D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I've had some lovely discussions with mellored, Bawylie and others on alternative abilities and language that would address my concerns (although I will admit the nuance between how you are using 'concern' and 'objection' eludes me at the moment.)

The subtle distinction between "this class idea could have some issues with implementation that might cause a little trouble at the table, please watch out for that, especially in playtesting" and "this class idea could have some issues with implementation that might cause a little trouble at the table, don't you dare even try to add it to the game under any circumstances." Addressing a concern with a possible new class means that you want to see the class implemented in a way that minimizes the potential problem you see. Raising an objection to a possible new class means you don't want the class to be added, at all. The former is asserting your desire that the game try to avoid sucking unnecessarily (yes, I'm afraid suck is sometimes necessary, perfection being impossible), the latter is asserting your desire to dictate to everyone what they can play.

I'm not 100% sure about the statement in bold. It might be true in the same vacuous sense that makes it possible for AD&D 2nd edition to handle lightsabers and CoC-style Sanity loss, through extensive houseruling--but houserules of that magnitude generally don't borrow much from their base systems.

When I say the system is 'up for handling anything,' well, first, yes, it may be an overstatement for effect, maybe 'anything from a past edition' (or even 'core in a past edition) would be a safer way to put it. But, more importantly, I'm not talking about the game exactly as it stands can be mangled and shoved into shape by amateurs - it can be, that's just not what I'm referring to. Rather, the point is that the design philosophy and the basics of the system can handle the addition of any given new class or other game element. It might still bloat and experience negative effects if many (dozens of classes, hundreds of feats, thousands of spells) such things were added, and were all used at one table, but there's nothing 'impossible' about handling a class or other game element from a past edition and doing so in a way that's faithful to the concept and supports the play styles in questions.

There are some AD&D-era mechanics that I think could be ported into 5E, but I would not make the claim that it can handle "anything" from that edition

Sure, you could find outre mechanics that are basically incompatible with rolling everything on a d20. A percentile roll, though, is not exactly hard to convert to a mathematically equivalent d20 check.

Other things like spells that scale with level are even further from the 5E idiom and simply don't belong.

Spells do scale with level, cantrips literally so, while other spells scale with the level of the slot (and your available slots scale with level). It's not an identical mechanic, but it supports the concept of casters getting better at casting as they level up.

For example, much as I love 90% Magic Resistant Mind Flayers, much as I "hanker" for them, I haven't made up my mind to houserule it into existence because it's so far from the 5E idiom that I am doubtful 5E can handle it[1].

I don't see how it'd be a major problem. So it's a monster you can't cast spell directly upon with much chance of success? Parties have other resources than spells, and other ways to use spells other than casting them directly at enemies. That hasn't changed from 1e to 5e.

I dunno. I don't think I'd want to create a new mechanic. First, a straight % implies that the level at which magic was cast isn't relevant, but everywhere else in the game it is.

I think the 5E way of simulating Magic Resistance would be for me to: give disadvantage to magic attacks, and give advantage on saving throws (which 5E already does), and give them the Avoidance feature that Demiliches have. For highly-resistant creatures such as Mind Flayers it might be appropriate to also give an AC bonus and a saving throw bonus against magic attacks, no more than +4. Or how about, "The Mind Flayer can expend its reaction to add its profiency bonus to its AC or saving throw against a magical effect. It must do this after it sees the die roll but before the effect is resolved." Kind of like Defensive Duelist for Magic, and it winds up serving the desired function of making Mind Flayers fairly impervious to bog-standard Fireballs, although you might or might not want to do something about Magic Missiles.

Or you could just give casters a magic resistance DC to overcome, using caster Stat mod + proficiency. It was an obscure rule in 1e, but IIRC, magic resistance went up for casters under 11th and down for those above that level. So a DC of around 28 would probably be equivalent to 90% magic resistance. Level is taken into account, the spirit/feel/concept of the old mechanic is re-introduced, and the 'new' (it's prettymuch how 3e did magic resistance, so not that new) mechanic fits the dice conventions of the current edition.

But in any event Mind Flayers are supposed to be psions, not arch-wizards, which to me doesn't even suggest "magic resistance" but rather "immunity to mind controlling effects". Sure I can see rationalizing the magic resistance but it's tangential not core. But they give wizards the heebie-jeebies because they want to eat your brains. Do you really need something more terrifying than that?

In D&D, where magic is such a common, highly-available, and powerful tool for PCs? Sure, sometimes. The Mind Flayer's magic resistance goes way back. I'd think it had to do with them being Lovecraftian eldritch abominations so alien that our world's magic can barely touch them. In 1e, the rationale for magic resistance was often (though hardly consistently) that the creature was extra-dimensional in nature (maybe magic meant to affect natives of the plane couldn't reach the 'whole' creature? IDK). It's certainly not that they're arch-wizards. Arch-wizards, afterall, don't develop magic resistance.

Maybe he rules that the fighter's second wind is magic. The Eldritch Knight already has magic, and the Champion's regeneration sure looks magic to me.

Second Wind isn't magical in the Standard Game, but there's no reason a DM couldn't house-rule it to be magical if it fit his campaign (probably want to beef it up slightly to compensate for the potential loss of availability when magic is being blocked or countered or messed with somehow). For that matter, a player and/or his PC could /believe/ the ability was magical, and what's to say it isn't some subtle sort of magic that just isn't subject to the usual laws and trappings of casting or ki or other supernatural powers?
The same goes for any current or hypothetical non-magical ability that might cross some individual's personal verisimilitude line like that.
Really should be a non-issue.

 

[Remathilis]

That is a false dilema. A Warlord, simply to be viable along-side the existing support-oriented classes would have to do everything it did in 4e, and more, because those classes (all casters) are much more powerful and flexible in 5e than they were when they were balanced with the Warlord in 4e.

So the answer then has to be "martial magic". You need nonmagical versions of Bless, Cure Wounds, Lesser Restoration, Haste, Healing Word, etc to be a viable support character. I mean, Bardic Inspiration isn't enough, neither is Superiority dice. You'll have to create a whole lot of nonmagical-magic to make a warlord compete with a Cleric or Bard.

As far as 'more widely accepted,' more options are nice things for classes to have, a warlord that's true to concept, balanced, viable, playable, and customizable, like other 5e classes, would certainly garner a wider audience than one that failed to model it's concept, was under-powered, non-viable, and had coudn't be used to produce many distinct characters.

Good thing nobody is really suggesting that. Some of us are questioning, however, the specifics of how to do that. Nobody wants another Marshal or Healer class; they secretly aren't hoping for broken or useless PoS class clogging up the drain. They do, however, question how such a class fits in the design paradigm of 5e, and the answer routinely given is "expand it to encompass 4e".

The Marshal is not the Warlord, was not even technically a D&D class, and was pretty terrible. Some of the sorts of concepts the Warlord successfully models had been unsuccessfully modeled before. The fighter becoming a 'lord' at 9th in classic D&D, or the Marshal, or the odd PrC, perhaps.

The Warlord, however was a 4e innovation.

Marshal is a D&D class through and through; first printing in the Miniature's Handbook (along side the Healer, Warmage, and Favored Soul) and given additional options in 3.5's Player's Handbook II. I'll agree it wasn't a GOOD class, but its as D&D as any other 3.5 class.

I was referring specifically to: "Its impossible to play a 4e-like fighter without extra rules (mark) and feats (sentinel). Its completely impossible to play a 4e ranger (martial striker)."

Those are failings, there things you can't do in 5e. They can be corrected by adding more options to the game.

I disagree, it could be much more faithful. 5e is not so limited in it's potential that it couldn't have done so.

They could have, but they chose not to. That's telling. They instead chose a different design paradigm. Much like how a Vancian caster would not fit 4e's design, marking and martial striker rangers didn't fit 5e's. (The example of Magic Resistance not fitting 5e's paradigm, or having monsters immune to +2 or greater weapons doesn't.)

If you count tiny things like individual spells, yes, maybe there are as many as a dozen bits from 4e included in 5e, I acknowledged that. Likewise, there are lots of things that were in 4e and one or more prior editions - Sorcerer, Warlocks, tieflings, large swaths of d20 rules - that are also unsurprisingly in 5e.

Yup, but 4e had no problems redefining those things to fit its own design aesthetics. It took tieflings and forced them into one standard look, origin, and powerset. It redefined paladins from servants of LG to servant's of gods. It had no problem forcing rogues to just use crossbows, or fighter's from having no ranged attack powers, or removing magic from the ranger. In short, it took a concept, but redefined it to fit the new edition.

You know what is a good concept, but needs to be redefined to fit a new edition? The Warlord.

You repeatedly said in the psionics threads that you wouldn't accept psionics that didn't live up to your standards, but you have, now that there's something in the pipeline. I will also make the best of whatever Warlord comes down the line.

I didn't ragequit 5e when it came out without a Warlord, in fact I supported 5e, and continued to support its goal of being for all fans, including advocating for psionics, which I personally never cared for, because adding it was important to eventually achieving that goal.

Let me correct my hypothetical somewhat:

I got a psionics system that is different than magic, uses power points, but has an annoying paragraph of fluff that ties it to the Far Realm.
You get a Warlord that can heal fallen allies from 0, has support and buffing mechanics, and is completely balanced and fun, but has an annoying paragraph of fluff that ties it to "the magical power of words".

Sounds fair?

 

[Guest 6801328]

This thread should probably be moved to the exciting new "Warlord" forum before somebody loses an eye.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So the answer then has to be "martial magic". You need nonmagical versions of Bless, Cure Wounds, Lesser Restoration, Haste, Healing Word, etc to be a viable support character.

No.
The Warlord needs the same sorts of non-magical abilities he's always had - and presumably more due to niche-protection being loosened up - just with greater availability and flexibility, to remain balanced with the other 4e "leader" classes in their 5e incarnations. Not only in the sense of fulfilling the traditional 'band-aid'/support role, but in the sense of reaching beyond that or the 'Leader' role the way those classes have, as well, but in different directions because the Warlord concept is so different from them. It would be silly to give the Warlord spells or spells with the serial numbers filed off. There's already enough duplication of class abilities via multiple classes all casting the exact same spells, as it is.

Some of us are questioning, however, the specifics of how to do that.

Before it makes sense to argue specifics of how a class will be implemented, I feel you'd have to acknowledge that it should be implemented.
Always holding "then NO WARLORD!" as a bludgeon to veto any specifics is not conducive to a polite discussion of specifics.

They do, however, question how such a class fits in the design paradigm of 5e, and the answer routinely given is "expand it to encompass 4e".

The design philosophy of 5e is /more/ expansive than that of 4e, not less. You do not have to expand a design philosophy that has, as it's purpose, supporting /more/ styles than any one prior edition did, in order to encompass one of those prior editions. To suggest that 5e's design philosophy is more limited than 4e's, alone, would be to judge 5e an abject failure, which I hope, is obviously not the case.

Marshal is a D&D class through and through; first printing in the Miniature's Handbook

Which was a spin-off. And whether you want to disgrace 3e by making it claim a class as bad as the martial or not, I can't acknowledge it as anything but one of several failed attempts to accomplish just a fraction of what the Warlord finally did, and did very well. JMHO, I guess.

They could have, but they chose not to. That's telling.

It does create an appearance that 5e is failing in it's goal of being for fans of all past editions, by choosing sides in the edition war to appease h4ter, and thereby exclude 4e fans, yes. That's a bad thing, and WotC needs to combat that appearance - especially when people start holding it up as 'proof' the edition favors their side of an argument.

Much like how a Vancian caster would not fit 4e's design, marking and martial striker rangers didn't fit 5e's.

The 4e wizard remained 'Vancian' to a small degree, marking is a 5e module, so those are bad examples.

Aside from that, your reasoning amounts to "anything not already in the 5e PH is anathema to 5e," and that's manifest nonsense, and would mean you couldn't have psionics, at all.

Yup, but 4e had no problems redefining those things to fit its own design aesthetics.

And 5e has even less accommodating design aesthetics? No. 5e design aesthetics are broader and more open to designing classes to concept than 4e's.

Let me correct my hypothetical somewhat:

OK, we can go there, but you're missing (or ignoring) the point of mentioning the similarity of your stance on psionics to mine on the Warlord...

I got a psionics system that is different than magic, uses power points, but has an annoying paragraph of fluff that ties it to the Far Realm.
You get a Warlord that can heal fallen allies from 0, has support and buffing mechanics, and is completely balanced and fun, but has an annoying paragraph of fluff that ties it to "the magical power of words".

That's not annoying fluff, it's entirely contrary to the class concept. No Warlord (or failed warlord predecessor, since you seem intent on bringing those up) was ever magical. In contrast, psionics has been presented as magic or not-magic or take your choice in past editions, and as unexplained, trained, Wild Talent, or the result of Far Realms influence in different editions. There's a basis for covering all those if at all possible. There's no such basis in prior versions of the class for making the Warlord magical. None.

Now, while I don't care for psionics as either sci-fi bit nor lovecraftian freakiness, and while I'm a card-carrying 4venger and the Far Realms/psionics connect was a 4e thing (and now 5venger, as I've had to defend the current ed from equally spurious criticism, if happily in greatly reduced volume), and in spite of the way you've been coming off in these Warlord threads, I'm still advocating for the Far Realms origin to be softened: pushed off to a side-bar and phrased as speculation (the always convenient 'some say...') not as default fluff.

And, yes, by the same token, if there were some nifty side-bar 'some say that reports of warlord rallying badly-wounded troops can only mean they are tapping some magical power of words...' I'd shrug and be OK with it, because it has no mechanical consequences behind it to ruin my experience when I play one, while leaving a rationalization open to any players at the table who find cliched genre tropes like the ones the warlord models unsatisfying or unrealistic or whatever, and needs to think of them as somehow magical.

Sound fair?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The Warlord needs the same sorts of non-magical abilities he's always had...

What about the proto-warlord? Should we being considering him for representation? Or just the 4e version?

...to remain balanced with the other "leader" classes in their 5e incarnations...

There are no "leader" classes in 5e.

 

[Bawylie]

Alright, we rename warlord into War Caller, then. The loudest combatant on the field, unlike bards with their foofaraw, music, and pomp, War Callers employ their vocal vivacity and charisma to the pursuit of war.

 

[Remathilis]

And, yes, by the same token, if there were some nifty side-bar 'some say that reports of warlord rallying badly-wounded troops can only mean they are tapping some magical power of words...' I'd shrug and be OK with it, because it has no mechanical consequences behind it to ruin my experience when I play one, while leaving a rationalization open to any players at the table who find cliched genre tropes like the ones the warlord models unsatisfying or unrealistic or whatever, and needs to think of them as somehow magical.

Right here is where I think we have our final impasse.

Really, we both want a warlord class that can act as buffer, tactician, and even a healer. We can squabble endless on the ratios of each (I'm probably 60% tactician, 30% buffer, 10% healer) and the mechanics to do it with.

HOWEVER

We will never agree as to the default fluff, since you want completely nonmagical and I can't wrap my head around not having some form of latent magic backing up his more extraordinary powers. A sidebar will never cut it and you know that. In the end, there will only ever be one "default" setting and right now, we're squabbling over which one will be the cannon fluff and which one will be the non-cannon sidebar. Just as having a billion sidebars next to psionics to spell out every possible alternative isn't going to stop the default "Far Realms" fluff from being cited. I mean, someone floated the idea that a Fighter's Second Wind was magical and it was immediately dismissed as "not the default fluff."

So the fight ends up being which vision of the warlord becomes the default, and and neither of us is going to back down. Ultimately, this will only end when if WotC produced a warlord class and then spells out, in the flavor text, whether a warlord's inspirational healing (if it even has it) is magic-laced or completely nonmagical. Until that day, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We will never agree as to the default fluff, since you want completely nonmagical and I can't wrap my head around not having some form of latent magic backing up his more extraordinary powers. A sidebar will never cut it and you know that.

Why not? The sidebar option lets us play at the same table, with the class true to it's concept, but you're able to assume the 'latent magic' you need to cope with it.

How about adding some more evocative-of-magic language to an earlier take on such a sidebar.

Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance - perhaps the mystic secrets of some militant cabal left over from some forgotten empire, or a subtle magic of word & deed that doesn't follow the same laws as the mighty magic of spell-casters - behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree: there is something greater than themselves that deserves the credit for those victories - their allies.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why not? The sidebar option lets us play at the same table, with the class true to it's concept, but you're able to assume the 'latent magic' you need to cope with it.

How about adding some more evocative-of-magic language to an earlier take on such a sidebar.

Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance - perhaps the mystic secrets of some militant cabal left over from some forgotten empire, or a subtle magic of word & deed that doesn't follow the same laws as the mighty magic of spell-casters - behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree: there is something greater than themselves that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.

as part of the pro warlord pro more 4e stuff crowd I wouldn't mind that as the default text

 

[TwoSix]

Why not? The sidebar option lets us play at the same table, with the class true to it's concept, but you're able to assume the 'latent magic' you need to cope with it.

How about adding some more evocative-of-magic language to an earlier take on such a sidebar.

Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance - perhaps the mystic secrets of some militant cabal left over from some forgotten empire, or a subtle magic of word & deed that doesn't follow the same laws as the mighty magic of spell-casters - behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree: there is something greater than themselves that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.

That phrasing deserves more than the 1 XP I can give it.