D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]

[mellored]

The warlord was one of the biggest mistakes in D&D history. When they made 4e they took a look at the way kids where playing MMOs and tried to duplicate it. They designed a grid of class styles Tank DPR Leader controller across the top and martial arcane divine druidic and mental down the side and then had to fill out the grid so you had to have at least 1 martial tank 1 acrane tank 1 divine tank, 1 druid tank ect... when they got to control and lead for martial though there was no fair way to give them the same magic powers as the others... instead of say "well no need to fill the grid" they renamed a bunuch of other spells and said "But these aren't spells"

No.

Marshal existed in 3.5. It had moderate fighting abilities and had auras (extraordinary ability) that boosted allies. Called things like "Motivate Dexterity" or "Resilient troops". And it could grant movement actions.

The idea of non-magical support was not a 4e one. Though inspirational healing was.

 

[El Mahdi]

El Mahdi (above) expresses the core of the reason I detest the concept, far more eloquently than I have managed. Ironically, I think his intent was to defend it.

Uhm...No.

I see Hit Points as exactly what the PHB describes them as:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

That's also the viewpoint I've taken in describing Warlord inspirational hit point recovery.

As far as the narrative of Hit Point loss, that's up to each individual table/DM. However, any narrative that is inconsistent with the PHB definition can't help but cause some narrative dissonance when used.

The narrative provided by both the 4E Warlord and the inspiration recovery mechanics proposed for the 5E Warlord (in the Warlording the Fighter thread), are consistent with the PHB definition of Hit Points. I've found that dissonance with Warlord inspirational hit point recovery only occurs with those that hold a narrative inconsistent with the PHB definition of Hit Points.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Uhm...No.

I see Hit Points as exactly what the PHB describes them as:



That's also the viewpoint I've taken in describing Warlord inspirational hit point recovery.

As far as the narrative of Hit Point loss, that's up to each individual table/DM. However, any narrative that is inconsistent with the PHB definition can't help but cause some narrative dissonance when used.

The narrative provided by both the 4E Warlord and the inspiration recovery mechanics proposed for the 5E Warlord (in the Warlording the Fighter thread), are consistent with the PHB definition of Hit Points. I've found that dissonance with Warlord inspirational hit point recovery only occurs with those that hold a narrative inconsistent with the PHB definition of Hit Points.

Huh? I wasn't talking about hit points at all. As far as I'm concerned that's not even an issue with Warlords**. My objection is eloquently stated in how you described the Warlord: as an inspirational leader. In my own private Idaho leadership isn't a class, it's a role. A Leader class is just as bad of an idea as a "Lover" class who all the other PCs lust after. Or a "Bro" class who derives his powers from a sense of brothership with his companions. Those are all great things to roleplay, but they don't belong in the mechanics.

Is there some idea floating around the Warlord community that all you have to do is convince people that hit points aren't meat, and suddenly all the objections will vanish? I suppose that might satisfy some people, but I don't think that's the sticking point at all.

**The one caveat is that I've yet to hear of an "inspirational healing" mechanic that didn't carry the connotation of "your player looks up to my player". That's my only objection to it. Second Wind, for example, is fine.

 

[Andor]

I'll just point out that you pretty much dismissed the first viewpoint by describing how it relates to somebody being "impossibly" tough, so I imagine those on that side of the debate would take a bit of offense. You could have at least balanced it by describing some of the paradoxes introduced by martial healing of non-meat HP.

Good. Since that's the side I'm mostly on, I'm glad I didn't show favoritism. When I said "impossibly" I meant in terms of real world toughness. Lava swimming, long falls onto rock, etc. Personally my favorite definition of HP comes, ironically, a non-level based game where they are defined as the souls (learned and practiced) skill at holding on to the body, past the point where nature says game over. In that world nobody expects an experienced warrior to die just because you shot him in the eye and stabbed him through the heart. To me that frankly makes more sense then trying to define a "hit" as a near miss that depleted your luck reserves. If so how do I know I could use a cure light wounds? Why does a healers kit also work? Too many awkward questions for my taste. But I was trying to fairly represent both arguments and how they play into the 4e and warlord debates.

As far as the warlord goes.... I never got much of a chance to play 4e so I have little practical experience with them, and I fail to grok the insistence on the "Martial Power Source", given that 5e junks the concept of power sources. However we've seen what happens when D&D makes an edition level call on badwrongfun, and it sucked. If WotC makes a warlord class, I will not complain, unless of course it's a mechanical pile of crap. I'd rather have a player at my table who is happy with a class I dislike, then unhappy with a class I love. Besides, if I'm the GM, I can always refluff.

 

[Andor]

No.

Marshal existed in 3.5. It had moderate fighting abilities and had auras (extraordinary ability) that boosted allies. Called things like "Motivate Dexterity" or "Resilient troops". And it could grant movement actions.

The idea of non-magical support was not a 4e one. Though inspirational healing was.

Also the White Raven and Devoted Spirit schools from the Book of 9 Swords. Devoted Spirit has inspirational "healing through pugilation." If I wanted to make a "Warlord" in 3.5 I'd probably start with a Crusader, rather than a Marshall. Dragon Shamans also played a strong support role with their auras. There was a lot of dabbling at the end of 3.5 that led into what became the 4e Warlord.

 

[MoonSong]

I'll just point out that you pretty much dismissed the first viewpoint by describing how it relates to somebody being "impossibly" tough, so I imagine those on that side of the debate would take a bit of offense. You could have at least balanced it by describing some of the paradoxes introduced by martial healing of non-meat HP.

But beyond that, it's only one facet of the Warlord dispute. I only ever see a few people bringing that debate into it. Personally I don't have a horse in the HP-as-meat race; I guess I come down on the side of "it's probably a mix of both, if I ever stopped to care". Yet I truly loathe the Warlord concept.

El Mahdi (above) expresses the core of the reason I detest the concept, far more eloquently than I have managed. Ironically, I think his intent was to defend it.

It is funny, I'm firmly in HP as meat, but I don't mind and actively want a warlord.

Huh? I wasn't talking about hit points at all. As far as I'm concerned that's not even an issue with Warlords**. My objection is eloquently stated in how you described the Warlord: as an inspirational leader. In my own private Idaho leadership isn't a class, it's a role. A Leader class is just as bad of an idea as a "Lover" class who all the other PCs lust after. Or a "Bro" class who derives his powers from a sense of brothership with his companions. Those are all great things to roleplay, but they don't belong in the mechanics.

Is there some idea floating around the Warlord community that all you have to do is convince people that hit points aren't meat, and suddenly all the objections will vanish? I suppose that might satisfy some people, but I don't think that's the sticking point at all.

**The one caveat is that I've yet to hear of an "inspirational healing" mechanic that didn't carry the connotation of "your player looks up to my player". That's my only objection to it. Second Wind, for example, is fine.

Inspiration can come in many flavors, a child can inspire her parents, an admirer can inspire her idol, a rival can also inspire, friends can be inspiring, actually a lot of cases of someone inspiring someone else don't involve admiration

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll just point out that you pretty much dismissed the first viewpoint by describing how it relates to somebody being "impossibly" tough, so I imagine those on that side of the debate would take a bit of offense.

They might, but it would be unjustified. All-meat is an extreme concept of hps, back in the day, it was only expressed in the sense of mocking D&D for being so 'un-realistic,' no one used it without resorting to some supernatural rationalization, like pools of life force on the positive material plane (no really), or leveling up making your flesh denser until, at high level, you were practically a Marvel-Comics Asgardian.

You could have at least balanced it by describing some of the paradoxes introduced by martial healing of non-meat HP.

Those can be contrived fairly easily, you just have to read more into the hp system than is actually there, and ignore some of the contrary implications. For instance, if you assume that being dropped to 0 /must/ indicate a mortal wound that can only be healed with medical treatment and time or waved away by magic, you can get the restoration of hps without literally healing the wound to look a little odd. However, to make that assumption, you must ignore death saves, which allow a character to get back up after being 'mortally wounded,' and act normally, unimpaired by the wound, and to re-gain all those lost hps from that mortal wound after a mere 1hr rest, or, at worst, a night's sleep. If you don't ignore those bits of 5e, then either wounds heal with supernatural rapidity in D&D, or 'non meat' hp restoration can restore all the hps lost to wounds.

But beyond that, it's only one facet of the Warlord dispute. I only ever see a few people bringing that debate into it.

It's really the biggest one. It started during the edition war to attack overnight healing, healing surges, and Second Wind - and thus 4e in general. It's still being used to attack the Warlord, even though HD, functionally similar to surges, and overnight healing are already pat of the game.

Yet I truly loathe the Warlord concept.

El Mahdi (above) expresses the core of the reason I detest the concept, far more eloquently than I have managed. Ironically, I think his intent was to defend it.

Yeah, he put literal 'Leadership' right at the top and harped on it. Warlords can lead other PCs in a litteral sense, in combat, it's one way of narrating their abilities, though not the only one. But, like all "Leader" Role classes in 4e, they were not automatically party leaders, just because of the name of their formal Role in contributing to the party - which was a support role, including managing hps, buffing, and the like.

I'm surprised you're still stuck on that misinterpretation, though. I thought we covered it well enough in prior threads, including going over a whole range of non-party-leader warlord concepts.

Or, did you move on from that to the whole objection to PC abilities affecting the 'emotional states' of other PCs. Because, I thought we pretty thoroughly addressed that one, too. For instance, that such abilities generally contained language that they only affected allies, and could in essence, be declined by the ally, if desired by simply not availing themselves of the effect. So there's no 'loss of agency' because a Warlord tried to 'inspire' your character - if you decided he's not inspired, your decision stands.

Of course, your character may not stand very long without those benefits, but, as whenever a PC RPs a trait or flaw in a way that's detrimental to him, the DM might well - and ironically - award you Inspiration for good RP.

So, I'm surprised you're still stuck 'detesting' the concept, rather than being concerned about the implementation.

 

[Umbran]

as for why I don't want to make it fit in 5e, that's simple, I find it silly.

So, you should now realize this means you admit that your position amounts to, "I don't like it, so *nobody* should have it."

Now, consider the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. How should that apply in this situation? What should be the right action for you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Part of the problem is that HP are not, and never have been a wound or injury tracking mechanism. When you get hit by a sword for 5 points of damage, you don't know where you were hit. You don't know if it was a cut or a bruise (strike failed to penetrate armour or you were struck with the flat of the blade.) And it doesn't matter. A hit in the leg doesn't slow down your movement. A hit in the arm doesn't reduce your manual skills. So for most of the history of D&D GMs have been free to narrate whatever special effects they wanted for combat, which copious stabbings, cuttings, and brutal bludgeonings. Other systems try to model wounds more directly, but in practice this leads to something called a death spiral where each injury dealt impairs the injured fighter so that he becomes less and less effective, until you are as useless as a screen door on a submarine, but have to keep playing because it's technically not over yet. So in practice HP are the worst mechanism for tracking damage in an RPG, except for all the other systems that have been tried from time to time. <- Apologies to Winston Churchill

This part of your post is spot-on. There's an ridiculous disagreement over what hps mean, even though they don't actually mean anything specific.

So, the exact meaning of HP has never actually been exact, but in spite of this there are always corner cases where it must be acknowledged that actual, possibly horrific damage has been incurred but that the character is still functional. (E.G. Lava. Long falls onto sharp rocks. Weapons with venom.)

Not really. You can draw that line where you like. Lava? you landed on a rock floating the lava. Long fall onto sharp rocks? You caught a branch on the way down, slowed your fall, and landed between the rocks. Envenomed weapons - the 1979 DMG addressed that one directly: on a successful poison save, the loss of hps didn't result in an actual wound, so no venom, no effect (Save: negates).

Hit points were always very abstract, to impose a specific narrative on them, at any point, can cause problems.

Now this was always kind of okay, because up until 4e healing was almost always magical in nature. So yes, Rognar may have just been chewed up and spat out by a dragon, but the Gods fixed him so we don't have to really think about it.

Even that got weird. If Rognar got hit for 10 points of damage out of 100, he's barely hurt at all. OTOH, if Rognar's twin brother, Rangor, with identical stats but 0 exp, got hit for 1hp of damage out of 10, that's an identically-damaging wound, proportionally. They could each have a scratch. But, Rognar's scratch can't be healed completely by Cure Light Wounds, while Rangor's would be a waste of the spell, which can heal up to 7 more wounds like it with a good roll, and will heal fairly quickly anyway.

Non-proportional healing was always a major sticking point, even with magic.

4e, ironically, fixed that, since surge-based healing was proportional, even as...

However in 4e, when a character has dropped due to damage, and is in fact dying (making death saves in 4e terms), the narration becomes tricky....
This led to two possible narrative styles: One is often called Schrodinger's hit points, where the actual nature of the injury is resolved not at the time the injury is dealt but only when the character actually dies or receives healing at which point the DM narrates the action flash back style.

That's one extreme, yes....

Or the GM narrates whatever combat description he feels like, and then retcons it if it turns out not to match later outcomes.

That's another. Both are familiar tropes from fiction. The character who is seemingly killed, but turns out to be OK, the one horribly wounded but it turns out "It looked worse than it was." Cliches, really, and genre-appropriate ones - if you're into narrating the game to more detail than the mechanics cover.

If you're not in that habbit, there's no issue. Anything that brings you closer to defeat in combat reduces your hp total, anything that brings you back further away from defeat restores those hps, no matter how different. So a spell that makes wounds disappear or a well-tied bandage can restore hps you lost to psychic or illusory damage that caused no physical damage whatsoever, and a moment's reprieve to 'catch your second wind' can restore hit points inflicted by a sharp pointy weapon, even if there was an actual wound and the wound is still there, bleeding and untreated.

There are other RPG systems where the details of a combat are not known until after it ends, at which point you can assign narrative to mechanical events that occurred within the conflict. At the extreme end you have the Heroquest system where you may not even know if the conflict was resolved with steel or words until after the fact, and less radically in Savage Worlds minor characters survival is determined after the fact like an archer scrounging arrows. But D&D prior to 4e never employed that sort of mechanical-narrative disconnect.

Not formally. But then, neither did 4e - edition warriors looking for ways to attack and defend 4e came up with all that silliness. D&D just had hps, ways to lose them, and ways to get them back, with no tightly-coupled narrative, at all.

That's still what it has.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm surprised you're still stuck on that misinterpretation, though. I thought we covered it well enough in prior threads, including going over a whole range of non-party-leader warlord concepts.

Huh. I'm surprised you call it a "misinterpretation" when almost all of the language points to exactly what I'm describing.

Or, did you move on from that to the whole objection to PC abilities affecting the 'emotional states' of other PCs.

Actually, the emotional states was an attempt to elucidate why the Leadership role was problematic for me. I would have thought that connection would have been more apparent.

Because, I thought we pretty thoroughly addressed that one, too.

Could you link the post where it was "thoroughly addressed" rather than just denied. Maybe Bawylie can explain it to you better, or maybe at least you'll be more receptive to hearing it from him: he's a Warlord fan and a reasonable guy, and he agreed it was a pretty good argument.

For instance, that such abilities generally contained language that they only affected allies, and could in essence, be declined by the ally, if desired by simply not availing themselves of the effect. So there's no 'loss of agency' because a Warlord tried to 'inspire' your character - if you decided he's not inspired, your decision stands.

Short version: doing so falls under the category of "roleplaying that pisses off the rest of the table." my choices are to either acquiesce or to be in the category of "jerks who cause a TPK because of his roleplaying purity." So, yeah, I can keep agency and not be welcome at the table. No thanks.

Of course, your character may not stand very long without those benefits, but, as whenever a PC RPs a trait or flaw in a way that's detrimental to him, the DM might well - and ironically - award you Inspiration for good RP.

Likewise, if you just play a cleric and roleplay non-magical healing fluff however you like, you might also get Inspiration points.

So, I'm surprised you're still stuck 'detesting' the concept, rather than being concerned about the implementation.

On the contrary, my loathing keeps increasing. I think it's the dismissive, passive-aggressive pedantry that gets directed my way when I try to discuss it.

I've tried (and continue to try) to contribute to implementation in many threads, and with a few exceptions (Bawylie, mellored) all I get back is "NO IT MUST BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS..." I get the sense Warlord fans don't actually want implementation input, they just want any non-believers to get out of the way.