D&D 5E (2014) 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Eubani]

I haven't chosen to reply to this particular post out of any intention to single it out. It was just an easily-quoted, clear statement of the point.

My response: I find the idea a bit odd that inspiring people, and thereby influencing the extent to which (i) they try as hard as they can, and (ii) they succeed when they try, should be cast as magical. (Unless we mean the everyday "magic" of human emotional responses - which are often a focus, and even a somewhat exagerated focus, of dramatic and melodramatic narratives.)


EDIT: There is a strange D&D legacy here. In AD&D, pushing someone is magical (the Push spell) - but in real life people can push others just with their physical strength. In AD&D and 3E, chopping someone's arm or head off with a sword is magical (vorpal or sharpness blade) - but in real life, everytime anyone was ever maimed or decpaitated by a sword it was not a magical occurence. In many editions of D&D magic can kill even a powerful being with a single lucky action, but a fighter wielding a normal sword cannot (too many hp to get through in one hit) - in real life, sometimes a single blow is enough to kill even a strong or skilled person.

The gating between magic and martial in D&D tradition seems more about the balance of the hit point system, the action economy, etc, than about considerations of what sorts of effects are or are not achievable only by dint of magic.

Martial class Vs Magical class design has always suffered a double standard. A core group seems to have an issue if the Fighter does more than "I attack" reducing HP and making the occasional ability check, this is something designers seem to have trouble moving past as well.

 

[Imaro]

Recently Druid and Sorcerer. Wizards constantly get a flow of threads. At various stage mostly depending on what is being released there is a glut of focused discussion yet due to agendas Warlord is where it should not happen for some reason.

Any links? On the first page I see a single thread about Sorcerers...and it's someone whose creating one asking for advice on a specific build
I also see a single thread about Druids and wildshape synergy with barbarians... I also see a two threads about wizards, one around a homebrew clockwork mage and the other about multiclassing wizard and cleric. As for warlord... I currently count 12 threads about warlords on the front page...

 

[Mercule]

I haven't chosen to reply to this particular post out of any intention to single it out. It was just an easily-quoted, clear statement of the point.

No worries. I take it as a compliment that my argument is coherent, whether or not you agree with it. Now, I'm obligated to respond, though.

My response: I find the idea a bit odd that inspiring people, and thereby influencing the extent to which (i) they try as hard as they can, and (ii) they succeed when they try, should be cast as magical. (Unless we mean the everyday "magic" of human emotional responses - which are often a focus, and even a somewhat exagerated focus, of dramatic and melodramatic narratives.)

I think it has a lot to do with the abstraction of hit points, specifically, though there are probably other factors. If you view hit points as being even somewhat physical damage, there really isn't a good way to have complete healing that isn't magical. You might be able to say that someone uses a healing kit to patch them up enough that the wounds aren't impairing, but that's a lot different from yelling encouraging words from across the battlefield. Even if you take an approach where only the last, say 10 hit points (or bloodied, Con score, etc.) are actually physical damage, there's still a lower bound where it just doesn't make sense for the commander to be able to motivate the troops "better".

This isn't to say that I don't like the idea of non-magical healing. Quite the contrary. I actually really hate playing Clerics and, as a DM, typically find them the least compelling characters in any group -- I usually encourage Bards over Clerics for this reason, but no one in my group likes Bards, either. I just don't care for martial healing that is functionally identical to magical healing. If the Warlord granted temporary hit points or could only heal up to half (or only the top half, though that sounds punitive) or had some other something, that would be a bit better.

In 4E, I kind of gave the Warlord a pass on this because the whole system seemed to really embrace the abstraction. Ultimately, that's probably one of the big reasons why my group stopped playing 4E: the abstractions were so great that it stopped feeling narrative and started feeling more like a board game with rules that were thematically and balance appropriate, but required too much suspension of disbelief for an RPG (please no edition wars, YMMV). There were a number of character (and monster) abilities that were theoretically mundane, but really smelled like magic because of the way the rules were built. If you were down with Wuxia or Diablo, it worked out, but it wasn't as tight with a LotR or Conan tone.

In 5E, if you're OK with a Warlord who has that pseudo-magical ability to heal and motivate others, then I don't see why a Valor Bard wouldn't work. So what if a lot of the abilities are called "spells"? 5E has (rightly, IMO) gotten rid of the distinctions between divine magic, arcane magic, etc. It's up to the group to decide whether the Bard or Ranger are tapping divine sources, calling on nature spirits, or got their abilities through study. I would have liked to see them step back a bit from the "mystic sounds" of the verbal components, though. Maybe your Bard only does magic in the sense that he's able to tap into the deep subconscious of his companions. The original concept for the Paladin wasn't actually a holy knight -- that was the Cleric -- it was someone who was such a shining example of nobility (in the moral sense) that he was blessed by the powers that be. Maybe the Warlord could be seen as someone who has such a powerful aura of leadership that even the threads of reality bend for him. The Valor Bard certainly works for that.

If you want truly and explicitly non-magical healing, and are not happy with existing constructs (not saying you should be), then I think it would make sense to either expand additional options or create a whole new framework. The former could include some new Maneuvers for the Battle Master that added healing, etc. This would be my preferred route, as I generally find the Battle Master to be a bit lacking, anyway, but like the core concept. Adding a new class and framework could work, too, but seems like extreme overkill because you'd either end up with something that was just a spell list by another name or otherwise redundant with something else existing (Maneuvers, feats, etc.).

I guess I just don't see the case for a completely new class. I can see the argument that the Battle Master should be given the Ranger treatment, and I wouldn't be opposed to that -- I'm just not invested in it. I oppose a new class because I think there's an upper limit on the number of top-level classes the game can handle before the system shifts from "accessible but rich in capability" to "complex and full featured, but not accessible". D&D works best when it's accessible with support for moderate complexity.

 

[Aldarc]

Any links? On the first page I see a single thread about Sorcerers...and it's someone whose creating one asking for advice on a specific build
I also see a single thread about Druids and wildshape synergy with barbarians... I also see a two threads about wizards, one around a homebrew clockwork mage and the other about multiclassing wizard and cleric. As for warlord... I currently count 12 threads about warlords on the front page...

My understanding of Eubani's comments is that the threads about druids, sorcerers, and wizards, etc. are generally more evenly spaced, whereas the threads about warlords tend to come in bursts or waves.

 

[Imaro]

My understanding of Eubani's comments is that the threads about druids, sorcerers, and wizards, etc. are generally more evenly spaced, whereas the threads about warlords tend to come in bursts or waves.

That's part of the point though. There's a big difference between 10 threads about the same subject over 2 days vs. 10 threads about the same subject over 20 days...

 

[mellored]

Any links? On the first page I see a single thread about Sorcerers...and it's someone whose creating one asking for advice on a specific build
I also see a single thread about Druids and wildshape synergy with barbarians... I also see a two threads about wizards, one around a homebrew clockwork mage and the other about multiclassing wizard and cleric. As for warlord... I currently count 12 threads about warlords on the front page...

The difference is there arn't anti-druids, or anti-sorcerers.

A Sorcerer or Druid thread starts, fans gather, and talk about what they like their class to be or add, and then it falls off the front page. Maybe someone takes the ideas and homebrews a new sub-class.
No one starts a poll to disprove the popularity of druids, or attempt to undermine people's desire to play a sorcerer.


A Warlord thread starts, fans gather, and talk about what they like their warlord to be, and then a chunk of anti-warlords come in and give all kinds of excuses as to why there shouldn't be a warlord. And then it goes back and forth, and then another thread spawns so one side can claim political points about how popular it is, and then....

The majority of the warlord post aren't about the warlord, they are about posters (yours, and this one).
It's a fight, not a discussion.

 

[mellored]

That's part of the point though. There's a big difference between 10 threads about the same subject over 2 days vs. 10 threads about the same subject over 20 days...

I'd say only 2 threads where on the subject of the class.

8 where on fighting with other posters.

 

[Aldarc]

That's part of the point though. There's a big difference between 10 threads about the same subject over 2 days vs. 10 threads about the same subject over 20 days...

Yes, but it typically evens out over the long-term, which is also "part of the point." I can't say that I particularly see what this line of questioning does for the thread discussion though or even the validity of warlords as a future class in 5E. I suspect thought that if the Warlord became a class in 5E, there would be far less thread postings in this sort of pattern. Instead, we would likely anticipate that it would fall further in line with the 10 threads related to the subject over 20 days, most of which actually being discussion of the published content.

 

[Imaro]

The difference is there arn't anti-druids, or anti-sorcerers.

A Sorcerer or Druid thread starts, fans gather, and talk about what they like their class to be or add, and then it falls off the front page. Maybe someone takes the ideas and homebrews a new sub-class.
No one starts a poll to disprove the popularity of druids, or attempt to undermine people's desire to play a sorcerer.

What does this have to do with their being an excessive number of warlord threads concentrated in a small timeframe on the forums? Anyway... I disagree, I've seen everything from questioning why this homebrew sorcerer is needed, to some telling them how to accomplish it with options already available and also stating why WotC doesn't need to publish an official version of this particular sorcerer type. You must be reading totally different threads than I am...

A Warlord thread starts, fans gather, and talk about what they like their warlord to be, and then a chunk of anti-warlords come in and give all kinds of excuses as to why there shouldn't be a warlord. And then it goes back and forth, and then another thread spawns so one side can claim political points about how popular it is, and then....

So pretty much like every thread on the board... both sides giving "excuses" to justify their opinion. but I see you keep trying to focus on this specific thread as opposed to having a general discussion around the multitiude of warlord threads... not sure why since that isn't what I am talking about. You want to know why I started this thread... read the OP.

The majority of the warlord post aren't about the warlord, they are about posters (yours, and this one).
It's a fight, not a discussion.

Or they could be pro-warlord fans posting the exact same thread about the same warlord stuff with different names... if this isn't spamming then what is it?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?529665-Here-s-a-Warlord-Discuss

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?516355-Tactician-WiP

 

[Imaro]

Yes, but it typically evens out over the long-term, which is also "part of the point." I can't say that I particularly see what this line of questioning does for the thread discussion though or even the validity of warlords as a future class in 5E. I suspect thought that if the Warlord became a class in 5E, there would be far less thread postings in this sort of pattern. Instead, we would likely anticipate that it would fall further in line with the 10 threads related to the subject over 20 days, most of which actually being discussion of the published content.

I guess I was just thinking that sometimes the approach (spamming the boards) as opposed to the actual thing (warlord) can cause people to react in a negative way as well. I think I've grown more negative towards a warlord class (as opposed to not caring) mainly because of the annoying amount of board space it takes up as well as some of my interactions with the pro-warlord contingent. IJS.