D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Jester David]

You and Epiphet, OTOH, are unqualified to make any such judgement.

Aaaaand we're done here.
Good luck making a warlord on your own, since you seem dead set on pushing away anyone willing to make an effort.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's an observable fact that far more people stop fighting not because they're unconscious and dying (very silly in itself as the only possible result of injury) but because they no longer believe they can win. Whether that's by running away, surrendering, 'collapsing' because of an injury that's either trivial or even non-existent; these are all observed effects.

Of course, and wargames generally had abstract morale rules to model that in the aggregate. D&D had morale checks through AD&D, though they didn't apply to PCs and seemed to steadily lose significance, perhaps as a result of that. 3.0 was something of an equalizer when it came to applying the same rules to PCs & NPCs/Monsters, so it's hardly surprising it dropped morale checks entirely, though there were fear-based conditions and a psychic damage type that could have been used to model morale. ...

Every one of those things could be handled by someone with the skills to motivate people into making one more effort, a 'Warlord' or similar class based around morale effects. Without any specific morale rules then the easiest way to model this - for people who want D&D to be more of a simulation, that is - is to let hit points do the duty of defining when individuals give up on a fight.

4e indirectly incorporated morale into hps, with the Warlord restoring hps via morale (Inspiring Word & 53 other exploits), and, again having conditions that could model morale effects, but stopped short of having a Controller opposite number of the Warlord to inflict them, let alone inflict morale damage. 5e uses Inspiring Leader, Inspiration, and Bardic Inspiration to cover positive PC morale effects, and a few conditions for negative ones, and has it's few martial sub-classes do nothing with any of those, IIRC - so there's a lot of unused 'design space' in 5e for warlord and/or hypothetical-martial-controller-style morale-based abilities, not to mention tactical and/or strategy-based ones.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have, repeatedly and recently, suggested at least two mechanical means for dealing with unconsciousness at zero. One an aura, the other a reaction. I keep making the suggestion, because I acknowledge the "annoying little rule" and the importance of the Warlord's ability to deal with that situation.

Command Aura/Relentless Rage/Relentless Endurance - Frankly, IMO, these simply don't accomplish what a Warlord does - whether compared with the previous edition, narratively, or real-life. Just look at how inconsistent these are with the Terminator example. Not too mention that for something like these to work, they would have to be in place before a character reached 0 HP. That would mean an aura that was either always on, or needs to be activated/maintained prior to its being needed. One of the considerations I'm following is attempting to avoid always on abilities or activating/maintaining powers in favor of action economy resources (spend something, something happens). Always on abilities can be overpowered and significantly change the landscape for a DM's preparations/considerations - thus limiting its likelihood of acceptance by WotC (for making an official or UA Warlord) and by the DM's which a player likely needs to convince in order to use an optional Warlord in their games. And power activation/maintenance is a design consideration expressly avoided in 5E - for obvious reasons. A reaction (the Warlord's reaction) could be used to avoid the always-on/activation problem (or use superiority dice - which btw, I hate this name - action dice would have been soooo much better). However, reactions are a very limited resource, and taking this approach instead of using a mechanic that provides Hit Points seems unnecessarily complicated and inconsistent to me (inconsistent with the Warlord considerations I already mentioned, and inconsistent with the form of already present mechanics - specifically, Battle Master maneuvers). Not to mention that I don't feel inclined to resort to clunkier/less-narratively-consistent mechanics just to make those that can't see outside of their own paradigms comfortable with the idea of Warlord healing. (And before your mind-reading kicks in, the "those" I'm referring to is not you.)

I also am curious how you rationalise the ability of an inspiration-based healer to restore hit points to someone who is unconscious, and not able to be inspired.

Why would you assume someone unconscious is unable to be inspired? Unconscious simply means one is not consciously aware of their surroundings; that conscious cognition has temporarily ceased. The subconscious is still working. The ears are still working. In both fictional narrative and in real-life, unconscious people are commonly roused in this manner. The attempt doesn't always work - which is why I've posited using a saving throw for such situations (when at 0 HP) - but it often does work.

 

[El Mahdi]

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and really goes far beyond the standards of fantasy tropes that should, alone, be more than sufficient.

While true, should has never been good enough for me. I think shooting for a design that has as many coherent interpretations as possible, for as many different types of D&D fans as possible, is one that has the highest chance of success. It may be more difficult, but I think it's worth the effort.

Nod. Examples from RL, such as a victim of a 'curse' giving up on life and wasting away, do take a while to manifest. A sudden morale failure certainly could be immediately fatal in combat, but the proximate cause of that fatality would still be a physical injury, just one sustained as the result of giving up or panicking in the midst of battle. In ancients and medieval battles, for instance, the greatest casualties were generally inflicted upon the losing side after their morale broke.

A very abstract way of modeling that could be simple hp damage or 'psychic damage' or even a new 'morale' damage type (though that hardly seems different enough to be worth it, you never know how much symantics might matter). To model that less abstractly, the Warlord could be given a 'morale attack' that imposes a condition, reduces AC or saves, causes the next attack that hits to be a critical, or quite a lot of other things, including inflicting damage, but not to 0, or with enemy fleeing at 0 or whatever.
5e is really pretty wide-open when it comes to available/hypothetical mechanics.

I agree with all of that except for the impacting Hit Points aspect. They are certainly aspects to explore for a 5E Warlord's mechanics. I'll add this to the list of ideas I'm working through.

 

[El Mahdi]

It's an observable fact that far more people stop fighting not because they're unconscious and dying (very silly in itself as the only possible result of injury) but because they no longer believe they can win. Whether that's by running away, surrendering, 'collapsing' because of an injury that's either trivial or even non-existent; these are all observed effects. Every one of those things could be handled by someone with the skills to motivate people into making one more effort, a 'Warlord' or similar class based around morale effects. Without any specific morale rules then the easiest way to model this - for people who want D&D to be more of a simulation, that is - is to let hit points do the duty of defining when individuals give up on a fight.

While will to live is distinctly listed as a part of Hit Points according to 5E's definition, it's only a part. Redefining Hit Points, or specifically 0 Hit Points, as strictly the point when an individual gives up fighting (loses their will to live), is doing exactly that which Kamikaze and others have accused me and other fans of the Warlord of doing. (That is, viewing Hit Points as only one aspect of the combination that make up 5E's definition of Hit Points, rather than the cumulative loss of the combined elements that make up Hit Points.)

Also, while doing so is certainly okay for one's own game or table, it's inconsistent with making a Warlord that WotC might see as viable for a UA optional class or an official class.

Not to say that a Warlord mechanic that affects this aspect individually isn't outside of the realm of possibility or inconsistent with the aforementioned goals, only that redefining elements is outside of the design parameters I'm following.

 

[El Mahdi]

Aaaaand we're done here.
Good luck making a warlord on your own, since you seem dead set on pushing away anyone willing to make an effort.

Please don't ignore the thread entirely. Everybody's comments are helpful, and I'd very much like your opinion/feedback on the designs I'm working on, when I finally get them to a form worthy of posting.

While his comment was inappropriate, he's stated numerous times that he's not a designer and therefore won't/can't/isn't making a Warlord himself. Please don't avoid the thread because of him. Instead, if necessary, please just don't read or respond to his posts. Your part in the conversation has been and is valuable. Everybody's opinions are valuable. I am not interested in the Warlord in order to make 4E fans happy, I'm working on the Warlord because I've always liked the concept; even though I was not a fan of 4E. I want a working, 5E version of the Warlord, and that means appealing to both 4E and 5E fans - appealing to, as much as possible, everybody that plays 5E.

 

[Eric V]

To be perfectly honest, and without meaning offense to anyone: If someone has not played or DM'd a warlord in 4e, or is against the idea of healing without magic/healing kits in combat, or just doesn't understand how the official definition of hit points allows for that, than their contributions to a warlord thread are going to be limited.

Whether he realized it or not, @epithet most definitely WAS using the same dumb tropes against warlord healing that people who understood the mechanic have literally been dealing with for years.

It means this brainstorming session re: the warlord stops being as constructive/effective as it could be.

So maybe, if people are against a faithful carry-over of the warlord to 5e, they should drop out of the thread?

 

[El Mahdi]

To be perfectly honest, and without meaning offense to anyone: If someone has not played or DM'd a warlord in 4e, or is against the idea of healing/healing kits without magic in combat, or just doesn't understand how the official definition of hit points allows for the former, than their contributions to a warlord thread are going to be limited.

Limited is not useless. Not useless means occasionally useful. Disregarding input that may be useful is counterproductive. Unhelpful posts or input are very easy to ignore.

Whether he realized it or not, [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] most definitely WAS using the same dumb tropes against warlord healing that people who understood the mechanic have literally been dealing with for years.

Yes he was, but in the context of his posting, it did not seem to me that his intention was to edition war. And even if it was, Tony's course and manner in responding to him was his choice - his responsibility. Nobody made Tony respond inappropriately.

It means this brainstorming session re: the warlord stops being as constructive/effective as it could be.

You know what else is unconstructive to brainstorming ideas for the Warlord? Getting the thread shut down.

I would think that's something we'd all take pains to avoid, since the outcome of the thread could very much be in our own best interests.

So maybe, if people are against a faithful carry-over of the warlord to 5e, they should drop out of the thread?

Maybe, but this is Morrus's house, not ours. It's not even our thread for that matter, it's fuindordm's thread.

Personally, I'd really like to see it continue without getting shut down.

 

[Manbearcat]

First, a Warlord doesn't heal anybody; the Warlord's words initiate a response where someone essentially heals them self - allows their body to regain homeostasis. The Warlord is just the initiator and catalyst, not the one doing the healing.

Please read this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ghter/page33&p=6675105&viewfull=1#post6675105

Two, Hit Points do equate to health in this situation. Actual recovery from damage occurs. No, injuries themselves do not suddenly knit together. What occurs is that homeostasis is re-established, and loss of homeostasis is damage.

Great post here and great series of posts. I made almost the exact same point on a thread similar to this (about martial healing) a few years back.

It's an observable fact that far more people stop fighting not because they're unconscious and dying (very silly in itself as the only possible result of injury) but because they no longer believe they can win. Whether that's by running away, surrendering, 'collapsing' because of an injury that's either trivial or even non-existent; these are all observed effects. Every one of those things could be handled by someone with the skills to motivate people into making one more effort, a 'Warlord' or similar class based around morale effects. Without any specific morale rules then the easiest way to model this - for people who want D&D to be more of a simulation, that is - is to let hit points do the duty of defining when individuals give up on a fight.

Ditto great post.

So yesterday a good friend of mine (who I've barely seen in the last few years for various reasons) decided that he would join me at the park from some cross fitness. He doesn't regularly perform any physical regime to keep his fitness level up, but he is an avid outdoorsman and very mentally tough by nature.

Just for the hell of it I decided that I wouldn't let up on him. I'd put him through something hard (for science!). He had a rough understanding of the clean and jerk (C&J) technique (from way back when) but I refined it for him quickly. We then set about warming up by (a) doing a series of weighted push-ups (putting plates on your back) and (b) 3 sets of C&J working toward our max.

Hysterically and predictably, he tried (successfully) the exact same weight as me (more than a little) throughout. It was a frigging struggle for him, but he pulled off the push ups with the same weight on his back as I and pretty close to the same max C&J. No WAY should he have been able to do that basically cold.

Then I put him through an extremely difficult gauntlet aimed at keeping your heart rate amped just below the red line for 3 minutes straight > short rest > repeat * 4.

[sblock]3 minutes:
10 ground to overheads with 45 lb plate
10 overhead lunges with 25 lb plate

short rest

3 minutes
alternate 1 burpee with 1 box jump over and over and over and over...

short rest

Repeat[/sblock]

He didn't tap out. Stayed with me the whole way. UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. He should have fallen over dead.

He didn't. You know why? Because he didn't want me to be disappointed in him. And he didn't want to be disappointed in himself for falling short of what he expected I expected of him (which he expects of himself!). He believed that if I put him through that, then I must expect that of him...and come hell or high water he was going to do that. And that fed back into his own expectations of himself.

In short, martial inspiration/HP restoration. I was his Warlord last evening.

This is an utterly common phenomenon in martial endeavors. Belief, never say die, and the utter unwillingness to quit despite your body being long since spent is contagious like a disease. You see it in basketball with absurd team shooting streaks/runs, you see it in utterly improbably come-from-behind team rallies, and you see it when the stakes are much higher (eg a loved one or a vulnerable innocent is in peril). People do hard stuff. Inexplicably. Unbelievably hard stuff. Stuff that they can't even understand how they're doing it and, upon reflection, how they did it.

Mundane, martial inspiration is a thing. A big, big, big thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While true, should has never been good enough for me. I think shooting for a design that has as many coherent interpretations as possible, for as many different types of D&D fans as possible, is one that has the highest chance of success. It may be more difficult, but I think it's worth the effort.

It'll probably just lead you into unnecessarily detailed/convoluted mechanics, but if it makes you feel better, I won't stop you.

I agree with all of that except for the impacting Hit Points aspect. They are certainly aspects to explore for a 5E Warlord's mechanics. I'll add this to the list of ideas I'm working through.

Like I said, there's lots of design space to work with. I could see a warlord having 'defender,' 'leader,' 'healer' and even 'spoiler' builds. Morale effects applied to enemies would make sense for both defenders and spoilers (or other controller-adjacent concepts).

While will to live is distinctly listed as a part of Hit Points according to 5E's definition, it's only a part. Redefining Hit Points, or specifically 0 Hit Points, as strictly the point when an individual gives up fighting (loses their will to live), is doing exactly that which Kamikaze and others have accused me and other fans of the Warlord of doing.

It's also not what a bard insulting someone to death is doing. That is, he /is/ reducing someone to 0 with a non-physical (psychic) damage type that could easily be conceived as doing 'only' will-to-live damage. But he is not re-defining what Hit Points or zero hps means, in general.

Avoiding re-defining hps as something specific means letting even a single type of 'weird' hp damage knock anyone all the way down to 0 if they absorb enough of it. Similarly, it means juicing someone up with only 'one type of hp' still needs to restore hps rightup to their max, and, by the same token, not letting temp hp stack even when two very different conceptual types of hps are slathered on top of that maximum.

So, for instance, a Bard can Viciously Mock someone down to 0 hps leaving them dying without a mark on them, they can be saved from imminent death by a guy with bandages & the heal skill, and brought back up to full via Cure 'Wounds,' in spite of having no wounds to cure.

As little sense as that might make if you thought about it too hard, that's the kind of thing that's going to happen as a result of keeping hps abstract and /not/ assigning one specific meaning to hps or 0 hps.

To avoid that sort of thing, you'd have to have different damage types reduce different hp pools and re-fill those pools separately, and that's going pretty far afield.

I'm working on the Warlord because I've always liked the concept; even though I was not a fan of 4E. I want a working, 5E version of the Warlord, and that means appealing to both 4E and 5E fans - appealing to, as much as possible, everybody that plays 5E.

The point of 5e was to have things that appealed to fans of every prior edition, even 4e. Not to have absolutely everything in it appeal to everyone, but to have modular choices as well. The PH was their shot at the lowest common denominator, and modules and other options can be more focused in their appeal. The Warlord existed only in 4e, so that sets a certain minimum standard that it has to live up to. I'm all for it doing a lot /more/, as well, which might appeal to fans of other editions, or to new fans. But it would be doing the concept of, and the existing fans of, the class a great disservice to consider the rhetoric of the edition war and try to 'compromise' with the unreasonable position that the Warlord mustn't be allowed to exist at all.

Limited is not useless.

A poor choice of words on Eric's part. The 'contribution' of regurgitating anti-warlord edition-war rhetoric in a 5e warlord thread is not 'limited,' it is strictly counter-productive.

This is an utterly common phenomenon in martial endeavors. Belief, never say die, and the utter unwillingness to quit despite your body being long since spent is contagious like a disease. People do hard stuff. Inexplicably. Unbelievably hard stuff. Stuff that they can't even understand how they're doing it and, upon reflection, how they did it.

Mundane, martial inspiration is a thing. A big, big, big thing.

Then we run up against the 'reality isn't real' trope. D&D has modeled such a little and such a quixotic slice of genre & reality for so long, that anything beyond it's limited demesnes seems unreal to long-time fans, unless we stop and think about it hard enough to step outside our jaded expectations....