D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[Guest 6801328]

To be clear, I said 'player conflict.' That is a player conflict, yes. Two players have character concepts. One player thinks the other's will conflict with how he plans to RP his character. The players need to resolve that. Maybe you favor 'lone wolf' or 'alpha' concepts that you feel 'Inspiration' mechanics would risk consistently undermining? I'm sure there's ways around that which you could hammer out with any player who brought in such a character. Presumably, in more detail the longer the campaign's expected to go.

Ah, gotcha. Now I understand what you meant by conflict. But it's not that I'm worried about the conflict actually happening (even if I use some examples of that in my explanations). it's more just that your character, just by being present and using his abilities, injects claims about my character's thoughts and feelings into his make-up. That's what I object to.

To me it's exactly the same as what we're talking about in the thread on using social skills on PCs: it's fine to try to use an Intimidate roll on me, just don't tell me that I'm intimidated unless it's a magic spell that caused it (and thereby took away my player agency in the matter).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The core concept of the cavalier is either a) a noble, mounted knight fighting for honor or b) a long-haired poncy 17th-century English noble who wrote poetry that people are still forced to study to this day.

Both are too specific as name alternatives (though the mounted knight Cavalier was a whole class in 1e UA, and even ate the Paladin), and neither are as wholly inappropriate as one might wish....Like Sir Percy Blakeney or Don Diego de la Vega?

Who'd want to play someone like that?

You know, at first I thought you were referring to Sir Percy Percy, from Blackadder. Would be fun in a completely different way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, I can see how the "no implied relationship" thing makes it a little different, but I don't see how that changes the fundamental complaint. If "I decide how my character feels and thinks, not the game or anyone else playing it" is what is being said, then the criticism applies equally to both. If that's not what's being said--if it's actually "I decide how my character feels and thinks, unless I'm okay with the game doing that," then it's a far weaker complaint completely solved by, "Don't let people use it in games you run, and have an adult conversation with someone if they want to play it in a game you're joining." Which, as I had understood it, was supposed to be a HUGE selling point of 5e: every table does it differently, so nothing needs to be specially made, nothing HAS to work at absolutely every table always--the DM is specifically and intentionally there FOR that.

It does get solved by not using it. You can "fix" any problematic game element by not using it, and 5e is indeed quite accommodating of that fix. But then the question becomes one development value, and quickly escapes the realm of things that fans can talk intelligently about.

Is it important to WotC to develop classes that will see actual use? If so, how does that goal weigh against the goal to get 4e warlord fans on the 5e boat? Is that a good use of development dollars/page count/the current 5e fans it will irk? Exactly how niche are we willing to make this class? What if someone is in that niche but is at a table of people who aren't? Is a narrative that might be magical something that eradicates more objections, so that the class sees broader use? Is that worth turning off some of the more hardcore 4e fans and some of the more hardcore warlord haters?

The entire idea of a "not-necessarily-magical" compromise is predicated on the idea that a more broadly acceptable class is a worthwhile goal that is not necessarily impossible. You can, of course, decide that it's not actually that worthwhile of a goal and say, "don't like it? BAN IT." I don't know if WotC would follow suit on that or not. I suspect not, but it's not something anyone has real data on except maybe WotC themselves.

 

[jayoungr]

Cavalier' could potentially work as a name and be combined with the 'warlord' if the core concept of the cavalier was divorced from being mounted.

Considering that the word cavalier literally means "one who rides a horse," a non-mounted cavalier would be an oxymoron.

 

[Aldarc]

is this a joke... of course it's magic.

Not in 3rd edition, at least. "Frightful Presence" is listed as an Extraordinary ability, as is their Blind Sense and Spell Resistance.

To me it's exactly the same as what we're talking about in the thread on using social skills on PCs: it's fine to try to use an Intimidate roll on me, just don't tell me that I'm intimidated unless it's a magic spell that caused it (and thereby took away my player agency in the matter).

Then you may be in the minority in that regard, in terms of how player-to-player social skills most frequently see play at the table.

By the way, Elfcrusher, I'm still waiting for you to actually bother re-fluffing a warlord description that is acceptable to you. It's getting tiring when you do nothing but repeat this argument over and over while doing little to attempt "fixing" it apart from wanting to make it magic. I provided a description. You voiced objections. I made corrections and suggested that you edit it with your "quibbles of fluff" in mind. Please. I want this conversation to move forward.

Considering that the word cavalier literally means "one who rides a horse," a non-mounted cavalier would be an oxymoron.

They have to get off the horse at some point.

 

[ZickZak]

No.

Well then I misunderstand you.
You say you can create everything except Inspirational Healing, which is healing that is non-magical. Most of the players think Warlord is buildable and we even have one in our party and she played warlord since 4e war released. She is very happy about it and says it is much more customizable and more out-of-combat fun than 4e was.
By that logic there will be some people satisfied, and some who are not happy about whatever.
No matter what is said in this thread however will have no impact on the future warlord.
These threads seem like you want blessing of the enworld to show your DM and be like "They said I ok!"

If you are the DM, homebrew. If you are a player, ask your DM to homebrew, or find a different one. Or be happy with what you have, just like many.
It all comes down to the fact that warlord is in 5e, scattered all over, even without HR. And if you decide to HR a bit it becomes so much more fun class than 4e one was.
---
Note: No particular order Warlord lvl 15 - Anything missing??

Warlord is Mighty - Chose a fighting style
Warlord is Amazing - Your PB is doubled for any ability you make that uses 4 skills you chose
Warlord is Awesome - Increase one ability by 2, or two ability by 1.
Warlord is Extraordinary - Restore up to 3d8 as an action (max 21d8 per day)
Warlord is Divine - Once per short rest restore 10 HP
Warlord is Tenacious - Once per short rest, regain 1d12 HP as a bonus action
Warlord is Helpful - You can use the Help as a bonus action within 30 feet of you.
Warlord is Inspiring - Creature can roll d8 and add the rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes
Warlord is Mighty - Once per short rest you can take one additional action and a bonus action
Warlord is Seeing - Once per turn, if you hit with advantage or have a friend next to your target, add 2d6 damage to the next damage your target takes
Warlord is Knowing - Warlord is Inspiring can now affect damage and AC
Warlord is Strong - Attack twice instead of once
Warlord is Courageous - As an action, everyone who can hear you gains adv. On charm and frightened saves
Warlord is Handsome - If you and any friendly creature who can see you regain hit points at the end of rest, regains an extra 1d6.
Warlord is Great - 3 Maneuvers, 4 superior dice per short rest

 

[Pauln6]

To me it's exactly the same as what we're talking about in the thread on using social skills on PCs: it's fine to try to use an Intimidate roll on me, just don't tell me that I'm intimidated unless it's a magic spell that caused it (and thereby took away my player agency in the matter).

Ha ha - yeah every DM has had trouble with players who simply refuse (or just don't have the mindset) to role play within the confines of the sandbox handed to them by their DM, just like some players play the same character personality regardless of race, sex, class, and alignment, and some players whose new characters mysteriously bear a grudge against other characters who had a hand in the demise of that player's previous character.

Of course, even in 1e saving throws were not confined solely to magical threats and some modules required e.g. a save vs petrification. It's so strange that some players can't translate that to skills, which can be saves by another name.

And of course we have the fact that in the real world we have non-magical inspirational healing from meditation, the placebo effect, and adrenalin (although most would view the latter as temporary hit points I suppose).

I can't throw stones from my glass house since I think a D&D group featuring a pixie, a goliath, a shardmind and a shifter would be an abomination to be exterminated in my game. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[El Mahdi]

'Cavalier' could potentially work as a name and be combined with the 'warlord' if the core concept of the cavalier was divorced from being mounted.

Considering that the word cavalier literally means "one who rides a horse," a non-mounted cavalier would be an oxymoron.

They have to get off the horse at some point.

Whether they "get off the horse at some point" or not, a Cavalier still needs to be an expert in mounted combat. Conversely, a Warlord does not need to be an expert in mounted combat in order to fulfill the concept.

The etymology of Cavalier is "Horseman" and cognate with "Cavalry" - it literally cannot be divorced from the concept.

 

[El Mahdi]

You say you can create everything except Inspirational Healing, which is healing that is non-magical.

I have not said that. I think you're either confusing me with someone else, or not fully comprehending what I've communicated.

Most of the players think Warlord is buildable and we even have one in our party and she played warlord since 4e war released.

One person is not most; and not all players are Warlord fans. Maybe your friend is - I can't possibly know - but of those here at ENWorld throughout the multiple Warlord threads, those that have identified themselves as Warlord fans, the majority of them do not believe a Warlord is buildable with 5E's rules as is.

As part of the project going on in the Warlording the fighter thread, I have been compiling all the feedback I can from across all of the recent Warlord threads. That feedback shows that Warlord fans here at ENWorld do not agree with the claim you just made.

Since those posts are open for anyone to read, you're quite able to read and compile them for yourself if you don't believe me. Other than that, when I'm done making the betas for the Warlording the Fighter thread, I will attach the compiled feedback.

No matter what is said in this thread however will have no impact on the future warlord.

Really? I didn't realize you were such an expert on internal WotC thinking or the RPG Industry in general that you can so confidently declare what will happen in the game's future.

I am truly impressed.

I'd love to hear your expert opinion - backed with facts of course - explaining all of this to us. I - and probably most everybody else reading these threads - would find it fascinating.

These threads seem like you want blessing of the enworld to show your DM and be like "They said I ok!"

First of all, I haven't started these threads. I have started exactly one thread. I have however, posted in many of these threads, but nowhere have I sought the blessing of anyone other than those who self-identify as Warlord Fans.

Second, I am almost exclusively a DM, not a player. I have been searching for someone to join our group that is both able and willing to DM also, so I can have the chance to play, but that hasn't happened yet. The last time I played in a group, as opposed to DM'd a group, was about 9 years ago (just before I retired from the Air Force).

Third and last, you have made it very clear that you are not a Warlord Fan. That's fine; but it also means that as concerns the Warlord, your opinion about it means next to nothing to me. That's not intended as an insult, it's just a statement of fact. As such, the only interest I have in discussing this topic with non-Warlord fans is to counter misconceptions/misunderstandings, point out faulty logic, and perhaps change a few minds along the way. That's it.

I am most certainly not seeking your Blessing, and it would be essentially meaningless to me even if you offered one.

If you are the DM, homebrew. If you are a player, ask your DM to homebrew, or find a different one. Or be happy with what you have, just like many.

Sorry to break this to you, but No. You do not possess the prerogative to tell Warlord fans what they should or should not do. If you have a problem with what Warlord fans want, that's simply tough. You have no more right to tell others what to do as others have the right to tell you what to do.

It all comes down to the fact that warlord is in 5e, scattered all over, even without HR. And if you decide to HR a bit it becomes so much more fun class than 4e one was.

Wow. I didn't realize that your opinions and preferences - your experiences - were so universal. Silly me. All this time I thought I had my own opinions and preferences, when what I should have been doing is asking you what I should and shouldn't care about.

I lament all those wasted years...

 

[ZickZak]

...

Yea that is like too long, I cant make myself read it really. Thanks for the effort though. I asked what is missing. Can you tell me That, or highlight if you already said so? Thx