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

[Jester David]

So from what I gather is that people don't want the warlord because non martial HP healing is dumb and shouldn't work like magic. Ok ok of course this is an incredible over simplification and I acknowledge that. This topic isnt really about the warlord, but about why people want or don't want something in the game.

The question is this... I don't get the idea of being opposed to something that many people clearly want. People limit things like races and magic items and things like that. So why can't people just disallow the classes? Think martial healing is terrible and shouldn't be a thing? Don't use it. It's literally that simple. It seems childish to not want something but then force your opinion and views on other groups who have completely different expectations and playstyles. Can someone clue me into this kind of mentality? Is there something I'm just overlooking? Does the game actually force you to play these classes, was it a rule I overlooked or something?

There's a few reasons.

The first is that not everyone who is pro-warlord is pro-martial healing and there's warlord fans who want a class they can play, rather than one they'll have to ban.
The warlord audience is kinda fractured. There's people who want an update of the 4e warlord as it was, the people who see the lazylord (aka the "princess build") of the warlord as the default - despite that not being an official build - and there are the people who want to see the warlord receive the same update and revision all the other classes got.

The second is that not everyone likes to say "no" to their players as that creates tension at the table, especially if the players bought the book.

The third is that it takes a lot of time and energy and space to design a class. Classes needed to be playtested and revised and affect far more of the game than any other element, potentially seeing play from level 1 to level 20. That's a lot of time and energy being spent on something a LOT of people don't want. Time that could spent making dozens of subclasses or feats.

The fourth is that adding a class that assume martial healing means that martial healing is an assumption of the game. It's the rule. Even omitting the class doesn't change that. Just like you can remove monks as a class but ki is still part of the assumptions of D&D, and there are monastic monsters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fourth is that adding a class that assume martial healing means that martial healing is an assumption of the game. It's the rule. Even omitting the class doesn't change that. Just like you can remove monks as a class but ki is still part of the assumptions of D&D, and there are monastic monsters.

I'm not sure I buy this. Where are these alleged monastic monsters? Even if they do exist, why would a DM have to use them? Even if a DM has to use them, why would it follow that there must be..."generalissimo monsters"?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first is that not everyone who is pro-warlord is pro-martial healing and there's warlord fans who want a class they can play, rather than one they'll have to ban.

Say, theoretically, you were against Divine Healing. You wouldn't have to ban the Cleric, just the specific cleric spells that healed. So, as long as the Warlord is not substantially less flexible and customizable than existing support classes, it's a non-issue.

The warlord audience is kinda fractured. There's people who want an update of the 4e warlord as it was, the people who see the lazylord (aka the "princess build") of the warlord as the default - despite that not being an official build - and there are the people who want to see the warlord receive the same update and revision all the other classes got.

Those aren't exactly contrary goals. The 4e Warlord was modestly customizable, and could be used to make the 'lazy' fan-build as will as the half-dozen official builds. 4e worked within much tighter design parameters, so a 5e version could easily embrace all that, and more. Again, no problem. In fact, a great deal of opportunity, as there is vast, under-utilized design space available for martial characters (which, currently, are all DPR-focused).

The second is that not everyone likes to say "no" to their players as that creates tension at the table, especially if the players bought the book.

This is nonsense on two levels. 1) 5e is built on the idea of DM Empowerment, it gives many optional rules, from Feats & MCing right in the PH, to multiple modules in the DMG, plus that free supplement, plus UA - and which module or optional rules are available is entirely in the DM's domain. 2) If you don't like saying no to /a/ player, where do you get off trying to say 'no' to /every/ player? That's like trying to dictate to everyone how they play the game. It's contrary to the spirit in which 5e was conceived and has no place in a 5e discussion.

The third is that it takes a lot of time and energy and space to design a class. Classes needed to be playtested and revised and affect far more of the game than any other element, potentially seeing play from level 1 to level 20. That's a lot of time and energy being spent on something a LOT of people don't want.

You have no idea how many people constitute a 'LOT,' and have no statistics to back that up. At best, you've made a fallacious appeal to (un)popularlity, at worst, again, you're trying to dictate to everyone how they play the game.

The fourth is that adding a class that assume martial healing means that martial healing is an assumption of the game. It's the rule. Even omitting the class doesn't change that. Just like you can remove monks as a class but ki is still part of the assumptions of D&D, and there are monastic monsters.

Actually, banning the class, or even banning the specific abilities you find objectionable /does/ change that for your campaign, which is the only campaign you have any business making that kind of decision for. Again, you presume the right to dictate to everyone how they play the game.

I'm not sure I buy this. Where are these alleged monastic monsters? Even if they do exist, why would a DM have to use them? Even if a DM has to use them, why would it follow that there must be..."generalissimo monsters"?

There are already 'boss monsters.'

 

[Jester David]

I'm not sure I buy this. Where are these alleged monastic monsters? Even if they do exist, why would a DM have to use them? Even if a DM has to use them, why would it follow that there must be..."generalissimo monsters"?

It's not the strongest point, but the success of an argument isn't dependant on all of its points being equally strong and unassailable.
As for a monastic monster, how about the githzerai?

Thankfully, 5e isn't like 3e where monsters could have all sorts of class levels. This is much more of a Pathfinder problem where if you have a problem with a class, you likely have problems with every AP.
However, even in 5e it presumes WotC, their adventure writers, and their Organized Play staff won't run with a class. A DM might opt to ignore an option, but everyone else isn't and can freely sprinkle those options.

However, this gets more complicated as one of the most divisive issues over the warlord is possible martial healing, which isn't a class: it's a mechanic. And it's very easy for the game to add self-contained mechanics like martial healing to random monsters or make assumptions of it in adventures. I think going with "monk" in my late night example was distracting. How about... superiority dice? Now, superiority dice aren't as divisive as martial healing but we'll pretend they are. It's an analogy, it doesn't have to be perfect.
So people just hate the idea of a pool of dice that can be spent to cause effects for… reasons. Sure, you can just remove that subclass from the game and say "fighters must be champions!". But that doesn't help with the monsters that use superiority dice or options like the spell-less ranger. The mechanic permeates the game.
A theoretical warlord would be fine* if we could ensure that WotC would restrict themselves to never letting the martial healing expand beyond the class. But that kind of design limit or editorial edict doesn't work well, as it often isn't told to freelancers, new staff members, and eventually gets forgotten. (Especially since it becomes this seldom explored mechanic, this part of a major class that hasn't been explored in other venues. That's a design hole, an unexploited resource. Which is crack for a game designer.)

* it's fine except, y'know, for warlord fans who want also don't like martial healing or want the warlord to focus on being a tactical commander and not a healer

 

[Jester David]

Say, theoretically, you were against Divine Healing. You wouldn't have to ban the Cleric, just the specific cleric spells that healed. So, as long as the Warlord is not substantially less flexible and customizable than existing support classes, it's a non-issue.

Just a nitpick, there's no such thing as "divine healing" anymore. Divine, arcane, and the like don't carry nearly the same weight, really only applying to spellcasting focus.
However, if you did have a problem with spell based hit point recovery, removing cure wounds wouldn't solve the problem. Neither would banning the cleric or the paladin. Because there are numerous monsters that use spell based hp recovery. It's just part of the rules.

The argument that martial healing would be limited to the warlord assumes it would not spread. Which is problematic. If the game begins assuming that hit points are morale based as a default that will affect everyone's game as other subclasses, monsters, or elements of an adventure will assume this as well. In such a system it's easy to imagine a module author including an NPC that gives an inspiring speech during a climactic battle restoring hp, even if said NPC isn't explicitly a warlord.

The problem is in the mechanic, not just the class that typically uses the mechanic. It's like the Damage on a Miss debate during the playtest. Saying "you can just ban that fighter option" simply does not work because the mechanic is still seen as a valid mechanic, and can spreads to other places, like the playtest stone giant.

Those aren't exactly contrary goals. The 4e Warlord was modestly customizable, and could be used to make the 'lazy' fan-build as will as the half-dozen official builds. 4e worked within much tighter design parameters, so a 5e version could easily embrace all that, and more. Again, no problem. In fact, a great deal of opportunity, as there is vast, under-utilized design space available for martial characters (which, currently, are all DPR-focused).

This assumes the goal is to build a 5e class to be compatible with 4e design goals, rather than looking at the concept of the class divorced from its mechanical implementation and designing the class around that. Using the source material as inspiration, rather than a checklist that needs to be filled. And looking at what the class should be doing and implementing new mechanics that replicate the narrative effect rather than copying past design.

It also assumes they're updating the full length and breadth of the warlord class that was created over the entire edition (including fan builds and Dragon) rather than just updating the class based on its presentation in the PHB1. It's not like class options from every splatbook were considered for every class updated to 5e.

This is nonsense on two levels. 1) 5e is built on the idea of DM Empowerment, it gives many optional rules, from Feats & MCing right in the PH, to multiple modules in the DMG, plus that free supplement, plus UA - and which module or optional rules are available is entirely in the DM's domain. 2) If you don't like saying no to /a/ player, where do you get off trying to say 'no' to /every/ player? That's like trying to dictate to everyone how they play the game. It's contrary to the spirit in which 5e was conceived and has no place in a 5e discussion.

I don't disagree. But that still doesn't make saying "no" easy to do or desirable..
Just because the DM can say "no" doesn't mean designers should set out to generate situations where DMs have to say "no". Saying "no" is a choice and the game shouldn't set out to force DMs to make that choice.

Just look at the fuss over the aarakocra. And that was a race that occupied a third of the page space of a class and likely took a tenth of the time to test and develop. And it wasn't even in a "real" book.

Class and race options should be options the game assumes the majority of people will allow. So saying "no" to those options should be rare.
Conversely, rules modules should be the opposite, and assume people aren't going to use them, but these require less playtesting and development time (if they even need playtesting at all).
And when you say "no" to an option as a DM, it should preferably be because the story option does not fit. Wizards are banned because magic is different. Clerics are banned because the gods are dead. The only races are humans, elves, and dwarves because the setting is inspired by Norse lore. When you start banning things because "mechanic X doesn't work" that usually mean an option is broken or is not working. And that's a problem.

You have no idea how many people constitute a 'LOT,' and have no statistics to back that up. At best, you've made a fallacious appeal to (un)popularlity, at worst, again, you're trying to dictate to everyone how they play the game.

I can make an informed guess.

I know that every player tends to have maybe two or three favourite classes. So any new class options - let alone an entirely new class - will always appeal to only a small fraction of the audience.
But that's not all.

I know that every poll on ENWorld shows an even split between pro and con warlord factions.
I know that the majority of ENWorlders do not post in said polls, and thus have no strong feelings (or they would vote).
I know that ENWorld is non-representative and constitutes a minority of gamers, being the more dedicated (read: obsessive) fans. And that the majority of gamers are casual and likely do not have strong opinions of any class.
I know that 5e is bringing back fans that skipped 4e, and thus do not have strong feels regarding anything in that edition including the warlord. And fans that did not like 4e, and are unlikely to have positive feelings regarding 4e.

It's pretty safe to say that the warlord is a fringe class. Period.
Then add to this the fact that warlord fans are deeply divided and any attempt to make a warlord class will likely alienate half it's already fractional audience. And that's a LOT of work to appease a VERY small number of people.
Just look at the massive number of warlord fan classes. Most of which are greeted by apathy or complaints. I don't see how an official class would be received any differently.

Actually, banning the class, or even banning the specific abilities you find objectionable /does/ change that for your campaign, which is the only campaign you have any business making that kind of decision for. Again, you presume the right to dictate to everyone how they play the game.

That's not what I said or claimed. That's not even remotely close to the point I was making.
I'm not trying to dictate how everyone plays the game. I want the game to be neutral on the dictates of mechanics to allow people to play the game how they want.
When a class or mechanic (that is not contained in an optional rules module) changes the game it is an issue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just a nitpick, there's no such thing as "divine healing" anymore. Divine, arcane, and the like don't carry nearly the same weight

I suppose you could nitpick the same about 'martial' and deny there being any 'martial healing' to have an issue about.

However, if you did have a problem with spell based hit point recovery, removing cure wounds wouldn't solve the problem. Neither would banning the cleric or the paladin. Because there are numerous monsters that use spell based hp recovery. It's just part of the rules.

You ban the specific spells that heal, you're done. The monsters still exist, they just don't have those spells anymore.

Saying "you can just ban that fighter option" simply does not work because the mechanic is still seen as a valid mechanic, and can spreads to other places, like the playtest stone giant.

If that were true, you'd've already given up on 5e because Second Wind is 'martial healing.'

It also assumes they're updating the full length and breadth of the warlord class that was created over the entire edition (including fan builds and Dragon) rather than just updating the class based on its presentation in the PHB1.

It's not going in the PH, so that PH1-only restriction presumably no longer need apply.

I don't disagree. But that still doesn't make saying "no" easy to do or desirable..
Just because the DM can say "no" doesn't mean designers should set out to generate situations where DMs have to say "no". Saying "no" is a choice and the game shouldn't set out to force DMs to make that choice.

The game /must/ do that to give any choices at all. By your logic, Feats shouldn't exist, because someone not wanting to use that option might have to say 'no.' That's absurd.

Besides, the alternative your present is to /say no to everyone/.

Class and race options should be options the game assumes the majority of people will allow. So saying "no" to those options should be rare.

No. 5e is D&D for everybody who ever loved D&D, not D&D for some imagined majority that coincidentally always agrees with you.

And when you say "no" to an option as a DM, it should preferably be because the story option does not fit. Wizards are banned because magic is different. Clerics are banned because the gods are dead. The only races are humans, elves, and dwarves because the setting is inspired by Norse lore. When you start banning things because "mechanic X doesn't work" that usually mean an option is broken or is not working. And that's a problem.

There's no non-functional mechanics in the Warlord. Your objections to the mechanic are what don't work. The 'XOMG, you're forcing me to use something other than all-meat-hps' objection is already demolished by 5e by the mere existence of Second Wind, HD, death saves and overnight healing.

I can make an informed guess.

No, you can't, because you're not informed.

I know that every player tends to have maybe two or three favourite classes. So any new class options - let alone an entirely new class - will always appeal to only a small fraction of the audience.

Most players play more than just their favorite classes. Also, that is an argument for "no new classes ever," which is absurd.

I know that every poll on ENWorld shows an even split between pro and con warlord factions.

While EN polls are largely worthless, but, even so that - and this forum - illustrate that interest in the Warlord is very real. Objection to it is irrelevant, since those who don't want it need never use it.

Then add to this the fact that warlord fans are deeply divided and any attempt to make a warlord class will likely alienate half it's already fractional audience. And that's a LOT of work to appease a VERY small number of people.
Just look at the massive number of warlord fan classes. Most of which are greeted by apathy or complaints. I don't see how an official class would be received any differently.

Simple: it can provide a great deal of choice and flexibility.

I'm not trying to dictate how everyone plays the game.

That is, in fact, exactly what you are trying to do: no Warlord, for anyone playing 5e, ever. That's dictating to everyone how to play the game.

I want the game to be neutral on the dictates of mechanics to allow people to play the game how they want.

That in no way precludes adding to the game. 5e accomplishes that by Empowering the DM to use only those options he wishes to for his campaign. Even players have a degree of empowerment, as they can choose exactly what they want to play from what's available in the campaign, re-skin it, and choose to envision the narrative as they desire.

Anything added that you don't need, you don't use. Period. Don't like Monks? Don't play them. Want to run a campaign with no deities? Toss the Cleric & Paladin, no problem. Don't like Sleep, ban it. Psionics feels too much like sci-fi? Don't adopt it.

However, this gets more complicated as one of the most divisive issues over the warlord is possible martial healing, which isn't a class: it's a mechanic. And it's very easy for the game to add self-contained mechanics like martial healing to random monsters or make assumptions of it in adventures.

Again. Second Wind. 'Martial Healing' is already in. Monsters or NPC doing it could already exist. The cat's out of the bag. This objection is moot.

 

[Bawylie]

That's interesting. There is no "martial" healing and no "inspirational" healing and no "divine" healing. There's just healing.

Couldn't we have a mechanic not-explicitly-named-inspiration that healed (somehow) but we just didn't bother explaining the mechanism?

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's interesting. There is no "martial" healing and no "inspirational" healing and no "divine" healing. There's just healing.

Couldn't we have a mechanic not-explicitly-named-inspiration that healed (somehow) but we just didn't bother explaining the mechanism?

I was thinking the opposite: Hp-restoration not called 'healing' at all.

One extreme option has always been a 4th kind of hp. (Yes, there's 3 kinds of hps in 5e: Maximum hps, current hps, and temp hps.) Adding to current hps up to a limit of max hps is generally called 'healing.' Temp hps sit on top of current hps, no maximum, but don't stack. Those aren't the only possibilities, others could be devised if that were deemed desirable (I don't deem it so, but someone might).

For instance:

Additional HPs: Additional hps add to your current and maximum hps. When you take a short rest, the increase in your maximum hps is lost, and any additional hps you have remaining above your maximum become temp hps.

Ephemeral HPs: Ephemeral hps add to your current hps, up to the limit of your maximum hps. At the end of the current encounter, your current hps are reduced by the total number of ephemeral hps you had received that encounter.

Unnatural HPs: Unnatural hps increase your current hps, but also decrease your maximum hps. When your current hps are increased by magical means (other than gaining Unnatural hps), your maximum hps are increased by the amount gained, and your Unnatural hps reduced by the same amount. If you receive enough unnatural hps to reduce your maximum hps to 0, you become Undead until your maximum hps are restored to a positive value.

Blue HPs: Blue hps increase your current hps up to the limit of your maximum hps, but make you sad until you complete a long rest.

etc...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's interesting. There is no "martial" healing and no "inspirational" healing and no "divine" healing. There's just healing.

Couldn't we have a mechanic not-explicitly-named-inspiration that healed (somehow) but we just didn't bother explaining the mechanism?

It's possible. I'm skeptical, myself--not because I think it wouldn't work. I think it would work just fine--I just think there's no pleasing the "Warlord skeptic" crowd. Originally I was going to state that more...stridently, but I figure we've had enough excessive rhetoric by now. Suffice it to say, the definition of "compromise" used by (what feels like) most of the "Warlord skeptic" crowd confuses the hell out of me.
[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]: I was leaving your other arguments--which didn't sit well with me either--largely to others to respond to. Such as Tony Vargas, whose responses were much better-written than anything I would have produced (given that I was mere minutes from going to sleep). I was just addressing the one point that seemed very very simple to defuse.

The existence of a mechanic does not automatically entail that it will be used by NPCs (e.g. I don't believe NPCs can have Inspiration? Correct me if I'm wrong); the existence of monsters that do use a particular mechanic does not automatically entail that a DM must use them (what, is WotC putting a gun to your head unless you employ Ki-using Gith?); even with mechanics that are deeply rooted into the game, it's often barely more difficult to "fix" them than it is to "fix" the PC-option problem. NPC Cleric has 'cure wounds' on their list? Nix it. Worried that that nerfs too much? Replace it with Inflict Wounds, or whatever the appropriate name is in 5e, or just randomly select another spell of the same spell level on the Cleric list. It's not like they're suffering for spell options.

You are right, in that by adding a thing to the "5e idiom" (as some have said--don't care for the term myself), that thing may start to appear elsewhere. It is thus fair to say that, for monsters published at some unknown future point after the official publication of a 5e translation of the Warlord, it is possible that some of them could pick up mechanical widgets from that Warlord-translation. Thus, there is some possibility, however small, that one or more monsters published in a future, supplementary Monster Manual type book (or free addendum, like the ToEE or PotA supplements) could have a mechanic that offends the sensibilities of someone who would also ban the Warlord.

The question is, is the potential existence of this handful of monsters, which could not exist any sooner than an official Warlord could, a meaningful reason to prevent or avoid the creation of an official Warlord? I flatly disagree. You're not going to be seeing whole books riddled with this stuff. It would be, at absolute most, perhaps a dozen or two creatures. They'll be distant options, published probably years from now, in wholly supplemental material. Nobody forces anyone to use them, and even if they form an absolutely critical part of some incredibly juicy and attractive adventure path (say, the first official path to stray into levels 16+), merely looking at the monsters should reveal the existence of these traits, and the DM can simply opt not to run them, to tweak them to be different (e.g. "all monster abilities that give HP now give THP instead"), to replace them with magical equivalents (Valor Bard being a cromulent example), or simply to narrate them as "magical" even though the monster-text doesn't say that.

So, I ask you: why is it such a problem that monsters could, possibly acquire these (offensive?) mechanics when D&D generally, and 5e in particular, makes it so trivially easy to ignore, repaint, rework, or rebuild them? Their presence is at best a minor inconvenience to those who dislike them, and a substantial olive-branch to those who like them.

 

[Jester David]

It's possible. I'm skeptical, myself--not because I think it wouldn't work. I think it would work just fine--I just think there's no pleasing the "Warlord skeptic" crowd. Originally I was going to state that more...stridently, but I figure we've had enough excessive rhetoric by now. Suffice it to say, the definition of "compromise" used by (what feels like) most of the "Warlord skeptic" crowd confuses the hell out of me.

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]: I was leaving your other arguments--which didn't sit well with me either--largely to others to respond to. Such as Tony Vargas, whose responses were much better-written than anything I would have produced (given that I was mere minutes from going to sleep). I was just addressing the one point that seemed very very simple to defuse.

The existence of a mechanic does not automatically entail that it will be used by NPCs (e.g. I don't believe NPCs can have Inspiration? Correct me if I'm wrong); the existence of monsters that do use a particular mechanic does not automatically entail that a DM must use them (what, is WotC putting a gun to your head unless you employ Ki-using Gith?); even with mechanics that are deeply rooted into the game, it's often barely more difficult to "fix" them than it is to "fix" the PC-option problem. NPC Cleric has 'cure wounds' on their list? Nix it. Worried that that nerfs too much? Replace it with Inflict Wounds, or whatever the appropriate name is in 5e, or just randomly select another spell of the same spell level on the Cleric list. It's not like they're suffering for spell options.

You are right, in that by adding a thing to the "5e idiom" (as some have said--don't care for the term myself), that thing may start to appear elsewhere. It is thus fair to say that, for monsters published at some unknown future point after the official publication of a 5e translation of the Warlord, it is possible that some of them could pick up mechanical widgets from that Warlord-translation. Thus, there is some possibility, however small, that one or more monsters published in a future, supplementary Monster Manual type book (or free addendum, like the ToEE or PotA supplements) could have a mechanic that offends the sensibilities of someone who would also ban the Warlord.

The question is, is the potential existence of this handful of monsters, which could not exist any sooner than an official Warlord could, a meaningful reason to prevent or avoid the creation of an official Warlord? I flatly disagree. You're not going to be seeing whole books riddled with this stuff. It would be, at absolute most, perhaps a dozen or two creatures. They'll be distant options, published probably years from now, in wholly supplemental material. Nobody forces anyone to use them, and even if they form an absolutely critical part of some incredibly juicy and attractive adventure path (say, the first official path to stray into levels 16+), merely looking at the monsters should reveal the existence of these traits, and the DM can simply opt not to run them, to tweak them to be different (e.g. "all monster abilities that give HP now give THP instead"), to replace them with magical equivalents (Valor Bard being a cromulent example), or simply to narrate them as "magical" even though the monster-text doesn't say that.

So, I ask you: why is it such a problem that monsters could, possibly acquire these (offensive?) mechanics when D&D generally, and 5e in particular, makes it so trivially easy to ignore, repaint, rework, or rebuild them? Their presence is at best a minor inconvenience to those who dislike them, and a substantial olive-branch to those who like them.

The catch is, its possible to have a warlord without martial healing.

Ignoring the question of why the tactician is fixing wounds, actual healing is unecassary.
Warlords could grant temporary hit points, reduce damage, grant resistance, maximise hit dice healing, or hand out extra hit dice. All of which skirt around the issue of hit points as energy while serving much the same function as healing: extending the adventuring day and allowing for more or longer encounters.

That's the big issue. It's asking DMs to accept WotC working on a class and mechanic a lot of people don't want, one that changes an assumption of the game, at the expense of other options, while knowing its not necessary.
And instead of letting DMs choose what content they want, its pushing them to choose, and for mechanical reasons and not story reasons.

If I don't like something can I ignore it? Kinda. But the counter is, if they want actual healing and not temp HP, can't they ignore the word "temp" and just houserule the warlord to heal?
The difference is that they have to change known text in known powers while I have to be aware any monster, scene in any adventure, feat, or new subclass could include martial healing.