D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[tuxgeo]

I didn't vote. I do, however, love the wording in the original post.

The first option (homebrew) is always available anyway, so all the other radio buttons in this poll are false "choices" (that is to say, there is not really a choice between that and anything else); and that is why I did not vote.

My own opinion is that any official "warlord" class (by whatever name is ever chosen for it) should be explicitly non-magical, for the sake of the players who specifically want it to have that feature. Then that class can easily be homebrewed to remove the non-magical interpretation, or can be just as easily banned at any table where that concept doesn't fit.

 

[El Mahdi]

The description of Inspirational Hit Point Recovery in a potential class doesn't need to say one way or the other if it's magical or not. It simply remains silent on it.

Simply describe the Warlord as using vocal exhortation and/or shaking, and that's it. Any implication of whether it's magical or not-magical is up to each individual table - as it always is.

There's no need for a compromise on this. The default is that the narrative is already up to each individual table.

However, any dissonance created between the rules and a table's preferred narrative are also the responsibility of that table. Just as one could decide to narrate healing spells as non-magical, doesn't mean it isn't going to cause potential narrative problems.

But Inspirational Recovery doesn't need to be explicitly stated as non-magical. Just describe in the ability how one does it, then leave the narrative of the unspoken parts up to each table.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just make it slightly magical and most problems go away. It would work well in something like Birthright with the bloodlines, should not exist full stop in Darksun, and the other settings would vary. /

 

[Aldarc]

There are way too many people way too eager to argue about everything already.

I prefer that people homebrew the Warlord, but do you know what? Even if it was official, or semi-official, it wouldn't matter to my group, because it would be house-ruled out of our campaign... just like certain official races and classes that are currently in the PHB. Other than sanctioned events, *it doesn't matter.* People can do what they want.

And I wish more people would at least take this attitude with the Warlord. Some campaigns will say "no elves" or "no monks," and those options become off-limits. That's why I think there are those making a bigger deal about an inclusion of the Warlord than necessary. The amount of energy to say "no Warlords" at the table should be sufficient, while still letting people who want official Warlords available to have them.

Just make it slightly magical and most problems go away. It would work well in something like Birthright with the bloodlines, should not exist full stop in Darksun, and the other settings would vary. /

I disagree. 1) It should not be explicitly "slightly magical," because although it would make "most problems go away" for you, that's not true for many warlord fans who want something more mundane. Its abilities should exist in the ambiguous space between the extraordinary and supernatural. But the moment you declare it to be either fully mundane or magical, it turns off about half of the potential fanbase for the warlord. Then 2) IMHO, its inclusion in Dark Sun was brilliant! Elemental clerics always stuck out like a sore thumb, and the warlord only further highlighted that issue for me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

I may be wrong, but it seems like the Warlord discussion might be a proxy for some other, different discussion.

I get a similar feeling, and I think that it depends on the person. And when debates around the Warlord intensify, those proxy issues become more pronounced.

I definitely do not understand why so many people are eager to either advocate for, or against, the inclusion of this class. Personally, I put it in the "tiefling" bin- things that appeal to some people, said people not including me. But that's okay- not everything has to appeal to me.

And I appreciate that approach. It's honest, and it still provides room for those who may want those things.

 

[Zardnaar]

I may be wrong, but it seems like the Warlord discussion might be a proxy for some other, different discussion.

I definitely do not understand why so many people are eager to either advocate for, or against, the inclusion of this class. Personally, I put it in the "tiefling" bin- things that appeal to some people, said people not including me. But that's okay- not everything has to appeal to me.

Its basically veiled edition warring and a few 4vengers came over from the wotc boards.

5E has been well recieved though.

 

[Aldarc]

Its basically veiled edition warring and a few 4vengers came over from the wotc boards.

5E has been well recieved though.

As a friendly piece of advice, people have been warned about using terms as '4vengers' and 'h4ters' here on ENWorld, so you using that term could easily be construed as edition warring in its own right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

An official, even 'core,' Warlord class that left room for interpretation when it came to the nature of it's abilities, specifically Inspirational Healing, would not be an unreasonable Compromise, and, poor as these polls tend to be at sampling, I'd be surprised if it didn't come out well ahead.

Edit: Anyone thinking that they are voting for a homebrew class, though, should re-read the title, choices, and OP, and un-vote if they're not OK with the idea of an official Warlord with an ambiguously-sourced Inspiring Word.

"Inspiring Word: Some say the inspiration is similar to the bards magic, others believe that there is blood of the kings running through their veins, or the power of faith and devotion towards your comrades like a paladin, yet others simply see only hard work and practice at choosing the right words. Yet no one can deny that the words seem to resonate in whoever hears it, having an impact far beyond your average encouragement."

While I like 'some say' language like that, it really belongs in a side-bar. The class, and the specific ability itself, could be presented in support of the actual concept, meaning they would not say they were in any way magical or supernatural. A side-bar could point out that there is room to interpret any ability that seems to an individual (even a player) too far-fetched as actually having some semi-mystical or magical underpinning, just one that is transparent even to the user. Thus, a player or his character are free to decide that the Warlord is mystical in some cryptic way if that keeps it from spoiling any hp visualization that 5e already supports (which is definitely not any/all possible ones) or otherwise exceeds the limits of the player's imagination or the character's core beliefs.

The description of Inspirational Hit Point Recovery in a potential class doesn't need to say one way or the other if it's magical or not. It simply remains silent on it.

According to a close parsing of the rules touching on magic by I'm a Banana, anything that isn't explicitly a 'magical effect' can technically be ruled non-magical. Even Lay on Hands, for instance.

The concept of the Warlord is a non-casting/non-magical character, and it'd still be OK to make that clear, but just leave a little wiggle room open for folks to believe otherwise. Just about as much wiggle room as you have if you don't want to believe Lay On Hands is a magical power.

 

[Bluenose]

I may be wrong, but it seems like the Warlord discussion might be a proxy for some other, different discussion.

It's got a reliable way to substitute non-magical ability for spells, and it isn't explicitly inferior to the magic option. Of course it's controversial.