D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[GMforPowergamers]

True, but the same could be said about a dozen other classes, from the jester to the alchemist to the dragon shaman. That doesn't mean they need to be in the game.
And if you don't want to make a warlord class whole cloth there are literally dozens already made and available online so you don't have to.

yes, and each of those classes are an example of something that could be added or not... like the warlock, or the warlord...

 

[The Human Target]

In a game that has a rule in which a nights sleep brings you back up to full hitpoints, there is no need for a compromise.

 

[Raith5]

I still think (non magical) temporary hit points may be an option and compromise here. It reflects the well worn image in fantasy fiction of the inspiring speech during or before a fight which makes combatants think they can run through walls.

Personally I think non magical healing, abilities and powers were a really interesting design space which 4e (clumsily) introduced - I hope to see some modules/options along these lines in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I still think (non magical) temporary hit points may be an option and compromise here.

Can't bring PCs up from unconsciousness.

Part of the problem is that the objections people have to Inspiring Word are at a level of granularity that doesn't exist in D&D. D&D doesn't distinguish between different ways of inflicting damage, you just lose hps, it doesn't differentiate between different ways of restoring hps, either. A solid mechanical solution would mean increasing granularity - with two or more different 'pools' of hps or with different types of hp restoration working at different efficiencies against different types of damage, and/or with a third form of hp-granting beyond temps and hp-restoration.

The problem I have with "compromises" like this is that one side still gets 100% of what they want while the other side has to accommodate.

You have to take into account that this would not be a compromise between wanting an optional, balanced, faithful rendition of the Warlord on one side, and wanting the Warlord erased from D&D for all time on the other, but rather a compromise between two equally unreasonable extremes.

Those extremes would seem to be:

[sblock="realize, I AM trying to make these sound extreme and unreasonable, so brace yourself"]
The warlord must be errata'd into the 5e PH, be made mandatory in AL play, and be designed as a wildly-overpowered class that completely dominates play, and renders all other support classes obsolete, so that all parties are faced with the choice of having a warlord in the party, or being non-viable by comparison. The Warlord must include powers that are nominally non-magical, but strictly superior to everything Clerics, Druids, Bard, Paladins, & Rangers can do (combined). Most of these powers should function via a 'plot coupon' mechanism that completely re-writes the events of the game and nature and motivation of allies, enemies, and NPCs alike, rendering the DM impotent. These powers must include the ability to literally shout wounds closed, including resurrecting the dead, and shouting away conditions, curses, diseases, missing limbs, or any other negative effects allies must be suffering form (apart from that feeling of inferiority that comes from being under the command of a Warlord, of course). Which reminds me, though it should go without saying, in any party containing a Warlord, the Warlord is party leader, and the player of the warlord totally gets to boss everyone around, DM not excepted.

vs

The warlord must not exist in D&D in any form, the OGL must include a 'no warlords' clause, and WotC must sue anyone who makes a warlord publically available. WotC must also recall & destroy any past publication containing or referring to the Warlord, as well as taking down any on-line content or references related to it. The definition of 'Warlord' for these purposes extends to any martial class that doesn't suck.[/sblock]At least, to judge by the fears expressed by either side.


Real compromises on the healing issues, well inside the vast common ground between those two extremes, have been articulated up-thread, and in the How many fans want a 5e Warlord thread, if you're willing to dig for 'em...

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't see the point in earmarking something as "non-magical" when the rulebook explicitly states that everything in the world; the trees, people, even rocks and air, are infused with magic.

5e isn't the same as older editions where magic was something exceptional, in 5e magic is basically the substitute for physics.

 

[Aldarc]

The problem I have with "compromises" like this is that one side still gets 100% of what they want while the other side has to accommodate.
That's not a great example of compromise.

You're right. Compromises should be made, but not at the expense of compromising the integrity of the warlord's core concepts by threatening to revoke support and depriving others of the Warlord class unless concessions are made. That's not compromise. That's a hostage situation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see the point in earmarking something as "non-magical" when the rulebook explicitly states that everything in the world; the trees, people, even rocks and air, are infused with magic.

5e isn't the same as older editions where magic was something exceptional, in 5e magic is basically the substitute for physics.

That's one way of thinking of it, and not a bad one. In that case, the Warlord would simply be a non-spell-caster, rather than 'non-magical,' and could be given all it's usual hp-restoration abilities all 54 of 'em, I think it was, with no problems.

("Non-Magical" becomes an oxymoron - though, what anti-Magic Shell is all about might become an issue... or at least something pedantic wizard school dropouts lecture you about... "it's called an anti-magic shell, you see, but it's really more properly an Anti-Spelll Shell, the wizard that created it probably just didn't like how that sounded, I mean, you try saying that 5-times-fast...." - you've got to imagine a Thurston Howell III voice, there.)

 

[Remathilis]

That's one way of thinking of it, and not a bad one. In that case, the Warlord would simply be a non-spell-caster, rather than 'non-magical,' and could be given all it's usual hp-restoration abilities all 54 of 'em, I think it was, with no problems.

That's basically where I was going; a warlord is tapping into something beyond normal human range to do something equally extraordinary.

Take a simple example. You have two PCs: Bob the Warlord and Tim the Rogue. Neither are spellcasters. Both have the same Charisma (17) and both are proficient in Persuasion, Performance, Intimidate, and Deception (All the Cha skills). For final measure, lets make them both 5th level.

Bob can rouse someone from near-death using only his words. Tim cannot. Why? They equally good orators, equally charismatic, and equally skilled and experienced. Well, if Bob's words tap into the latent magic that pervades the world and Tim's don't, that explains it. Bob spent a lot of time honing that ability and being able to tap into that latent magic (like a barbarian taps into the latent power of rage, or a bard into the latent power of music). In the end, it creates the effect of allowing healing, but it adds that one crucial element that says "Bob's words have something that restores your vigor, Tim's words do not."

 

[JohnLynch]

The funny part is (And I am a HUGE warlord fan) I would totally be behind a warlord class that had a sub class like eldritch knight or arcane trickster... but I also want an inspireing and a tactical subclass

I'd heartily recommend EN5ider's noble class. It doesn't have a magical version, but it does have subclasses that allow all of the traditional archetypes. I'm thinking of playing a Drow Noble with the lazy lord archetype.

 

[Jester David]

You have to take into account that this would not be a compromise between wanting an optional, balanced, faithful rendition of the Warlord on one side, and wanting the Warlord erased from D&D for all time on the other, but rather a compromise between two equally unreasonable extremes.

The issue is between warlord and no warlord. So the question is "what are you willing to give up to get a warlord?"
If the answer is "nothing" then that's an issue.

Every class had some give-and-take when being updated. Not every class was 100% converted identical to before. (My favourite character in 3e was a conjurer that specialised in summoning). If there is no room for adjusting or revising a class, it becomes easier to just not upgrade then deal with what is essentially an ultimnatum.