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

[Tony Vargas]

I still have no clue where you're getting 2:1 in favor.

Math. Going on 300 responses, going on 200 pro-warlord, thus 100 'against/abstaining/survey-bombing/whatever.' ~2:1.

Not my fault, just the results.

(I'll note that, now that's been pointed out, it's edged down slightly.)

the blue lemon curry line/percentage has been longer than the red line and the numbers have been a solid 10-12%, recently hovering around a consistent 15-20% (for the last week or so), more "Lemon Curry" than "I want a Warlord."

What you're missing is that you can vote for both.

I'll just go back to assuming that the Warlord is a terrible idea, and make sure that Wizards hears that every chance I get. That's easier than trying to have an honest discussion, apparently.

Honest discussions are hard.
Resentment and stereotypes are easy alternatives.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

That looks pretty good. Although it does need to be cleaned up a bit - there's some typos (you call it a Ranger on the second page). Excellent work though.

Thanks for the catch. I've found a lot more things going over it...amazing how things show up in pdf that you miss/don't notice in InDesign...

I'll get a more thoroughly edited pdf up in the homebrew forum thread after a couple more passes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This has been answered by [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION].

In AD&D there are no temp hp so-described.

There are mechanics which give you a pool of points that take damage for you and go away after a limited duration. That's temp HP in all but name.

In 3E, when temp hp are introduced as a regular thing, how many threads have I read discussing the difference between temp hp and the temporary hit points, that are not temp hp, that a barbarian gets while raging? More than I can recall, and more than the game needs!

That's not a reason not to use temp hp, that's a reason not to use temporary ability score modifications with cascading effects. Temp HP would've been a better rule to use in that situation!

As far as die-hard mechanics are concerned, AD&D has them for good cavaliers, sohei and some animals. These also give rise to corner-cases.

Has your position moved from "there should be no unnecessary complexity" to "there should be no corner cases" then? Because I think you'll find that equally untenable.

All in the name of . . . what? The absence of wounding mechanics in D&D means that building in mechanics that revolve around wounds is, in my view, fruitless.

Your view doesn't line up with the way D&D is played by countless tables that are quite content with abstract wounds. You can advocate for not considering those other views when designing a warlord-style mechanic, but such disregard is unnecessary and, in light of the last few years of warlord threads, probably not a great idea.

(I also agree with AbdulAlhazred's comments about healing kits - the idea that a warlord is outrageous because someone at 0 hp is dying and so can't recover with inspiration, but that 6 seconds of mucking about with mediaevel-level technology can restore that person to a state where s/he is able to act without penalty, strikes me as too ludicrous for words.)

I'm not asking you to accept it in your games, I'm asking you to accept it in others', and to consider it when thinking about what the game might include and what an inspiring leader might look like in those games. The sheer volume of 1's and 0's used here should at the very least convince you that those who disagree with you aren't being disingenuous, so an insistence on their irrationality isn't likely to convert them to your perspective.

I think you are missing one point - there are some D&D players for whom building all the mechanics around the assumption that hit point recovery corresponds to biological healing produces a game that is as unsatisfactory for them, as the converse does for you.

In other words, if an issue is "divisive" - ie the object of differing preferences - you don't make it less so by going your preferred way rather than my preferred way. This is the rationale behind AbdulAlhazred ultimately addressing the WotC designers.

I make it less so by proposing alternatives. You find these alternatives unacceptable, but your rationale for dubbing them so seems vague and shifting, perhaps a matter of aesthetics more than of function. I appreciate that this is your perspective, and I hope you appreciate that in the hopes of finding a common ground, aethetics and corner cases and added complexity aren't exactly compelling reasons to reject the idea for me.

 

[mellored]

For example is a bard giving up his attack ( asuming no subclass so would have only 1 attack each round) to have a ally make a attack with a +1d8 damage bonus realy so powerfull compared to higer level cantrips ?

Anything another character can do at-will, would be fine for a bard to do at-will (+ the cost of a feature).

Though the fact that fighter's multi-attack, and rogues single attack can be a sticking point.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think you've way overplayed this. First of all you're predetermining how you always want to play? You never ever play a character that would be inspired? Either you play an incredibly narrow range of characters or you're just theorycrafting an objection.

Well, there's baggage here. In the same way that I don't like to play with Drow (because in my view the 'good' adventurer Drow should be an extreme rarity, but thanks to a certain 3rd rate fictional character whose name rhymes with zits there's now at least one Drow at every table) I find the notion of the 'officer' class highly distasteful. So, being human, I recognize that the first time I have to sit down at a table with a Warlord I'm going to be pretty grumpy about it, perhaps largely as a result of my impressions for forum discussions.

I hope (futilely?) that being open about my now-less-than-objective biases doesn't cause Warlord-proponents to play some kind of high road, "I'm being totally objective" card. We all carry that baggage in one form or another, and it's affecting all of our opinions.

I think there are a variety of things you could say about this. First of all I have no problem with it in principle. Who says the guy is a 'generalist'?

I meant that in the sense of a non-specialist in this specific narrow domain. (Or "Domain" really.) A cleric of Piblokto should, by definition, know far more about praying to Piblokto than any other class, unless he intentionally chooses to roleplay otherwise.

You could RP this thing any number of ways. The 'help' function wouldn't have to be cast as a correction, and probably wouldn't be written up that way to start with any realistic game. You could do exactly what I suggested in terms of the warlord, just RP your character getting really annoyed with the interference and casting his spells better. The notion that you must RP this in some specific way is your own hangup, not the game's.

Again, for me it is the sum of the class, not the details of any one particular piece. When everything about the class...from its name to the description of its abilities to the agency dilemma posed by non-magical healing to the illustrative scenarios described by its proponents (e.g., the Patton-yelling-at-the-private example)...paints a portrait of a class that has authority/command over other player characters, then it's hard for me to just pretend that fluff doesn't exist.

And I suspect it's the same for proponents, or they wouldn't be arguing so hard for that fluff.

But beyond all this you still haven't even touched on the central point, which is that even if YOU don't want to play this thing your tastes shouldn't be overriding those of lots of other people. You can avoid playing with certain material or use it in a way that suites you. I'm expected to do that with THE ENTIRETY OF 5E, and yet you can't give me one class that I like? Gosh, what community spirit!

My first reaction to that is that if you really don't like everything else 5e, why are you playing it? Will introducing the one class that you do like fix it? I hesitate to say "why don't you stick with 4e?" because that question is clearly overused as a kind of "love it or leave it" denigration, but...why don't you stick with 4e?

I love almost everything about 5e. It's by far my favorite edition. I'm an old grognard and it encapsulates a lot of what I loved about AD&D, without the parts I didn't like. There are a few details I'm not crazy about (Eldritch Knight, Polearm and Crossbow Experts, Drow PCs, low barriers to multiclassing, etc.) but overall I think it's awesome.

Furthermore, I don't believe that "more options are always better; you can always ignore the parts you don't like." I like games with fewer options. I never played 4e, but when I've picked up the books I think, "Ugh...too many tables and choices and races and maneuvers and rules." I do not want 5e to be that. I'm not trying to keep "bad" options (or my perception thereof) out of the game to be spiteful or mean, I genuinely do not want the game to bloat with options.

I like analogies, so here's another one: I would really hate to see the table on modern weapons in the DMG become a mainstream thing. Just because the devs figured out a way to balance laser rifles so that they're really no more powerful than bows, I just don't want to see players running around with them. "But just pretend they are bows!" No....it changes the flavor of the game. Every game has a different feel to it, and I like the feel of 5e as it is.

Would the inclusion of the Warlord (or laser guns) ruin it completely? No...but it's a step in that direction. If the Warlord, what else? Gish? Hexblade? Warden? No and no and no and no thank you.

My attempts in these threads, and my suggestions, is to figure out exactly what the Warlord proponents want to see if something can be designed that provides the necessary mechanics, but with a flavor that fits into the design aesthetic of 5e. Warlord, as proposed, does not feel like a good fit with the rest of 5e*, from the name on down. In my opinion. It's like adding an addition to a building in a totally different architectural style: it can be done well but it's not enough for the addition by itself to be good design: it also has to fit, aesthetically.

But maybe I should explain it this way: just like I truly don't understand why "non-magical, non-supernatural" is so important, but I'm taking it on faith that it is and trying to accommodate it, please take it on faith that I (and I assume others) truly believe that the inclusion of some "options" will adversely affect the overall game. I know you don't understand how that could be true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I/we are wrong, just that we look at RPGs differently.

*That said, some of the proposed mechanics in that nicely formatted homebrew a few posts up seem perfectly nice. I'll read it again and respond.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with temp HP is that they don't necessarily work beyond the combat in which they are introduced. Whereas full healing does.

A 30 HP character is hit for 20 HP of damage and then receives 20 Temp HP. Cool, he's back to full HP. Only, he's not. When the combat ends, he's only got 10 HP, meaning, he's likely going to rest to restore those HP (Barring any actual healing in the group of course) which depletes his Hit Dice. IOW, temp HP does not actually extend your adventuring day, while true healing does. A character with access to a cleric burns through a few healing spells, and now he's good to go, without a rest at all. And, considering clerics and druids regain spells on short rests, it's possible to burn a few healing spells, maybe a single HD (instead of 2 or 3) and start right back up fully stocked for spells and only down a single HD or two instead of 3 or 4.

So, yes, healing extends your adventuring day. That's what healing does. In combat healing is pretty limited, given the short length of 5e combat.

And, remember, HD only come back at 1/2 your HD/day. If you burn through all your HD, your next adventuring day is only going to be half as long.

Now, to be fair, since Temp HP in 5e last until a Long Rest, you could "bank" them before your day begins. Get up in the morning, have breakfast and an inspiring sermon by the Warlord to give you those temp HP at the beginning of the day. Every time they get depleted, restore them again before the next fight. But, that seems a bit... wonky. "Hey, we don't know if we're actually going to meet anything dangerous today, but, here, have some HP just in case". It seems cheesy to me that the warlord is basically bumping everyone at the start of the day and then we move on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can't quote steeldragons' document without retyping, so I won't go into it depth, but just wanted to point out that I don't find "Coordinate Offense" objectionable at all. "Coordinate" could reasonably be read as either support or command, however each table see fits, and the fluff is written in a neutral way. I wouldn't feel like this character is bossing me around, at least from this ability.

That's one example of the kind of edits I'm talking about.

On a side note, I do like the class name "Warden". I realize for 4e players it already has too many connotations so it's probably not usable, but the name itself fits in well with "Druid" "Ranger" "Wizard", etc. It's not simply a mundane description of what they do (e.g. "Tactician") nor a grandiose title for what they wish to become (e.g. "Warlord"). Any chance we could just hijack Warden anyway and use it for this class? It does have a connotation related to "Shepherd", which seems to fit loosely the concept. At least as well as "Cleric" does with a guy in plate armor who dual wields hammers and crackles with electricity, anyway.

And now totally off-topic, "Shepherd" itself would make a good class name for an armor-less support/healing caster.

 

[mellored]

Temp HP extends you day, if you get it before you are hit.

That said, inspiring leader (the feat) already cover that aspect. And since THP doesn't stack, it's not necessarily the best option.

Maybe damage reduction?
"as a reaction, you can reduce the damage an ally takes by 1d6, if this negates all the damage the attack missed.
Increase the die size to d8 at level....".

 

[Guest 6801328]

The problem with temp HP is that they don't necessarily work beyond the combat in which they are introduced. Whereas full healing does.

A 30 HP character is hit for 20 HP of damage and then receives 20 Temp HP. Cool, he's back to full HP. Only, he's not. When the combat ends, he's only got 10 HP, meaning, he's likely going to rest to restore those HP (Barring any actual healing in the group of course) which depletes his Hit Dice. IOW, temp HP does not actually extend your adventuring day, while true healing does. A character with access to a cleric burns through a few healing spells, and now he's good to go, without a rest at all. And, considering clerics and druids regain spells on short rests, it's possible to burn a few healing spells, maybe a single HD (instead of 2 or 3) and start right back up fully stocked for spells and only down a single HD or two instead of 3 or 4.

So, yes, healing extends your adventuring day. That's what healing does. In combat healing is pretty limited, given the short length of 5e combat.

And, remember, HD only come back at 1/2 your HD/day. If you burn through all your HD, your next adventuring day is only going to be half as long.

Now, to be fair, since Temp HP in 5e last until a Long Rest, you could "bank" them before your day begins. Get up in the morning, have breakfast and an inspiring sermon by the Warlord to give you those temp HP at the beginning of the day. Every time they get depleted, restore them again before the next fight. But, that seems a bit... wonky. "Hey, we don't know if we're actually going to meet anything dangerous today, but, here, have some HP just in case". It seems cheesy to me that the warlord is basically bumping everyone at the start of the day and then we move on.

Which is why I sort of like the idea of letting people spend their Hit Dice during combat. It's a new mechanic, it's flavorful, and it combines temporary HP + short rest recovery into one step. Is it as "good" as just giving HP? No. (Maybe a correlative ability would be slightly faster recovery of Hit Dice during long rests? Or the ability to regain a single HD during short rests if none are spent during the same short rest? Or something of that nature.) But it could be one arrow in the quiver. And I think it's more interesting to throw some curve balls into resource planning; if martial healing works "just like" magical healing then it's a missed opportunity to increase game depth.

Without trying to start a flame war, is there any chance that the stiff opposition to martial healing providing only temporary hit dice is based on a fear that it might get mistaken for evidence that "Hit Points Are Meat"? Or is really just that proponents believe you'll still "need a cleric" if the healing is only temporary?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Temp HP extends you day, if you get it before you are hit.

That said, inspiring leader (the feat) already cover that aspect. And since THP doesn't stack, it's not necessarily the best option.

Maybe damage reduction?
"as a reaction, you can reduce the damage an ally takes by 1d6, if this negates all the damage the attack missed.
Increase the die size to d8 at level....".

Interesting. I like new mechanics.

Would make a great battle chant....

EDIT: How about reduces damage by your proficiency bonus, just to make it easier in practice?