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

[Tony Vargas]

First, 4e players are not monolithic. I can't account for any number of random people on other boards or even on here (which is the only community I actively take part in these days). Second, I can fairly comfortably say that all the major, outspoken 4e advocates on these boards wouldn't disagree with the contention "the majority of healing that takes place in 4e is inspirational/martial/nonmagical." Spending Healing Surges at Short Rests is nonmagical. Second Wind (which everyone has) is nonmagical.

Then there's all the Leaders other than the Warlord, triggering those surges magically, the fact Second Wind is usually an inferior option to letting a healer work some magic on you, the 'efficiency' of using leader powers that add extra hps to what your surge heals, and magical sources of regeneration.

So it really depends on context or the sense it's meant. A party with a Pacifist Cleric in the 'Leader' Role could get back most of their hps ever day from magic - from non-surge healing, magically-triggered surges, and magical bonuses to those surges could easily get the vast majority of their healing 'from magic.'

In the sense that most powers that restore hps are magical 'healing' like Healing Word there's only the one non-magical 'leader.'

So, depending on the party, style of play, pacing and other factors you could have a party that uses nothing but non-magical healing (an all-martial party with no potions), or one that only gets non-magical healing when they rest overnight, and that incidentally if someone sacks out with a few hps of damage they didn't bother to get healed before.

Really, that was one of the cool things about 4e: that the game's traditional need for 'healing' didn't dictate a 'cleric' or Wand of Cure Light wounds or other magical box o' band-aids, nor make removing one source or another problematic.

Beyond those, there are an enormous number of Feats, Theme Features/Powers, riders from nonmagical Attack Powers, Utility Powers, Skill Powers...on and on...that trigger the access of your Healing Surges in combat which are nonnegotiably nonmagical.

Any martial exploit is, certainly, and there's a lot of 'em, but there's a lot of Divine, Primal, and even Arcane powers that trigger surges or provide non-surge healing, too.

I suspect the same can be said for 5e now given the devs excised the primary impact of the Healing Surge system (including its supporting infrastructure) on play (which is the embedded combat narrative of "The Rally"), while cribbing the secondary impact of the Healing Surge system in Hit Dice (out of combat healing which extends the Adventuring Day and relieves the pressures toward the 15 minute work day).

HD represent a lot less healing relative to total hps than surges did, but the assumption of long many-brief-encounter days and hp attrition (that is, you might end the day with few hps left and no healing available) could make overnight healing a very significant source of 'healing,' in which case sure, in a typical iconic party with only one healer, seems very likely. OTOH, 'common' healing potions and a party with lots of casters with cure wounds prepped, maybe not. Still depends on style, I guess.

Tolkein's works are a mash-up of two subgenres of fantasy fiction; Romantic Fantasy and Heroic Fantasy.

Rocky and Die Hard, while not aspiring to precisely the same message as The Hobbit and LotR, are both "Tolkeinesque" in that they have a great deal of trope and theme overlap

And, while they're different genres & sub-genres, they're all 'Heroic' sub-genres, so the overlap is only to be expected.

 

[Aldarc]

That's just conspiracy theorist silliness, to be blunt.

I have. And posted my thoughts on the matter several times in the various threads going currently. That you gloss over or ignored them because you don't like what I had to say is more indicative of you having blinders of your own.

Yes, and as I recall your own speculation amounts to a gross mischaracterization about the motives and wants of the pro-warlord crowd, some of which you allude to below.

Disagree. And so do the devs, clearly. The battlemaster is the actual warlord. A 5e-ified version. That along with a feat or two and you have what you need to play all the aesthetics of that class. Or you can go valor bard as well if you prefer. Or even mix-and-match a bit of both. That's the beauty of 5e's flexibility. I sure do love this edition.

It's funny, to me at least, but at some point there will no doubt be an AU article with some kind of juiced up warlord style set of ideas to appease the vocal minority. Just like the ranger decriers who never bothered to actually play one. I'm sure your time will coming someday as well. And I feel a little guilty, but I can't help but feel like I'm gonna relish that day because all the fanatical warlord-philes will come here to denounce it as "still not good enough". Or "not what they wanted". Or whatever.

<shrug>

Your passively-aggressive hostile attitude here towards pro-warlord fans demonstrates completely why it's clear you have no interest in holding a discussion about 'warlords' in good faith. What you express is nothing particular to the pro-warlord crowds. See the pro-wizard fans who were displeased with the 5E wizard. See the pro-warlock fans who were displeased with the 5E warlock. There will always be people who feel that the edition did not represent a particular class well. But the warlord right now is a non-presence in the game despite the talking point you keep repeating about the battlemaster plus a few feats being the warlord.

Do you believe anyone voted for both though not wanting a warlord? Or that some may have voted only for lemon curry yet want a warlord? Is that the impression you are trying to make without stating it outright?

'Lemmon curry' is a non-sensical category devoid of meaningful content from which we can extrapolate anything apart from the number of people who voted for 'lemmon curry.' It neither tells us those who are anti-warlord nor neutral-warlord nor pro-warlord, as anyone can be from these admittedly reductionistic camps and still vote for 'lemmon curry.'

 

[Yunru]

Indeed, the only number we know for sure is correct (give or take 120 for any neutrals), is the pro-warlord, as that's the only option properly listed.

And given THAT only has meaning when compared to the other numbers... the poll tells nothing.

That said we can guess. If every extra vote is from neutrals who voted for both, the we have 120ish neutrals (I think, can't see poll while editting), 60 ish for it, and 90ish against. That's worst case for the pros. Best case is a two thirds majority.

What those guess certainly do show, however, is that pro is not a minority by any sensible definition.

 

[Aldarc]

Indeed, the only number we know for sure is correct (give or take 32 for any neutrals), is the pro-warlord, as that's the only option properly listed.

Precisely. What this poll does tell us is that out of the 285 voters, two-thirds voted in favor of the warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At the very least, if nothing else, this thread has shown -consistently, nearly from the beginning to now- that the number of people that do not want and/or don't care about the warlord outnumber the number of folks that do.

The poll at the top of this thread has been running 2:1 in favor of the Warlord, about 66%, two thirds of respondents, want the Warlord.

Of course, self-selecting polls like this, especially flippant ones with non-sequitur answers, are pretty nearly meaningless.

A majority isn't "imagined" if there are actually more of them than others...then they are actually a majority.

"Don't care" almost certainly is the majority. That's probably true of any one class outside the big 4, or any one technical game element. The majority not caring means there's nothing wrong with adding the thing they're indifferent to, and which has both enthusiastic support, and would be a symbol of unifying the editions.

The Warlord needs to be a good class, balanced/playable (to the standards of 5e), and faithful to it's origin.
For the sake of amity, sure, it can be relegated to the optional game rather than retro-actively added to the Core game in spite of not being in a core book or errata'd into the PH like the revised ranger may be.

I'm a fan of warlord mechanics more then of warlord fluff. I heavily refluff everything anyways.
...
I want agency for support.

I sit at the opposite extreme. What is most important to me is the flavor, and that it is a legitimate alternative for either bard, cleric or druid. I don't really care as much about the mechanically beyond it not being similar to spellcasting.

Clearly neither flavor nor mechanics should be sacrificed.

 

[Remathilis]

Let's deal with yet another class that isn't in 5e yet...the Warden (correct me if I missed it). Any Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Druid/Monk/Cleric with the Sentinel feat is pretty much just asking to fill this role. WotC gave us class specific featuers with each class and then feats to tighten it up. But is that the true intention of the feat system? Do we call a character with the feat a 'Warden'? Or are we, as the players, making more of it than we should? IMHO, let's steer further from 4.0 as much as possible. I liked it, but in truth, it was a different game with a D&D theme. But it wasn't D&D to me. It was...something else.

Warden, Invoker, Avenger, and more than a few 4e-specific classes only existed as grid-fillers. Due to the strict nature of roles and power-sources, classes began to appear that previously could be handled by other classes. With 5e's more flexible nature (due to subclasses and non-mechanical roles) those classes have been absorbed by other base classes: the Warden is an Oath of Ancients Paladin, the Invoker is a Light Domain Cleric, an Avenger is an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, a Warlord is a Battlemaster Fighter, etc.

(for what its worth, 3e had a lot of blend-classes: part X and part Y classes like duskblade or spellthief. Those got sucked up into the subclass vacuum too: eldritch knight probably owes more to duskblade than the PrC its named after).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Indeed, the only number we know for sure is correct (give or take 120 for any neutrals), is the pro-warlord, as that's the only option properly listed.

And given THAT only has meaning when compared to the other numbers... the poll tells nothing.

That said we can guess. If every extra vote is from neutrals who voted for both, the we have 120ish neutrals (I think, can't see poll while editting), 60 ish for it, and 90ish against. That's worst case for the pros. Best case is a two thirds majority.

What those guess certainly do show, however, is that pro is not a minority by any sensible definition.

As Megan McArdle likes to say, "Whenever you're tempted to write a lede about a psychology finding that begins with the words, 'Studies show that...', try replacing that with 'Studies of small groups of young, affluent psychology majors show that...' and see if you're still tempted to write that article."

The only meaningful data you can draw from the poll on this thread is that there are at least 187 Enworlders who like the idea of their idealized concept of the Warlord enough to click on a button. It is unclear whether all 187 of them could ever be satisfied by the same splatbook rules, given how fragmented the discussion here is.

For me, if I ever need a Warlord I'll pull out the link to Steeldragons' version of it, tweak the rules slightly to my taste (weakening the 18th level ability to not apply to self), stick it on an enemy NPC, give him thirty (or thirty thousand) minions, a monobrow, and a big scowl, and call it good.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Your passively-aggressive hostile attitude...

Mine? Well, since you are the one who's posting style I'm mimicking, what does that tell you?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Elfcrusher, how do you feel about the Fighter Battlemaster's 'Rally,' 'Maneuvering Strike,' and 'Commanding Strike' abilities which are already in AL?

Sure. I wish the language had been tweaked a little bit so that it didn't imply ordering anybody around, but I have no problem with the mechanics.

 

[Aldarc]

Mine? Well, since you are the one who's posting style I'm mimicking, what does that tell you?

Your negative attitude and open hostility towards the pro-warlord crowd extends well beyond that one post, and mimicry neither explains nor excuses that behavior. If you think that I am engaging in passive-aggressive and hostile behavior, then report it. There is a little button below my post that allows you to do so.

Sure. I wish the language had been tweaked a little bit so that it didn't imply ordering anybody around, but I have no problem with the mechanics.

Excellent. I feel like we are making headway. Ideally, a warlord class would involve expanding those options in a more support-oriented martial class and tweaking them so that "it didn't imply ordering anybody around." And on that note, what do you think of the bard's inspiration dice? Would you perhaps prefer if the warlord provided combat inspiration dice that allowed you to choose when to act upon it?