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

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

while the first part of the quote is about editions, and mearls said back in 2009 that 4e had a bigger print run then 3.5 and sold out, and if you want to claim ANY edition didn't bring in new players that is on you...

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Yeah, there's a "typical" (default) way presented. Diverge from that, and you're diverging from the presumed narrative. Thankfully, 5e is flexible about that divergence - it doesn't stop you going basically all wound or basically all morale if that's what you want. Inspirational healing would change that.

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.

So, officially, there can be a wound narrative. That's important - it implies that future material shouldn't contradict it unless it gets more specific about the narrative. There is explicitly room for that narrative.

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.

It is not consistent with the idea that DMs can describe damage in different ways - it means that there can be only one way to describe damage. That's kind of the problem - non-mystical inspirational healing requires you use a hit point model that the game in general doesn't require you to use. Logically, you need to accept the inspirational model of hp before you accept inspirational healing, so a class that offers the latter should be selected after a table agrees to the former.

Just call it "semi-mystical" and be done with it.

Happily! If inspirational healing is like lay on hands or bardic inspiration something - able to be seen through a mystical lens - its issues evaporate because it's something that doesn't require one model of hp to work. I'm totally cool with a Warlord "inspiring word" entry whose fluff is all of "Your passionate exhortation restores vitality to your comrades."

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.

If that's the compromise, I'm certainly into it!

 

[Lwaxy]

Don't go into edition warring again. The sales figures and other statistics of all the editions are in no way relevant to the topic.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry didn't see the mod post ... deleted

 

[Aldarc]

So, officially, there can be a wound narrative. That's important - it implies that future material shouldn't contradict it unless it gets more specific about the narrative. There is explicitly room for that narrative.

Except there can also be inspirational narrative, and inspirational healing would not necessarily contradict that narrative either. I think that's the rub. You seem to see it as all or nothing. One or the other, but not both. I find that position too extreme and unhelpful. And as say in my above post addressed to you, I think that you can have room to call a warlord's inspirational healing 'semi-mystical.'

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except there can also be inspirational narrative, and inspirational healing would not necessarily contradict that narrative either. I think that's the rub. You seem to see it as all or nothing. One or the other, but not both. I find that position too extreme and unhelpful. And as say in my above post addressed to you, I think that you can have room to call a warlord's inspirational healing 'semi-mystical.'

No, I see it as "all should be compatible with both." Or maybe to put it another way, "a class's mechanic and fluff shouldn't mean that I can't narrate HP however I want to." Like Umbran mentioned upthread, in how the game is actually played, there isn't One True Way. 5e's rules seem to accept that - you can narrate HP differently depending on what you want to do as a DM. But non-mystical inspirational healing is not compatible with both, so it requires you adhere to one particular story. That's not inherently an issue, but it should be properly gated - accept that you'll be using the inspirational model of HP first, then jump into non-mystical inspirational healing.

And I am all about a 5e warlord that is no more non-magical than lay on hands. In fact, loot those mechanics (maybe halve the points if you can do it at range as a bonus action), and allow for a mystical interpretation of what's going on, and I am all in.

 

[Aldarc]

Happily! If inspirational healing is like lay on hands or bardic inspiration something - able to be seen through a mystical lens - its issues evaporate because it's something that doesn't require one model of hp to work. I'm totally cool with a Warlord "inspiring word" entry whose fluff is all of "Your passionate exhortation restores vitality to your comrades."

If that's the compromise, I'm certainly into it!

Progress!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All I was replying to was the idea that the holy healing throws assumptions into the game just like warlord healing. The holy healing assumptions are built in, so far 5e has willfully stepped back from a lot of 4e ideas and martial healing. Apparently there are a lot of strong opinions either way.

Right, I always liked the idea of the warlord using inspiration, the character digs down into his own resources and comes up with the will to fight on, vs the standard clerical healing paradigm that seems to me to be closer to drug dependency in feel than anything else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

So, because you're making a big stink nobody else is allowed to have their toys and the measure of what is allowed in the game is how big a hissy fit you throw, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[TwoSix]

No, I see it as "all should be compatible with both." Or maybe to put it another way, "a class's mechanic and fluff shouldn't mean that I can't narrate HP however I want to." Like Umbran mentioned upthread, in how the game is actually played, there isn't One True Way. 5e's rules seem to accept that - you can narrate HP differently depending on what you want to do as a DM. But non-mystical inspirational healing is not compatible with both, so it requires you adhere to one particular story. That's not inherently an issue, but it should be properly gated - accept that you'll be using the inspirational model of HP first, then jump into non-mystical inspirational healing.

And I am all about a 5e warlord that is no more non-magical than lay on hands. In fact, loot those mechanics (maybe halve the points if you can do it at range as a bonus action), and allow for a mystical interpretation of what's going on, and I am all in.

Tying bards and warlords together makes a lot of sense to me. "Words and conviction have real power" isn't much of a stretch in a world where Cutting Words and Vicious Mockery already exist.