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

[Imaro]

Duh! If the designers had included it, there'd be no need for us to pursue it...

Not to mention, what does any of that have to do with anything?

Are you trying to say that the designers opinions are so etched in stone they can't possibly change?

Or are you just falling into the illogical assumption that because they didn't feel it was right for initial inclusion, means they feel it's perpetually not right for inclusion?

Pack it up, Guys! Imaro says it's unnecessary and futile!



That argument (or observation) is about as logical as "That's the way we've always done it..."

And if "Pack it up, it's unnecessary and futile" was what I posted then you'd have a point... how about you show me where I posted that or you stop putting words in my mouth... nice try though.

EDIT: Go back, read my post again and you'll see I was speaking to the corebooks and the type of game they should facilitate... that statement has nothing to do with having or not having an official warlord in some hypothetical future splat... As I posted earlier, I could care less whether they do or don't make a warlord... However that doesn't mean I won't comment on the absurdity and uselessness of the poll you created or point out holes in your statements within this thread... what that shouldn't be confused with is whether I do or don't want a warlord in 5e, they are separate things.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I see the fact that martial healing cannot bring someone back from unconsciousness as a feature, not a bug. To me hitpoints are a combination of meat, luck, awareness, etc. And when you drop to 0 it makes the most sense that your character has been physically wounded in some way. After all, you don't become incapacitated when you suddenly run out of luck. So when you're out for the count after you get stabbed or hit by lightning it does not make much sense that someone can shout at you to make you stand back up. The Rally option inspires morale to make others feel tougher, but morale doesn't help you when you're potentially mortally wounded.

 

[MoonSong]

EDIT: Go back, read my post again and you'll see I was speaking to the corebooks and the type of game they should facilitate... that statement has nothing to do with having or not having an official warlord in some hypothetical future splat... As I posted earlier, I could care less whether they do or don't make a warlord... However that doesn't mean I won't comment on the absurdity and uselessness of the poll you created or point out holes in your statements within this thread... what that shouldn't be confused with is whether I do or don't want a warlord in 5e, they are separate things.

But then it was kind of uncalled for, the corebooks are set in stone, and they have nothing to do with this discussion then?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I see the fact that martial healing cannot bring someone back from unconsciousness as a feature, not a bug. To me hitpoints are a combination of meat, luck, awareness, etc. And when you drop to 0 it makes the most sense that your character has been physically wounded in some way.

I'm not sure what "martial healing" is, but a Medic Fighter certainly can bring someone back from 0 HP. "When you use a healing kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 Hit Point." No limit on number of uses per day, and of course once your buddy is back up from 0 HP he can now see and hear again so you can Rally him, and once combat is done you can give him a good long talk and Inspire him. A high-level Medic/Leader fighter (say 12th level) will be able to boost his buddies back up from 0 HP to 40-ish HP or so with a short ten-minute break, or he can boost a regular soldier up to 20-ish HP, which is a pretty impressive amount of wound reduction/mitigation for medieval technology!

 

[Imaro]

But then it was kind of uncalled for, the corebooks are set in stone, and they have nothing to do with this discussion then?

If there shouldn't be any discussion around the corebooks... why was the assertion by @El Mahdi made that the game (as it stands now... only the corebooks) was or wasn't suitable for a non-magic game even mentioned? Why was the fact that one had to use a feat to have non-martial healing in the corebooks claimed to be a feat tax in the game? How should that comment (as well as others made) have been addressed if not referring to the current rules since that was what was being referenced?

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I'm not sure what "martial healing" is!

I was referring primarily to the 5e Fighter's Rally maneuver and the 4e inspiration for it, the Warlord's Inspiring Word feature. Both these powers are fluffed as delivering a rousing verse or two that boosts the target's morale. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense that an inspiring phrase (explicitly non-magical ones) can heal debilitating wounds of allies.

Delivering first aid is a different story. You are actively attending to the target's physical injuries. It may be a tad unrealistic since first aid in the real world tends to have slower effects, but it is more of an acceptable break from reality that healing wounds by shouting at someone.

 

[fuindordm]

I want one. As I've already stated a time or three, I want more martial base classes in the game, and I think the warlord concept is broad enough to encompass subclasses.

But if I don't get one, then I can make do with what's already available, a little grudgingly.

Ben

 

[Mephista]

I don't particularly care about a Warlord class in the game; I'm one of the few that played one in 4e, and have no qualms about playing the Battlemaster version. And I've come to the conclusion that fans of the class should get to design the class how they would enjoy it.

I just have my doubts that its possible to reproduce the Warlord without completely destroying the action economy of the game, or requiring significant use of DMG alternative tactics rules.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't particularly care about a Warlord class in the game; I'm one of the few that played one in 4e, and have no qualms about playing the Battlemaster version. And I've come to the conclusion that fans of the class should get to design the class how they would enjoy it.

I just have my doubts that its possible to reproduce the Warlord without completely destroying the action economy of the game, or requiring significant use of DMG alternative tactics rules.

Well, you tell me... the class is out there in en5ider, watch and tell if it is possible, it uses no optional rules.

 

[Mephista]

You're assuming that the Noble fills that warlord niche - I disagree. In 4e, I played a dragonborn warlord, and I absolutely included martial attacks. The noble can't do anything approaching that. That's another issue I have with the cries for a new Warlord class. Most of those cries seem to revolve around remaking the lazy'lord almost exclusively. That particular style never interested me.

As such, I see no need to bother paying for something I'd never use and find out. From the beginning, its failed for me. So, unless someone wants to go over how it works as a warlord, I won't be finding out, and I remain skeptical.