D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[Jester David]

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."

But what if Tim is a bard? A class where inspiring people is literally their one unique thing?

 

[Remathilis]

But what if Tim is a bard? A class where inspiring people is literally their one unique thing?

Tim the Bard is using his latent power to power his spells, such as Healing Word. A warlord draws on the power of words for ONE exact thing, a bard calls on the power of words for EVERYTHING he does.

Basically, a bard uses the power to fuel multiple different effects, a warlord uses a fraction of that power for one single effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue is between warlord and no warlord. So the question is "what are you willing to give up to get a warlord?"

The obvious compromise between those two absolute positions is "Optional Warlord."

The Warlord isn't in the PH. That, alone, is a huge compromise on the pro-Warlord side, it's virtually all the way over to the obvious compromise of simply being Optional - everything it should be, but DMs must opt-into it.
I'll concede having it errata'd into the PH, where, by rights, it belongs. I will not concede it become a Core class, though, not until I see some real concessions on your side.

I've also already waited over a year for it. That's pretty significant.

All the concessions have been on one side. And they've been major.


What concession are you willing to make? Keeping in mind, you've never had to make any, before, so you have a /lot/ of ground to cover.

 

[Jester David]

Tim the Bard is using his latent power to power his spells, such as Healing Word. A warlord draws on the power of words for ONE exact thing, a bard calls on the power of words for EVERYTHING he does.

Basically, a bard uses the power to fuel multiple different effects, a warlord uses a fraction of that power for one single effect.

That sounds more like the 3e healer, a class focused primarily healing, more than the warlord, a character designed to be a front line warrior that makes their allies better.

 

[JediGamemaster]

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.

the problem is there already was a compromise... a battlemaster fighter with that inspire feat already is a comprmise that no one is happy with, now the pro warlord people want MORE

 

[Remathilis]

That sounds more like the 3e healer, a class focused primarily healing, more than the warlord, a character designed to be a front line warrior that makes their allies better.

I'mt trying to find a way to rationale shouting people back to full from 0 hp. The options are either that the shouting is quasi-magical or that the warlord has strict restrictions (uses HD, can't be used on unconscious targets, must share a language, etc).

 

[Aldarc]

the problem is there already was a compromise... a battlemaster fighter with that inspire feat already is a comprmise that no one is happy with, now the pro warlord people want MORE

It's hardly a compromise when there is a lack of mutual agreement. It's about like being served refuse table scraps and told that it's a full course dinner. And when we say that it's not, we get accused never being satisfied and eternally ungrateful.

 

[JediGamemaster]

It's hardly a compromise when there is a lack of mutual agreement. It's about like being served refuse table scraps and told that it's a full course dinner. And when we say that it's not, we get accused never being satisfied and eternally ungrateful.

the comprmise was group A wanted fighters to just be normal warriors, group B wanted extraordinary abilities with cool downs, group A wanted NO INPSERATION HP, group B wanted inperation HP... it is just enough that no one is happy...

 

[Tony Vargas]

the problem is there already was a compromise... a battlemaster fighter with that inspire feat already is a comprmise that no one is happy with, now the pro warlord people want MORE

The battlemaster is no more a Warlord than an Acane Trickster is a Wizard - if the arcane trickster could only ever learn 3 spells from the wizard list, and all three of them 1st level.

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

But that was along-side genuinely non-magical Champions/Battlemasters/Thieves/Assassins, not in a pervasively magical world where turnip-farming is magic.

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?

Tim's social skills are focused on being a great thief(or assassin, I suppose) - on talking his way into and out of places, talking people into going on second-story jobs with him, his class features all tend that way, to - sneak attack is the most he wants to do in combat. Bob's skills are just side-effects of his focus on helping his allies achieve victory, he talks people into facing danger unafraid, into enduring the horrors of war for a higher cause, and he fights along-side them bravely. When Bob says 'get in there and fight,' you know you're a part of a team who're gonna win this fight and all go home, or die trying, and you won't be left behind, when Tim says 'get in their and fight' you hear 'so I can get away.'

Not nearly the only explanation, but one possible one. I mean, you can have any two characters from different non-supernatural sub-classes, and they could have exactly the same skills and stats, but be unable to do the same things, because they're different sub-classes.

Joe & Irving could be a Fighter and a Rogue, both with identical stats, particularly CON, Athletics & Accrobatics and skills, but Joe could Second Wind and Irving couldn't, and Irving could run half-again as fast when sprinting in combat (bonus actions to Dash). Doesn't mean either of them use magic.

I'mt trying to find a way to rationale shouting people back to full from 0 hp.

Not something the Warlord was really able to do with an Inspiring Word, surges weren't /that/ big in 4e. Though, really, what's the big conceptual difference between inspiring allies to get up and fight, and to do so and get them to fight on longer?

A while back someone brought up a RL example where an officer 'shouted' a wounded man out of a coma. I don't think a whole lot of intensive rationalization is called for. D&D characters, even the completely non-supernatural ones, go around fighting dragons and resisting spells and not dying from things that should kill them ten times over. They're exceptional.

The options are either that the shouting is quasi-magical or that the warlord has strict restrictions (uses HD, can't be used on unconscious targets, must share a language, etc).

Those are not options, they are rationalizations for stonewalling the class, undermining either it's concept or it's viability/playability or both.

I'll give you some actual options:

The Warlord works in a way true to it's concept and past execution. Don't like it, don't play it, ban it, house-rule it until you do.
The Warlord works in a way true to it's concept and past execution. But, side-bar fluff text opens up the possibility that some people may believe it's actually magical on some level, and doesn't explicitly say they're wrong.
The Warlord works in a way true to it's concept and past execution, but it's part of the advanced game and not legal for AL play. Don't like it, don't opt into it.
Mike Mearls tweets that 5e simply isn't for fans of 4e, and gives them an address where they can send all their 5e products for a full refund.

 

[JediGamemaster]

The obvious compromise between those two absolute positions is "Optional Warlord."

The Warlord isn't in the PH. That, alone, is a huge compromise on the pro-Warlord side, it's virtually all the way over to the obvious compromise of simply being Optional - everything it should be, but DMs must opt-into it.
I'll concede having it errata'd into the PH, where, by rights, it belongs. I will not concede it become a Core class, though, not until I see some real concessions on your side.

I've also already waited over a year for it. That's pretty significant.

All the concessions have been on one side. And they've been major.


What concession are you willing to make? Keeping in mind, you've never had to make any, before, so you have a /lot/ of ground to cover.

second wind, hit dice, healing over night, short rests, and battle master fighter are all comprmises... so is the inspired leadership feat... your turn