D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, there's a "typical" (default) way presented. Diverge from that, and you're diverging from the presumed narrative. Thankfully, 5e is flexible about that divergence - it doesn't stop you going basically all wound or basically all morale if that's what you want. Inspirational healing would change that.

I believe we've established that it wouldn't.

You can narrate Inspiring Word that restores hps as helping an ally to ignore the effects of wounds, and assume those wounds receive mundane treatment at the earliest convenient opportunity.

You can narrate Inspiring Word as possibly having some subtle underlying semi-mystical component.

Inspirational healing can be as compatible with the narrative-wound model you articulated as Second Wind and death saves are. It just has to avoid going to extremes and writing fluff into rules so as to willfully block reasonable interpretations - an extreme the, well, extreme pro-Warlord position I articulated (tongue-in-cheek) upthread, would doubtless want to go to, and one that can be conceded as part of the desired compromise.

So, officially, there can be a wound narrative. That's important - it implies that future material shouldn't contradict it unless it gets more specific about the narrative. There is explicitly room for that narrative.

I never accepted that premise, either. It's potentially too easy to just fabricate an arbitrary narrative model that rejects some aspect of any new addition to the game and thereby stone-wall it. It just seemed to me that it would be more constructive to examine your specific wound narrative in detail, and find ways to make it available, because it did seem fairly reasonable, and very much in keeping with genre - as is the Warlord. It turns out they're compatible, if both make the effort to remain reasonable and cut eachother just a little slack.

It is not consistent with the idea that DMs can describe damage in different ways - it means that there can be only one way to describe damage. That's kind of the problem - non-mystical inspirational healing requires you use a hit point model that the game in general doesn't require you to use. Logically, you need to accept the inspirational model of hp before you accept inspirational healing, so a class that offers the latter should be selected after a table agrees to the former.

I don't understand why you're still saying this. We've established that a narrative wound model that can handle Second Wind and Death Saves can also handle a reasonable presentation of Inspiring World.

Narrative models that can't handle a reasonable Inspiring Word also can't handle HD and/or overnight healing and/or death saves and/or hit point gain with level and/or non-proportional healing and/or Second Wind - all of which are present in 5e.

Happily! If inspirational healing is like lay on hands or bardic inspiration something - able to be seen through a mystical lens - its issues evaporate because it's something that doesn't require one model of hp to work. I'm totally cool with a Warlord "inspiring word" entry whose fluff is all of "Your passionate exhortation restores vitality to your comrades."

To be crystal clear, Lay on Hand /is/ clearly supernatural, a matter of divine agency, but can be ruled otherwise based on some obscure technicality. Bardic Inspiration is a feature of a caster class, even if it's not explicitly stated as being magical.

Inspiring Word would be a non-magical feature of a non-caster class that could reasonably mention in it's fluff that it's members don't usually posses magical abilities, Inspiring Word, itself, should contain /no/ language stating that or implying that it is magical or supernatural in any way, leaving a clear implication that it is strictly martial. That supports the concept of the Warlord, but also leaves open a DM ruling that it has a supernatural element, or even the possibility of a PC or player choosing to believe that there is some subtle supernatural agency at work. Which is the same level of plausible deniability that Lay on Hands has, just in the opposite direction.

If that's the compromise, I'm certainly into it!

I hope we've at least laid to rest your concern that no compromise was possible.

At the risk of repeating myself, because this is a critically important, easy-to-miss point:

And I am all about a 5e warlord that is no more non-magical than lay on hands. In fact, loot those mechanics (maybe halve the points if you can do it at range as a bonus action), and allow for a mystical interpretation of what's going on, and I am all in.

That is not acceptable. There is room for Inspiring world to be "much more non-magical" than Lay on Hands, while still leaving it technically open to the belief that there's something magical going on, just something too subtle to detect, counter or quash with an anti-magic field. Deniably magical enough for a narrative hp model to accept it, but not enough to wreck the concept of the Warlord entirely.

Lay on Hands is very Divine, very magical by implication, but technically has just a little wiggle room to think otherwise if you really want to (and no one really wants to, unless they're in an anti-magic shell, I'm guessing). The corresponding position for Inspiring Word (and any other Warlord ability) would be that it's very martial, in no way supernatural by implication, but technically, has just a little wiggle room to think there's something more than the completely mundane going on there if you really want to.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why not just use alternative methods of healing like the Healer feat... healing potions...Inspiring Leader feat...Bard Class...Ranger Class...Warlock class...Rally maneuver...Magic Initiate feat... and so on.

Edit: Which is to say there is already alot of available non-divine healing in 5e

OK, so if all of this already exists why are you objecting to warlords? They won't do ANYTHING DIFFERENT from 'Inspiring Leader' or bards, etc. We simply want a character that reproduces the archetype of some sort of inspiring 'non-magical' leader (and I put that in quotes because frankly NOTHING in a D&D world isn't 'magic' at some level, virtually 100% of what happens would be impossible in the real world).

The objections really have all been dismissed here. I don't like to keep saying it but at this point what's left to complain about except you really just seem bound and determined to eradicate specific modes of play from the game. Again, as I did 100 pages ago, I appeal to the actual designers of 5e. Haven't you heard enough? Isn't it time to call a halt to this farce? Does any objection yet remain except just uttermost digging in of heels that cannot ever be addressed? Is there even a substantial number of people left arguing here? It seems like this is worn down to the point where only the most completely adamant detractors are left, and there is just some point where pleasing a residuum of people might not be worth it? Ain't my call, but I'm just sayin' ....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well then I'll assume there's more to it than avoidance of divine casters around your reasons for wanting a warlord...

OK lets start over then.

There are concepts that I and my group like that warlord is the best and easiest to portray (counter argument is normally to play a battlemaster fighter/bard and refluff the entire thing, then take the inspire feat and at level 7 or 8 you would be able to play the same concept as a 4e 2nd level warlord)

There are a lot of fluff baggage with all the healer classes, Druids are servents of nature, Clerics and Palidens to there gods, and bards using instruments and all of them spells. (Counter argument just refluff them)

I hope that a warlord would be a more complex martial class, as it stands now you can play a simple caster (warlock) a mid complexity caster or a high complexity caster, but the martial classes bearly get to mid complexity.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I never accepted that premise, either.

I just want to touch on this one interesting statement.

Do you likewise see that many of us have never accepted the premise that 5e doesn't already adequately represent the aspects of warlord that fit into 5e's system paradigm?

And do you see that our opinion in that is just as valid as yours is here? I just want you to stand on this side of the fence for a second and see that you aren't battling monsters. Just people who disagree with your premise just as much as you disagree with theirs.

 

[JediGamemaster]

OK, so if all of this already exists why are you objecting to warlords? They won't do ANYTHING DIFFERENT from 'Inspiring Leader' or bards, etc. We simply want a character that reproduces the archetype of some sort of inspiring 'non-magical' leader (and I put that in quotes because frankly NOTHING in a D&D world isn't 'magic' at some level, virtually 100% of what happens would be impossible in the real world).

The objections really have all been dismissed here. I don't like to keep saying it but at this point what's left to complain about except you really just seem bound and determined to eradicate specific modes of play from the game. Again, as I did 100 pages ago, I appeal to the actual designers of 5e. Haven't you heard enough? Isn't it time to call a halt to this farce? Does any objection yet remain except just uttermost digging in of heels that cannot ever be addressed? Is there even a substantial number of people left arguing here? It seems like this is worn down to the point where only the most completely adamant detractors are left, and there is just some point where pleasing a residuum of people might not be worth it? Ain't my call, but I'm just sayin' ....

the objection is that once you include rules for non magic cheer leading to heal you make it so that people who play the game are unhappy and 1722 posts latter you are no better then at post 1, it is to dividing and as such there is no good reason to have this fight

 

[Imaro]

OK, so if all of this already exists why are you objecting to warlords? They won't do ANYTHING DIFFERENT from 'Inspiring Leader' or bards, etc. We simply want a character that reproduces the archetype of some sort of inspiring 'non-magical' leader (and I put that in quotes because frankly NOTHING in a D&D world isn't 'magic' at some level, virtually 100% of what happens would be impossible in the real world).

Woah... woah... who said I was objecting to anything. A statement was made about a problem with divine casters and I offered an alternative in 5e.

But since I'm being called out for something I didn't do, I'll breakdown what my my personal feelings are about the warlord. The fact is that the warlord was never played by anyone during the time I ran 4e and is, IMO, a waste of design effort and space which I'd rather see devoted to other classes and areas (like psionics or more options for what we already have), my view is that it should be a subclass within other classes and with the battlemaster and mastermind I'm glad to see WotC going in that direction. The fact that we have so many ways to heal, so many ways to get advantage and numerous ways for character's to boost themselves and others makes an entire class centered around such, again IMO, redundant and kind of pointless.

The objections really have all been dismissed here. I don't like to keep saying it but at this point what's left to complain about except you really just seem bound and determined to eradicate specific modes of play from the game. Again, as I did 100 pages ago, I appeal to the actual designers of 5e. Haven't you heard enough? Isn't it time to call a halt to this farce? Does any objection yet remain except just uttermost digging in of heels that cannot ever be addressed? Is there even a substantial number of people left arguing here? It seems like this is worn down to the point where only the most completely adamant detractors are left, and there is just some point where pleasing a residuum of people might not be worth it? Ain't my call, but I'm just sayin' ....

Or for another take... there aren't enough actual fans of the warlord, in the real world, as opposed to the internet, to affect the sales or popularity of 5e. That most people actually are fine with the game the way it is and would rather see other classes as well as new options for the existing ones before they'd rather see a warlord... and that ultimately the gain from designing a warlord class just isn't worth it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK lets start over then.

There are concepts that I and my group like that warlord is the best and easiest to portray (counter argument is normally to play a battlemaster fighter/bard and refluff the entire thing, then take the inspire feat and at level 7 or 8 you would be able to play the same concept as a 4e 2nd level warlord)

There are a lot of fluff baggage with all the healer classes, Druids are servents of nature, Clerics and Palidens to there gods, and bards using instruments and all of them spells. (Counter argument just refluff them)

I hope that a warlord would be a more complex martial class, as it stands now you can play a simple caster (warlock) a mid complexity caster or a high complexity caster, but the martial classes bearly get to mid complexity.

I think a warlord would be a unique combination as well. Its not just about refluffing. I think the action granting, debuffing/buffing, and inspirational mechanics as a package are not something that really exists as such in 5e now. Maybe, depending on the exact definition of what you call a warlord, it might be emulatable with a bunch of work, but there's a LOT of things that fall into that category, most of which have specific mechanics for them because they're things people often want to do.

I think we've established that there's a significant set of people that DO want to do 'warlord stuff' on a frequent enough basis that it can be considered as a supported concept in the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

yea the FACT that it outsold 3e and brought in new players is what gets denied all the time...

I'll need a quote to back that up. It sold around a 1/3rd of 3.5 and 1/5th of 3.0 it seems. IIRC they claimed it sold better on preorders than 3E but they never specified 3.0 or 3.5. Monte is on record here at an ENworld interview from August 2014 saying D&D was around a 1/3rd of the size it was befire 4E launched and used the word disaster.

Oh I see you compared it to 3.5. 3.5 was not a launched edition of a new D&D. It did not sell as well as 3.0 did. 4E outselling 3.5 in launch year (2003 vs 2008) is believable but 3.5 only sold around 250-300k units apparently (source Erik Mona). 3.0 shifted more than than in its 1st month according to Dancey.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Woah... woah... who said I was objecting to anything. A statement was made about a problem with divine casters and I offered an alternative in 5e.

But since I'm being called out for something I didn't do, I'll breakdown what my my personal feelings are about the warlord. The fact is that the warlord was never played by anyone during the time I ran 4e and is, IMO, a waste of design effort and space which I'd rather see devoted to other classes and areas (like psionics or more options for what we already have), my view is that it should be a subclass within other classes and with the battlemaster and mastermind I'm glad to see WotC going in that direction. The fact that we have so many ways to heal, so many ways to get advantage and numerous ways for character's to boost themselves and others makes an entire class centered around such, again IMO, redundant and kind of pointless.



Or for another take... there aren't enough actual fans of the warlord, in the real world, as opposed to the internet, to affect the sales or popularity of 5e. That most people actually are fine with the game the way it is and would rather see other classes as well as new options for the existing ones before they'd rather see a warlord... and that ultimately the gain from designing a warlord class just isn't worth it.

You know what? The value of this thread really has sunk to just about nil at this point. I think plenty of folks have concluded there's no reason to exclude the concept and that it can be done in some fashion that works. Clearly there are many people who find the idea of this class worthwhile. Its pointless to debate that any more with the few who are left who aren't ever going to agree. I'll just predict that we will get what we want, as it is one of the few things remaining that has significant traction and hasn't yet been introduced. Maybe Mike is digging in his heels, but he will come around, just as he's giving on PrCs and other things.

 

[Imaro]

You know what? The value of this thread really has sunk to just about nil at this point. I think plenty of folks have concluded there's no reason to exclude the concept and that it can be done in some fashion that works. Clearly there are many people who find the idea of this class worthwhile. Its pointless to debate that any more with the few who are left who aren't ever going to agree. I'll just predict that we will get what we want, as it is one of the few things remaining that has significant traction and hasn't yet been introduced. Maybe Mike is digging in his heels, but he will come around, just as he's giving on PrCs and other things.

Hey more power to you. I know right now 5e is providing exactly what I want as far as D&D is concerned (including my concept of the warlord as a supplemental archetype that is usually combined with others) so I really do hope you get your warlord at some point down the line... but if what you want is an official warlord what's the point of all these brainstorming threads??