D&D 5E (2014) For the Record: Mearls on Warlords (ca. 2013)

[Aldarc]

It literally took me 5 minutes to figure out WTF you were saying, then I realized you took my post out of context.

In a discussion about a new Warlord-like class, in which I was suggesting it have a different name, I then proposed that one of the sub-classes of this new Warlord-like class could actually be called "Warlord" and its speciality would be mass combat. Or at least structured/formal combat, such that things like Shield Walls would be in its purview.

/sigh

My apologies. I would still prefer that it be called 'the Warlord,' if only so that the class gains better traction as a class with its own legacy.

 

[Mistwell]

To be on topic, it would have to be, "Routinely communicate, from across a room or field, with unconscious strangers using words." Which that trope does not even remotely broach.

First, it's not routine, it's a special ability of a class.

Second, it's not strangers, you're a Warlord in the party, trying to heal an ally. We already established the game allows for inspiring "allies". The game doesn't distinguish between things like "Ally you know well" and "Ally you don't know so well," they're either an ally or not an ally.

Third, as for doing it from across the room, this also doesn't seem an important factor - the trope is about speaking and the unconscious hearing you, so as long as you are close enough for them to hear you it should be fine, much like all inspiring seems capable of inspiring from some range that is not restricted to "touch".

If you don't want it to work that way, cool. But, I think it's plenty on topic, and it moves the debate forward by establishing there is some level of acceptable logic behind inspiring/healing those who are unconscious using words. Now people who argue they like that sort of thing have a pretty good response to "but it's not logical to use words to communicate with the unconscious" and the debate can move on to "OK you can communicate with the unconscious using words but I think it should/should not be able to heal them".

 

[mellored]

my 3 healing things.

1: damage reduction (at-will reaction)
2: allies stay concious at 0 (until they fail 1 saving)
3: short rest hit dice boost (reroll a die, X times per day)


i think that would be enough.

 

[sleypy]

In principle I like mechanics like that, but I don't think it's a good one to overlay on top of an existing game. Maybe someone could figure out an elegant way to do it.

What makes it not good? Its no overlaying anything. bonds are an existing mechanic that already have optional systems tied to it. It would be purely self contained because it is using a pre-existing game feature. skills, tools, languages, etc. come from more than one sources. There are mechanics to bond with your pet, your companion animal, and your sword; surely additional bonding with other people isn't a huge stretch.

If the dramatic change caused by feats are not overly distressing to the system then mechanics that don't require an actually mechanical change to the system shouldn't be that disruptive.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

First, it's not routine, it's a special ability of a class.

That happens multiple times a day. Every day. Successfully every time. Because its routine.

Second, it's not strangers, you're a Warlord in the party, trying to heal an ally. We already established the game allows for inspiring "allies". The game doesn't distinguish between things like "Ally you know well" and "Ally you don't know so well," they're either an ally or not an ally.

Nor does it require you to have ever formally met the "ally" or even know their name. It works the moment you meet them and decide to share a common enemy. There is zero relationship involved. Which is the opposite of every single example the mis-associated trope uses.

 

[Bawylie]

That happens multiple times a day. Every day. Successfully every time. Because its routine.


Nor does it require you to have ever formally met the "ally" or even know their name. It works the moment you meet them and decide to share a common enemy. There is zero relationship involved. Which is the opposite of every single example the mis-associated trope uses.

Honestly I think we moved on from routinely raising someone with "Inspiring Word" to requiring some adjacent action-based stabilization, or at least keeping people awake at zero until 1st failed save.

 

[Mistwell]

That happens multiple times a day. Every day. Successfully every time. Because its routine.


Nor does it require you to have ever formally met the "ally" or even know their name. It works the moment you meet them and decide to share a common enemy. There is zero relationship involved. Which is the opposite of every single example the mis-associated trope uses.

You don't seem to be groking that I cited the trope to demonstrate an unconscious person can hear you, and that is THE ONE AND ONLY REASON I CITED IT.

Do I really need to give you a list of all the things I am not citing it for? The trope was note cited to demonstrate this power. It does not demonstrate this power - that is a strawman, and nobody here said the trope demonstrates this power. Nobody implied it, and nobody should infer it. Not sure how much more clear I can make it - the trope shows it's not illogical for an unconscious person to hear the voice of someone. That's it. That's why I cited it, that's theonly relevance.

You comparing it to something else is all you. No matter how many times you change the subject to "The trope doesn't exactly replicate all aspects of the power we're talking about" I am going to repeat that the only purpose of citing it is to demonstrate it's not illogical for someone to say an unconscious person can hear you speak.

Are we all clear now?

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you want to argue about TV Tropes, go to TV Tropes. There will be no third warning.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The set of features/abilities that sound fun to me are:
- Some sort of damage mitigation as a reaction (kind of like Protection fighting style, but reduces damage rather than causes misses?)
- Benefit to adjacent (nearby?) allies who are at 0 HP. (Advantage on Death Saves?)
- Improved recovery while resting, perhaps faster HD recover (no specific suggestions for how this would work...)
- THP to allies who actively participate, e.g. my suggestion in mellored's thread that a battle cry is started, and anybody who uses a bonus action to join in gets the THP. Clearly the benefit would have to be good enough to compensate for loss of bonus action.

A class that could do all that would help comrades survive in a lot of ways, none of which (unless I'm missing something) duplicate existing mechanics.

And a new idea for my "shield wall" concept: "When the (insert class name) uses the Dodge action, he can also use his bonus action and grant any allies within 5' the ability to take the Dodge action as a bonus action. Any allies who do so then grant the same ability to allies within 5' of them, and so on." (Needs some wordsmithing.) So if this guy uses his full Action to Dodge, everybody else in the group/line can also Dodge for just a bonus action, as long as they all participate. Maybe it's limited use, or takes Concentration, or something. The idea is that he's not literally taking the Dodge action; he's using his Action to oversee a defensive formation, and then using his own bonus action to Dodge.

Maybe it's complicated, but no worse than Hiding rules!

 

[MechaPilot]

I fear, though, that anybody who isn't satisfied with temp HP will also be dissatisfied with mitigation rather than actual healing.

I think that it really depends on the source of the objection.

I object to temp HP healing because the temp HPs will just up and evaporate on their own. However, mitigation achieves the same end as actual healing, and it avoids the evaporating HP scenario.

That said, I do think that any warlord really should have inspirational healing as an option. I have always supported a sidebar with the warlord that tells DMs they can change the healing to temp HPs, and that discusses the effects of making that change.