So what do we need from the Warlord?

[Miladoon]

Isn't that sorta the problem? All the disparate needs have to be addressed. All of your desires need to be mashed together. Otherwise we're right back to having a contingent of warlord fans unhappy with the final product.

The Warlord base seems fractured and I hope WoTC will not fire off a token class if so squeezed. Maybe what the fanbase needs is a PrC to chew on for a while. The thing I hate about PrCs is the prereqs.

 

[Aldarc]

Isn't that sorta the problem? All the disparate needs have to be addressed. All of your desires need to be mashed together. Otherwise we're right back to having a contingent of warlord fans unhappy with the final product.

Maybe, but this is nothing unique to the Warlord. (See threads debating Psionics.) An overlapping consensus has begun emerging among "the regulars," even between some of the warlord critics and the warlord advocates. Sure, there are people who are unsatisfied or will demand nothing less than X about issue Y, regardless of which side of the warlord fence they sit, but there does appear to be a growing basic consensus and greater cooperative work. The DM Fiat Quasi-Magical Compromise was a HUGE first step. IMO, most of the desires are there, but the primary issue in many threads now is implementation. So a number of posters are brainstorming and hammering out concrete mechanics.

 

[Miladoon]

Maybe, but this is nothing unique to the Warlord. (See threads debating Psionics.) An overlapping consensus has begun emerging among "the regulars," even between some of the warlord critics and the warlord advocates. Sure, there are people who are unsatisfied or will demand nothing less than X about issue Y, regardless of which side of the warlord fence they sit, but there does appear to be a growing basic consensus and greater cooperative work. The DM Fiat Quasi-Magical Compromise was a HUGE first step. IMO, most of the desires are there, but the primary issue in many threads now is implementation. So a number of posters are brainstorming and hammering out concrete mechanics.

There is a need for a non-magical support class is the basic consensus. After that, implementation is pretty fragmented, IMO. Unbiased playtesting, perhaps?

 

[mellored]

Sounds like you guys want to much. Cleric levels of healing a d10 hit duce plus lots of manuveurs.

Clerucs give up multiple attacks and deal middling damage with non spell attacks and have a d8 for hit dice.

The person who wants a d10 hit die is the one that wants to use that hit die to heal.

It's not d10 + healing. It's d10 AS healing.

Alot of warlord threads basically look like outright blatant powergaming.

Only if you assume every idea happen all at once.

I mean, i could list everything possible thing a wizard can do and come to the same complaint. But a wizard can only choose a small sub-set of the total possible spells, and limited spell slots.

Likewise, a warlord likely needs to choose his maneuvers, and sub-class. And has a limited number of in combat actions.

I think thats why people have problems with the warlord. You either break the game or have a lesser power version if the 4E one.

If you can make something overpowered (4e warlord), and make something under powered (3.5 Marshal), the you can make something in between (warshal?)


I feel like a broken record the number of times i've repeated that.

 

[Aldarc]

There is a need for a non-magical support class is the basic consensus. After that, implementation is pretty fragmented, IMO. Unbiased playtesting, perhaps?

Minor Correction: I would say that "there is a need for a spell-less support class is the basic consensus." I only say that because that has been a significant point of contention. Moving the conversation from "non-magical" to "spell-less" was part of that quasi-magical compromise that allowed the conversation to move further forward.

I agree that implementation-wise, the discussion is more fragmented, though I suspect that you will find a significant amount of overlap. It's a lot of different means to reach the same ends.

 

[Zardnaar]

The person who wants a d10 hit die is the one that wants to use that hit die to heal.

It's not d10 + healing. It's d10 AS healing.

Only if you assume every idea happen all at once.

I mean, i could list everything possible thing a wizard can do and come to the same complaint. But a wizard can only choose a small sub-set of the total possible spells, and limited spell slots.

Likewise, a warlord likely needs to choose his maneuvers, and sub-class. And has a limited number of in combat actions.

If you can make something overpowered (4e warlord), and make something under powered (3.5 Marshal), the you can make something in between (warshal?)


I feel like a broken record the number of times i've repeated that.

I think I have a way to make it work. Hopefully I can get something up in a couple of days. IDK if the exact mwchanics will work that well but tge concept is a bit different and in theory will handle AEDU fibe and you get to pick your subclass early if not level 1.

 

[Jester David]

By losing most of these classes, we lose a lot of ready made solutions-in-a-can. That's fine. In my experience group creativity goes up when there aren't ready made solutions presented.

But there's one class that's deeply embedded in the party makeup. One class that in 2e in particular people had to cajole each other to play. The cleric.

So what happens when we remove the cleric? Quite simply, the party dies. A lot. And they die for two reasons.

The first is that the mantra that the fighter can keep going all day is shown up for the rubbish it is. Fighters can keep going as long as they have hit points. Without Clerics (or 3.X style Wands of Cure Light Wounds) to keep them going fighters can fight until they run out of hit points. And the party can keep going until the first fighter runs out of hit points (or perhaps a little longer if you can give them a polearm or bow and have them drop back).

The second is spike damage. A random crit or set of high rolls are going to unexpectedly kill. A cleric has the healing spells to drop spike healing on someone, taking the edge off that. If the dice are running hot against one PC in specific the Cleric heals them and it takes the edge off it.

You need to be able to do the following.

1. Pick PCs on negative HP up off the ground and allow them to either join the fight or run away.
2. Prevent PCs being shafted by excessive damage spikes either through healing them after the event or through preventing the damage landing by means of an interrupt after the damage dice have been rolled. (Proactive healing like temporary hit points doesn't work unless used in overwhelming quantities due to not being able to predict when the dice will spike).

And this needs to be done without magic because otherwise D&D only actually works in worlds either that are excessively bloody (a problem given the levelling and power curve of any edition of D&D) or that are with a level of magic rarely seen outside D&D settings, World of Warcraft, or Harry Potter novels.

There are a number of problems with this design.

First, there's the concept of the warlord as the tactical leader, which doesn't mesh well with the concept of the field medic. They're two very different ideas that don't mesh well together, as the character that rallies you and gets you fired up before a battle, or maneuvers you during a battle, is not necessarily the same guy that patches up your wounds after.
Adding healer to the "commander" class necessitates the removal of class features for balance. It means the commander is less commanding and thus less unique, in order to me more clerical. It's taking this very interesting concept that doesn't exist elsewhere in the game and watering it down because it healed in a prior version of the game.

Second, in-combat healing is a bit of a waste. It's inefficient as you can almost never do as much healing to the party as an enemy can dish out in multiple rounds. It's handy for the occasional crit, but the rest of the time it's a trap. You're better off removing an enemy from play and taking future damage out of the equation.
The most efficient healer in the game is a striker.

Third is that the cleric is not automatically a healbot. Only one of the six subclasses of cleric assumes healing. You can play a cleric that doesn't heal very easily. Or one that only heals during downtime. It seems odd to make a class that's more focused on healing than a cleric that isn't explicitly called "the medic" (especially since that makes it's role in play less obvious for new players).
This is also made muddier in that the bard and druid are also full spellcasters and have access to the same amount of healing as the druid and similar spells. So either class becomes an acceptable replacement for the cleric. So the warlord as the class for people who don't want to be a cleric is less necessary as there are two others already.

Fourth, healing is not the be-all end-all of clerical abilities. 5e is different from 4e where almost no conditions persisted beyond and encounter and healing was all a leader needed to do. Now, lesser restoration and greater restoration are pretty essential, removing a wealth of negative status effects. Without those spells, the warlord will be less useful and cannot fully replace the cleric.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First, there's the concept of the warlord as the tactical leader, which doesn't mesh well with the concept of the field medic. They're two very different ideas that don't mesh well together

That's the result of trying to appease the spurious objections to hp-restoration mechanics modeling Inspiration. Inspiration, tactics, & leadership all go together neatly. "Field Medic," conceived as a less abstract way of restoring hps, more literal 'healing' or wound-treating, is irrelevant to the class concept. That's what you get when you try to take input on class design from people who hate the class on a conceptual level: incoherence.

Adding healer to the "commander" class necessitates the removal of class features for balance.

Not necessarily, it depends on how abilities are chosen and used. It's like adding a spell to a class list, it slightly increases flexibility, you don't usually have to take away another spell to compensate.

Second, in-combat healing is a bit of a waste. It's inefficient as you can almost never do as much healing to the party as an enemy can dish out in multiple rounds.

The most critical aspect of in-combat healing is getting a fallen ally back into the fight. Numbers tell very heavily under Bounded Accuracy, and a PC victory usually hinges on taking enemies out of the fight, thereby shifting those numbers in their favor. A party that can't bring an ally back into the fight is very vulnerable to the reverse.

You're better off removing an enemy from play and taking future damage out of the equation.
The most efficient healer in the game is a striker.

That's one valid play style. There are others. If that's your playstyle, you'd want to make choices to emphasize offensive buffs. You'll likely have the odd TPK, but that's just part of the sense of challenge that makes that style fun for those who prefer it.

Third is that the cleric is not automatically a healbot.

Traditionally it was, and with the healing burden spread out over multiple classes in 5e, depending on who else is in the party, it can be a lot less of one, even ignore healing entirely. The same would be true of a Warlord. It would need to have the ability to provide adequate support to the party if it's the only such class there, it should also have the flexibility to shift that focus should there be one or more other support characters (other classes or other Warlords) in the party.

Only one of the six subclasses of cleric assumes healing. You can play a cleric that doesn't heal very easily. Or one that only heals during downtime. It seems odd to make a class that's more focused on healing than a cleric

That would be both odd, and inappropriately limiting. That the Warlord must be able to restore hps in order to enable certain playstyles doesn't mean that every Warlord would have to choose, focus on, or ven use that ability at all.

This is also made muddier in that the bard and druid are also full spellcasters and have access to the same amount of healing as the druid and similar spells. So either class becomes an acceptable replacement for the cleric. So the warlord as the class for people who don't want to be a cleric is less necessary as there are two others already.

One of them a nature-priest, so barely differentiated from the Cleric as a concept, and the other a minstrel - and they're /all/ spell-casters.

Fourth, healing is not the be-all end-all of clerical abilities. 5e is different from 4e where almost no conditions persisted beyond and encounter and healing was all a leader needed to do.

Meh. 5e is not such a bad game that it can't handle the Warlord. 4e was not such a bad game that nothing from it can work in 5e. The edition war is over, 5e is D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, and that includes 4e fans who'd like to play a Warlord. 5e is up to that challenge, lingering edition-war prejudices and nay-saying notwithstanding.

Now, lesser restoration and greater restoration are pretty essential, removing a wealth of negative status effects. Without those spells, the warlord will be less useful and cannot fully replace the cleric.

That's assuming spells are the only possible solution, which you seem to think is the case with restoring hps, as well, but the Warlord could do that. So it might not be an issue at all. But...

Neonchameleon's case is that the Warlord would enable play in low-/no-magic games where spellcasters are inappropriate. Most of the sorts of effects that restoration copes with would also go the way of spellcasters in such a game, so it's a non-issue in that instance. In a higher-magic game, a ritual caster or even NPC could cover lingering out-of combat effects. In combat, the Warlord might offer ways of mitigating or minimizing the negative effects of such things, through inspiration and/or compensating for (or even leveraging) them tactically. In an all-martial party in an otherwise standard World, that last idea might have to be depended upon until an outside resource could be found to remove the effect permanently.

There's no question the Warlord wouldn't be exactly as useful in every circumstance as each of the existing support classes (which are very nearly fungible, because they do cast many of the same spells), which is only to be expected, as it is a very different and unique concept not yet covered by the game, but that doesn't mean it can't adequately contribute support to keep a party going through the 5e adventuring day. And, it does make it's addition all the more desirable.

 

[Orlax]

So disease removal is not a requirement of warlord then. I'm working on some home brew at the moment and wasn't really including anything comparable to the restoration spells other than the ability to give a bonus on a save. Well outside of the caster subclass in going to try and add (though that may become vastly over complicated)

 

[Tony Vargas]

removed double-negative

So disease removal is not a requirement of warlord then.

People do get sick & get better on their own, so it wouldn't be vital to have a resource that can just make diseases go away with a wave of the hand or a ritual.
Negating the penalties of a disease for a check or an encounter, maybe, but not curing one, no. Doesn't fit the concept, isn't a vital support contribution to enable play.

I'm working on some home brew at the moment and wasn't really including anything comparable to the restoration spells other than the ability to give a bonus on a save.

Likewise, reducing or temporarily negating penalties associated with a condition (especially in combat) might make sense, but removing a condition, probably not so much (with notable exceptions like fear or charm or the like, where Inspiration might very well be helpful).