Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6733035" data-attributes="member: 996">Your hatred is your personal problem.  You do not need to offend everyone here with it.  It does not give you the right to dictate to everyone how they play the game.  It doesn't even keep you from playing the game in spite of the presence of it's object, because you are under no obligation to use anything in the game that you don't care for.  None.  Asking for a 5e Warlord - even getting one as part of the Standard Game and AL, which, frankly, would be entirely fair and in keeping with 5e's goals of inclusiveness - wouldn't change that.  I'm not trying to tell you how to play the game, I'm just asking WotC to give me the tool to play it the way I want.  5e already provides tools to play many character concepts, both common in fantasy (fighter, rogue, warlock, sorcerer) and virtually absent from it (glowy-in-combat-magical-healing priests, Vancian casters).  The Warlord concept is between those extremes, entirely worthy of inclusion. They're both very handy things to be good at if you're going to work with others in combat.   It's really not circular.  5e is committed to being inclusive to fans of all past editions.  It designs classes based on their appearances in past editions.  The Warlord has had only the one past appearance.  There's no conflict.Calling hp-restoration 'healing' is a misnomer in that concept.  No, I'm not OK with walling off a critical support ability.  I am OK with it being one of many flexible options, as it is with every other support class.  Flexibility is crucial to providing support, anyway, since it's a contribution that's most important when things are going wrong.  You can't be a 1-trick-pony support class.  Look, if desire for the Warlord is so slight as you wish believe, and abhorrence of 'martial healing' so nearly universal as you claim to believe, why do you need the write-up of the class to go so many extra miles in repudiating the idea?  Do you have so little confidence in your own opinions that you need WotC to actively take your side over and over again, as some sort of security blanket to re-assure you that you're right?  5e is a game that gives options.  Take the options you like, leave the rest.  Don't be so paranoid that just because something you don't like is available, or something you do like is 'only optional,' not standard, that there's something wrong with your preferences.  5e temp hps last until your next rest long rest, not just until the end of the combat.  That would be a novel, inconsistent mechanic, when simply restoring hps already models the effect neatly, and in a way entirely in accord with 5e's handling of hps (which includes Second Wind, HD, death saves, and overnight healing). Actually, that was a huge selling feature.  4e put martial and magical classes on more nearly-equal footing than ever before (or since).  The Warlord made it practical to have an all-martial party or low-/no- magic campaign. It was huge.  And, no, the differences among Sources were not merely flavor, the Source keyword could have actual mechanical effects.  You could have those in 4e, too.  Or an Artificer or Shaman.  Choice is a good thing.  The choice between Cleric and Druid isn't a very dramatic one, they're both essentially priests.  Nor does the Bard, also a spell-caster, offer a compellingly different choice.The Warlord would add a genuinely new and different choice for a player wanting (or needing) to contribute support for his party.Sure, you can claim that a Bard casting cure light wounds via the arcane power of words & music, and a Druid casting cure light wounds via the power of nature, and Cleric praying to a specific deity to cast cure light wounds, are really 'all doing exactly the same thing,' and there's nothing to differentiate them.  The same doesn't apply to the Warlord.  It's not a caster, it'll necessarily have different mechanics.  Maybe it'll trigger and enhance HD, for instance, accomplishing the same kinds of contributions as classes that can heal, but with a different concept (Inpiration) and different mechanic.  It looked like a shot at both 5e /and/ 4e, to me.  I'll defend both if you take shots at them.  They're each great games in their own way, and the current edition definitely deserves my support. Is there a non-magical way to bestow a curse or turn a person to stone?  No.  So in a low-/no- magic game, they don't matter.  In a high-magic game, resources external to the party could be called upon for those purposes.  As far as re-growing things, that's beyond the power of hp-restoring magic like Cure Wounds, anyway, and not something you're going to do in combat.  D&D has no mechanics for inflicting those kinds of injuries, anyway, so the point is probably moot.  Playing a low/no-magic game without having to re-write the game, of course.  With Inspiration restoring hps, you can have combat challenges work like they generally have done in D&D.  You don't have to re-write the combat system, or artificially limit your campaign to vanishingly little combat.  You can change the assumptions of play in a game-re-balancing way without low magic.  Remove in-combat healing spells, for instance, and you can have a high-magic game with combats that flow differently.  Remove all magical healing, and use the alternate healing modules, and you can have a high-magic game that requires signficant re-tooling.  It all depends on what you're after.  You snip out the parts you don't need for the campaign you want to run. I'd like to see that too.  There's no need, for instance, to limit the Warlord's enemy-influencing tactical maneuvering the way 4e did, since there's no formal 'controller' role to step on.  A bravura build could shade into 'defender' territory.  But, by the same token, there's no need to give up it's established abilities and functions, either.  A 5e Warlord should have more customizability than the 4e Warlord did and cover more potential character concepts, not fewer.  It also needs a great deal more flexibility and more resources than it had in 4e, to remain balanced with other 5e classes like the Cleric, Druid, and Bard, whose spells/day and flexibility to prep whatever spells they want and cast them spontaneously has vastly empowered them relative to 4e's AEDU.There is no such support 'role.'  Existing support classes overlap to a very high degree, they cast many of the exact same spells to contribute support to their parties.  Does a Bard feel 'redundant' because there's a Cleric in the party who can also cast healing word?  No, he just has more slots to cast Sound Burst because the healing duties are being shared.  Overlap is inevitable, and it's not the problem it was  in 4e when stepping on another  'Role' was a no-no.  There's no need to exclude hp-restoration from the 5e Warlord's repertoire to make it unique, that it's a non-caster making it's primary contribution through something other than DPR already does that in spades, and he has other tricks, like action-granting that the existing primary-support classes don't do so much.</blockquote>

Verification