Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

The insistence upon actual healing, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.

If the concern is just that in order to "replace the cleric" (which currently is not even remotely mandatory) with "non-magical healing" then any ability which alleviates damage to allies, including preventing it in the first place, or absorbing it, should qualify.

Sure, you can't always prevent damage; sometimes you need to heal. That's why lots of other classes (Bard, Druid, Paladin, even Hunter) have secondary healing abilities. And healing potions. Oh, wait...you want a 100% magic-less game? And that game must be D&D 5e? That in itself strikes me as a kind of zealotry, but that aside, good thing the Short Rest/HD mechanic is so (ridiculously?) generous. Plus Healing Kits. Plus Healer feat.

5e just simply does not require that one member of the party be a full healer.

So it's hard to not interpret the absolute intransigence on this issue as...something. That something might range from simply "I want a 5e Warlord to be exactly like my favorite class from earlier editions" to "I have a bigger axe to grind and since we can't fight over the thermostat I choose this as my surrogate for voicing discontent."

Elfcrusher said:

The insistence upon actual healing, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.

If the concern is just that in order to "replace the cleric" (which currently is not even remotely mandatory) with "non-magical healing" then any ability which alleviates damage to allies, including preventing it in the first place, or absorbing it, should qualify.

Sure, you can't always prevent damage; sometimes you need to heal. That's why lots of other classes (Bard, Druid, Paladin, even Hunter) have secondary healing abilities. And healing potions. Oh, wait...you want a 100% magic-less game? And that game must be D&D 5e? That in itself strikes me as a kind of zealotry, but that aside, good thing the Short Rest/HD mechanic is so (ridiculously?) generous. Plus Healing Kits. Plus Healer feat.

5e just simply does not require that one member of the party be a full healer.

So it's hard to not interpret the absolute intransigence on this issue as...something. That something might range from simply "I want a 5e Warlord to be exactly like my favorite class from earlier editions" to "I have a bigger axe to grind and since we can't fight over the thermostat I choose this as my surrogate for voicing discontent."

Click to expand...

Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse. Why is there such a resistance to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing? And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities? Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?

TwoSix said:

Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse. Why is there such a resistance to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing? And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities? Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?

Click to expand...

Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically non-magical healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that (for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited. And then that always turns into a cat fight.

Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?

I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal. Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.

Elfcrusher said:

Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically non-magical healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that (for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited. And then that always turns into a cat fight.

Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?

I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal. Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another. I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward. There isn't really a compromise position.

FrogReaver said:

I'll ask basically the same thing of you that I did of Tony. Let's take a level 5 warlord.

Give me an example of a balanced short rest, an example of a balanced long rest and an example of a balanced at will ability for level 1. I'm assuming you will grant a character 2-3 invocations at level 1?

Click to expand...

Something like that. Or maybe 1 per level. Some examples...

*First Aid: As a bonus action, you can heal someone 1d4+Int HP and let them stand up. A creature can only benefit from this once per short rest.
*Direct the Strike: When a creature you can see makes an attack, you can use your reaction to give them advantage.
*Rally: When you roll initiative, each ally who can see and hear you gains THP equal to half your level (minimum 1).
*Helper: When you take the help action, you can help all your allies within 30'.
*Battle Ready: You and your allies gain +2 bonus to initiative.

Level 5/11/17: I see 2 general options.
1: Multi-gambit. You gain an extra reaction/bonus action/or otherwise let gambits stack...

2: Higher level gambits. More powerful gambits.
*Recuccitate: When a creature has died from in the last minute, and not from massive damage, you can spend 3 rounds performing an advanced medical technique, physically pushing air into their lungs and forcing their heart to beat, in order to bring them back to life. They are stabilized 0 hit point. Once you use this feature, you cannot do it again until you take a long rest.
*Alpha Strike: When you roll initiative, allies gain advantage on their first attack that battle.
*Inspiring Presence: At the start of each of their turn, your allies who can see you gain THP equal to your Charisma modifier.

Or some mix of the 2. Like stronger gambits at level 5, extra reaction at level 11.

Most importantly, say I pick 2-3 at will invocations at level 1. They won't be able to add very much at level 1 or they will be too strong. It's going to be difficult to scale them at level 3 since there's probably not even a dice worth of anything we can look to double. It would take quite a few at will "balanced level 1 invocations" to be added in at level 3 to make level 3 be balanced with anything.

Click to expand...

As an example... with both stacking and scaling gambits.

Level 1 novice-tier gambit: Your party gains +2 to initiative.
Level 3 sub-class feature: Your party has advantage on initiative.
Level 5 adept-tier gambit: You party can move half their speed when they roll initiative.
Level 11 paragon-tier gambit: Your party gains advantage to attacks on their first turn.
Level 17 epic-tier gambit: The enemy gains disadvantage on saves until their first turn.
level 18: another novice-tier invocation: At the start of each of their turns, your allies gain THP equal to half your warlord level (9 THP).

All useful.

Could you imagine trying to make their invocation system work if they didn't get regular spell slots at all and everything was just an invocation?

Click to expand...

Yes. Just turn spell into invocations, like some spells already are and give more invocations.
i.e.
Devils Flame: (prerequisite level 5) You can cast fireball once per short rest. Increase the damage by 1d6 at levels 7, 9, and 10.
Amor of Agathys: You can cast armor of agathys once per short rest. This improves at levels 3,5,7,9 and 10.
Disco Ball (prerequisite level 5): You can cast hypnotic pattern once per short rest.
Devils Charm: (prerequisite level 11): You can cast mass charm once per long rest.


Not that I would recommend it for the warlock, since it would be bit awkward to keep track of all those different expended resources.
But you don't need to keep track of whether you used at-will stuff or not.

Elfcrusher said:

The insistence upon actual healing, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.

Click to expand...

Its in large part pragmatic, in that it's an indespensible support contribution when things go badly wrong.

The Warlord, like the Bard & Druid would be a viable alternative to a cleric as some support for a party. Without some capacity to restore hps and stand up fallen allies, the 'viable part is lost, and at some point the party may be, as well.

It also fits the concept, because hps are the only 'fight on' mechanic in the game.
Rolling them over to temps on overheating as in the podcast first even better.

Besides, the PDK heals, Mearls's podcast example is designed from healing, up...

...it's continued objection that's starting to sound less rational.

Elfcrusher said:

Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically non-magical healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that (for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited. And then that always turns into a cat fight.

Click to expand...

Your earlier use of the word "zealot" would describe those people I bolded above very well. Why should we back down because they want to be zealots about non-magical healing being capable of being short rest or long rest instead of only at-will and unlimited? Why is it us that must back down instead of them?

Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?

Click to expand...

That "controversial" aspect already exists in the game. 2nd Wind. Short rest healing dice use. There is already non-magical healing that doesn't operate at will but instead operates on short rests. I don't hear any complaints like that about those mechanics do you?

I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal. Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.

Click to expand...

Now you are getting more to your point. I understand that position and where it comes from. You want to be able to decide what inspires your character. At face value that makes perfect sense. But let me ask, Do you demand to a decide when your character is non-magically frightened? Do you demand to decide when your character is non-magically knocked prone? Do you demand to decide how much HP the enemies attack removed from your PC? If you've never brought any of these things up, then why do you ignore them and focus only on demanding that you decide if your character is inspired?

FrogReaver said:

Your earlier use of the word "zealot" would describe those people I bolded above very well. Why should we back down because they want to be zealots about non-magical healing being capable of being short rest or long rest instead of only at-will and unlimited? Why is it us that must back down instead of them?



That "controversial" aspect already exists in the game. 2nd Wind. Short rest healing dice use. There is already non-magical healing that doesn't operate at will but instead operates on short rests. I don't hear any complaints like that about those mechanics do you?



Now you are getting more to your point. I understand that position and where it comes from. You want to be able to decide what inspires your character. At face value that makes perfect sense. But let me ask, Do you demand to a decide when your character is non-magically frightened? Do you demand to decide when your character is non-magically knocked prone? Do you demand to decide how much HP the enemies attack removed from your PC? If you've never brought any of these things up, then why do you ignore them and focus only on demanding that you decide if your character is inspired?

Click to expand...

YOu guys need to back down om some things as you lacl popular support.

Give em martial healing in exchange for at will attack granting.Martial healing is a bit silly but as long as its rate is not to over the top who cares. You can always dress it up as granting second winds or granting bonus hit dice etc.

The at will attack granting thing on a support character is a problem though. Support characters in 5E give up a lot of damage at least in terms of at will. The War Cleric and Valor bard are at the cutting edge of at will damage for support characters, lore bards basically stink at it unless you ficus hard on it with magical secrets and feats.

I loved playing a Warlord in the Fourth Edition of D&D, and his ability to heal as well as help his comrades in other ways was part of his appeal.

However, I can easily live with a healing spell list or magical abilities in addition to mundane and "realistic" abilities. I liked the image of shouting my allies back to health, but even in 4E, I often (but not always) imagined that the Warlord exercised some supernatural ability to bestow movie-like shrug-it-off moments to his buddies.

Here is a no magic warlord for 5e: http://dndhackersguild.weebly.com/blog/warlord-for-dnd-5e-and-primeval-thule