D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Tell that to one of the most famous of all warlords in history, Genghis Khan...

 

[JediGamemaster]

Tell that to one of the most famous of all warlords in history, Genghis Khan...

yup... a warlord is a bad guy leading a bunch of horse lords is a much better use of the name

 

[Aldarc]

Tell that to one of the most famous of all warlords in history, Genghis Khan...

I suppose 'cavalier' could be a decent sub-class for a warlord then.

yup... a warlord is a bad guy leading a bunch of horse lords is a much better use of the name

And rogues and barbarians are uncouth, unlawful ruffians who defy the good and common decency of lawful, civilized society.

 

[Pauln6]

Best not get started on the historical definitions of bards and druids either...

 

[jayoungr]

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

Without being as snarky about it as ZickZak, I must say that post #153 sounded like that (i.e., like non-magical healing was the only thing missing from the existing warlord substitutes for you) to me as well. Could you expand on post 153 and tell us what other parts of the warlord concept are missing or inadequate, in your view?

 

[Bawylie]

Non-magical HP Recovery is NOT healing. It's just HP recovery.

HP is a number representing a number of factors. If I have a container full of water, and I lose half the water, I can still refill it with stuff that isn't water. Inspirational HP recovery does NOT undo the loss of water, it just puts something else in the container.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It doesn't weigh /against/ it, the two are in perfect accord. A good 5e version of the Warlord /will/ help combat the appearance that 5e is actively excluding 4e fans, bringing more of them back to the game, /and/ it will see use by those fans, by existing 4e fans already playing the game, and by new fans, and by other current fans who haven't been unalterably prejudiced against it by the edition wars.

The other important point is that the class should be designed for those fans who will, in fact, use it. Not to somehow appease those who won't.

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?

You don't know that it's all that 'niche' - there is a real danger that a well-done Warlord could bring people currently opposed to it around. In any case, as in any table that has mixed opinions about something, mutual respect will have to prevail - something that's apparently much easier in person than on-line.

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?

There are 5 or 6 magical support classes already, there are non-magical support classes, and one extremely poor support archetype that's non-magical. There is no need for another magical support class. There is a need for the non-magical Warlord.

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.

Every extant game element that doesn't have a specific alternative module in the DMG is already in the category of "don't like it, ban it.'

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.

The concept of the warlord, and it's past implementations have all been magical. It would be starkly contrary the 5e's design philosphies to do a 180 from that. The disadvantage of a very ambigous presentation is that it undermines the concept of the class and breaks with it's past appearances, effectively destroying it. You lose fans who actually want the class, in the hopes of bringing in a few who specifically want a magical warlord.

But it seems implausible that anyone really wants to play a magical Warlord - they'd just play a Valor Bard.

OTHO, a compromise that wouldn't sabotage the concept, but still allow anyone genuinely troubled only by a few features functioning 'mundanely' would be to stay true the class, but offer an alternate interpretation: A side bar that opens the door to some characters /believing/ that the Warlord's abilities are magical would be a 'compromise' that wouldn't unduly damage the class, but removes the objections that it's abilities are too much for a 'mundane' character.

Something like:

Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree, there is something greater than them that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.

How is this different from a nominally neutral 'maybe warlords or magical or maybe not: you decide?' Well, for one thing, it still supports the class concept. For another, it has complete deniability. If one player decides his Warlord is the son of the God of War, and another says he's just like anyone else, there's no way for one to 'prove' he's right. OTOH, if with the maybe-magical language, the DM is essentially encouraged to rule one way or another, and change the mechanics to suit, undercutting the class concept.

Leaving open /beliefs/ about the class, means two players with different opinions about the class /can/ play at the same table, without necessarily wrecking the game for eachother. (Really, they should just have the mutual respect to do so without needing a side-bar in the class description, but, hey, if it helps, it's probably less than a column-inch, well worth it.) Presenting them with a binary option invites repeating the arguments we have here at the table, and, once the decision is made (probably a DM ruling), leaves one of them disappointed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

So it's an academic game-design philosophy issue. That I really can say I 'get' without irony. But, while it's a valid concern, it's not a meaningful objection to the class existing, there are already many mechanics like that.

5e gives the DM tools to overrule those mechanics when he feels it's worth it, and there are also matters of degree. An intimidate check can be used to set a common baseline for how intimidating an NPC is, without it necessarily dictating player reactions, for instance. Though a DM might consider RPing being 'realistically' (in his view) intimidated to be 'good RP' and give you (no irony intended) Inspiration. A DM might also rule that you must abide by the results of a check.

The 5e DM prettymuch always has the ball in his court.

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).

And, the game has at times explicitly given you that option (I can't recall, atm, if 5e is one of them, it's probably a DM call). Thing is, the Warlord's abilities in 4e were generally phrased in such a way that the player of the ally was never forced to surrender his agency. Inspiring Word allowed an ally to spend a surge. He could decide he had better things to do with that surge later, and not spend it. Commander's Strike (after probably the biggest internet nerdstorm among 4e fans over rather it had an implied range or not, and a round or two of errata) required a free action from the target, making it voluntary (among clearing up a number of other problems, like being able to use it on a stunned enemy!).

A 5e Warlord would presumably also be voluntary - even if they weren't you could opt out of being an ally, passive-aggressive as that might seem. So the Warlord says/does something to inspire you, and you still have the agency to decide whether he did or not. There's certainly a 'carrot' to respecting his character concept and deciding to be inspired, but there's no stick. The DM could even grant you Inspiration for rejecting it, if it's in keeping with your character's personality traits, di

So it's a valid concern, but it's not a serious objection. Such mechanics already exist and can be handled. The Warlord could certainly be designed to avoid them being arbitrary so player agency of allies is preserved, and I would readily agree that would be the better design, and give strong feedback to any playtest ability that forced an action or benefit modeling a change in state of mind, rather than granting one at the option of the subject.

But I hope you'll consider, going forward, voicing this concern as a concern, not an objection, and addressing it as a way of making the Warlord a better, more playable class.

 

[El Mahdi]

Without being as snarky about it as ZickZak, I must say that post #153 sounded like that (i.e., like non-magical healing was the only thing missing from the existing warlord substitutes for you) to me as well. Could you expand on post 153 and tell us what other parts of the warlord concept are missing or inadequate, in your view?

Do you mean this post?

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.

If so, could you please point out where I implied "non-magical"?

"a source of real physical recovery through Inspiration" doesn't. Whether one wants to view it as magical or non-magical has no bearing on inspiration being the initiator. One can view it any way one wants, and I didn't define how one should view it...

"There is no way to restore real Hit Points in 5E through an Inspiration mechanic." is pointing out how the only inspiration mechanic in the game provides temporary hit points, not real hit points - and also doesn't define magical or non-magical.

Even considering the parts I quoted above, I don't see anything in that post that could be construed as strictly magical or non-magical unless one wants to see the implication present there. It's vague enough that it can be viewed either way, which is the point of what I've said from the beginning of this thread: No compromise is necessary as it can already be viewed as magical or non-magical without changing a single word or mechanic.

I have, at times, expressed that part of the purpose of a Warlord is to enable the running of a non-magic campaign; but that is only because most other sources of healing in 5E are explicitly magical. However, my previously saying this doesn't change the fact that nothing in either the 4E description of the class, any description or mechanics in the 5E Battlemaster and Valor Bard, or anything in the ideas I presented in the Warlording the Fighter thread limit someone from viewing it as magic if they want to.

 

[El Mahdi]

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

No. The insulting rudeness that's been presented leaves me disinclined to do so. They are easy enough to find if one looks, and one is honestly interested in knowing.

End of Conversation.