D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[UnadvisedGoose445]

The Warlord works in a way true to it's concept and past execution.

It's this statement that really doesn't work. No class gets this or has gotten it.

I think people would be genuinely open to listening more about a new, full class, if this very tight constraint wasn't placed on its execution.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Nope. I'm still waiting for a Warlord. What you described doesn't cut it. I've made it perfectly clear, by analogy, how the assertion that Battlemaster=Warlord is utterly absurd. Your repeating it won't make it so.

Like I said, the Battlemaster having a couple of maneuver that slightly resemble something a warlord might do is worth a few of months of the over a year it's been.

If that's all you got, I'll have to insist the Warlord be errata'd into the PH /and the battlemaster removed/.

you don't get to ask for errata to the PH and it is never going to happen so just choke that up to a lost cause the best you could hope for is a new book (most likely next year) that has a warlord in it... asking for more then that is a joke

 

[JediGamemaster]

You don't even play 5E .

wait... [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is this true? because if you aren't even playing the game why argue?

 

[Jester David]

The obvious compromise between those two absolute positions is "Optional Warlord."

That's not a compromise you made, it was one forced upon you. And, really, all content not in the Basic rules is "optional" so it wouldn't be much of a compromise.

All the concessions have been on one side. And they've been major.

But which were voluntary? What would you give up about the class?
It's name? Healing? Healing as a subclass feature? At-will powers?

What concession are you willing to make? Keeping in mind, you've never had to make any, before, so you have a /lot/ of ground to cover.

That's a big statement. I can't update my beloved 3e summoner for balance. Buffs don't stack so support characters, which I enjoy, are less potent (especially the bard).

But, relating the the warlord, what compromises am I willing to make?

Well, the existence of the class for one. I used to just be straight anti-warlord but I'm willing to not only have it in the game but encourage its creation (and attempt to help design homebrew ones on occasion). Because other people want it and it makes them happy.
I'm also willing to compromise and accept it as a full class rather than just a subclass (or background).
While I would prefer a Int based warlord, because a Charismatic leader step all over the bard's toes (and the bard has so little that is unique), but I'd accept some Cha in the warlord.
I'd even accept some healing. I'd prefer it designed to work with DM customization, such as granting bonus HD.
If they released a warlord class with mandatory healing, I'm even willing to accept that.
Heck, I'll even tolerate the name "warlord" despite the fact it's as icky a class named "slaver" or "baby eater".

If pushed I'll bend on a lot. I'd prefer not to, and until the class is released I'll argue for alternatives, but I'm still willing to give some ground and concede some points. To accept losing some arguments for the greater good and health of the community.

How about you?

 

[MoonSong]

wait... [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is this true? because if you aren't even playing the game why argue?

Weeell, If we are going to go with that, maybe Tony isn't the best speaker for wanting a warlord, so maybe I could help a little... You see I didn't really like 4e at all, and basically hated the edition, including -specially- how it handled healing. But I think the edition needs a something with the name warlord that can replace a cleric without magic and help allies to be better without being so high on dps itself. Is it really too much?

 

[Jester David]

Weeell, If we are going to go with that, maybe Tony isn't the best speaker for wanting a warlord, so maybe I could help a little... You see I didn't really like 4e at all, and basically hated the edition, including -specially- how it handled healing. But I think the edition needs a something with the name warlord that can replace a cleric without magic and help allies to be better without being so high on dps itself. Is it really too much?

The "replacing the cleric" is a little less needed, since the bard and druid both have as much potential healing as clerics. And paladins and rangers can do some minor healing.

The "without magic" bit is the tricky bit. In 4e a cleric replacement only needed to restore hp, since there was no major conditions causing grief. In 5e, a healer without access to lesser restoration isn't going to be as effective. There's a lot of negative conditions that don't easily go away. A warlord could deal with some (I would totally buy a warlord ability that let you ignore exhaustion for a time) but other effects and conditions are trickier.

 

[ZickZak]

Cleric's heal - "I who served you well ask for help!"
Druid's heal - "Anmnsdgjnsdjsfdnm vlkofdsk"
Bard's heal - "Annie, are you OK? So, Annie, are you OK? Are you OK, Annie?"
Warlord's heal - "You are all my childreeen!"

Yea, we definitely need a handbook for this.

I'm confused. Does this mean that Bard has a Criminal Background, or is this for when you've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth hobgoblin?

I will answer that in the "Are you AB-SOLUTELY sure you don't want this?!" warlord thread, which I am assuming to be opened sometimes within this week and feature many examples on what we are missing.

 

[Bawylie]

That's basically where I was going; a warlord is tapping into something beyond normal human range to do something equally extraordinary.

Take a simple example. You have two PCs: Bob the Warlord and Tim the Rogue. Neither are spellcasters. Both have the same Charisma (17) and both are proficient in Persuasion, Performance, Intimidate, and Deception (All the Cha skills). For final measure, lets make them both 5th level.

Bob can rouse someone from near-death using only his words. Tim cannot. Why? They equally good orators, equally charismatic, and equally skilled and experienced. Well, if Bob's words tap into the latent magic that pervades the world and Tim's don't, that explains it. Bob spent a lot of time honing that ability and being able to tap into that latent magic (like a barbarian taps into the latent power of rage, or a bard into the latent power of music). In the end, it creates the effect of allowing healing, but it adds that one crucial element that says "Bob's words have something that restores your vigor, Tim's words do not."

You're playing a class-based game. Some capabilities are gated behind class paradigms.

Why can't Bob sneak attack if he has the same dex and stealth as Tim? Do their daggers work differently? Or are we ok with class based abilities?

 

[JediGamemaster]

You're playing a class-based game. Some capabilities are gated behind class paradigms.

Why can't Bob sneak attack if he has the same dex and stealth as Tim? Do their daggers work differently? Or are we ok with class based abilities?

I sometimes (even back in 2e) wonder myself why fighters can't take advantage of getting the drop on you like a thief/rogue

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd heartily recommend EN5ider's noble class. It doesn't have a magical version, but it does have subclasses that allow all of the traditional archetypes. I'm thinking of playing a Drow Noble with the lazy lord archetype.

yea I keep meaning to get around to getting a sub