D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Lord Twig]

It happens in the same way that a coach sees things their players don't - even though their players are far better at what they do than the coach is, or probably ever was.

It happens in the same way that snipers, when possible, prefer to use spotters.

Two sets of eyes are better than one. Two brains are better than one.

Nobody performs optimally all the time. If someone could, there'd be no need for a dice roll. We'd just determine the bonus a character gets - a quantification of their optimal performance - and compare it to a target number.

In sports, we'd never need to actually play a game. Just determine what everyone's optimal abilities are and run a simulation.

The D20 roll models the variability of people's focus, effort, and success - as well as external factors. The Warlord's assistance mitigates the effect of those factors by providing a bonus or some other mechanical representation.

Just like real-life...

I honestly don't follow sports much, but my understanding of coaches is that they train the players so that they have the tools they need. But during play, or a battle, it's all on the players. In American Football I know coaches can talk to the quarterback and tell him what plays to run, but once the play starts (or the battle begins) it is all the players.

Also, no amount of peptalk is going to get the player back on his feet after he has been flattened on the field. Either he is well enough to play, or he isn't.

I can't answer for "people" - nobody can - but I can answer for me.

I want a class that can eliminate the need for the crutch of magic - the deus ex machina of magic.

Why do we need magic, when people are capable of such extraordinary things on their own?

I want a class that allows one to play in-game, with characters similar to so many non-magic fictional/literary characters.

I want a class that models and utilizes the effects of leadership that I saw everyday - in real life - during my time in the military. (And I mean "Leadership", not "Authority"...)

I want a class that highlights the Magic of the human heart and mind, rather than burying it behind a wish-fulfillment mechanic.

I want my role playing to be more realistic...

We have very different views of magic. I don't see magic as a deus ex machina or a crutch. It is a power that can be used. Just like muscles. You might as well say you want to be a pilot without the crutch of using a plane. And honestly that would be a perfectly reasonable request if this were a superhero game.

People are capable of some pretty extraordinary things! But causing wounds to close or bones to knit with a few words isn't one of them.

And we get back to "Leadership". I don't doubt that soldiers on a battlefield benefit from good leadership. The problem is I don't want to be one of the soldiers. There is a reason a group of soldiers is called a "unit". It is because they create a single group that is greater than the sum of its parts. The leader is the head.

But that is not what I want in my D&D game. My vision of D&D is a group of extraordinary individuals that work together as equals to accomplish common goals. There is no leader. The warlord, by its very existence places that one character, and that characters player, as the leader. And all other players are just his soldiers.

Or to put it another way. The Warlord is the Beastmaster that is sacrificing his actions to give his animal companions (the other characters) a mechanical benefit in combat. Again, not a role I like to be forced into.

 

[Bawylie]

Actually I have the same complaints, but it's not as bad as an entire class devoted to the idea. For the Battlemaster, at least he is hitting the opponent and you can say he is using physical power to create an opening. As for the Bard (which I never liked much anyway) I thought the inspiration die was magical, now I dislike it even more.

And the problem with saying that Warlord healing restores the "more ephemeral qualities" of hit points is two-fold. How exactly does saying, "Come on! Get up! We still have a battle to fight!" restore luck, or endurance or anything else for that matter? And how does it wake someone up or stop the bleeding if they are at 0?

And why can't it just be "magically enhanced" support like the Bard? Why does it have to be non-magical?

For all that you have the same complaint for Bard (most don't, but that's ok), we tolerate the bard. But the objection seemingly doesn't apply to the warlord. Likewise, you're prepared to offer rationalization for the Battlemaster, but not extend that same rationale to the warlord. I'm not suggesting anyone should like any of these or dislike them, but I don't see why the rationale doesn't apply to warlords when the same mechanics are overlooked or given a pass on other classes.

For instance the HP restoration. How does it restore skill, luck, or the will to live? Perhaps the same way the fighter's second wind does. Or the same way Champion's "survivor" feature works. These are non-magical HP restoration, and by and large, they get a pass. Since they do, there's no reason they should stop working when a warlord uses them instead of a fighter. And there's no reason the objection should apply to class B and not to class A.

On the issue of stopping bleeding? It doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with physical injuries. On the issue of waking someone up? Well, there's a reasonable debate on whether such abilities ought to work on unconscious characters. I'm willing to leave it open to DM interpretation (though I'd personally rule it works on zero HP unconscious people, I have no problem with a DM ruling the other way).

 

[Bawylie]

I honestly don't follow sports much, but my understanding of coaches is that they train the players so that they have the tools they need. But during play, or a battle, it's all on the players. In American Football I know coaches can talk to the quarterback and tell him what plays to run, but once the play starts (or the battle begins) it is all the players.

Also, no amount of peptalk is going to get the player back on his feet after he has been flattened on the field. Either he is well enough to play, or he isn't.




We have very different views of magic. I don't see magic as a deus ex machina or a crutch. It is a power that can be used. Just like muscles. You might as well say you want to be a pilot without the crutch of using a plane. And honestly that would be a perfectly reasonable request if this were a superhero game.

People are capable of some pretty extraordinary things! But causing wounds to close or bones to knit with a few words isn't one of them.

And we get back to "Leadership". I don't doubt that soldiers on a battlefield benefit from good leadership. The problem is I don't want to be one of the soldiers. There is a reason a group of soldiers is called a "unit". It is because they create a single group that is greater than the sum of its parts. The leader is the head.

But that is not what I want in my D&D game. My vision of D&D is a group of extraordinary individuals that work together as equals to accomplish common goals. There is no leader. The warlord, by its very existence places that one character, and that characters player, as the leader. And all other players are just his soldiers.

Or to put it another way. The Warlord is the Beastmaster that is sacrificing his actions to give his animal companions (the other characters) a mechanical benefit in combat. Again, not a role I like to be forced into.

1.) It isn't healing injuries, stopping bleeding, or knitting bones. That's not what he's doing.

2.) Nobody is asking you to like it, but, nobody really responds to "I don't like it, therefore nobody else can have it."

3.) Nobody wants to force you to enjoy something you don't enjoy or force you to play as a pet to someone else. When I played a warlord, it was about improving team performance, not bossing other players around. Like a Bard, which again, nobody objects to.

 

[Lord Twig]

For all that you have the same complaint for Bard (most don't, but that's ok), we tolerate the bard. But the objection seemingly doesn't apply to the warlord. Likewise, you're prepared to offer rationalization for the Battlemaster, but not extend that same rationale to the warlord. I'm not suggesting anyone should like any of these or dislike them, but I don't see why the rationale doesn't apply to warlords when the same mechanics are overlooked or given a pass on other classes.

For instance the HP restoration. How does it restore skill, luck, or the will to live? Perhaps the same way the fighter's second wind does. Or the same way Champion's "survivor" feature works. These are non-magical HP restoration, and by and large, they get a pass. Since they do, there's no reason they should stop working when a warlord uses them instead of a fighter. And there's no reason the objection should apply to class B and not to class A.

On the issue of stopping bleeding? It doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with physical injuries. On the issue of waking someone up? Well, there's a reasonable debate on whether such abilities ought to work on unconscious characters. I'm willing to leave it open to DM interpretation (though I'd personally rule it works on zero HP unconscious people, I have no problem with a DM ruling the other way).

There is a lot of tolerance for what is disliked in the world in general. I understand just like most people that not everyone likes the same thing. Some people don't like Paladins (mostly the Lawful Good kind), some don't like Monks, I don't like the Bard, but we tolerate it because we know other people enjoy those characters. I gave a reason for the Battlemaster (I don't like the subclass in general btw) to grant an attack to an ally because I realize I will probably have to accept that someone will eventually want to play one at the same table. The same reasoning could be used for the Warlord and it would be acceptable (to me). But you specifically used the example "Call out a good shot". That's the fluff I really don't like.

And you listed a variety of abilities that I "tolerate" but don't really like. Second Wind is a minor Fighter ability. Survivor is an 18th level ability, so hasn't come up, and it won't bring a Fighter back from 0 hit points. I will just gloss over the use of those abilities, essentially forcing a suspension of disbelief when it comes up, and continue on since the vast majority of Fighter abilities are not so illogical. But even then you can say it is some kind of "Will to survive" or an undefined inner power, kinda like Ki. But the Fighter can't sudden't use his Second Wind on a comrade, that would take magic.

This leads to the last point. I mentioned bleeding with waking up because when you are at 0 hit points you are unconscious and bleeding, you are making Death Saving Throws. They go together. You say it doesn't stop bleeding, but then you say that you would allow it to be used on zero hit point unconscious characters. Well, that would stop the bleeding then. I guess you could say "Well, he wasn't actually bleeding, he was just knocked out" but now you have to change the effect of the damage. Magical healing wouldn't require re-writing the type of damage a character took though, it just heals all damage.

Really it isn't the mechanics of the Warlord I object to, it's the fluff. If you want to do things that are not physically possible, you need to be able to explain how. It could be magic, or Ki or cosmic power, but it can't just be "because I'm awesome". Well, I guess it could, if you actually had "awesome" as a defined power in your world. Heck, you could even have an Inspiration power source, but it has to come from somewhere. Maybe there are muses of Inspiration that power the ability of Bards and Warlords, I could accept that. Or just an "Inspiration" force that flows through the world that Bards and Warlords, or whoever, can manipulate. But it has to be something, it can't just be nothing.

 

[Bawylie]

If I say it doesn't stop the bleeding, that's my position. I'm sorry, but I feel no duty to defend a position i haven't taken. And I won't have one assigned to me by you or anyone else.

And as of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, fighters that are also Purple Dragon Knights or Bannerets CAN non-magically apply their second wind to allies.

 

[Lord Twig]

1.) It isn't healing injuries, stopping bleeding, or knitting bones. That's not what he's doing.

2.) Nobody is asking you to like it, but, nobody really responds to "I don't like it, therefore nobody else can have it."

3.) Nobody wants to force you to enjoy something you don't enjoy or force you to play as a pet to someone else. When I played a warlord, it was about improving team performance, not bossing other players around. Like a Bard, which again, nobody objects to.

1. But he accomplishes the same thing as a character that heals with magic. So if a Cleric is healing actual damage, then so is the Warlord. The damage doesn't change just because it is a Warlord healing instead of a Cleric.

2. You are missing my point. I understand that I am not being told I have to like it, but if given a choice I would rather it not be in the game at all. Because like it or not, if it is in the game I will have to play with it. (Unless I can convince the people I play with not to use it I guess.)

3. I understand that the Warlord is about improving team performance, and that is a great role for a character in a game like D&D. The problem is the Warlord improves performance by ordering the other characters around. That's his fluff. A Wizard can enhance the party also, but he magically grants you extra speed, or powers up your weapon, or physically makes you bigger, or whatever. He doesn't order you to do something an thereby creates an opportunity.

The name Commander's Strike has Commander right in the name! You either follow his command or you lose the opportunity. If he is commanding then by definition you are following his command if you take that opportunity. And it would be foolish not to! Now I am forced into taking commands from another character and I don't want to.

As I said with the Battlemaster, you could re-fluff it to a "Create Opening" ability where the Warlord delivers a blow in such a way that it creates an opening for an ally and that would be more acceptable, but that doesn't appear to be what people want. They want a leader. They want to lead their troops (a.k.a. the other players) into battle. The problem is there is a large group of people that don't want to be lead.

 

[Lord Twig]

If I say it doesn't stop the bleeding, that's my position. I'm sorry, but I feel no duty to defend a position i haven't taken. And I won't have one assigned to me by you or anyone else.

And as of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, fighters that are also Purple Dragon Knights or Bannerets CAN non-magically apply their second wind to allies.

Not saying you have to. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I have a problem with non-magic healing.

I don't have the SCAG yet. That is extremely disappointing to hear. If I may ask, how is it described as working? What exactly is the method that Second Wind uses to heal others? And after it is used, why can the Fighter no longer use it himself? What resource has been used?

My guess is that no explanation is given at all. The Fighter essentially is using the "No Power Source" power source. It happens for no reason. It can't be explained by anyone that studies the phenomena. Even magic can be studied, that's what Wizards do! But not this, It is completely inexplicable. That just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Bawylie]

1. But he accomplishes the same thing as a character that heals with magic. So if a Cleric is healing actual damage, then so is the Warlord. The damage doesn't change just because it is a Warlord healing instead of a Cleric.

2. You are missing my point. I understand that I am not being told I have to like it, but if given a choice I would rather it not be in the game at all. Because like it or not, if it is in the game I will have to play with it. (Unless I can convince the people I play with not to use it I guess.)

3. I understand that the Warlord is about improving team performance, and that is a great role for a character in a game like D&D. The problem is the Warlord improves performance by ordering the other characters around. That's his fluff. A Wizard can enhance the party also, but he magically grants you extra speed, or powers up your weapon, or physically makes you bigger, or whatever. He doesn't order you to do something an thereby creates an opportunity.

The name Commander's Strike has Commander right in the name! You either follow his command or you lose the opportunity. If he is commanding then by definition you are following his command if you take that opportunity. And it would be foolish not to! Now I am forced into taking commands from another character and I don't want to.

As I said with the Battlemaster, you could re-fluff it to a "Create Opening" ability where the Warlord delivers a blow in such a way that it creates an opening for an ally and that would be more acceptable, but that doesn't appear to be what people want. They want a leader. They want to lead their troops (a.k.a. the other players) into battle. The problem is there is a large group of people that don't want to be lead.

1.) I disagree. Imagine a cup of water. Someone drinks it until it's empty. Then the cleric casts create water and fills it up. Someone drinks it until it's empty. Then the warlord pours beer in and fills it up. Nobody has undone the drinking of the water. Both classes have done different things to re-fill the cup. Likewise, a cleric cures wounds magically, while a warlord doesn't cure wounds at all, even if the game mechanic is that HP are restored.

2.) I'm not missing your point. "I don't like it, so nobody else can have it," simply isn't a compelling argument. I don't like wizards, or wild magic sorcerers, but I don't demand that nobody else use them.

3.) and Rogue is called Rogue, but that doesn't mean he's automatically a criminal or a bad guy, or has broken with family, society, or civilization. Battlemaster had Commander's Strike, and you, right up there, have found a neat way to refluff the leadership out of it. Good job! I'm sure it will be equally trivial to use your considerable imagination to envision a warlord player that isn't interested in bossing around his friends. But you also attribute that motive - a desire to boss people around - to a number of people you don't know and haven't spoken to. Why? That sucks.

 

[Bawylie]

Not saying you have to. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from and why I have a problem with non-magic healing.

I don't have the SCAG yet. That is extremely disappointing to hear. If I may ask, how is it described as working? What exactly is the method that Second Wind uses to heal others? And after it is used, why can the Fighter no longer use it himself? What resource has been used?

My guess is that no explanation is given at all. The Fighter essentially is using the "No Power Source" power source. It happens for no reason. It can't be explained by anyone that studies the phenomena. Even magic can be studied, that's what Wizards do! But not this, It is completely inexplicable. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I imagine it's the second wind resource, that's pretty well-understood.

However, I'm at work and don't have the book here. IIRC it's some kind of rallying shout that affects multiple allies when the fighter uses his own second wind. They regain a number of HP equal to the fighter's level, each.

It uses the same source as second wind.

That said, there are a good number of game mechanics that are just neat game mechanics and not as fundamental laws of the universe. Fighter's indomitable, bardic inspiration dice, song of rest (non-magical), barbarian rage, I just mean there's a lot of stuff.

But I never hear "Well what if my character hates music? Why should the bard's song of rest work on me?" We just get these arguments on the warlord.

 

[Lord Twig]

1.) I disagree. Imagine a cup of water. Someone drinks it until it's empty. Then the cleric casts create water and fills it up. Someone drinks it until it's empty. Then the warlord pours beer in and fills it up. Nobody has undone the drinking of the water. Both classes have done different things to re-fill the cup. Likewise, a cleric cures wounds magically, while a warlord doesn't cure wounds at all, even if the game mechanic is that HP are restored.

But where does the beer come from? The Cleric uses magic to create water. The Warlord creates beer out of nothing. That's the problem I have.

2.) I'm not missing your point. "I don't like it, so nobody else can have it," simply isn't a compelling argument. I don't like wizards, or wild magic sorcerers, but I don't demand that nobody else use them.

And I'm not trying to tell people what characters they can play. But at the same time I don't what their choices to dictate to me how my character is played. I believe that the fluff of Warlord crosses that line. With different fluff I would find the Warlord completely acceptable.

3.) and Rogue is called Rogue, but that doesn't mean he's automatically a criminal or a bad guy, or has broken with family, society, or civilization. Battlemaster had Commander's Strike, and you, right up there, have found a neat way to refluff the leadership out of it. Good job! I'm sure it will be equally trivial to use your considerable imagination to envision a warlord player that isn't interested in bossing around his friends. But you also attribute that motive - a desire to boss people around - to a number of people you don't know and haven't spoken to. Why? That sucks.

I'm attributing that motive because it is something people have said:

I want a class that models and utilizes the effects of leadership that I saw everyday - in real life - during my time in the military. (And I mean "Leadership", not "Authority"...)

Not Authority. Great. He still wants to Lead. Therefore everyone else must follow. I don't want to follow.

So I am suggesting ways that Warlord can be re-fluffed without the Leader and Follower baggage. And I am suggesting that the Warlord have a defined source for his extraordinary abilities. If that is done I will have no problem with the Warlord.

What I don't know if that would satisfy those that want the Warlord. Would they be happy with a Character that manipulates an Inspiration force? Or maybe they can pull on the strings of Fate to create circumstances that would not otherwise exist? (I like this idea for the Bard also.) Anything but Command and Follow. And any defined source of abilities other than, "It just works, don't worry about it".