D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[El Mahdi]

Absolutely.

When hp loss represents wounds in the narrative, healing herbs can heal wounds. Especially because herbs can be in that "supernatural" space quite comfortably (you don't need to be a spellcaster to use one, but they might have some magical properties of their own). But "strictly Charles Atlas-style inspiration" can't heal wounds, and I don't think it's claimed that it can. So it's not compatible with hp loss representing wounds. Contrast, say, bardic healing, which can fit a sort of "magically inspiring" narrative - that can heal wounds just fine.

For clarification purposes, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that healing potions support a non-magical game even when you describe them as "supernatural", the link you posted to describes them as "magical antidotes", and the PHB itself says:

Potion of Healing
A character who drinks the magical red fluid in this vial regains 2d4+2 hit points...

...do I have that right?

Inspirational healing works fine if you let it be supernatural, OR if you make HP not about wounds.

This may be your perception or preference, but this is objectively incorrect. One can deny it as much as desired, but I and others have shown over and over how it's consistent with the rules as written, and consistent with real-life - both with no magic required.

There's really no getting around that, no matter how many times this sentiment is stated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For clarification purposes, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that healing potions support a non-magical game even when you describe them as "supernatural", the link you posted to describes them as "magical antidotes", and the PHB itself says: {.."magical"..}

There's really three contexts, I'm A Banana & I were talking about. There's all-martial parities, which, in a high-magic world, could certainly avail themselves of healing potions. Then there's low-magic campaigns where healing potions might be quite rare. And, finally, there's no-magic campaigns where magical healing potions wouldn't exist, but their mechanics might be re-skinned as potent drugs of various sorts and levels of availability - non-magical, but capable of giving you some hps, while not actually closing wounds or anything overtly supernatural.

Regardless, you can't really depend on a single magic item, technically magical or not, to enable a whole playstyle or set of playstyles to which it may or may not be appropriate. At best, administering a healing potion is a second-string in-combat support option, one that's expensive in terms of both not-necessarily-renewable resources and action economy for relatively small benefit - better than merely stabilizing a fallen ally, but that's about it.

I and others have shown over and over how it's consistent with the rules as written, and consistent with real-life - both with no magic required.

Not that RaW is all that significant in 5e, but it is convenient to be able to use a concept seamlessly without resorting to actual rule changes, 're-skinning' a potion as a non-magical medieval drug cocktail is only a small rules tweak (so your potion works in an anti-magic shell, not likely to come up often) to achieve a fairly significant narrative difference (any 'wounds' can merely be ignored rather than vanishing), while making any wounds narratively much more serious would require more substantial rule modifications (like the natural healing modules in the DMG, or introducing wound penalties or the like).

 

[El Mahdi]

There's really three contexts, I'm A Banana & I were talking about. There's all-martial parities, which, in a high-magic world, could certainly avail themselves of healing potions. Then there's low-magic campaigns where healing potions might be quite rare. And, finally, there's no-magic campaigns where magical healing potions wouldn't exist, but their mechanics might be re-skinned as potent drugs of various sorts and levels of availability - non-magical, but capable of giving you some hps, while not actually closing wounds or anything overtly supernatural.

Ahhh...okay, I get it. There's still contradictions in his logic, just not the perceived contradiction I was seeking clarification on (only the contradiction I highlighted previously).

The contradiction that remains is only as concerns the issue of Inspirational Recovery supposedly being illogical in comparison to other forms of Hit Point recovery.

I know it's likely a futile endeavor trying to change that perception, but damned if it isn't fun trying!

Regardless, you can't really depend on a single magic item, technically magical or not, to enable a whole playstyle or set of playstyles to which it may or may not be appropriate. At best, administering a healing potion is a second-string in-combat support option, one that's expensive in terms of both not-necessarily-renewable resources and action economy for relatively small benefit - better than merely stabilizing a fallen ally, but that's about it.

I agree 100%.

 

[Imaro]

Not that RaW is all that significant in 5e, but it is convenient to be able to use a concept seamlessly without resorting to actual rule changes, 're-skinning' a potion as a non-magical medieval drug cocktail is only a small rules tweak (so your potion works in an anti-magic shell, not likely to come up often) to achieve a fairly significant narrative difference (any 'wounds' can merely be ignored rather than vanishing), while making any wounds narratively much more serious would require more substantial rule modifications (like the natural healing modules in the DMG, or introducing wound penalties or the like).

Even 4e had to resort to rules changes from RaW in order to accommodate a no magic game... inherent bonuses were not RaW they were an optional rule change that could be used by a table to enable a certain play style. Anyway, it's a module that is included in the 5e DMG that enables non-magical healing... not seeing the issue outside of not wanting to acknowledge it's there... which is counterproductive and just silly if you really want a non-magic game with 5e and are not just purposefully ignoring it to "prove" a warlord is necessary for a no-magic game, when in fact it's not.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even 4e had to resort to rules changes from RaW in order to accommodate a no magic game... inherent bonuses were not RaW they were an optional rule change that could be used by a table to enable a certain play style.

They were a sort of 'switch' yes, an optional rule like the modules 5e provides in it's DMG, or for that matter, like feats & MCing.
That's not a rule change in the sense of a house-rule, just choosing to use an available option. 5e doesn't need that particular kind of module, since it factors magic items out of encounter balance under Bounded Accuracy, but it has a lot more ground to make up in supporting low-/no- magic or all-martial-party styles in it's paucity of martial PC options...

Anyway, it's a module that is included in the 5e DMG that enables non-magical healing...

There's already quite a lot of non-magical healing - overnight healing and HD, for instance - it's just not enough or not accessible/efficient enough to be a practical replacement for that aspect of the contributions made by a primary-support character. Even if it were, it's not the only important support contribution.

if you really want a non-magic game with 5e

Low-/no- magic or all-martial, among other things, yes. Those are examples of styles that 5e doesn't cover yet that a prior edition did cover well and quite easily/seamlessly. I'd like to see it try (and, hopefully, succeed).

to "prove" a warlord is necessary for a no-magic game, when in fact it's not.

There's enough redundancy among the existing classes that you couldn't prove any one of them 'necessary' in that sense, so it's an unnecessarily high bar to prove the class necessary to enable a few specific playstyles functional. None the less, that proof has been presented. Not that necessary automatically means sufficient, either. 5e could do with a lot more martial options. The PDK, Swashbuckler & Assassin are steps in the right direction, but very small ones. The Warlord would be a much larger one. Depending on how they design the Warlord, though, there could still be quite a lot of design space left...

 

[Imaro]

They were a sort of 'switch' yes, an optional rule like the modules 5e provides in it's DMG, or for that matter, like feats & MCing.
That's not a rule change in the sense of a house-rule, just choosing to use an available option. 5e doesn't need that particular kind of module, since it factors magic items out of encounter balance under Bounded Accuracy, but it has a lot more ground to make up in supporting low-/no- magic or all-martial-party styles in it's paucity of martial PC options...

There's already quite a lot of non-magical healing - overnight healing and HD, for instance - it's just not enough or not accessible/efficient enough to be a practical replacement for that aspect of the contributions made by a primary-support character. Even if it were, it's not the only important support contribution.

Low-/no- magic or all-martial, among other things, yes. Those are examples of styles that 5e doesn't cover yet that a prior edition did cover well and quite easily/seamlessly. I'd like to see it try (and, hopefully, succeed).

There's enough redundancy among the existing classes that you couldn't prove any one of them 'necessary' in that sense, so it's an unnecessarily high bar to prove the class necessary to enable a few specific playstyles functional. None the less, that proof has been presented. Not that necessary automatically means sufficient, either. 5e could do with a lot more martial options. The PDK, Swashbuckler & Assassin are steps in the right direction, but very small ones. The Warlord would be a much larger one. Depending on how they design the Warlord, though, there could still be quite a lot of design space left...

Before we continue down this road... do you have the DMG... and have you read the variant healing rules? I'm asking because you're making claims about accessibility and amount that, at least in my play with no primary casters/healers in a party consisting of a paladin, ranger, barbarian and rogue(Arcane Trickster)... don't hold up in actual play. They were more than adequate in moving forward through 6-8 encounters on average in a day with access to healing potions, leadership feat, healer's feat, etc... for 10 levels of play so far. If I had used the healing variant it would have only made it easier which makes me wonder what actual evidence or proof you have for the lack of accessibility and amount claims you keep throwing out there. Remember every one of those 6-8 encounters isn't supposed to be deadly or even hard...

 

[Tony Vargas]

you're making claims about accessibility and amount that, at least in my play with no primary casters/healers in a party consisting of a paladin, ranger, barbarian and rogue(Arcane Trickster)... don't hold up in actual play.They were more than adequate in moving forward through 6-8 encounters on average in a day with access to healing potions, leadership feat, healer's feat, etc...

That's not an all-martial party, nor a party depending exclusively on non-magical healing in place of a primary support character. You've got a fairly significant support character in the paladin, and a lesser one in the ranger, both including magical healing. AT could have a few buffs and the like, too. But, OK, in your experience, the game supports a style of play where 3/4 of the party are half-casters, feats are in use, and 'common' magic items are readily available.
Was that ever an issue?

 

[Hussar]

That's not an all-martial party, nor a party depending exclusively on non-magical healing in place of a primary support character. You've got a fairly significant support character in the paladin, and a lesser one in the ranger, both including magical healing. AT could have a few buffs and the like, too. But, OK, in your experience, the game supports a style of play where 3/4 of the party are half-casters, feats are in use, and ready access to 'common' magic items are readily available.
Was that ever an issue?

This is pretty much exactly the party I'm aiming for for my Primeval Thule campaign. Sans the paladin, possibly. The setting bans paladins, and I'm actually on the fence about it. I could see Oath of Vengeance paladins in the setting fairly easily. Other than me adding in some rules for healing (likely the variant rules from the DMG) since common magic items will not be readily available, this is "low enough" magic for me.

It would be nice, however, if I could replace that paladin with a proper Warlord and not have to change the healing rules to patch. Meh, c'est la vie.

At least this is a group where you could reasonably expect to have at least one round per combat where no one cast any spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is pretty much exactly the party I'm aiming for for my Primeval Thule campaign. Sans the paladin, ... this is "low enough" magic for me. At least this is a group where you could reasonably expect to have at least one round per combat where no one cast any spells.

I suppose not having a primary caster, even if 3/4 or half - or all - the party is casting, is arguably still a 'low'(er?) magic campaign...

 

[Remathilis]

Just thought I'd try a thought experiment...

HEALING SURGES
This optional rule allows characters to heal up in the thick of combat and works well for parties that feature few or no characters with healing magic, or for campaigns in which magical healing is rare.
As an action, a character can use a healing surge and spend up to half his or her Hit Dice. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifier. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.
A character who uses a healing surge can't do so again until he or she finishes a short or long rest.
Under this optional rule, a character regains all spent Hit Dice at the end of a long rest. With a short rest, a character regains Hit Dice equal to his or her level divided by four (minimum of one die).
For a more superheroic feel, you can let a character use a healing surge as a bonus action, rather than as an action.

HERO POINTS
Hero points work well in epic fantasy and mythic campaigns in which the characters are meant to be more like superheroes than the average adventurer is.
With this option, a character starts with 5 hero point at 1st level. Each time the character gains a level, he or she loses any unspent hero points and gains a new total equal to 5 + half the character's level.
A player can spend a hero point whenever he or she makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw
The player can spend the hero point after the roll is made but before any of its results are applied. Spending the hero point allows the player to roll a d6 and add it to the d20, possibly turning a failure into a success. A player can spend only 1 hero point per roll.
In addition, whenever a character fails a death saving throw, the player can spend one hero point to turn the failure into a success.

Would these two variants give enough additional healing and buffing to make nonmagical feasible?