D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[mellored]

Which is actually part of my point: you can't assume that a fighter, a warlord, a rogue, and a barbarian could play through Rise of Tiamat just because you now have a "nonmagical" support class. It requires far more than a warlord to make nonmagical campaigns work. Additionally, I think its a very low point on the design scale since most D&D DOES use magic and doesn't deviate much from that norm.

Ideally you should be able to play though rise of tiamate with 4 fighters. Or 4 rogues. Or 4 barbarians. Or 4 warlord. Or 4 clerics.

No class should be required. And a more balanced party might be easier, but still not required.

 

[Remathilis]

I think I'm tired of this debate. Do not quote me any longer. My point is said, nothing will change it now. I will not reply further.

Good night and good game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Rather than keep saying "a warlord should do X nonmagically because he's the support class in a nonmagic game", I'd rather the focus be on "Well, clerics, bards and druids bring good support in the form of spells, what should a warlord bring that's unique?" Why do I want to be a warlord rather than a cleric (assuming the two are both options) other than "I can do everything the other can do, nonmagically?"

A warlord is a force multiplier. They bring their own abilities - but more to the point they make you better at yours. A warlord in a boxing match is the coach.

My favourite Warlord in any 4e game I played was Martel. Young and brash, far from the party leader he was the person on point (so he did lead in that sense), always with one eye on the rest of the party. His favourite encounter power got renamed from "Powerful Warning" to either "Duck!" or "Spin right!" He was brash enough to have a guard that looked as full of holes as a swiss cheese (giving the enemy a free attack whenever he used one of his At Wills). But it was all a partial feint, designed to draw the eye of the enemy onto him in his heavy armour and away from the rogue or the fighter so if they took that free swing they were taking their eye off the guy who was going to gut them (and got a free swing at the person attacking Martel). But when he was feeling too battered he'd fall back and start calling holes in the enemy's defences.

Does that give you something to work with?

Additionally, I think its a very low point on the design scale since most D&D DOES use magic and doesn't deviate much from that norm.

Chicken or egg. Most D&D outside 4e simply doesn't work without magic. As you just admitted. And if something doesn't work people don't try to do it. I think that, as many 4e groups demonstrated, non-magical D&D would be much more popular if it actually worked in 5e. It wouldn't be dominant but would certainly be played in non-trivial amounts.

Yet you have to if you want to count Barbarian among the nonmagical list; or even your own warlord fluff below now.

I'm in the Not A Spellcaster camp. With arguments between Ex and Su abilities for another time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here is my point...

Ok, we decide we are going to make a warlord that can act as support in a nonmagical game (aka, no spellcasting classes). We decide we are going to allow him some form of healing ability because clerics can restore hp so warlord's should. But a cleric can also heal conditions (poisoned, blinded, deafened, diseased) as well; there is no way to remove those conditions in the game without magic, so now the warlord needs some mechanic that can remove or negate those conditions (or the first time you fight some poisonous snakes or diseased dire rats, the game is going to fall apart).

People /do/ recover from diseases and survive being poisoned without magic. The world is full of people who got sick and got better - no magic.

Also, a cleric can grant all manner of bonuses, such as Bless, Warding Bond, or Guiding Bolt (all of which grant bonuses to attack or defense) so a warlord needs to be able to grant bonuses like that too somehow if he's to be the nonmagical support class. He also should probably be able to remove Fear or Charm effects as well, since he's our only support...

And those all fit the concept, just fine.

Rather than keep saying "a warlord should do X nonmagically because he's the support class in a nonmagic game", I'd rather the focus be on "Well, clerics, bards and druids bring good support in the form of spells, what should a warlord bring that's unique?" Why do I want to be a warlord rather than a cleric (assuming the two are both options)

Same as Bard instead of cleric: concept. Not everyone wants to play a holy-roller some would rather play a minstrel, and vice versa - some would rather play a Druid or a Warlord.

I mean, think about it, how unique from eachother are the existing support classes? They all cast spells, a lot of the same spells when doing support, in fact. That's not a high bar for uniqueness.

Which is actually part of my point: you can't assume that a fighter, a warlord, a rogue, and a barbarian could play through Rise of Tiamat just because you now have a "nonmagical" support class.

Don't see why they couldn't, though 5 or 6 PCs would be more typical (it's hard to come up with that many non-magical PCs, as limited as the options in 5e are now.) They'd certainly do better than a Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, and Berserker.

It requires far more than a warlord to make nonmagical campaigns work.

If the /campaign/ is non-magical, a bit more - the absence of Tiamat, for instance. Aside from limiting potential foes and challenges as well as potential PC concepts though, not much. The game is very nearly playable as it stands even assuming total absence of magic. Just needs adequate support for the party, maybe some 'control.'

Additionally, I think its a very low point on the design scale since most D&D DOES use magic and doesn't deviate much from that norm.

On the contrary, it's a relatively high priority to cover non-magical concepts and low-/no-magic campaigns and related playstyles, because magical ones are already lavishly supported and don't need anything more right away.

I'm not convinced that just adding a warlord class would give 5e the same flick

I'll acknowledge that you are very hard to convince of anything. ;P

Yet you have to if you want to count Barbarian among the nonmagical list; or even your own warlord fluff below now.

I don't have to ignore that the Totem Barbarian uses magic to play a non-magical Berserker. For a clearer example, I don't have to ignore that the Eldritch Knight casts spells to play a Champion who doesn't (I'd just have to ignore how deadly-dull I personally find DPR characters). So, sure, we could have a Warlord archetype that uses some sort of magic, while others don't. Not a problem. I know you like psionics, wouldn't an Ardent fit perfectly?

The line I quoted was from the DEFAULT Barbarian fluff. (Last paragraph, before "Primal Instinct") and it clearly shows two examples of sources for Rage, a magical one and a nonmagical one. I'm just quoting the PHB.

And, there are, 'coincidentally' two kinds of barbarian, one obviously magical, and one not.

Man, I REALLY thought we were behind all the "Warlords are 110% nonmagical, suggesting otherwise is edition warring, but if it helps you sleep at night, you can pretend its magical" line of crap.

You brought it up again.

I thought we came to a "warlords do their thing and we don't know exactly why; might be magical, or something else" compromise. I guess that was wishful thinking on my part.

The concept is and always has been non-magical. That's just a fact, I couldn't go back in time and change it if I wanted to, even for the sake of compromise.

But I did think we settled on a pretty cool example of fluff text that leaves open varied opinions about the Warlord's abilities, while allowing it to be faithful to that concept. Not only that, but I repeated it in the post you were quoting, and here it is again, for a third time, awaiting your acknowledgement:

If we're all willing to be reasonable, though, there's no need to make Warlord maneuvers into spells, actually give them any sort of supernatural ability, or place the same kinds of limiting factors on their already-less-versatile-than-magic range of abilities that magic faces (ie, like not working in an anti-magic shell or 'world where there is no magic' or whatever). Rather, just as people IRL will attribute a success, sports team victory, close escape, or extraordinary accomplishment to divine favor, a lucky piece, a psychic, guardian angel, or other supernatural agency, there can be a genuine belief out there in the setting that some exceptional martial characters, like Warlords, are tapping into some sort of subtle, un-provable/un-disprovable source of supernatural power.

Yeah, get that out of the sidebar and put it in the main box and I'm there with bells on.

Say, right towards the end of the intro...

Warlord
...blah blah blah... colorful descriptions of possible warlords... blah blah blah....

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 charismatic leadership or tactical brilliance - perhaps the mystic secrets of some militant cabal left over from some forgotten empire, or a subtle magic of word & deed that doesn't follow the same laws as the mighty magic of wizards and their ilk - behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree. There is something greater than themselves that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.

Whatever the source of their extraordinary accomplishments, Warlords are an asset to any party seeking victory in battle... blah, blah, blah...

....and *insert an awesome 5e class here*

 

[Aldarc]

I think I'm tired of this debate. Do not quote me any longer. My point is said, nothing will change it now. I will not reply further.

Good night and good game.

Good night. See you tomorrow. Same time and thread? Excellent.

 

[ZickZak]

there is no way to remove those conditions in the game without magic, so now the warlord needs some mechanic that can remove or negate those conditions (or the first time you fight some poisonous snakes or diseased dire rats, the game is going to fall apart). Also, a cleric can grant all manner of bonuses, such as Bless, Warding Bond, or Guiding Bolt (all of which grant bonuses to attack or defense) so a warlord needs to be able to grant bonuses like that too somehow if he's to be the nonmagical support class. He also should probably be able to remove Fear or Charm effects as well, since he's our only support...

Combination of any of the following (useable multiple times) "Bruh!", "NO!", "Nghhh!", "Get up!", "just" and "Come On!" can create a decent name for any of the above, making it inspirational. Mind over matter, I saw on TV.

With all the supernatural abilities called "magical" or drawn from magical source etc., I don't think the nonmagical will happen. Perhaps as a prestige class - there are too many warlord abilities spread around.

 

[Guest 6801328]

[Citation Needed]

The 4e Warlord doesn't come close to having healing as powerful and prevalent as a cleric. The 4e Warlord has spike hit point recovery - with the strongest inspiring warlords having about as much healing as fairly healing-light clerics.

So as you are claiming that what's being demanded is something that's never happened in the past I'm going to assume you have misunderstood.

I gotta back Rem up on this one. Maybe it's not everybody and maybe it's not even most, but certainly my perception is of repeated insistence that the W can "heal as well as a cleric". Maybe it's the same guy posting over and over and I just haven't noticed, but I haven't seen many W-proponents stepping up and saying "No, no, no, that's not necessary."

 

[Tony Vargas]

The distinction between 'heal as well as a cleric,' and 'restore hps, buff, &c well enough to contribute adequate support in place of a cleric' is both subtle, and the latter is more of a PITA to type out. I don't doubt someone - possibly even, me, when I'm typing fast - said something along the lines of 'heal like a cleric' or 'as good as a cleric' or something else incautious amid all this. And, I'm sure that, when many different people are arguing both sides, confirmation bias seizes upon the worst possible articulation of a contrary position and blocks out all the more reasonable phrasing. Layer intentional quoting out of context and straw men on top of that, and it's a wonder any of us know what we've said, let alone what anyone else is trying to say.

So, I'll back up what Neon said: whatever some fan said here about what the warlord is supposed to do relative to the cleric, the Warlord didn't heal anything like the Cleric when they were both neatly-balanced Leaders in 4e, and it seems vanishingly unlikely that 5e would change that (the Cleric being an actual healer & better at restoring hps - "neatly-balanced" and "Leaders" is obvious out of the question).

[sblock="Cleric v Warlord in 4e"]Both classes had choices that let them do more or less hp-restoration, and optimized builds were possible, but the basic cleric had a feature that meant it healed more than the basic warlord, and more healing powers to choose from. The optimized Warlord got more 4 uses of Inspiring Word at high level compared to the optimized Cleric's 3 uses of Healing Word, and could, situationally add 2 or 3x his CHA bonus in hps healed and had plenty of other tricks, but the optimized-for-healling Cleric could match or exceed the subject's surge value with extra hps on each of those 3, which the Warlord couldn't match, and then had tons of non-surge healing on top of that, including theoretically (white room, but still pretty crazy in play) unlimited healing from some broken combos. However you sliced it the Cleric healed better than the Warlord, even though an optimized Warlord could heal better than a Cleric that intentionally eschewed additional healing choices beyond the basics.

Apart from healing, they could both be quite good at buffing, while the Cleric was a strong secondary controller, and the Warlord was a modest secondary defender, and could pull action-granting tricks. They were very different, but could both handle the Leader role, and were reasonably balanced.

FWIW [/sblock]

 

[Guest 6801328]

The distinction between 'heal as well as a cleric,' and 'restore hps, buff, &c well enough to contribute adequate support in place of a cleric' is both subtle, and the latter is more of a PITA to type out. I don't doubt someone - possibly even, me, when I'm typing fast - said something along the lines of 'heal like a cleric' or 'as good as a cleric' or something else incautious amid all this. And, I'm sure that, when many different people are arguing both sides, confirmation bias seizes upon the worst possible articulation of a contrary position and blocks out all the more reasonable phrasing.

Huh. So you're saying that it takes confirmation bias to interpret "heal as well as a cleric" to mean "heal as well as a cleric."

Works for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The distinction between 'heal as well as a cleric,' and 'restore hps, buff, &c well enough to contribute adequate support in place of a cleric' is subtle ...and, when many different people are arguing both sides, confirmation bias seizes upon the worst possible articulation of a contrary position and blocks out all the more reasonable phrasing. Layer intentional quoting out of context and straw men on top of that...

So you're saying that it takes confirmation bias to interpret "heal as well as a cleric" to mean "heal as well as a cleric."

No.