Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6738683" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Wait, now it's not just that they categorically can't heal, even the damage mitigation has to be purely opt-in? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll address this more later, but two quick things. One, is there actually any desire for a "simple" healer? Two, is it really appropriate to call it a simple <em>healer</em> if, as you've repeatedly said, it can't "heal" (that is, restore HP)?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First-level Fighters have Second Wind. Don't see why first-level Warlords couldn't have something too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Uh, what? No, I'm not at all convinced of that. A single spell and a slot to cast it is equivalent to a single, reduced-size die (1d6, if you aren't already a BM) and two maneuvers--as far as feats are concerned. By 3rd level, when the BM is first getting its four dice, the Cleric has four first-level spells *and* two second-level spells, plus all their other class and subclass features (including Preserve Life for Life Clerics, which is a pretty hefty chunk of healing). How are you determining the equivalence between "one level of spellcasting" and "one level of superiority dice"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wouldn't call them "weak." They're still substantial--not <em>large</em>, but substantial. Often bonus armor or weapon profs; specific domains get bonus skills, fairly substantial bonus HP from heal spells*, fairly substantial magic damage boost (+Wis to cantrips--Warlocks pay invocations for that kind of bonus), or bonus attacks (Wis mod times per day). They're not <em>build-defining</em>, to be sure, but they make a very solid commitment to whatever the domain should be doing, and matter most in the earliest levels while still doing useful work even at 20. I'll grant you that Trickery is a touch on the weak side (a <em>single</em> ally gets advantage on Stealth? Really?) and Nature's benefit is mostly for charop (nicking a Druid cantrip basically means "you can get Shillelagh"), but otherwise the domains seem to be a solid start on the domain's core focus.</p><p></p><p>*The minimum bonus is +3 (2 + first-level spell), which is equal to your spellcasting modifier at that level (max stat, absent a lucky roll). This is more than a 50% bonus to Healing Word, and exactly 40% bonus to Cure Wounds--hardly what I'd call "rather weak." It doesn't scale well, but at levels 1 and maybe 2, it's enough to turn lucky-to-average spells into full 0-to-max heals for many classes: CW gives 7.5 average HP with 16 Wis, or 10.5 average HP with Disciple of Life.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The former is flat-out wrong--it <em>can</em> be solved by the 5e Warlord, since the class is not yet set in stone; or, rather, it would be better to say it <em>may or may not</em>, depending on how one was created. How you can make the claim that it <em>should</em> not--an evaluative judgment--I'm not sure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. Though personally, I'd call it "adaptability" rather than "flexibility" per se. Each support class has access (sooner or later) to a variety of benefits, but can also focus, to one degree or another, on dealing with particular issues. Clerics are best at Big Heals if they specialize, Bards can create a unique package of magical benefits, Druids...I'm honestly not quite sure about, though my only practical experience with them has been Moon Druid so I don't quite know how the more spellcasty ones would work.</p><p></p><p>I see nothing wrong with a Warlord that can <em>opt into</em> restoring HP, as one choice among a palette of other options, supplementing rather than replacing their other, native sources of "day extension" (THP and/or defense bonuses, frex) and "force amplification" (which may, or may not, include attack-granting). One Warlord may double down on the THP, another may instead go for greater force amp--the latter is, after all, what most 4e Warlord guides advised.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I probably shouldn't have used quotes. I was trying to mark off the argument from the rest of my words, not indicate that I'd actually heard someone say that specific thing, but clearly I did that poorly. Though it has come up, here and elsewhere, that it is kind of sucky to design a feature for a particular class or subclass...which interferes with the most natural feat(s) one would take to improve one's abilities. Shield Master is perfectly compatible with the Protection Fighting Style, for example; having a feature for defending with a shield that used up your Bonus Action, for example, would conflict with that feat despite it being a (if not the) logical choice for such a character. Similarly, forcing a Warlord to focus primarily on THP makes Inspiring Leader largely a wasted investment, since it actively conflicts with any <em>other</em> sources of THP.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My thoughts exactly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you. This is what I was trying and failing to say. Bolded for emphasis.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am willing to accept "we overextended ourselves beyond the resources we had available." Such a problem is, as you've noted, shared by <em>all</em> support classes, and thus it is no big deal that a new class also suffers from the same problem.</p><p></p><p>I am not willing to accept a class which suffers from this problem <em>every single time</em> a party member is reduced to 0 HP, when 100% of other support classes <em>can</em> address it if they haven't completely depleted their resources for the day--even at level 1. Why should the 5e-Warlord be saddled with such an onerous burden, being completely unable to fix a common problem faced at all levels (but especially level 1 and 2)?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said above: Can we really call it a "low-complexity <u>healer</u>" if, by your own words, it wouldn't actually "heal"?</p><p></p><p>Also: "complex martial character" is definitely an absent thing to fill. And how is "high-complexity martial" <em>any different</em> from "low-complexity healer"? If the former counts as mere "checkbox filling," why doesn't the latter, when they're effectively identical (combining a description of complexity and a particular kind of playable character, one thematic, one mechanical)? The similarity is so fundamental, I'm struggling to understand why you'd even try to use this argument.</p><p></p><p>Beyond that, even if "simple healer" is a desirable thing (and I'm not arguing it's <em>un</em>desirable, merely that I don't know that there is yet call for it), the Warlord doesn't <em>have</em> to be that class. We've already seen one Divinely-reflavored arcane class, so why not have an "Angel" pact Warlock that gets special healing-related invocations? Or perhaps the Mystic, which we know is coming and is intended to embrace a wide variety of "psionic" classes, could include a healing-focused subclass (possibly cribbing notes from the 4e Ardent?) Hell, one could even go for a heavily Healing-focused Paladin subclass, just as the Oath of the Crown is apparently a pure tank (haven't seen or read about its specific features so I cannot say for sure), though that might not be "simple" enough since it still uses spells.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6738683, member: 6790260"] Wait, now it's not just that they categorically can't heal, even the damage mitigation has to be purely opt-in? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you. I'll address this more later, but two quick things. One, is there actually any desire for a "simple" healer? Two, is it really appropriate to call it a simple [I]healer[/I] if, as you've repeatedly said, it can't "heal" (that is, restore HP)? First-level Fighters have Second Wind. Don't see why first-level Warlords couldn't have something too. Uh, what? No, I'm not at all convinced of that. A single spell and a slot to cast it is equivalent to a single, reduced-size die (1d6, if you aren't already a BM) and two maneuvers--as far as feats are concerned. By 3rd level, when the BM is first getting its four dice, the Cleric has four first-level spells *and* two second-level spells, plus all their other class and subclass features (including Preserve Life for Life Clerics, which is a pretty hefty chunk of healing). How are you determining the equivalence between "one level of spellcasting" and "one level of superiority dice"? I wouldn't call them "weak." They're still substantial--not [I]large[/I], but substantial. Often bonus armor or weapon profs; specific domains get bonus skills, fairly substantial bonus HP from heal spells*, fairly substantial magic damage boost (+Wis to cantrips--Warlocks pay invocations for that kind of bonus), or bonus attacks (Wis mod times per day). They're not [I]build-defining[/I], to be sure, but they make a very solid commitment to whatever the domain should be doing, and matter most in the earliest levels while still doing useful work even at 20. I'll grant you that Trickery is a touch on the weak side (a [I]single[/I] ally gets advantage on Stealth? Really?) and Nature's benefit is mostly for charop (nicking a Druid cantrip basically means "you can get Shillelagh"), but otherwise the domains seem to be a solid start on the domain's core focus. *The minimum bonus is +3 (2 + first-level spell), which is equal to your spellcasting modifier at that level (max stat, absent a lucky roll). This is more than a 50% bonus to Healing Word, and exactly 40% bonus to Cure Wounds--hardly what I'd call "rather weak." It doesn't scale well, but at levels 1 and maybe 2, it's enough to turn lucky-to-average spells into full 0-to-max heals for many classes: CW gives 7.5 average HP with 16 Wis, or 10.5 average HP with Disciple of Life. The former is flat-out wrong--it [I]can[/I] be solved by the 5e Warlord, since the class is not yet set in stone; or, rather, it would be better to say it [I]may or may not[/I], depending on how one was created. How you can make the claim that it [I]should[/I] not--an evaluative judgment--I'm not sure. Agreed. Though personally, I'd call it "adaptability" rather than "flexibility" per se. Each support class has access (sooner or later) to a variety of benefits, but can also focus, to one degree or another, on dealing with particular issues. Clerics are best at Big Heals if they specialize, Bards can create a unique package of magical benefits, Druids...I'm honestly not quite sure about, though my only practical experience with them has been Moon Druid so I don't quite know how the more spellcasty ones would work. I see nothing wrong with a Warlord that can [I]opt into[/I] restoring HP, as one choice among a palette of other options, supplementing rather than replacing their other, native sources of "day extension" (THP and/or defense bonuses, frex) and "force amplification" (which may, or may not, include attack-granting). One Warlord may double down on the THP, another may instead go for greater force amp--the latter is, after all, what most 4e Warlord guides advised. I probably shouldn't have used quotes. I was trying to mark off the argument from the rest of my words, not indicate that I'd actually heard someone say that specific thing, but clearly I did that poorly. Though it has come up, here and elsewhere, that it is kind of sucky to design a feature for a particular class or subclass...which interferes with the most natural feat(s) one would take to improve one's abilities. Shield Master is perfectly compatible with the Protection Fighting Style, for example; having a feature for defending with a shield that used up your Bonus Action, for example, would conflict with that feat despite it being a (if not the) logical choice for such a character. Similarly, forcing a Warlord to focus primarily on THP makes Inspiring Leader largely a wasted investment, since it actively conflicts with any [I]other[/I] sources of THP. My thoughts exactly. Thank you. This is what I was trying and failing to say. Bolded for emphasis. I am willing to accept "we overextended ourselves beyond the resources we had available." Such a problem is, as you've noted, shared by [I]all[/I] support classes, and thus it is no big deal that a new class also suffers from the same problem. I am not willing to accept a class which suffers from this problem [I]every single time[/I] a party member is reduced to 0 HP, when 100% of other support classes [I]can[/I] address it if they haven't completely depleted their resources for the day--even at level 1. Why should the 5e-Warlord be saddled with such an onerous burden, being completely unable to fix a common problem faced at all levels (but especially level 1 and 2)? As I said above: Can we really call it a "low-complexity [U]healer[/U]" if, by your own words, it wouldn't actually "heal"? Also: "complex martial character" is definitely an absent thing to fill. And how is "high-complexity martial" [I]any different[/I] from "low-complexity healer"? If the former counts as mere "checkbox filling," why doesn't the latter, when they're effectively identical (combining a description of complexity and a particular kind of playable character, one thematic, one mechanical)? The similarity is so fundamental, I'm struggling to understand why you'd even try to use this argument. Beyond that, even if "simple healer" is a desirable thing (and I'm not arguing it's [I]un[/I]desirable, merely that I don't know that there is yet call for it), the Warlord doesn't [I]have[/I] to be that class. We've already seen one Divinely-reflavored arcane class, so why not have an "Angel" pact Warlock that gets special healing-related invocations? Or perhaps the Mystic, which we know is coming and is intended to embrace a wide variety of "psionic" classes, could include a healing-focused subclass (possibly cribbing notes from the 4e Ardent?) Hell, one could even go for a heavily Healing-focused Paladin subclass, just as the Oath of the Crown is apparently a pure tank (haven't seen or read about its specific features so I cannot say for sure), though that might not be "simple" enough since it still uses spells. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
Top