D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay. Have fun with that, I guess. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

no one is taking any of this seriously anymore... we have all been dancing around with "I want them to make a warlord" "I don't want them to make a warlord" for a year now...

 

[Bawylie]

I've got a counter request:

If the 5e system has indicated, through multiple existing features, that inspirational healing is represented by granting THPs, why the need to work outside of the core paradigm of the game and demand real healing?

Personally I have no need of that.

Damage mitigation can come in many forms, apart from "recovering HP."

A reactive ability to reduce an amount of damage dealt is = restoring HP. Except in the case of zero.

And that just means we need something for zero HP.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If the warlord had a box of fluff like that in the beginning of its class description that said it was doing the same thing (or heavily implied it) there would be zero issue. The blind adherence that the warlord do a similar thing but non-magically, is where my hangup occurs. I mean, its already there: words have power, speech contains magic. Warlords are non-musical masters of the magic of words and speech! They rally armies with it! They lead nations with it! They move bitter enemies to tremble with fear and drive fear, fatigue, even the grip of death itself off their allies using that magic power hidden behind their words.

That sounds awesome! I would love something like that in D&D. It inspires so many cool ideas for characters (especially NPCs). Let's do it.

Too bad the hardliner, martial-non-magic-only pro-warlord crowd will never go for it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd be fine with that, as the bard description calls out the pseudo-mystical stuff in the class description...



If the warlord had a box of fluff like that in the beginning of its class description that said it was doing the same thing (or heavily implied it) there would be zero issue. The blind adherence that the warlord do a similar thing but non-magically, is where my hangup occurs. I mean, its already there: words have power, speech contains magic. Warlords are non-musical masters of the magic of words and speech! They rally armies with it! They lead nations with it! They move bitter enemies to tremble with fear and drive fear, fatigue, even the grip of death itself off their allies using that magic power hidden behind their words.

Give me that single compromise and you can design ANY healing system you want for the warlord.

sounds good to me... strong oraters (Kennedy, Hitler, Clinton, guy from idependence day, captain America, superman) all could work with

In the worlds of D&D, words are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The warlord is a master of speech, and has trained to use it to influence the very nature of the battlefield. They can inspire fear, coordination, and petty internet fights with but a word. Mastering both those words and tactics they lead form the front of most fights.

 

[Bawylie]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]

"Your words have the power to inspire and rally your allies and others... Creatures so inspired..."

By changing the wording of the effect to "willing recipients" or "creatures so inspired" you may decline the benefits if you wish. Nobody plays your emotional reaction for you.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd be fine with that, as the bard description calls out the pseudo-mystical stuff in the class description...

If the warlord had a box of fluff like that in the beginning of its class description that said it was doing the same thing (or heavily implied it) there would be zero issue. The blind adherence that the warlord do a similar thing but non-magically, is where my hangup occurs. I mean, its already there: words have power, speech contains magic. Warlords are non-musical masters of the magic of words and speech! They rally armies with it! They lead nations with it! They move bitter enemies to tremble with fear and drive fear, fatigue, even the grip of death itself off their allies using that magic power hidden behind their words.

Give me that single compromise and you can design ANY healing system you want for the warlord.

Done! Enough ambiguity for people who want it non-magical and enough for people who want to be magical! Progress! (Also, cool description. Maybe though "Warlords are the martial masters of the magic of words and speech!")

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Personally I have no need of that.

Damage mitigation can come in many forms, apart from "recovering HP."

A reactive ability to reduce an amount of damage dealt is = restoring HP. Except in the case of zero.

Agreed. Mostly. I was just addressing the demand for non-magical real healing and how it compares to what 5e has shown us as to how things work.

And that just means we need something for zero HP.

What if the warlord had a "usable-on-others" ability much like that half-orc racial feature? So as a reaction, mitigate an attack that would drop an ally to instead set them at 1? Or cuts the damage in half? Or something like that? Whatever.

 

[Bluenose]

Yes.

And I'll do so if you can explain to everyone's satisfaction how someone who has suffered a whole series of physical injuries so serious that they need magical healing to cure can still fight, move, and perform the whole range of physical tasks presented to them with the same competence they could before any of those serious physical injuries were inflicted.

That's an untrue premise. It doesn't require magical healing. Among a slew of options, the two most obvious: a short rest HD can restore it (non-magical). A single long rest restores all of it (also non-magical).

Now, as you claim to be able to, answer his question.

It doesn't look like he's answered the question to everyone's satisfaction. See [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], and for that matter the total absence of any attempt to explain the total lack of physical effects from physical injuries other than, "Whoops you're dying, but don't worry I have cleric-in-a-can to save you."

 

[El Mahdi]

No, its part of the /4e/ concept of a warlord. The 3e marshal didn't have healing.

Well, isn't that a clever little bit of circular logic and well camouflaged false authority and dogmatism. My compliments.

You've said before that the Warlord was really only a fleshed-out concept in 4E - so since the Warlord is only a 4E concept (according to you), and a 5E Warlord doesn't need to do anything that a 4E Warlord did (in your opinion) - then a 5E Warlord isn't necessary.

That was adroitly done; except that you're ignoring that the majority of feedback from Warlord fans here at ENWorld - both 4E fans and non-4E fans - shows that inspirational recovery of real hit points is a fundamental part of the concept to them.

So, No...just No. It's part of the concept of a Warlord that Warlord fans want, and that's all that should matter.

A Warlord class is not for those that don't want a Warlord, it's for those that do want a Warlord.

If the presence of a Warlord class cheeses someone off, then frankly that's their problem to deal with and not my concern.

I have no problem with a warlord rousing an ally rendered unconscious from battle using just 6-seconds worth of words from 10+ feet away IF that power was somehow "magical". Not a spell, but a supernatural power like a paladin's lay on hands or a bard's song of healing. If you will concede "nonmagical", I'll concede everything else.

I won't, because I won't limit the narrative that way. Nothing in the wording of inspirational recovery - whether in 4E, the 5E Battlemaster, or even in the ideas proposed in the Warlording the Fighter thread - explicitly state magical or non-magical.

That's the way it should remain.

And it seems to me you may be under the false impression that I'm engaging in some kind of negotiation. I'm not. I'll discuss it all you want; however, I will not concede anything of the concept. I'll explain, counter misconceptions, point out faulty logic, and generally try to win people over; but concede? Absolutely No.

Warlord fans do not need to concede anything of the concept just to make those who don't like Warlords feel more comfortable, and it certainly will not happen with the one we've been working on in the Warlording the Fighter thread.

If in the future WotC develops and presents a Warlord, but concedes to those who have issues with the Warlord, then they'll be doing exactly the thing they already did with the Battlemaster, and the very thing that initiated this current call for a real Warlord class.

That would be a mistake.

...a fighter can only use SW once per rest, since it draws on "a limited well of stamina", and since the warlord isn't giving them new stamina (via magic) but triggering them to draw on such a similar well, I'd argue the warlord could only use this ability on a target once per short rest each. Further, since the warlord is speaking words of encouragement, the recipient must be able to hear them and understand them. Therefore, the healing wouldn't work if the target was deafened or didn't share a language (the latter isn't a concern among PCs who share Common as a lingua franca).
Lastly, while Healing Word is a bonus action to cast, its 1/2 as effective as Cure Wounds (which is both touch and an action). A warlord's healing should be similar; a small amount quickly from afar or a larger amount slower from adjacent. And since neither scale automatically, neither should a warlords (though some mechanic, like dice or warlord points could be used to augment that healed.)

Essentially, a warlord's nonmagical healing becomes "trigger a second wind-like ability in a target, once per target per short rest, as long as they aren't unconscious and can hear and understand you" which works just fine for hp recovery. He's still limited as a full healer (since he can't get Lesser/Greater Restoration) but he's at least recovering free hp for the party like a cleric can.

Work for you?

I find it amazing every time someone proposes an idea like this. It highlights to me that people are discussing based on assumed premises rather than informed opinions of what we've been working on.

In other words, all that anyone needs to do to know what we're positing is to actually read it in the Warlording the Fighter thread.

I know you're aware of that thread, and the exact post where those ideas are presented - because I pointedly included a mention of you in it so you could peruse it. Not to mention that I've included links to it in numerous other threads since.

If you had read those ideas I don't think you'd be positing the idea you just did, as it's very similar to what we've already proposed and are working on...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] may have ended this year long fight...

That sounds awesome! I would love something like that in D&D. It inspires so many cool ideas for characters (especially NPCs). Let's do it.

Too bad the hardliner, martial-non-magic-only pro-warlord crowd will never go for it.

sounds good to me... strong oraters (Kennedy, Hitler, Clinton, guy from idependence day, captain America, superman) all could work with

Done! Enough ambiguity for people who want it non-magical and enough for people who want to be magical! Progress! (Also, cool description. Maybe though "Warlords are the martial masters of the magic of words and speech!")

is there anyone left who is going to poo poo this idea?