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

[I'm A Banana]

Honest question about the Warlord from a total n00b - wanted to play one in 4th but never got to, and mostly speaking from a 3rd Ed. background:

Haters don't like "shouting away wounds", and supporters counter with "hit points are not meat". Both arguments seem fair.

Core game already has Battlemaster maneuvers, which were supposed to replicate this playstyle (though there's argument whether this does an adequate job). But there's also the Inspirational Leader feat which no one really seems to have a problem with, though it's effectively "shouting hit points onto people".

Wouldn't a potential Warlord fix be a second feat with a prerequisite (not common in 5th, but precedent with the Deep Gnome magic)? The upgraded feat would allow people to non-magically inspire people mid-combat with temporary hit points to reflect morale and willingness to fight, but not "yell wounds closed" in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief.

The same could be done for advanced Battlemaster maneuvers, given via feat with a prerequisite of a certain size superiority dice. Fighters get an extra feat or two anyway, so regular Fighters could focus on stats while a Warlord would have those two missing pieces instead.

I still think we have the essential problem that a big part of the pro-warlord crowd wants actual hit points to reflect morale and willingness to fight, and a warlord that cannot restore hit points via non-magical inspiration is unacceptable to that part of the crowd.

Which brings us back to the fundamental choice.

You can have an HP model that allows for both wounds and inspiration and have a nonmagical warlord that can get allies up from unconscious, keep them going after they would've usually dropped, and inspire them to fight on

OR

you can have an inspirational HP model only and have a nonmagical warlord that can heal hit points by inspiring.

 

[SailorNash]

There are two issues there:
1) healing vs buffing
2) feat access

Regarding issue #1, granting temporary HPs is a buff, and not healing, and buffing is typically most effective when it's used before combat.

Regarding issue #2, feats are fewer and more far between in 5e. Taking both Inspiring Leader and another feat to achieve the desired level of functionality (functionality, not power), means not achieving the desired level of functionality until at least 6th level.

For the first, buffing usually is pre-combat. But the exact numbers of a hypothetical feat could be massaged to make it an attractive alternative. Bladelocks for example survive on mid-combat THP buffers. Wildshaped Druids even more so.

For the second...that is a good point. But not entirely without precedent. Paladins get one of their defining features, the aura, at 6th. Most classes get a pretty big upgrade at 5 or 6. It could be seen as simply rising high enough as a leader for your words to have greater meaning - a level one recruit surely wouldn't be such an inspirational, important figure in the world (at least not yet). First subclass abilities at third, some THP ability at fourth, and grows to the full thing at sixth.

 

[SailorNash]

I still think we have the essential problem that a big part of the pro-warlord crowd wants actual hit points to reflect morale and willingness to fight, and a warlord that cannot restore hit points via non-magical inspiration is unacceptable to that part of the crowd.

Which brings us back to the fundamental choice.

You can have an HP model that allows for both wounds and inspiration and have a nonmagical warlord that can get allies up from unconscious, keep them going after they would've usually dropped, and inspire them to fight on

OR

you can have an inspirational HP model only and have a nonmagical warlord that can heal hit points by inspiring.

I'll agree with that. But I don't think there's a way to "fix" that in the core rules for everybody. Even it WotC did define it one way, people who did not agree would interpret it the other. Similar to people's take on "Is Psionics Magic", the first thing to be house ruled if Mystics are allowed.

So, what I'm trying to look at are areas where people already agree and build off of that. Are there any complaints about Inspirational Leadership? What about the Herosim spell, though a spell, confers THP by inspiring heroism in others? If a Warlord could lean on similar mechanics, perhaps the gap could be closed somewhat.

 

[mellored]

Wouldn't a potential Warlord fix be a second feat with a prerequisite (not common in 5th, but precedent with the Deep Gnome magic)? The upgraded feat would allow people to non-magically inspire people mid-combat with temporary hit points to reflect morale and willingness to fight, but not "yell wounds closed" in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief.

No. Because there still isn't enough room.

No matter how many feats there are, a battlemaster's main impact in combat is multi-attack.


Unless there is a way to trade the multi-attack for something else.... i.e. give up 1 attack to gain 1 die.
That could, possibly, work. Though it would still be stretching things.

 

[Remathilis]

That's nothing new. Nor is is bad for classes to have support options.

But there's still no way to build someone who is dedicated to that stuff.

I think that might be intentional...

A warlord, as least as most people here have discussed him, is pretty much useless without his team. There is no class right now in 5e that even remotely comes close to that. A battlemaster alone can still fight well, a bard alone can still use magic, a mastermind alone can still sneak and stab. They aren't reliant on giving bonuses to other players to do something. That means that they have to make a choice when it comes to an action, buffing isn't a no-brainer. Spend my superiority die to give the barbarian an extra hit or use it myself to trip a foe? Use my concentration to cast stoneskin on the fighter or fly on myself? Do I give the ranger advantage with a bonus action, or use it disengage with cunning action?

Most of the warlord stuff that gets discussed makes the decision point not "Do I help an ally or do something myself?" but rather "What buff do I give my ally?" I mean, most of the hypothetical warlord powers they can spend a die on are vastly superior to "attack the foe myself". A warlord can always be doing something more interesting than "just attack". No other class is like that (caveat: casting a cantrip is the magical equivalent to "just attack"; what you do in lieu of a better spell choice). If the warlord ALWAYS has a better option than "just attack", he's not balanced against any other class who has even soft limits (spell slots, x/rest powers, dice pools, point pools, etc). There should probably be a time when the warlord says "I'm going to save my ability for when I need it, I'll attack with my weapon".

I'm thinking WotC's opinion is that cheerleading isn't enough of a role for a single class, but something every class should be able to do if it wants to. Moreover, I think WotC might be hinting that "support only" is against 5e's design philosophy; everyone should be good at something rather than just making other people better at anything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's not what I saw I'm A Banana write. He said you have pick between:

1.) An inclusive HP model which supports multiple interpretations;
2.) A Warlord with verbal HP restoration.

One of these things has to be "optional" material.

That's it, yes. Same thing, different phrasing.

I'm not actually sure that you and he have any fundamental disagreement, since you've been clear that your vision of the Warlord is optional material for the Advanced Game. You could just say, "Sure, the Warlord I'm envisioning is incompatible with the version of 5E that you prefer," and I suspect he'd just agree.

If we could reach a compromise in which, 'yes, the Warlord can be published by WotC as part of the 'Advanced Game,' then the point would be moot. I'm just not so sure it's a valid point to begin with. I think the hp model he has in mind could survive the inclusion of inspirational healing, if it cut as much slack to it as it has to HD and overnight healing.

Multiple interpretations of hit points doesn't mean, "No, hit points will never be restored by anything but time or magic." If anything, quite the opposite should be the case.

Not so much multiple as /any possible re-interpretation/ of hps. It's a very high bar to clear. If every mechanic in the game had to work with every possible interpretation of every mechanic it touched upon, any mechanic could be denied on the basis of an interpretation designed specifically /not/ to work with it.

So we have to assume /some/ level of honesty and flexibility/open-mindedness on the part of those bringing up such interpretations. Either that, or reject the test as invalid way of evaluating the suitability of the new game element.

I think that's pretty fair. The conversation would shift from "lets try to make a warlord that doesn't presume non-mystical inspirational healing" to "lets chat about if it's smart for WotC to produce a class for a group using a particular optional rule."

We are not there yet.

I still think we have the essential problem that a big part of the pro-warlord crowd wants actual hit points to reflect morale and willingness to fight, and a warlord that cannot restore hit points via non-magical inspiration is unacceptable to that part of the crowd.

That basic need for the Warlord to be true to concept is still fundamentally true. The problem is not with that, however, as the HP mechanics in the PH /do/ support that model of hps just fine. The problem is with an very specific re-interpretation of hps as being all 'wounds.' The 'all meat' version, which is at odds with both D&D tradition, and with 5e's mechanics - and which the game has options to accommodate - /and/ which, I acknowledge is /not/ the model (lets call it 'narrative wounds') you have been trying to articulate.

You have yet to fully articulate that model to me in a way that convinces me it's as utterly incompatible with the concept of the Warlord as you seem to think.

For instance, how does it explain Second Wind, which requires no time and no mundane healing gear to restore hps?

And, if it is OK in this model to have wounds that have received very basic mundane treatment and a little rest restore all hps, even though the wounds remain, then clearly there are hit-points being restored that to not represent literal healing (the wounds haven't disappeared), the faster the HP restoration, the greater proportion - /and/ - if temp hps from inspiration also work in this model, then why is there any trouble at all with inspiration restoring hps without actually healing wounds?

 

[Tony Vargas]

*do not bother watching this space*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't mean to imply inflexibililty.

I'm thinking things like 1/turn you could use your reaction to turn a hit into a miss, or a miss into a hit.

That's flexible. Offense or defense.

I'm thinking more like tactics/maneuvers that could be drilled with allies ahead of time in place of eachother. So a warlord could actually have a different 'battle plan' for different battles. And Inspiration that could be used several ways, so those who don't like hp recovery, for instance, could just not choose/use that application.

I think that would solve the major hurdle. Let each player/table decide if warlord inspiration is supernatural or not.

To clarify, the Warlord abilities should be presented as non-supernatural, but extraordinary, but leave room to be interpreted as supernatural if you really wanted to. The concept is not supernatural, but leaving the door open to those who find specific abilities too exceptional for a non-supernatural concept to re-imagine it is reasonable. And the old 'some say....' trick is great for that: "some say warlords are chosen & empowered by gods of war, or some less knowable unpersonified force of war itself" "Some say warlords have discovered or have unconscious insight into a vanished sect of Psionic Generals called 'Ardents.'" "Some say their strategies become so deep that they tamper with the weaving of Fate itself..." &c

Whatever room for weird fluff or re-skinning it takes to let some people accept it's mere existence in the game....

 

[mellored]

A warlord, as least as most people here have discussed him, is pretty much useless without his team.

No reason a warlord couldn't be competent without his team.

Unless you choose those options (lazylord). Like a pacifist cleric can choose no attack cantrip and only has 8 str.

For instance, my suggestion of dice could also be added to the warlords damage. Or even boost his own to-hit.
Probably give him 2-attacks as well.
And several enemy affecting maneuvers.

He might not be at full awesomeness, but a bard can't use bardic inspiration alone either.

 

[mellored]

I'm thinking more like tactics/maneuvers that could be drilled with allies ahead of time in place of eachother. So a warlord could actually have a different 'battle plan' for different battles. And Inspiration that could be used several ways, so those who don't like hp recovery, for instance, could just not choose/use that application.

No reason it has to be 1 option.

There's room for at-will dice, healer feat, inspiring leader feat, and battle plans. Particularly if the battle plan needs dice to use.

Though, the inspirational healing would need to be bumped into sub-class at that point, unless something else was cut.

To clarify, the Warlord abilities should be presented as non-supernatural, but extraordinary, but leave room to be interpreted as supernatural if you really wanted to. The concept is not supernatural, but leaving the door open to those who find specific abilities too exceptional for a non-supernatural concept to re-imagine it is reasonable. And the old 'some say....' trick is great for that: "some say warlords are chosen & empowered by gods of war, or some less knowable unpersonified force of war itself" "Some say warlords have discovered or have unconscious insight into a vanished sect of Psionic Generals called 'Ardents.'" "Some say their strategies become so deep that they tamper with the weaving of Fate itself..." &c

Whatever room for weird fluff or re-skinning it takes to let some people accept it's mere existence in the game....

Works for me.

Does that work for the anti-warlord crowd?