D&D 5E 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)

But why?

Why is “can do cleric stuff” vital to the spirit of the class? That is exactly the thing I don’t understand.

It’s not like the warlord was performing miracles of physical healing in the fiction, so why does it matter, as long as they are inspiring their fellows to go beyond what would otherwise be their limits while fighting alongside them?
Because if they cannot heal, they aren't actually an effective support in a game designed around ablating away HP.

Like... that's literally it. It needs that because if you cannot heal, you literally cannot play support properly in D&D. You might have a smattering of buffs, but you cannot truly be the support character other characters rely on.

THP are completely unacceptable as a substitute. Either they don't actually match 100% of incoming damage, which means eventually the Warlord is letting the team down because they die and she can't do a damn thing about it, or they DO actually match 100% (or more) of incoming damage and thus the Warlord is stupidly broken because she literally makes her allies completely invulnerable. Neither of these situations is acceptable. Therefore, whatever other things she can do, whatever other emphasis she may have, she MUST, absolutely and unequivocally must be able to do SOME healing.

It doesn't have to be a lot. But it needs to be there. Why else do you think the PDK, an obvious (if extremely poor) attempt at making an actual Warlord in 5e, got the ability to share Second Wind with other people?

A core part of the spirit of the Warlord is that you are a real, serious, competent support for all parts of combat. You can be relied upon to keep the team going through the stuff they expect to face. Healing damage taken is a critical part of that, particularly in 5e's "big bags of HP" design, where HP inflation is one of the only metrics of player advancement/increased difficulty at higher levels.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Because if they cannot heal, they aren't actually an effective support in a game designed around ablating away HP.

Like... that's literally it. It needs that because if you cannot heal, you literally cannot play support properly in D&D. You might have a smattering of buffs, but you cannot truly be the support character other characters rely on.

THP are completely unacceptable as a substitute. Either they don't actually match 100% of incoming damage, which means eventually the Warlord is letting the team down because they die and she can't do a damn thing about it, or they DO actually match 100% (or more) of incoming damage and thus the Warlord is stupidly broken because she literally makes her allies completely invulnerable. Neither of these situations is acceptable. Therefore, whatever other things she can do, whatever other emphasis she may have, she MUST, absolutely and unequivocally must be able to do SOME healing.

It doesn't have to be a lot. But it needs to be there. Why else do you think the PDK, an obvious (if extremely poor) attempt at making an actual Warlord in 5e, got the ability to share Second Wind with other people?

A core part of the spirit of the Warlord is that you are a real, serious, competent support for all parts of combat. You can be relied upon to keep the team going through the stuff they expect to face. Healing damage taken is a critical part of that, particularly in 5e's "big bags of HP" design, where HP inflation is one of the only metrics of player advancement/increased difficulty at higher levels.
Damage mitigation also works, though. Like...the game has plenty of healing.

I gave healing to my Captain class, don't get me wrong, I just don't care about the class filling the support role, I guess. Like...I don't agree that the spirit of the class is even to be a support class, as such. I think a 5e version would have to abandon the idea of full support class, and leave room for other kinds of martial characters who lead. I certainly am not going to agree to warlords being able to bring back the dead. The dying, maybe, but never the dead without magic.

And while you say that it's fine if it's more restricted than magical healing is, others insist that is has to be a fully capable healer in order to be a "real" warlord. That healing, of all things, is basically the sneak attack of the class.

I don't think the vanguard captain, genius tactician, or the cunning skirmisher who creates openings for allies, needs to be the team's healer. Or even should be. I think the spirit of the class is to make the rest of the team better.
 

Damage mitigation also works, though. Like...the game has plenty of healing.
Damage mitigation has exactly the same problems as THP. Either you don't mitigate all of the damage, which means the team cannot actually rely on you, or you do mitigate all of the damage, which means you are stupidly overpowered and no one in their right mind would ever take anything else.

With actual but finite healing, a class has a clear capacity to genuinely prevent death only up to that finite limit, while still having genuine threats and dangers.

I gave healing to my Captain class, don't get me wrong, I just don't care about the class filling the support role, I guess. Like...I don't agree that the spirit of the class is even to be a support class, as such.
The Martial leader...

...the class explicitly and repeatedly praised for making support play fun...

...the class specifically built to do a variety of high-aggression support effects...

...isn't a support class.

Really? Like...you look at the Warlord, with Inspiring Word and ways to help others gain HP from making attacks and ways to let others make saving throws and buffs to offenses and defenses...and you think "nope, this is definitely not a support class." Truly? I just...I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

I think a 5e version would have to abandon the idea of full support class, and leave room for other kinds of martial characters who lead.
Why? There aren't any (well, there is one, but it sucks badly enough that even fans of 5e recognize it's poor.) Why not let the concept actually have representation?

I certainly am not going to agree to warlords being able to bring back the dead. The dying, maybe, but never the dead without magic.
Given that's literally what I said (the Warlord must obtain the Ritual Caster feat to raise the dead...literally becoming trained in ritual magic...) I'm kind of confused as to why you would make specific mention of it.

And while you say that it's fine if it's more restricted than magical healing is, others insist that is has to be a fully capable healer in order to be a "real" warlord. That healing, of all things, is basically the sneak attack of the class.
I am not others and refuse to be held to the standard of "well other people ask for it." You asked me why I wanted it. I answered, and specified that the healing doesn't have to be huge, it just needs to be present and (relatively) reliable. My preference would be all Warlords have minor healing (something roughly equivalent to Bard's Song of Rest, but more proactive), and then one specific subclass (call or "Medic" or something) would specialize in being better at outright healing. Non-Medic Warlords could pick up a small amount more through optional class features, and if they still want more than that, Magic Initiate and other feats provide options.

I don't think the vanguard captain, genius tactician, or the cunning skirmisher who creates openings for allies, needs to be the team's healer. Or even should be. I think the spirit of the class is to make the rest of the team better.
In absolute abstract, without any consideration for specific context? Sure, I grant that.

But we aren't in the abstract, are we? We're in a very specific context: D&D combat. And D&D combat, especially in WotC D&D and doubly so for 5e, requires a constant stream of incoming HP in order to avoid statistically guaranteed character deaths.

If we had a system where statistically guaranteed death weren't a factor, then sure, we could have tacticians who have no intersection whatsoever with healing. But we don't have that. Just like how every Warlord will have some ability to fight in melee combat, even though there have been many, many "genius tacticians" or commanding generals who were lousy soldiers, barely able to swing a sword or loose an arrow, much less hold their own in bloody battle. Just like how there have been many "Fighters" who realistically should not have any skill with heavy weapons or heavy armor (or vice versa, it's not like knights trained in knife-fighting and longbows!) and yet 100% of all Fighters are proficienct with all weapons and armors. The game necessarily forces certain conceits on us whether or not they make universal sense.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Could the 3rd Edition Marshal (class) be a starting point for a 5e Warlord?
Auras are good. That was their thing, right?
Damage mitigation has exactly the same problems as THP. Either you don't mitigate all of the damage, which means the team cannot actually rely on you, or you do mitigate all of the damage, which means you are stupidly overpowered and no one in their right mind would ever take anything else.
The bolded doesn't follow. Healing can't guarantee survival either. Either way, you make it harder to kill your allies.
With actual but finite healing, a class has a clear capacity to genuinely prevent death only up to that finite limit, while still having genuine threats and dangers.
What. I stab the unconcious guy, he dies. Either way. Damage mitigation is in many ways better than healing because it's better at preventing unconciousness. Great you inspiring worded me back up, too bad I lost my turn anyway because I go between what knocked me out and you. Would have been better if I'd not lost that turn.
The Martial leader...

...the class explicitly and repeatedly praised for making support play fun...

...the class specifically built to do a variety of high-aggression support effects...

...isn't a support class.
Can you please explain how you get "isn't a support class" from "doesn't have to just be a support class"?
Really? Like...you look at the Warlord, with Inspiring Word and ways to help others gain HP from making attacks and ways to let others make saving throws and buffs to offenses and defenses...and you think "nope, this is definitely not a support class." Truly? I just...I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
Well, it helps that I never came to that conclusion. It also helps that I don't give the first tiny little damn about specific mechanics from past editions. I look at what the class did in the fiction and only after getting a grip on that do I even think about the mechanics, and even then they only serve as a pool of potential resources to use as inspiration to fullfill the mechanical needs to the current edition iteration.

It's like the attack granting. Sure, it was fun in 4e. I do not care if it's translated directly into 5e.
Why? There aren't any (well, there is one, but it sucks badly enough that even fans of 5e recognize it's poor.) Why not let the concept actually have representation?
IMO the game is better when we don't try to make a whole class fill one role.
Given that's literally what I said (the Warlord must obtain the Ritual Caster feat to raise the dead...literally becoming trained in ritual magic...) I'm kind of confused as to why you would make specific mention of it.
IBecause we are talking about two games, in comparison. The cleric doesn't have to pay to learn raise dead, and no feat will give it to you. So, the warlord in 5e cannot fullfill all support role tasks that the cleric can, without an in-class way to bring back the dead.
IMO that is a good reason to drop the idea of "warlord has to be able to do all the support things".
I am not others and refuse to be held to the standard of "well other people ask for it." You asked me why I wanted it. I answered, and specified that the healing doesn't have to be huge, it just needs to be present and (relatively) reliable. My preference would be all Warlords have minor healing (something roughly equivalent to Bard's Song of Rest, but more proactive), and then one specific subclass (call or "Medic" or something) would specialize in being better at outright healing. Non-Medic Warlords could pick up a small amount more through optional class features, and if they still want more than that, Magic Initiate and other feats provide options.
That's all fine, I just still don't see why it is necessary. Why it's a no room for compromise point.
In absolute abstract, without any consideration for specific context? Sure, I grant that.
For me, that pretty much ends the need for debate. That means that it's okay for those "warlords" (I have never and will never like the name) to not have any healing capability they don't gain from outside the class.
But we aren't in the abstract, are we? We're in a very specific context: D&D combat. And D&D combat, especially in WotC D&D and doubly so for 5e, requires a constant stream of incoming HP in order to avoid statistically guaranteed character deaths.
I've played without in-combat healing, with very little, and with plenty. All three modes of play work fine. In addition to that, the majority of classes have some access to healing, even if only optionally. The healing doesn't have to come from the warlord.
So, while I'm fine with a Rallying Cry that gives a little healing to a group, or an inspiring word ripoff, I'm also perfectly happy to not have my vanguard captain ever heal anyone.
If we had a system where statistically guaranteed death weren't a factor, then sure, we could have tacticians who have no intersection whatsoever with healing.
We do have that.
But we don't have that. Just like how every Warlord will have some ability to fight in melee combat, even though there have been many, many "genius tacticians" or commanding generals who were lousy soldiers, barely able to swing a sword or loose an arrow, much less hold their own in bloody battle. Just like how there have been many "Fighters" who realistically should not have any skill with heavy weapons or heavy armor (or vice versa, it's not like knights trained in knife-fighting and longbows!) and yet 100% of all Fighters are proficienct with all weapons and armors. The game necessarily forces certain conceits on us whether or not they make universal sense.
Proficiencies are not remotely the same sort of thing.
 

The bolded doesn't follow. Healing can't guarantee survival either. Either way, you make it harder to kill your allies.
Yes, it does. Because 5e is all about fat sacks of HP that can kill you in two rounds if you aren't incredibly careful. Unless, of course, you go for "Medium" combats, at which point damage never mattered to begin with because you effectively can't die.

What. I stab the unconcious guy, he dies. Either way. Damage mitigation is in many ways better than healing because it's better at preventing unconciousness.
...it's...I mean, it's "better" at that in the sense that it might sometimes do that, sure. But the purpose of healing is not to prevent unconsciousness. It's to prevent death. Which 5e is--as I have been assured both by others' reports and my own experience--absolutely full of. Especially at low level.

Great you inspiring worded me back up, too bad I lost my turn anyway because I go between what knocked me out and you. Would have been better if I'd not lost that turn.
"Great, you mitigated that hit. Now, two battles from now, when I'm literally actually dead, all that mitigation doesn't make a damn bit of difference, does it?"

Missing one turn is unfortunate. Death is a problem.

Can you please explain how you get "isn't a support class" from "doesn't have to just be a support class"?
You didn't say "doesn't have to be." You specifically said, "I don't agree that the spirit of the class is even to be a support class." It explicitly was the spirit of the class, from the very beginning. That's literally what being a "leader" class means.

Well, it helps that I never came to that conclusion. It also helps that I don't give the first tiny little damn about specific mechanics from past editions.
....so....you want to offer something called a "Warlord," while completely pissing on anything people actually liked about the thing called "Warlord" in the past. That doesn't seem like a particularly friendly or effective position to start from, and makes it hard to understand why you would

I look at what the class did in the fiction and only after getting a grip on that do I even think about the mechanics, and even then they only serve as a pool of potential resources to use as inspiration to fullfill the mechanical needs to the current edition iteration.
Then you are going to produce something that, straight-up, isn't a Warlord in any way that would please fans of the 4e Warlord. That's a pretty bad-faith starting point when you're asking other people why it is they want the Warlord to do or be certain things.

It's like the attack granting. Sure, it was fun in 4e. I do not care if it's translated directly into 5e.
Nothing should ever be "translated directly." That doesn't mean the translation should not be as close as possible. A translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War that just reads, "Fight smart" would technically be correct, and yet completely useless because the whole point of the book is to give specific instructions on how to "fight smart." Capturing, as much as possible, the meaning and structure of the original text is an incredibly important part of any form of translation--and mechanical translation fits in there just as much as linguistic translation.

IMO the game is better when we don't try to make a whole class fill one role.
And IMO the game is better when we ensure that the class definitely can fill one role, with other things as fun opt-in benefits where they can be made to work. Otherwise, we end up with stuff like the 3e Monk.

Because we are talking about two games, in comparison. The cleric doesn't have to pay to learn raise dead, and no feat will give it to you. So, the warlord in 5e cannot fullfill all support role tasks that the cleric can, without an in-class way to bring back the dead.
Hence why I have been so explicit about IN-COMBAT support. You don't raise dead IN COMBAT. My wording was specific fore a reason.

IMO that is a good reason to drop the idea of "warlord has to be able to do all the support things".
Absolutely not. It is a reason to be specific about what kinds of support it absolutely needs to provide, and what kinds are optional.

That's all fine, I just still don't see why it is necessary. Why it's a no room for compromise point.
You cannot see it because you refuse to consider past mechanics as a reason for things. Mechanical expression matters. The past is not some irrelevant technicality that can be brushed aside. If you call something a "Wizard" in D&D, people are going to expect magic missile and fireball--and that fireball better be potent. If you call something a "Paladin" in D&D, it better be able to smite things in some way and "lay on hands." Why are these mechanics important? Because they're part of the identity, the spirit, of the classes involved. These elements need to be respected, and translated as faithfully as possible within the limits of the new system.

For me, that pretty much ends the need for debate. That means that it's okay for those "warlords" (I have never and will never like the name) to not have any healing capability they don't gain from outside the class.
So...you want to give up what it has done in the past. And you want to give up the name as well. And you want it to be basically a Fighter except that it's got actual "leadership" features that somehow aren't making it support-focused. Why even ask about Warlord stuff then? Why even make a pretense of trying for conciliation and compromise when you not only don't want what other people want, you want to avoid what other people want?

I've played without in-combat healing, with very little, and with plenty. All three modes of play work fine. In addition to that, the majority of classes have some access to healing, even if only optionally. The healing doesn't have to come from the warlord.
It does if it's going to be called a "Warlord" or bill itself as something that Warlord fans should appreciate and value.

So, while I'm fine with a Rallying Cry that gives a little healing to a group, or an inspiring word ripoff, I'm also perfectly happy to not have my vanguard captain ever heal anyone.
Okay. Can you then recognize that a lot of other people wouldn't be fine with that, and that that wouldn't-be-fine-with-it is rooted in their past positive experiences with previous incarnations of this concept? Further, that many of the people who do like this are really, really wary about so-called "compromises" given the way they were treated during the D&D Next playtest and how things actually cashed out in the edition that resulted from it?

Why do I need more than "because that's how it was before," "because that's what I like," and "because without those things it doesn't actually act as a support-focused class as I would define the term"?

We do have that.
No, we don't. This isn't theorycrafting. I've had multiple groups collapse because of unexpected (but completely predictable...) TPKs. It's a major issue.

Proficiencies are not remotely the same sort of thing.
Why not? They're both the capacity to do something, and yet that capacity is completely irrelevant to the context and fiction, even contradicting that context or fiction at times.
 

Argyle King

Legend
Auras are good. That was their thing, right?

Yeah.

They had "minor" and "major" auras. You could have one of each active at the same time.

It was a "swift" - what 5e would call a bonus action- to activate an aura and a free action to deactivate an aura.

Typically, the minor auras gave the Marshal's Charisma Bonus to skill and ability checks.

Major Auras were bonuses to saves, damage reduction, bonuses to damage, and a variety of other things. (I think a lot of them were precursors to 4E Warlord powers.)

Some of the class features allowed things such as giving up an action to grant nearby allies an extra move action.

In 5E, I could see the bonus being equal to Cha or Int (to allow for tactical or inspiring, like 4E).

I could see the abilities and auras being a mix of 5E Paladin Auras, Channel Divinity (but requiring being able to hear the Warlord,) and Battlemaster Manuevers. I'm not saying it needs to work exactly like those, but those are the 5e mechanics I would look at to see if how they work fits.

Personally, I would like the idea of allowing allies to add the 5e Marshal/Warlord's proficiency dice (not a static bonus) to whatever the auras allow the allies to do.

I would use dice instead of a flat bonus because I feel that would illustrate that the Marshal was giving instruction and help to do something but the ally was still performing the act.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
hen you are going to produce something that, straight-up, isn't a Warlord in any way that would please fans of the 4e Warlord. That's a pretty bad-faith starting point when you're asking other people why it is they want the Warlord to do or be certain things.
I had a whole reply written out, but the accusatory tone, blatant mischaracterizations, and long winded line-by-line length of this post has discouraged me from even continuing the discussion. You win, I guess? 🤷‍♂️
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah.

They had "minor" and "major" auras. You could have one of each active at the same time.

It was a "swift" - what 5e would call a bonus action- to activate an aura and a free action to deactivate an aura.

Typically, the minor auras gave the Marshal's Charisma Bonus to skill and ability checks.

Major Auras were bonuses to saves, damage reduction, bonuses to damage, and a variety of other things. (I think a lot of them were precursors to 4E Warlord powers.)

Some of the class features allowed things such as giving up an action to grant nearby allies an extra move action.

In 5E, I could see the bonus being equal to Cha or Int (to allow for tactical or inspiring, like 4E).

I could see the abilities and auras being a mix of 5E Paladin Auras, Channel Divinity (but requiring being able to hear the Warlord,) and Battlemaster Manuevers. I'm not saying it needs to work exactly like those, but those are the 5e mechanics I would look at to see if how they work fits.

Personally, I would like the idea of allowing allies to add the 5e Marshal/Warlord's proficiency dice (not a static bonus) to whatever the auras allow the allies to do.

I would use dice instead of a flat bonus because I feel that would illustrate that the Marshal was giving instruction and help to do something but the ally was still performing the act.
I like that. My Captain class has some of the same goals and concepts.
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
I had a whole reply written out, but the accusatory tone, blatant mischaracterizations, and long winded line-by-line length of this post has discouraged me from even continuing the discussion. You win, I guess? 🤷‍♂️
Mod Note:

People, if you’re disengaging from a conversation in a forum, adding in Parthian shots like this isn’t going to help in any way.

Do better going forward.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Okay this had to be replied to.
You cannot see it because you refuse to consider past mechanics as a reason for things.
Well, no, but I can see where you could get that idea.
Mechanical expression matters. The past is not some irrelevant technicality that can be brushed aside. If you call something a "Wizard" in D&D, people are going to expect magic missile and fireball--and that fireball better be potent.
Yes, and how that’s done in specific mechanical terms isn’t as important as it being a big fire bomb the wizard can lob from across the battlefield. Now, that is more specific IMO than “inspiring allies to push through”, so we haven’t gotten anywhere here.
If you call something a "Paladin" in D&D, it better be able to smite things in some way and "lay on hands."
“Lay on hands” isn’t a mechanic. Smite isn’t a mechanic. They are thematic concepts that have been expressed mechanically in different ways in different editions.
Why are these mechanics important? Because they're part of the identity, the spirit, of the classes involved. These elements need to be respected, and translated as faithfully as possible within the limits of the new system.
But they don’t need to use the same mechanics to do so.

If Sneak Attack were changed to giving the attack highly increased crit chance and a “if it drops below X HP it dies, if it doesn’t it takes half the damage again next round”, it would still be Sneak Attack, as long as it somehow required underhanded tactics, even in a very handwaved way like 5e does, and comes as part of the Rogue class.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
You cannot see it because you refuse to consider

Mod Note:
Do yourself, and everyone else, a favor - don't make it personal. Address what was said, not the person who said it.

Imagine the uncomplimentary things that could be asserted about what you think about this discussion. Imagine how annoyed it'd make you.

Then, realize that the Golden Rule applies.


Okay this had to be replied to.

No, it didn't. Really. Nothing bad would happen if you held to your announcement that you were disengaging.

For both of you - after this, if you keep butting heads it is totally your own fault if you get warning points or removed from the discussion. If you cannot figure out to play nice or disengage after red text, you can't blame what happens on the other guy.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top