D&D 5E (2014) Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[Remathilis]

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

Yeah, get that out of the sidebar and put it in the main box and I'm there with bells on.

 

[BryonD]

Start of playtest: "They're focusing on core content. Just wait--your stuff is coming."
Middle playtest: "They're polishing core content. Just wait--you'll see your stuff too."
End of playtest: "Your stuff was too specific and wouldn't fit in the core. Just wait--a year or so in, you'll see it."
A year after launch: "It wouldn't be a compromise to let you have your stuff--it would be betraying what 5e is."

Good to know that the edition that "takes the best things from every edition" is so "adaptable" that it can't translate one of the best, and best-liked, parts of the most recent previous edition. The addition of both "you already have 4e, how dare you ask for stuff like it in 5e" and "the release schedule makes any offerings I don't like offensive" is truly a master stroke.

Hmmmm..
I didn't say "betraying what 5E is", but I did call it an ultimatum and abanding what currently *IS* a compromise in favor of an approach that alienated a huge chunk of players.

I didn't say "it can't" translate (it can), but I did indicate that doing so would be a poor approach to aligning with the larger audience.

I didn't say "how dare you", but I did indicate you should be just as willing to adapt as I myself have been.

I didn't say "offensive", but I'll take you designation of the release schedule comment as a "master stroke" to suggest you have no rebuttal to the point which was made.

Do you have any replies that address what I *DID* say?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, get that out of the sidebar and put it in the main box and I'm there with bells on.

Same phrasing? Say, right towards the end of the intro...

Warlord
...blah blah blah... colorful descriptions of possible warlords... blah blah blah....

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.

Whatever the source of their extraordinary accomplishments, Warlords are an asset to any party seeking victory in battle... blah, blah, blah...

....and *insert an awesome 5e class here*

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hmmmm..
I didn't say "betraying what 5E is", but I did call it an ultimatum and abanding what currently *IS* a compromise in favor of an approach that alienated a huge chunk of players.

So...a thing which completely pleases one side, but largely displeases the other side, qualifies as a compromise? I disagree. I also question how "huge" this chunk of players actually is--particularly when it is so easy to implement the change, and it is even easier to flag it with all the "don't use this if you don't want it" stuff. Which the devs, during the playtest, were perfectly happy to do.

I didn't say "it can't" translate (it can), but I did indicate that doing so would be a poor approach to aligning with the larger audience.

Feel free to post your survey data to reflect that. Others have already posted the survey data I'm speaking of. I can also show you developer tweets, from the playtest, where Mearls explicitly said that the "Fighter Warlord" could heal others and that you allow it in your campaign if you want that.

I didn't say "how dare you", but I did indicate you should be just as willing to adapt as I myself have been.

I didn't say "offensive",

"But if they put out one little thing and after all this time it is a complete reversal back to the approach that drove me and so many others away from the brand, that would be a major signal of trouble." What is "driving you away," if not offensive content?

The trouble is, you're not telling me to be adaptive. You're telling me to put up--or shut up. Bit of a difference there.

but I'll take you designation of the release schedule comment as a "master stroke" to suggest you have no rebuttal to the point which was made.

I was being sarcastic. The "master stroke" was the combination of "during the playtest, people justified avoidance of 4e stuff by saying it would come later" with "now that later has come, people are justifying the avoidance of 4e stuff by saying the release schedule would annoy them if even a single 4e thing were included in it." The circle is closed; the prophecy is self-fulfilled. I can't ever get what I want, because initially, it was too early; now, it's too late; and in-between even I recognize there was no time for it. Your preferences won to begin with--no "Warlord" appeared in the PHB, and the vast majority of dev "suggestions" about what the "Fighter Warlord" could do never paid off. And now, your preferences continue to take center stage, because the creation of any new content must please you, too. A sort of temporal "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.

"How dare you" was a hyperbolic way of presenting your position, "If you like 4e, play 4e--don't try to get things you want added to 5e." Your position strongly implies that 5e cannot, or should not, grow or expand when someone feels that there's something missing or not fully present in it, whether you wish to imply that or not. It's exclusionary--"go back to your interests, don't try new things or expect change."

I stand by my other response though. That you don't like something potentially being added to 5e, does not mean it can't or shouldn't be--but your post pretty much says exactly that. Asking for optional rules that better reflect a thing I like...is an ultimatum that drives people away from the game? Uh, no. It creates new space, without altering the space that already exists. As much as you want to paint it as a zero-sum game, it really, truly isn't. Characterizing "you didn't actually get anything of what you wanted, and what little is like what you wanted was specifically tailored to please, or avoid offending, other fans more than it was to please you" as a "compromise" is not accurate, IMHO.

That you would be unhappy because the purely-optional content includes one thing that doesn't interest you (or even anti-interests you), doesn't prove or even support the idea that it shouldn't be done. There are lots of people who straight-up hate psionics, but it's going to happen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't fault the idea that of a warlord class, nor do I think the battlemaster or valor bard are completely adequate substitutes. That said, I think "in-combat support equal to a cleric but without magic" is a tall order: The fighter and rogue (the only truly nonmagical classes in the game, though barbarian is very close) are very confined as to what effects they can cause.

Who says "Equal to a cleric but without magic"?

The job of a cleric is to allow the party to keep going and survive spike hit point attrition. Wind Walk, for example, is probably not wanted on a Warlord. But some recovery and some spike damage mitigation is absolutely necessary.

And the "without magic" is a can of worms of its own. The warlord (barring an archetype) can not be a spellcaster. A classic AD&D fighter by about 3rd level on a decent number of hit points is impossible to kill in a minute by a brawny orc with a greataxe in a minute in which the orc gets extremely lucky. Is that magic? Because it certainly isn't mundane.

The warlord needs to be in the same bracket for magic as the fighter, rogue, and barbarian. I.e. not a caster. But all D&D classes are larger than life.

I don't consider many of those changes "failings" Making Healing word or Hunter's Quarry a spell, for example, is a good way of expressing those ideas within the framework of 5e's spell system.

It's also why I find the implied setting of the 5e universe boring. Spells are specifically controlled manifestations of magic to the point of being technology. They are also interchangeable in a way hard earned skill or genuinely magical effects shouldn't be.

Having a dragonborn's breath weapon recharge on short rest rather than by encounter meshes with 5e's rest system.

Aaaggghhhhhh!!!!!

Having a dragonborn's breath weapon recharge on a short rest is exactly how it worked in 4e. Encounter powers were explicitly in the rules powers that recharged on a short rest.

Having a high-elf replace the eladrin is more in line with how the elven subraces were portrayed before.

Again, a less magical, less fantastic world. But agreed.

A battle-master with Sentinel is as faithful as you can get to the spirit on a 4e fighter, but it cannot, nor should not, resemble a one-to-one match of abilities.

Or even do the job properly of a 4e fighter. But then when I checked, a 4e fighter took IIRC 7 feats to match in 3.X before they had any class powers at all.

I just named off a dozen examples of things 4e brought to the table: spells like Thunderwave or Viscous Mockery,

A sticky spell. Being serious, vicious mockery as an at will is actually something 4e brought to the table and that influenced gameplay. Thunderwave is just another spell and its 5e version is very different from its 4e one as is its place within what makes 4e.

And why am I highlighting this? Because if you're putting the 5e Vicious Mockery alongside the 5e Thunderwave as things introduced then it's clear that you simply don't get how things fitted together in 4e. Which makes you unqualified to talk about them. There's a difference between a decent translation (Vicious Mockery) and something looking vaguely the same with a nametag (Thunderwave).

Seriously, the persecution complex needs to go. This idea of warlords as reparations for having lost healing surges or ADEU or whatever isn't winning any sympathy.

The claim was that all classes in any core PHB would be in the 5e PHB. It didn't happen. And Mearls chose to follow one of the least honest edition warrior points about shouting hands back on.

And your lack of understanding of what was important and why things were important needs to go. I've put in another thread why the warlord is a class that vastly opens up the worldbuilding and playstyle of 5e. A warlord allows you to play recognisable D&D with no spellcasters in your party. The warlord more than any other option meant that I could play a good Lord of the Rings game in 4e that would have not worked in any other edition. It opens up Dark Sun and pre-DL1 (and early DL1) Dragonlance to be viable settings without needing specialist classes and piles of rules like the Obscure Death Rule.

You seem to take "This has a namebadge and this looks vaguely like that" to be anything other than superficial.

I didn't get everything I wanted either: I'm not keen on the name "Mystic" nor do I like the pseudoscience names disappearing.

Cry me a river. "I don't like the names they call things." In terms of complaints that's trivial.

Try "The setting, the party, and the campaign I want to run won't even come close to working in the new D&D". Because that is what a loss of Warlords means in practice. It means that every setting needs to be covered in magic with spellcasters that make Gandalf look like a beginner.

If WotC gave you a Warlord, but it lacked real hp recovery (in lieu of some other temp hp/field medic mechanic) or tied it to "magic of words", but on the other hand made the class that could grant buffs, allow for out-of-turn actions, and other tactical stuff, would you keep fighting for the perfect, or would you accept this is "warlord enough" like I accepted mystic is "psionics enough"?

It depends how they are mechanically defining magic. If the warlord goes through their spellbook picking spells each morning to remember the mystic words and they vanish from your mind that would be ridiculous. If on the other hand it was just a single line of text and the words themselves weren't even affected by an anti-magic sphere that would be perfect.

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.

Nope.

You'll have to create a whole lot of nonmagical-magic to make a warlord compete with a Cleric or Bard.

Or some and not have them go flat out competing. Just giving enough to be viable while homing them in the martial group.

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,

And yet my 4e Retroclone has the archivist mage, which is a genuine vancian caster.

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

Agreed.

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?

If it can be ignored at the table, of course.

 

[mellored]

There are no "leader" classes in 5e.

Bard and cleric would qualify.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Who says "Equal to a cleric but without magic"?

I have, in the context of filling the traditional support role, only. Warlords don't need to cast Flame Strike without magic (dumpling flaming oil on attackers during a siege notwithstanding), for instance.

Well, 'adequate' or 'competitive' or 'viable' rather than precisely 'equal' was my intent.

And the "without magic" is a can of worms of its own. The warlord (barring an archetype) can not be a spellcaster. A classic AD&D fighter by about 3rd level on a decent number of hit points is impossible to kill in a minute by a brawny orc with a greataxe in a minute in which the orc gets extremely lucky. Is that magic? Because it certainly isn't mundane.

It's a bizarre sticking point, but its somehow important to a non-trivial faction of the D&D fan-base that nothing be any good (at anything but DPR or a few classic 'Thief' functions) unless a 'magic' tag is hanging off it.

The warlord needs to be in the same bracket for magic as the fighter, rogue, and barbarian. I.e. not a caster. But all D&D classes are larger than life.

Non-magical, but with one supernatural archetype? I nominate Ardent as the supernatural Warlord archetype. It's a perfect fit, and you could put the Mystic & Warlord in the same book.

Or even do the job properly of a 4e fighter. But then when I checked, a 4e fighter took IIRC 7 feats to match in 3.X before they had any class powers at all.

You could never quite do a 4e fighter in 3.5, customizeable as it was, because there was no mark-style mechanic available, at all. But you could do so many other things the 4e fighter couldn't possibly do with those 7 feats, like exert battlefield control with a reach weapon.

The claim was that all classes in any core PHB would be in the 5e PHB. It didn't happen. And Mearls chose to follow one of the least honest edition warrior points about shouting hands back on.

The claim as I recall it was classes from past PH1s were up for consideration. It was more of a negative claim: that any class not in a prior-ed PH1 was not even considered for the 5e PH. (not that they exactly stuck to that, either)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Bard and cleric would qualify.

Nothing about those (or any other 5e) classes instill a requirement to perform in that roll or capacity. There are no "leader" classes in 5e.

 

[mellored]

Nothing about those (or any other 5e) classes instill a requirement to perform in that roll or capacity. There are no "leader" classes in 5e.

Did you read the 4e definition of leader?
Here's what it says.

Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in an adventuring group. Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on. Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying.

A leader primarily supports the party by aiding allies, and making enemies more vulnerable to attack. The leader role refers only to a class's combat function; a character with a leader role does not have to be the decision maker or spokesperson for the party. The cleric is the classic leader class.

If you're making a semantic argument that "leader" is a poor word to use, then yes, i agree.
Most other games use the term "Support".

So by your definition, there are not "leader" classes in 4e either.

If it helps, there's probably a browser plug in that replaces all the instances of "leader" with "support".

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're making a semantic argument that "leader" is a poor word to use, then yes, i agree.
Most other games use the term "Support".

In D&D, the traditional cleric role was 'healer,' or even, less respectfully, 'band-aid' or the like. It was a role stereotyped, not without justification, as boring and thankless, and playing the cleric would often fall on the last player to join the game. 3e tried to address that 'cleric problem' by powering up the cleric, with more spells, spontaneous casting and domains, while also relieving out-of-combat healing duties via the WoCLW and the like. The result was CoDzilla.

4e went outside the box when it re-defined the traditional cleric 'healer' role as 'Leader' - it broadened the role, gave it a name not only free of the established stigma, but carrying unnecessary connotations of superiority, and spread it out over the various sources, so jumping on the 'healer' grenade didn't mean entirely giving up the sort of character you wanted to play.

Thanks to the edition war, 5e design recoiled from the very idea of roles, even traditional ones. While it's cool to design classes to concept, and the Big 4 concepts de-facto include their traditional roles, it would have been better for the game, IMHO, to refine formal roles instead of abandon them. Expanding them to cover the other two pillars, breaking the still-too-broad controller role into Blaster (AE offense and battlefield control via interdiction) and Controller (condition-imposition, and battlefield control via illusion, abjuration & the like), and, to bring it back around, changing the 'leader' name to the more appropriate, neither stigmatized nor aggrandized, 'Support.'