D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[mellored]

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.

I personal would be ok with "everything in the world is magic".

 

[El Mahdi]

A 5e warlord cannot rely on the 4e definitions of abilities to define it. It must find an identity somewhere inside 5e's paradigm. It can't demand Inspiring Word to work as it did in 4e anymore than a Fighter can demand Combat Superiority, or a Ranger Hunter's Quarry.

I partly agree. Yes, a 5E Warlord can't be constrained by 4E definitions and mechanics, but it must fulfill the concept. I believe fulfilling that concept can be done within 5E's paradigm, but it is one reason for the difficulty I've found in crafting a 5E version. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. The Warlord concept, devoid of mechanics, is: a Leader/Ally-Support, a Strategist/Tactician, and a source of real physical recovery through Inspiration - a facilitator of party synergy.

Neither the Valor Bard or the Battle Master - or even a multi-class combination of the two - fulfill that concept. There is no way to restore real Hit Points in 5E through an Inspiration mechanic. That desire is not about adherence to 4E definitions, it's about adherence to the Warlord concept. This is a desire to model/play/explore a legitimate fictional trope and leader concept that 5E currently cannot do. You can make something Warlord-esque, but not something that fully fulfills the Warlord concept.

To do so requires either re-addressing the Battle Master and Valor Bard, developing Warlord Archetypes for each individual class, expanding Feat options, or developing and including a stand-alone Warlord class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To do so requires either re-addressing the Battle Master and Valor Bard, developing Warlord Archetypes for each individual class, expanding Feat options, or developing and including a stand-alone Warlord class.

I take issue with the 'or.' 5e contains many ways of coming at a given concept. A 'Holy Warrior' could be a Cleric (maybe with the Soldier background), a Paladin, religious-fanatic Assassin, a Fighter/Cleric in various proportions, or a Fighter with the Acolyte background, or even a pious Noble Fighter who believes in "Divine Right" but hasn't a single divine power - and that's not even exhaustive. The presence of all those other options doesn't obviate the Cleric. The presence of all those options doesn't rule out new archetypes, like a Templar Fighter or Avenger Rogue, nor PrCs like a Knight of Bahamut, or Black Flame Zealot.

 

[ZickZak]

To do so requires either re-addressing the Battle Master and Valor Bard, developing Warlord Archetypes for each individual class, expanding Feat options, or developing and including a stand-alone Warlord class.

So you want what you have but non-magical?

 

[Aldarc]

MOVED from Rogue:Mastermind thread:

To be fair, that is exactly what we have been going over for the past few pages. I suggested a 12th level build that encapsulates what people want (admittedly with a little extra, but that extra actually goes to accomplishing the what I want to be able to do as a warlord type character) and the near immediate answers were basically 'I want to be able to do all those things at level 3', and 'I want to be able to do all of those things like that but a little weaker at level 3' (granting attacks and advantage to attacks don't have weaker incarnations within the design scope of this edition).

Would you agree that a class constructs a package of abilities in a way that typically better provides you with a smoother progression and sense of character/archetype growth? Would you agree that multiclassing a lot of classes tends to slow down a lot of progression (e.g., ability modifiers, feats, etc.). Not snarky. Just want to make sure we agree on some basic viewpoints.

How about this: Tell me what the warlord should be able to do. Itemized and in black-and-white. Break it down. I'll let you know when you've hit the "warlord fans want everything" benchmark.

Keep in mind that this is my own sense for the warlord. I have not attempted to construct a homebrew warlord for 5e. It's really just brainstorming at this point. Some of this may even be moved to particular sub-classes of the warlord.

IMHO, the battle master is akin to the warlock. It has a limited list of known maneuvers and a resource that it can expend X times between rests, and it's effectively 'cast' at maximum potency. Preferably, the warlord would go more the direction of the wizard or cleric in terms of superiority dice and maneuvers: possibly different tiers of superiority dice and maneuvers with ranging costs and limitations. And while the BM picks maneuvers that they know, the warlord could prepare maneuvers every day from a list, almost like a quarterback preparing plays and initial gameplans. And this would certainly further distinguish the BM from the warlord. This would likely put the superiority dice on a "per day" model as opposed to the BM's "between rests" model. Here is where I would definitely say that testing would need to be done, since spells can be resisted or stripped via anti-magic, so the warlord's 'non-magical' maneuvers would have to be balanced with that consideration in mind.

Some seem to think that the core warlord should get extra attack as per core. I would err on the conservative side before playtesting here by initially reserving "extra attack" for one of the warlord sub-classes, perhaps the sort of basic sub-class (e.g. rogue:thief, cleric:life domain, fighter:champion, etc.). In terms of weapon and armor proficiency, possibly restrict it to just light armor proficiency but with martial weapon training and maybe shields. Again, sub-classes could add further armor training. So a hypothetical 'lazylord' - not my thing but whatever - could be an arcane-magic warlord sub-class (the herald), and it would only have light armor proficiency.

You see the battle master as 5e's answer to the 4e warlord, but when I read the battle master's abilities, I see it as being 5e's answer to the 3e expertise-feat branch fighter, and I would like to keep that as the battle master's schtick. I have said elsewhere that I prefer that most of the battle master's maneuvers to be unique to the battle master, but with the warlord expanding its own list of support-oriented maneuvers, with only minor overlap with the BM. (Aside: I would like to see other classes or sub-classes with maneuvers, since then WotC could develop maneuver lists similar to spell lists. Spell lists tend to get expanded more readily than martial abilities, apart from maybe feats. And maneuvers have the potential to be the martial answer to spells. After all, it's not as if the EK and AT dilute the flavor of the wizard because they all have spells.)

In terms of healing, I think that the warlord should have HP healing options among these maneuvers that are quasi-competitive with magic healers. Magic healers should still be preferred in most cases due to miraculous things like revive, raise dead, restoration, etc. I don't see the warlord as being as good of a healer as a cleric, druid, or bard. Some bare basics: a single-target touch, a single-target range, an AoE. The warlord may even provide their superiority dice as healing, but acting effectively as 'bonus HD,' which is an idea that gained some traction among pro-warlord and anti-warlord discussants working towards a compromise. Perhaps the warlord grants a party member a superiority dice for the explicit purpose of healing: i.e. the recipient can choose on their own gosh-darn terms when they want to feel inspired to draw upon their internal reserves. Essentially, using superiority dice to empower others with their own second winds. The HP healing could even come a bit slower than with the other classes. I would place the emphasis for the warlord then on damage mitigation. So for example, there could be a maneuver that provides someone within sight of the warlord with resistance against piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage: call it "Brace for Impact!" or something. And yes, there could be THP. It's just that there should be sufficient - and I well realize that's an ambiguously dangerous word - HP healing available to the warlord. Again, this is something that would need playtesting.

This is where I would start. "Help as a bonus action" is an idea that people have thrown around. I think it's a flavorful idea for a warlord that definitely brings a lot to the table, but it's not something I see as necessary or a deal breaker. It's more of a "if there's room for it" type thing. This sort of power could be replicated by maneuvers/superiority dice on a more limited resource.

Actually I've definitely seen complaints about bless. What is too strong at level three: being able to grant attacks that automatically have advantage and being able to do it from range with superiority dice. That while also being able to heal like a cleric, use bardic inspiration style dice to hand out hanging attack and defense bonuses for exactly when they would be useful. All while having the best armor and weapon proficiencies in the game and a mid range hit die and a heafty skill capability.

For the record, compare that to a third-level (valor) bard. At that point they gain 2nd-level spells - allowing them to heal like a cleric and an at-will cantrip that gives an opponent disadvantage - bardic inspiration (1d6), jack-of-all-trades, song of rest (1d6), expertise, martial weapons, shields, medium armor, and combat inspiration.

 

[Remathilis]

Help me out here, because I humbly admit that I don't entirely understand action economy design. If 5E has fewer actions, wouldn't that mean that granting extra ones to the PCs is actually a bigger deal than if it had a lot of them, because it's a bigger increase percentage-wise? That's how it looks to me at first glance, but maybe I'm missing something. (Serious question, no sarcasm intended.)

Exactly.

 

[Remathilis]

I partly agree. Yes, a 5E Warlord can't be constrained by 4E definitions and mechanics, but it must fulfill the concept. I believe fulfilling that concept can be done within 5E's paradigm, but it is one reason for the difficulty I've found in crafting a 5E version. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. The Warlord concept, devoid of mechanics, is: a Leader/Ally-Support, a Strategist/Tactician, and a source of real physical recovery through Inspiration - a facilitator of party synergy.

Get rid of those two words and I'm with you 100%.

To me, a warlord's main roles should be Support (making a PC better at something), Tactics (granting the PCs a one-time special use ability), and Inspiration (granting the PCs resiliency to fight on). A little Charisma skills on the side for the social pillar.

But as you notice, those roles and intentionally vague. More specifically, they don't need to be filled using the same mechanical notion 4e used; Inspiration (for example) could be seen as pure healing, as spending a HD, or as granting PCs a pool of temporary hp. Just because warlords healed real hp in 4e doesn't mean they must do the same in 5e: there are plenty of examples of things a class did in 4e (Combat Superiority, Divine Challenge, Hex, Hunter's Quarry) that don't do the same thing in 5e.

Neither the Valor Bard or the Battle Master - or even a multi-class combination of the two - fulfill that concept. There is no way to restore real Hit Points in 5E through an Inspiration mechanic. That desire is not about adherence to 4E definitions, it's about adherence to the Warlord concept. This is a desire to model/play/explore a legitimate fictional trope and leader concept that 5E currently cannot do. You can make something Warlord-esque, but not something that fully fulfills the Warlord concept.

Again, I don't think "restore real hp via Inspiration" = Warlord class. Its not something intrinsic to the leader archetype, it was only a feature of what a "leader" (as the role in 4e) should do. It has more to do with game design than fiction emulation, and much like how fighter's lost marking from 4e to 5e, I can see warlords losing "real healing" with no loss to the archetype.

To do so requires either re-addressing the Battle Master and Valor Bard, developing Warlord Archetypes for each individual class, expanding Feat options, or developing and including a stand-alone Warlord class.

A well designed version of any of those do not bother me. Well designed is the key.

 

[El Mahdi]

I take issue with the 'or.'...

That's cool. For design purposes though, I'm just trying to keep my mind open to different approaches. I'm doing that to try and keep the process itself above reproach (claims of bias), and to avoid making my own ideas paramount over others. I want to keep it informed by the collective feedback, not just my own ideas and biases. A stand-alone Warlord is the primary approach I'm working on, but I'm developing the others also for a fair comparison. Once the different approaches can be compared side-by-side, I think that it will either solidify that a stand-alone Warlord Class is the only real alternative, or maybe it will become apparent that one of the other approaches work better (not just a compromise - they have to objectively work better, not just make people feel better about it). I have faith that the process will result in the best possible Warlord for 5E.


BTW, I tried to send a pm reply, but I got back a message that you're out of storage space.

The part I was replying to didn't seem too personal, so I'll post it here (if you want me to delete it, I will):

I've been trying /not/ to come up with specific mechanical ideas, but with all the discussion, I'm stuck with some in my head, when you re-start the Warlording the Fighter thread, I'll probably feel the compulsion to share them...

If you want, go ahead and post them in the Warlording the Fighter thread now. Right now is the best time - while I'm still applying the feedback to the ideas I originally posted.* Plus, those that are following it will see your feedback - so if I just ignore your ideas I'm sure somebody will point it out. It will keep me accountable to everybody that's been part of the process, so I'm not creating only what I think the Warlord should be. Besides, I'm still hoping that WotC is giving some attention to the ideas generated there - maybe informing ideas at WotC for a Warlord... (not lobbying - just hoping)

Nobody really seems to be paying much attention to that thread at the moment, so I doubt you'll have to worry about defending your ideas to anybody right now. The next time I post in that thread will likely be when I've completed a working Beta (actually, Betas - working versions of a stand-alone class, a reworked Battle Master, a reworked Valor Bard, and a potential expansion of the Feat system with individual Feats for creating a Warlord out of any class). At that point, the only changes I'll likely make is to fine-tune based on feedback - avoiding large-scale change unless absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean others can't take what I or anybody else post and modify/re-address it - but so far it seems that most are unwilling to tackle that themselves.


*(BTW, the feedback has led to consolidation of some of those ideas, made clear that others should be under the maneuver system, and led to significant re-writing of others - plus, I've had to write some new ones based on feedback also; aspects that didn't get addressed with the ideas I originally posted - so now is the perfect time for any mechanics ideas you have.)

 

[El Mahdi]

So you want what you have but non-magical?

No.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's cool. For design purposes though, I'm just trying to keep my mind open to different approaches. I'm doing that to try and keep the process itself above reproach (claims of bias), and to avoid making my own ideas paramount over others. I want to keep it informed by the collective feedback, not just my own ideas and biases. A stand-alone Warlord is the primary approach I'm working on, but I'm developing the others also for a fair comparison. Once the different approaches can be compared side-by-side, I think that it will either solidify that a stand-alone Warlord Class is the only real alternative, or maybe it will become apparent that one of the other approaches work better (not just a compromise - they have to objectively work better, not just make people feel better about it). I have faith that the process will result in the best possible Warlord for 5E.

Faith is a wonderful thing. I have enough trouble clinging to a shred or two of forlorn hope. ;|

I like the idea of multiple paths to and degrees of realizing the concept. We already have ways to realize it to a very minor, tertiary-to-main-character-concept mechanically almost trivial degree. Ultimately, as the game gets more sophisticated & choice rich (or bloated, for the glass-half-empty set), full class, plus the existing lesser options, plus more focused, higher-Tier PC options would be ideal.

BTW, I tried to send a pm reply, but I got back a message that you're out of storage space.

The part I was replying to didn't seem too personal, so I'll post it here (if you want me to delete it, I will):

If you want, go ahead and post them in the Warlording the Fighter thread now. Right now is the best time - while I'm still applying the feedback to the ideas I originally posted.*

Should be working now, and yes the bit you quoted was find, and, well, I'll think about it...

So you want what you have but non-magical?

No.

5e already provides alternate ways to get at the same kind of contribution. For instance, if you want to contribute DPR, you can play a Paladin and magically Smite bad guys, a Ranger and magically Hunt your Quarry, a Warlock and Agonizingly Eldritch Bolt your foes to death - or, even, if you want to be really out there - a Champion or Battlemaster or Assassin and contribute your DPR in an explicitly non-magical way. If you want to contribute extraordinary skill in a few areas, you could play a magical Bard or a magical Arcane Trickster - or even a non-magical Thief.

It may come as a shock, but there are a handful of entirely non-magical sub-classes in D&D, and they can contribute meaningfully to the party in a couple of ways - out of the many that are viable in 5e. Expanding that is not at all unreasonable. Not only does it give players who want 'em more options, it opens up campaign tones, themes, and sub-genres that would otherwise require extensive re-tooling of the game. And, as long as any classes, sub-classes, feats and/or PrCs added to the game to open up non-magical alternatives are balanced & viable, it does so without taking away /anything/ from more traditional high-to-ubiquitous-magic D&D campaigns.

More non-magical forms of contribution to the party's success would mean that the game could support more styles of play. The game is already thick with alternative magical ways of making the same support (hp management, buffing, de-buffing, action management, &c), single-target-control, battlefield-control, exploration, tank, defense-of-others, utility, blasting and other contributions so there's no plausible, valid reason for denying the addition of some ways to make more types of contributions non-magically.

And, that would be in keeping with goals touted from the new edition's announcement not only as some noble, nice-to-have ideal, but as a justification for having a new edition, at all. At the time, there was this heavily-promoted theory that D&D excluded certain styles of play. Whatever styles it under-supported, a range of styles that indisputably /was/ supported seamlessly by 4e were all-martial parties and low-to-no-magic campaigns. 5e currently doesn't support those styles at all well. Adding the Warlord would be a big step in that direction.