D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Context. I didnt direct it at anyone and anything. For the regular ENworlders not in the know martial healing and warlird threads are a tactic from the wotc boards for veiled edition warring usually bt hinting that 5E is inferior for excluding them. Mearls covered the reasons in the D&D next playtest. The warlord is now the valor bard and BM fighter.

 

[Aldarc]

Context. I didnt direct it at anyone and anything. For the regular ENworlders not in the know martial healing and warlird threads are a tactic from the wotc boards for veiled edition warring usually bt hinting that 5E is inferior for excluding them. Mearls covered the reasons in the D&D next playtest. The warlord is now the valor bard and BM fighter.

And in context, you certainly walk the line of edition warring.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps you are correct! Something makes me think that even if a Warlord was presented that had "magical" healing, it wouldn't be acceptable to people that dislike the Warlord. Conversely, something makes me think that if there was some other option for non-magic healing presented that wasn't the Warlord, that wouldn't be acceptable to those that like the Warlord. In short, while the whole magic v. non-magic healing is interesting, it's really kind of a side issue.

It is a significant issue, though one that was belabored throughout the edition war.

One challenge in discussing the Warlord in 5e is that it was the only new class in the 4e PH1, making it a symbol of 4e. That makes it both a focal point of persistent edition warring, /and/ for 5e's contrary goal of being 'for' fans of every prior edition. It's unfortunate that discussions in support of the latter so often run afoul of the former.

 

[mellored]

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

There's definitely a few people are very much h4ters, and reject anything that has to do with 4e. As well as a few 4vengers who spawned in response to it.

However, it's only a minority. A vocal minority that tends to drown out the more reasonable discussion, but still a minority. Most people have more credible, if opposing, reasons. Mainly, the nature of HP, and thus how you can regain that HP.

By saying you have inspirational healing, it innately reject those that use HP as wounds.
By saying you can't have inspirational healing, it innately rejects those that use HP as moral.

The PBH leaves the nature of HP as upto the table to decide.
Hence why i think leaving healing upto each table to decide would be a possible middle ground.

And by middle ground, i mean a 2 state solution.

 

[JediGamemaster]

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.

yes, because someone trained to warp reality should have the advantage....

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Remathilis]

How about...

Words and Deeds
Just as bards use language to tap into the primal forces of creation, so do warlords. A warlord's words can restore vigor to a wounded solider, empower him to fight longer, harder, or better than he had before. This is not merely the skill of a gifted orator or the demands of a drill-sergeant; a warlord draws on something extra to lace his words and inspire his allies.

Likewise, a warlord has gifted insight beyond mundane battle tactics. He draws on an almost unnatural ability to predict the flow of battle, react to changes in an instant, and know exactly where to be to get the most advantage for his companions. This sixth-sense-like ability allows him to have allies move into position, call out openings even trained fighters may miss, and coordinate actions that can make even rag-tag bands work like well-oiled fighting units.

The wording here gives the warlord something "extra" he draws on. He doesn't necessarily know how he does it, but he is something stronger than a typical commander or soldier, and give a hint of mystical/magical without relying on outright magic or spells.

Of course, those who demand TOTAL NON-MAGIC are going to be disappointed, but I can't figure out a way to to make a total nonmagical warlord do much more than a battlemaster already is, so its the compromise for getting SuperAwesome warlord abilities....

 

[mellored]

That's why these discussions are always circular. No opinions are really going to change. WoTC has presented options for the Ranger to provide "non-magic" healing (poultices) and that hasn't made a dent in the demand for Warlords, has it? So it's not about the healing.

Warlords are not just about healing. It's also about having martial support (i.e. battlemaster with more dice, less multi-attacks).
But only a few are against that aspect, mostly due to not wanting class bloat rather then not accepting the mechanics or explanations.
And a few others are concerned about balance. But we figured out a way to make wizards not OP anymore despite the fact they where for 3 editions, so we can figure out a way to balance warlords who where only OP in 1 edition, if you char-opped it.


Inspirational Healing is the core dividing factor.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I think this is a good middle ground, OP.

In saying that, I'm making several assumptions, the most important of which is if this was going to be published content or not. I personally don't think it will be, because of Mearls' position regarding the class and how it was moved into 5e. But sidestepping the probabilities of whether it is officially published or not...

It really is about the healing for several people. That seems to be the crux of the issue. I wouldn't mind at all the inclusion of a Warlord class, but I think inspirational healing is an odd choice that doesn't fit for me (and many others). It does for someone else (and many others). Even the Ranger variant that provided non-magical healing couldn't accomplish what many Warlord fans want, which is the ability to heal someone from unconsciousness, instantly, mid combat. The poultices feature required one minute of application.

And just to throw off all of the "statistics" that many are sort of putting out there, I'm a "4venger" if I'm anything, as I started with 4e, and I loved it. I still play in that edition sometimes, though I vastly prefer 5e. I also played in a party with a friend who played as a Warlord, and I enjoyed playing with that character and concept. Even still, I don't much care for the idea of inspirational healing, and I feel that the Battlemaster, with Healer feat, or some similar build, is plenty for the general concept of the Warlord. I don't say this because I think it matters what my particular experiences and opinions are, but because there seem to be a lot of assumptions thrown around about one's motivations and experiences based off of how they feel about this class, and I think that is much less often the case than is being discussed here (and by "here", I mean literally all over these boards).