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

[CaptainGemini]

I see no need for a Warlord class with how 5E is structured. I'm even having trouble justifying a psionics class. Both could be subclasses easily.

Really, at this point all I'm seeing is people wanting to bring back the infinite class bloat that plagued 3E, 4E, and is plaguing Pathfinder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spitballing here...on the question of granting temporary hit points versus restoring hit points like a magical healer, what if both were in the default class as mutually exclusive options? The description might say something like...

Class feature: healing. The warlord enables allies to press on in situations that might otherwise overwhelm them, making them able to withstand more damage. Choose one of the variants below.
Variant: Bolstering through Inspiration. The warlord grants temporary hit points to allies. (Maybe add something about how this is more appropriate for "gritty" campaigns because the warlord cannot rouse unconscious allies during combat?)
Variant: Restoring through Inspiration. The warlord restores hit points to allies. (Maybe add something about how this is more appropriate for "heroic" campaigns?)

Would that work as a compromise? It's modular--there are two modules that plug into the "warlord healing" socket, each one giving a different flavor to the class and fitting a slightly different campaign style. And neither one is the official default, leavings DMs free to specify one or both for their game settings. The details of what they can do might need to be tweaked (perhaps giving the Bolstering warlord something to make up for not being able to bring an ally to consciousness during combat), but if the mechanical details can be adjusted to everyone's satisfaction, would this work as a conceptual approach?

That's a step in the right direction. What if the class feature were 'Inspiration' instead of the less-appropriate healing, and it could use up some resource (like, well, Inspiration), to achieve either of those things, or some others - offensive or defensive buffs, bonus saves, &c, maybe half a dozen initial options, with more unlocking as you leveled up? Then if you didn't want to 'heal,' you just wouldn't every choose any of them that restored hps. But, if you did want to, you wouldn't be locked out of any one other specific option as if you were some 2e specialist wizard with an opposed school (something 5e did away with), you'd just have made one choice, and still have some others left - you'll give something up in that sense of using up the choice.

I see no need for a Warlord class with how 5E is structured. I'm even having trouble justifying a psionics class. Both could be subclasses easily.

While it's easy to make a Warlord-lite sub-class or psionic-whatever sub-class, that's not the same thing as doing justice to the concepts with /just/ a sub-class or even a series of them across several classes. A figher sub-class, like the Battlemaster, if it had 10x as many of the right kind of maneuvers instead of a few token attempts, might do for a Bravura Warlord: one that's supposed to be a personal-combat badass who mainly just leads by example. You could fairly easily make a modest psion out of a Sorcerer origin or even by just reskinning a GOO Warlock. But, that's just a token effort. There's a half-dozen distinct Warlord builds you left out, and about as many psionic classes spread out over 3 editions. That GOO Warlock isn't going to make much of a Psychic Warrior or Ardent, for instance.

Maybe you don't feel the need, because you just don't want the classes, themselves, but it's a very clear need. Trying to run Dark Sun by faking psionics with one sub-class just isn't going to cut it, for instance, and there's whole playstyles and player choices the Warlord opens up just by making a non-caster support class viable.

Really, at this point all I'm seeing is people wanting to bring back the infinite class bloat that plagued 3E, 4E, and is plaguing Pathfinder.

Well, the PrC genie (there may even be a Genie PrC at some point) is out of the bottle - that's where the really crazy class bloat was in 3.5 - so that slippery slope is already pretty well greased as it is. I doubt trying to hold the line on a legitimate full class or two, like the Warlord (in a prior ed PH1, opens up playstyles 5e doesn't support yet, has 6-8 potential sub-classes) or Psionics (in the 1e PH1, in every edition in some form, including 7 or so distinct classes), is going to make a big difference. The slow pace of publication means bloat will happen slowly, and you can always stick to 'Core Only,' as AL seems to be more-or-less doing (Core + whatever came out this season, but not for long).

 

[CaptainGemini]

While it's easy to make a Warlord-lite sub-class or psionic-whatever sub-class, that's not the same thing as doing justice to the concepts with /just/ a sub-class or even a series of them across several classes. A figher sub-class, like the Battlemaster, if it had 10x as many of the right kind of maneuvers instead of a few token attempts, might do for a Bravura Warlord: one that's supposed to be a personal-combat badass who mainly just leads by example. You could fairly easily make a modest psion out of a Sorcerer origin or even by just reskinning a GOO Warlock. But, that's just a token effort. There's a half-dozen distinct Warlord builds you left out, and about as many psionic classes spread out over 3 editions. That GOO Warlock isn't going to make much of a Psychic Warrior or Ardent, for instance.

Making the Warlord a subclass doesn't take away those builds if they handle it correctly. There's easily half a dozen builds with any subclass right now. You don't really need another full class for what amounts to a niche role.

And psionics... a series of subclasses for each class could solve that. Psychic warrior? Fighter subclass. Wilder? Sorcerer subclass. Psionicist? Wizard subclass. And so on. You could even come up with entirely new psionics options via this method while still keeping it to the current class system.

Plus, they really do need to flush out the main classes with a lot more subclasses before we're even close to those having enough attention.

Maybe you don't feel the need, because you just don't want the classes, themselves, but it's a very clear need. Trying to run Dark Sun by faking psionics with one sub-class just isn't going to cut it, for instance, and there's whole playstyles and player choices the Warlord opens up just by making a non-caster support class viable.

What very clear need? I've seen these arguments a hundred times before, and they all amount to what people want without a true justification that it's actually needed.

Personally? I would love a psionics class... but I can't justify it. I can use the same arguments people use for a Warlord... and, at the end of the day, have never justified adding one at all.

No, there is no very clear need. The system they have in place eliminates most of the necessity, and careful balancing of new additions as subclasses will eliminate the rest.

And, before someone says anything about giving people what they want being a good idea: WotC has already learned from that mistake. Listening to people on forums is what produced 4E, and we all know how that edition turned out. So, yeah, if they're smart, they'll put forum topics like this right on their ignore list and continue listening to the surveys. Which it appears they have. And, hey, guess what surveys caused the lack of Warlord in 5E?

Well, the PrC genie (there may even be a Genie PrC at some point) is out of the bottle - that's where the really crazy class bloat was in 3.5 - so that slippery slope is already pretty well greased as it is. I doubt trying to hold the line on a legitimate full class or two, like the Warlord (in a prior ed PH1, opens up playstyles 5e doesn't support yet, has 6-8 potential sub-classes) or Psionics (in the 1e PH1, in every edition in some form, including 7 or so distinct classes), is going to make a big difference. The slow pace of publication means bloat will happen slowly, and you can always stick to 'Core Only,' as AL seems to be more-or-less doing (Core + whatever came out this season, but not for long).

Nah. The really crazy 3.5 class bloat is in Pathfinder. Plus, 3.5 had a growing list of base classes long before it ended.

And if they do PrCs how I suspect they will, those will also be limited in number with not much room to grow.

Now, where do I think the bloat will happen? Subclasses. They've pretty much set 5E up for that being the bloat this time around. The slow production time just keeps it from happening quickly. And, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. If handled right and kept slow, subclass bloat could benefit the game heavily in the long run. After all, are you ever going to say no to more options for your character?

 

[Jester David]

There's a whole 'nother thread on the topic. Temp hps can never do the job of restoring hps, because they can't bring a fallen ally back from 0, and because, like other forms of damage-mitigation, they essentially require 'prescience' to grant to the right ally every time, or they're wasted.

Okay, you get one response from me.

In regards to bringing back the fallen it takes one line in the warlord that says "while you are granting a creature temporary hit points, that creature is not dying and can act normally." Bam. Just as good as hp but potentially ranged and more hp since they're non-permanent making it better than a healing word spell in combat.
It's just that damn simple. Ideas like that are what happens when you stop to consider solutions and alternatives to a problem rather than just dismissing them.

In regards to the prescience, well, that strikes me as more of a feature than a bug. Because you'd expect a class designed to be the tactician to involve strategic thinking and use of abilities especially when said class is aimed at 4e players - who ostensibly enjoy a game with tactical depth.

 

[Bluenose]

Okay, you get one response from me.

In regards to bringing back the fallen it takes one line in the warlord that says "while you are granting a creature temporary hit points, that creature is not dying and can act normally." Bam. Just as good as hp but potentially ranged and more hp since they're non-permanent making it better than a healing word spell in combat.
It's just that damn simple. Ideas like that are what happens when you stop to consider solutions and alternatives to a problem rather than just dismissing them.

In regards to the prescience, well, that strikes me as more of a feature than a bug. Because you'd expect a class designed to be the tactician to involve strategic thinking and use of abilities especially when said class is aimed at 4e players - who ostensibly enjoy a game with tactical depth.

At that point the difference between temporary hit points and "real" hit points is just verbiage. They do exactly the same thing, but you use different words for one. What's the point?

Edit: The people who are against the idea of inspirational healing aren't stupid; they're going to recognise that THP are the same as HP and object just the same way.

 

[Jester David]

At that point the difference between temporary hit points and "real" hit points is just verbiage. They do exactly the same thing, but you use different words for one. What's the point?

Edit: The people who are against the idea of inspirational healing aren't stupid; they're going to recognise that THP are the same as HP and object just the same way.

I could say the same thing about cold damage and fire damage. Pain from severe cold is effectively the same thing as a burn. It's just verbiage.
But the presentation matters. The narrative matters. That's why it's an RPG.

And its not just verbage as there is a mechanical difference. Temporary hit points expire. The adrenaline wears off. You cease to be inspired. Your injuries catch up and you need a rest.
Actual restoration is curing wounds. Healing. (To some extent.)

This response just feels like moving the goalpost. The complaint regarding warlords granting temp HP has long been "but that doesn't get fallen PCs up." I propose a compromise where temp HP let's PCs get up and suddenly, the complaint over why temp HP doesn't work shifts and changes completely.

Which is a pretty good example of why we should never have a warlord: because there no room for compromise or a middle ground, because nothing is good enough to be acceptable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is a pretty good example of why we should never have a warlord: because there no room for compromise or a middle ground, because nothing is good enough to be acceptable.

So the alternative is "nothing is bad enough to be tolerable"? Also, so much for the "Warlord fans are a heterogenous group and thus have many divergent interests" argument...

 

[Aldarc]

I could say the same thing about cold damage and fire damage. Pain from severe cold is effectively the same thing as a burn. It's just verbiage.
But the presentation matters. The narrative matters. That's why it's an RPG.

And its not just verbage as there is a mechanical difference. Temporary hit points expire. The adrenaline wears off. You cease to be inspired. Your injuries catch up and you need a rest.
Actual restoration is curing wounds. Healing. (To some extent.)

This response just feels like moving the goalpost. The complaint regarding warlords granting temp HP has long been "but that doesn't get fallen PCs up." I propose a compromise where temp HP let's PCs get up and suddenly, the complaint over why temp HP doesn't work shifts and changes completely.

Which is a pretty good example of why we should never have a warlord: because there no room for compromise or a middle ground, because nothing is good enough to be acceptable.

Would you be opposed to a Warlord feature that converted unused THP into real HP following either the cessation of combat or as a result of a short rest?

 

[cmad1977]

No player is preventing anyone from 'having' the warlord.
'Many' people on a forum is not a representative sample of player desire for the warlord.

Play 4e if you want the warlord. It's designed for that board game and well balanced.
Make a warlord if you have to. Somehow I doubt people on this forum can stop you despite their hatred of it.

 

[Bluenose]

I could say the same thing about cold damage and fire damage. Pain from severe cold is effectively the same thing as a burn. It's just verbiage.
But the presentation matters. The narrative matters. That's why it's an RPG.

And its not just verbage as there is a mechanical difference. Temporary hit points expire. The adrenaline wears off. You cease to be inspired. Your injuries catch up and you need a rest.
Actual restoration is curing wounds. Healing. (To some extent.)

This response just feels like moving the goalpost. The complaint regarding warlords granting temp HP has long been "but that doesn't get fallen PCs up." I propose a compromise where temp HP let's PCs get up and suddenly, the complaint over why temp HP doesn't work shifts and changes completely.

Which is a pretty good example of why we should never have a warlord: because there no room for compromise or a middle ground, because nothing is good enough to be acceptable.

Temporary hit points expire at the end of the next long rest. That's the default rule. As such, the temporary hit points granted by the warlord shouting and the "real" hit points provided by the bard dancing at you have identical effects. There is no point in calling them by different names. They do the same thing. And I suspect the people likeliest to have a problem with that are not the warlord fans but the people who insist that whatever it does has to be inferior to magical hit point restoration.