord to the standard game has implications for organised play where it apparently caused problems as well.

Other problems with the class would include action economy, healing word type features which is explicitly magical, and expected power levels of 5E PCs.

The 4E Warlord was tied heavily to the 4E mechanics with its role structure and powers which were heavily rejected by the D&D fanbase as AD&D seems more popular than 4E these days. It is a zero sum game at some point I presume you would have to ask yourself that woudl including the warlord gain or lose you sales.

Balance is another issue. There is the battle master fighter which 4E fans do not seem to find an acceptable substitute. The thing is the Battlemaster overall is the best fighter already in terms of power perhaps beaten by the eldritch knight at higher levels. If you want a better warlord than the Battlemaster fighter you more or less need to make a more powerful warlord.

The games fairly light on martial healing. Feats are optional and the healer feat requires a healers kit, Fighter 2nd wind is not a lot of hp and HD are really only slightly faster healing rate. To have an effective wrlord you probably need to bring back to much from 4E most people don't want such as hard coded grids, martial healing, powers and things like that.

Probably doens't help that some people are stillin denial as to the reception 4E got. I actually allow the Noble class into my games and I suspect one of the 3 options is potentially broken, 1 is rubbish and another one looks about right.

It's hard for me to believe that you would write any of this without having first read the thread and listened to what the pro-warlord crowd is saying, but here is your post proving me wrong. Just about everything you have written has already been addressed.

 

[mellored]

Would anyone object to an open ended statement like...

"Some say the warlord's inspiration is similar to the bards magic, others believe that there is blood of the kings running through his veins, yet others simply see only hard work and practice at choosing the right words. What ever the reason a warlords words seem to resonate in whoever hears it, having an impact far beyond your average encouragement."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Probably doens't help that some people are stillin denial as to the reception 4E got.

yea the FACT that it outsold 3e and brought in new players is what gets denied all the time...

 

[Imaro]

yea the FACT that it outsold 3e and brought in new players is what gets denied all the time...

That's an interesting assertion to make... especially without any qualifiers whatsoever (like the initial print run as opposed to overall sales). Citation please


Edit: Also where are you getting numbers for new players 4e brought into D&D? And does said source have that information for other editions?