D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Eric V]

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

???

Who said anything about a thread getting shut down? And if that's a concern, how do you interpret my question as anything but an attempt to not get the thread shut down? Asking civilly if people who can't get behind some key concepts of the warlord to stop coming in and challenging said concepts (for an optional class, no less) is asking for the conversation to continue in a constructive way. That's all.

If you read my post again, I pointed out that [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] may not have known that he was repeated anti-4e tropes...but Tony pointed it out to him and still they continued. So...is asking if that sort of thing should leave the conversation a problem?

Some people in here have been against anything resembling too strongly the 4e warlord and have given (IMO) fairly specious reasoning for it (it wouldn't work wit optional DMG rules, for example); none of that s conducive to a conversation about getting a faithful representation of the class up and running, from my perspective.

 

[MoonSong]

Ok, in this I believe I can afford to be not silent. When one adapts a class who should you focus on? the fans or the detractors? For example I think the sorcerer class was designed by a wizard player, too focused on making sure it didn't step on the wizard's toes, and the class suffered from it. The end result was a class that felt strong, but only because we were playing it wrong, and the errata has effectively nerfed it, now there is no reason to play a dragon sorcerer if favored soul/storm sorc are available. The same but more could go to the warlord. Who is goign to play the warlord? who wants the warlord? thee warlord players! Want to listen to haters so they can stomach being on the same table? of course! Will you compromise something essential to the fans to please the haters? No way!

That was part of my reasoning when writing my version, I'm not the biggest 4e fan out there, but I like the edition. And I wasn't going to do a disservice to the class by going with a revisionist train of logic. HP makes sense anyway, as long as you don't pay too much attention to the strings holding everything together.

 

[pemerton]

Anyway, regarding mechanics: I agree with your points, but I draw a different conclusion from them. I especially agree with your statement that "[healing] is about recovery." That's an important distinction, because in the fiction that inspires the class feature we're talking about a character doesn't recover from being damaged, rather the character goes on despite being damaged. The character is still on death's door, but is possessed of a grim determination to fight and win anyway. There's no recovery in that scenario, and in fact those scenes are so compelling because there is no recovery. The character may be up and fighting, but he's still seriously damaged and the viewer or reader should remain concerned that he might not make it

It seems to me that someone who was on death's door, but then goes on, has recovered. S/he is no longer on death's door - as demonstrated by his/her going on.

S/he may still be injured, in the sense that s/he may still have a wound of some sort. But his/her ability to go on has been restored. In D&D, this is modelled by hp recovery. (I'm bracketing, here, [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s interesting comments about bio-physical processes. I'm in the camp that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] described, of focusing on basic genre tropes plus some basic features of the real world that I've encountered and/or heard about.)

It's interesting to me that you have such apparent disdain for temporary hit points

My disdain for temp hp is pretty thoroughgoing. I first encountered them when Unearthed Arcana introduced the Aid spell back in the mid-80s. I found them wonky and prone to create corner-cases then, and I still do (eg rules for stacking, rules for being at zero hp, etc). That's not to say I don't use them - I am currently GMing a 4e campaign and temp hp are part of that system. But just because I use them doesn't mean I have to like them!

I also agree with you that temporary hit points are inadequate to handle an ally unconscious at zero. That's why I've previously suggested an entirely separate ability or abilities to handle that specific scenario

I have, repeatedly and recently, suggested at least two mechanical means for dealing with unconsciousness at zero. One an aura, the other a reaction.

My own view is that bracketing off "restore from zero hp" from the rest of a healing character's healing abilities is a good way to significantly impact mechanical flexibility. The design really has no appeal for me. When it comes to details, a reaction is probably preferable to an aura - auras are very abstract and encourage a nebulous rather than detailed handle of the fiction, which I think makes them OK for monsters/NPCs but generally less appealing for PCs.

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.

I think using the word "rationalise" is somewhat question-begging!

If you ask, what is happening in the fiction when a warlord rouses an unconscious ally by restoring his/her hit points, I can think of at least two answers. One is the process-sim answer already suggested by others - the unconscious ally hears the warlord and responds. (As per [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s example of the alarm clock.)

Another narration I have some fondness for is that, as the swooning PC drifts towards the beckoning light, s/he is struck by a memory of his/her ally, and that thought restores him/her to consciousness.

I propose this for both proponents and opponents of Warlord healing:

Would it be acceptable - a tolerable compromise - assuming the use of real Hit Points rather than Temporary Hit Points - for Warlord healing to require a saving throw after a certain amount of time or following combat, or risk reverting to the previous Hit Point level unless one has received magical healing or use of a healer's kit?

Speaking for my own part only - that appeal really has zero appeal. Especially the idea that a "healer's kit" should make the difference! For me, the 5e "healer's kit" is in the same category of game design as 3E's "natural armour" - it's a pseudo-simulationist label slapped on a mechanic that has no actual connection to the fiction. (Natural armour: what the hell is the actual physical property that a dragon has which gives it +30 natural armour, when the best possible magical plate armour gives a bonus to AC of around only half that; healing kit: what is a healer with an ostensibly non-magical "healing kit" actually doing to a person who is ostensibly near-death that allows him/her to carry on as if no serious harm had been suffered at all?)

I have a problem with the Warlord standing in the middle of the battlefield throwing a lot of hit points at his allies and not calling it magic. It seems like what your talking about are magic heals, and the only thing that makes them not magic heals is your insistence that they are "martial" in nature and "restoration of hit points" isn't a "heal."

To me, this just seems to beg all the questions - why can Aragorn or King Arthur or Joan of Arc not stand in the middle of the battlefield, among his/her allies, and replenish their spirits? What is magical about being an inspiring battle captain?

Of course restoration of hit points is a "heal" in the technical (indeed, tautological) sense - but as I posted upthread, that doesn't meant that it is healing injuries. Rather, it is restoring the capacity to go on. The ally recovers, although his/her injury does not.

If the warlord can heal somone of hit point damage with their words, giving them the extra morale and confidence to keep fighting - as hit points do not equate with health in this situation - should there not also be an offensive use? Why can't the warlord demoralize the enemy, causing hit point damage and even killing foes with the power of their words?

To the best of my knowledge, the only published instance of this in 4e is in the module Cairn of the Winter King, although there is something close to it in the earlier Dungeon adventure Heathen.

I can't remember whether Cairn of the Winter King expressly calls it out as psychic damage, but that is how I have run it when it has come up in my 4e game.

while one can be inspired to recover, and there are even real life examples of this, I know of no examples of the opposite - at least not of an immediate and explicit nature, which is what it seems to me you're describing.

My thoughts on that is it smells too much of magic or mentalism - which is counter to the narrative theme of Warlords - and it steps on the toes of the Bard. As a demoralizing thing, to impart a penalty or disadvantage? Sure. It's getting inside the head of an opponent. As Hit Point damage? No.

I'm not so bothered by the lack of real life examples - I'm happy for my non-magical heroes to be capable of things that are impossible in real life, much as fighters in all editions of D&D are. I agree with you that there are issues of genre/niche-protection.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To the best of my knowledge, the only published instance of this in 4e is in the module Cairn of the Winter King, although there is something close to it in the earlier Dungeon adventure Heathen.

I can't remember whether Cairn of the Winter King expressly calls it out as psychic damage, but that is how I have run it when it has come up in my 4e game.

I'm not so bothered by the lack of real life examples - I'm happy for my non-magical heroes to be capable of things that are impossible in real life, much as fighters in all editions of D&D are. I agree with you that there are issues of genre/niche-protection.

I would have no issue with a 'non spell' that a warlord PC could use to terrify an opponit...

example: Battle cry use your action to scream at a target, it makes a save or is frightened and take 1d8 psychic damage... I think that fits fine int eh narrative of 5e.

on to the main thrust of these arguments... If player A is a warlord and player B a wizard, and Player B just got hit to -5 (well 0 in 5e I guess) and falls unconscious from a gnoll's attack, and Player A yells across the battle field "Hey, player B, No laying down on the job we need a fireball" and Player B opens his eyes and on his turn stands and act... if you can't narrate that encounter how can you any encounter?

 

[Hussar]

I would have no issue with a 'non spell' that a warlord PC could use to terrify an opponit...

example: Battle cry use your action to scream at a target, it makes a save or is frightened and take 1d8 psychic damage... I think that fits fine int eh narrative of 5e.

on to the main thrust of these arguments... If player A is a warlord and player B a wizard, and Player B just got hit to -5 (well 0 in 5e I guess) and falls unconscious from a gnoll's attack, and Player A yells across the battle field "Hey, player B, No laying down on the job we need a fireball" and Player B opens his eyes and on his turn stands and act... if you can't narrate that encounter how can you any encounter?

I'd point out that the Battlemaster already has this with Menacing Attack. True, it keys off of a weapon attack, but, its pretty close already. And does considerably more than a d8 damage - weapon damage+superiority die+Frightened.

 

[El Mahdi]

Speaking for my own part only - that appeal really has zero appeal. Especially the idea that a "healer's kit" should make the difference! For me, the 5e "healer's kit" is in the same category of game design as 3E's "natural armour" - it's a pseudo-simulationist label slapped on a mechanic that has no actual connection to the fiction. (Natural armour: what the hell is the actual physical property that a dragon has which gives it +30 natural armour, when the best possible magical plate armour gives a bonus to AC of around only half that; healing kit: what is a healer with an ostensibly non-magical "healing kit" actually doing to a person who is ostensibly near-death that allows him/her to carry on as if no serious harm had been suffered at all?)

Cool. Thanks for the feedback/opinion. I hope others provide theirs as well concerning the saving throw idea.

As far as healers kits though and how they're used, I view them as medieval first aid kits being used for what we in the military call Self-Aid/Buddy-Care. This is first aid with a focus on dealing with battlefield wounds. I imagine a D&D healers kit has the basics for cleaning wounds, wound dressings, limited stitching capability, basic splinting materials, and likely something for pain (willow bark...?). Essentially what you'd need to stabilize a wounded/dying person (stanch bleeding, set and splint bones, treat for pain, alleviate shock, etc.).

Going back to Terminator as an example, there's a scene where Sarah cleans and dresses a wound that Reese has on his arm. Prior to doing so Reese is having trouble using that arm (he's lost hit points, along with an aspect that D&D doesn't model very well: a degradation of his ability to fight). When Sarah finishes, Reese replies "good field dressing" while he flexes his arm, implying that any significant debilitating effect from his wound has been neutralized (I was going to say "terminated"...). Of course though, a healer's kit doesn't restore hit points in the D&D rules, so... (It does in my games however.)

To me, this just seems to beg all the questions - why can Aragorn or King Arthur or Joan of Arc not stand in the middle of the battlefield, among his/her allies, and replenish their spirits? What is magical about being an inspiring battle captain?

Of course restoration of hit points is a "heal" in the technical (indeed, tautological) sense - but as I posted upthread, that doesn't meant that it is healing injuries. Rather, it is restoring the capacity to go on. The ally recovers, although his/her injury does not.

True. I think though, that the idea that Hit Points can be restored but an injury still remains is a seeming contradiction many can't grasp or justify logically. This is why in my games, significant injuries carry a debilitating penalty that can persist even if Hit Points are restored. The only thing that can neutralize these penalties are time and magic. However, that's not an official part of the D&D rules, so I'm not designing with that in mind. I do think that including something like this could help with some people's disconnects, though I've seen it drive others crazy - creating problems for others (and then there's the arguments about death-spirals, etc...) It works for me and my group though.

 

[El Mahdi]

Okay, for those that are interested, these are my thoughts and the guidelines that I'm working under.
(I'm part way through a dedicated class, but it's not ready for public consumption yet.)


The mechanics of the Warlord should be consistent with the theme of Leadership. This means Leadership in all of its aspects: motivating/exhorting/inspiring, organizing/coordinating, supporting, and facilitating internal and external elements, for both individuals and the group, in order to establish synergy and achieve a common goal. This means enabling extra actions, restoration of hit points, and meta-effects/bonuses that model the functional impact of a leader on a group - and possibly effects on the enemies of a group.

Design consistent with the conceits/design of 5E. (Don't introduce new rules for the broader game, or introduce mechanics that require exceptions to the basic rules.)

Avoid, as much as possible, always-on-powers/bonuses, and activation/maintenance of powers/abilities. Default to action economy resource expenditure (spend something-do something).

Design, as much as possible, to be consistent with multiple levels of interpretation (narrative, meta-game, reality).

Design, as much as possible, to appeal to both 4E fans and non-4E fans.

Design for functionality in all three tiers of play (combat, exploration, social interaction).

Design to (hopefully) show WotC the feasibility of an official or UA Warlord (not just develop for use as a potential houserule - which is why I plan on posting it here and not in the houserules forum).



I'm going to explore all possible forms and vehicles a Warlord might use (class, archetype, feats, etc.), and post them for everybody to peruse, playtest, and critique/provide-feedback. We'll see which ones float to the top and best provide the Warlord experience within 5E's constraints.

The forms I'm exploring are:

• A dedicated class. (closest to a direct port/translation of the 4E Warlord)
• A more generic Leader class meant to be multiclassed with other classes (facilitating not just Warrior/Fighter Warlords, but Cleric Warlords, Bard Warlords, Rogue Warlords, etc.)
• An expanded/revised Battle Master archetype more consistent with a Warlord (adding things a Warlord should have, getting rid of things they shouldn't)
• A Warlord archetype customized for each class (a Bard Warlord archetype, a Cleric Warlord archetype, etc.)
• Warlord Feats that any class can take to have Warlord-esgue abilities (Leadership, Inspiration, Facilitation, etc.)

After that, we'll see what people think and collectively weigh changes based on feedback.


Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cool. Thanks for the feedback/opinion. I hope others provide theirs as well concerning the saving throw idea.

It's a great idea for a much more detailed, 'grittier,' system than D&D hps, like the sort alluded to below. In that context, with no readily-available alternatives, it would be an evocative way of modelling the 're-opening a wound' genre trope that has some potential for dramatic effect.

Outside of that context it is inconsistent and unwieldy and would render any class forced to depend upon it as a primary hp-restoration mechanic non-viable in that sort of role.

Going back to Terminator as an example, there's a scene where Sarah cleans and dresses a wound that Reese has on his arm. Prior to doing so Reese is having trouble using that arm (he's lost hit points, along with an aspect that D&D doesn't model very well: a degradation of his ability to fight).

D&D doesn't do wound penalties, at all. It takes magic or some sort of special ability to inflict a condition. If it were a more granular/realistic/un-fun-death-spiral sort of system, it would have wound penalties, and eliminating those without eliminating the underlying wounds might be a valid way of modeling something like that.

That'd be fundamentally changing the game on a level well beyond the scope of this conversation, though. Instead, restoring hps is about the only thing that can be used to model it.

True. I think though, that the idea that Hit Points can be restored but an injury still remains is a seeming contradiction many can't grasp or justify logically.

I don't find that plausible. The level of imagination, tolerance for abstraction, and general flexibility of thought required by any RPG is inevitably more than sufficient to /grasp/ or logically justify such a simple and familiar-from-genre idea. Rather, it is a choice, though perhaps not a conscious one, to balk when a dragonborn warlord inspires your elf paladin to keep fighting in spite of the searing pain of the Mind Flayer's devastating mental blast. In particular, it's a very odd choice to balk at the almost cliche "inspires to keep fighting," rather than at the existence of a humanoid warm-blooded saurian who breathes flame, a centuries-old waif-like fey creature wielding overt power granted by one among many deities occupying an objectively real set of alternate planes of existence, or a parasitic cephalopod that is not only sentient but telepathic and capable of using that telepathy to kill people (and that's without getting into arcane magic or physically-impossible giant humanoids, arthropods, avians, &c).

Certainly, there are those who simply dislike the idea of a class like the Warlord - an effective martial class capable of contributing as something other than a high-DPR 'beatstick,' 'tank,' or 'striker' - and wish to prevent anyone from ever enjoying the opportunity to play one (and you currently /can't/ play anything of that sort in 5e, so they can imagine they've been successful). That's not, however, an agenda that has any place in a game like 5e, which was meant to be open to all fans of all past editions of D&D. Such openness could finally be achieved by simply making such a class available, but in no way mandatory (the way the Cleric virtually was in early editions, for instance) at every table (already accomplished via DM empowerment), nor in the Standard Game (already accomplished, as it's not even in the PH).

This is why in my games, significant injuries carry a debilitating penalty that can persist even if Hit Points are restored. The only thing that can neutralize these penalties are time and magic. However, that's not an official part of the D&D rules, so I'm not designing with that in mind.

Good call.

I do think that including something like this could help with some people's disconnects, though I've seen it drive others crazy - creating problems for others (and then there's the arguments about death-spirals, etc...)

Greater granularity/realism may be what some people 'really' want when they complain about disconnects and inconsistencies in the very abstract hp system. 5e is meant to be modular, and you've clearly found a way to add that kind of detail to your campaign, so clearly such a 'gritty' module should be possible. The DMG already has a number of modules, though none that quite so thoroughly re-write the resolution of injury, IIRC.
I'd hate to think of the Warlord being exiled to such an oppressive option ghetto, though.

 

[pemerton]

in my games, significant injuries carry a debilitating penalty that can persist even if Hit Points are restored. The only thing that can neutralize these penalties are time and magic. However, that's not an official part of the D&D rules, so I'm not designing with that in mind. I do think that including something like this could help with some people's disconnects, though I've seen it drive others crazy - creating problems for others (and then there's the arguments about death-spirals, etc...)

I've got nothing against death spirals - I've played a lot of Rolemaster, and am currently running a Burning Wheel campaign.

I'm not sure that hit points lend themselves well to a death spiral system, though, because you then have to start to correlate lost hit points to injuries, which can get pretty wonky. (Most death spiral systems use some sort of parry, dodge or similar avoidance mechanic, rather than increases in the hit point pool, to model survivability - so fewer "hits" compared to D&D are required to actually defeat someone.)

Be that as it may, I certainly don't understand how martial healing can be objected to on "lack of actually rejuvenating the damaged tissue" grounds when the whole game proceeds on the assumption that damaged tissue doesn't impede performance!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, for those that are interested, these are my thoughts and the guidelines that I'm working under.

The mechanics of the Warlord should be consistent with the theme of Leadership.

Fair enough. That's a big part of the class concept as it was introduced.

Design consistent with the conceits/design of 5E. (Don't introduce new rules for the broader game, or introduce mechanics that require exceptions to the basic rules.)

5e is still exception-based design, so some exceptions are going to be inevitable, though maybe that's not exactly what you meant by 'exceptions.'

Avoid, as much as possible, always-on-powers/bonuses, and activation/maintenance of powers/abilities.

That really doesn't leave much, especially when you're talking 'support' style abilities. Concentrating on Bless, for instance, can marginalize a Cleric's participation in combat. Having to spend an action every round for a similar effect, or to need to blow through all of a limited resource (like CS dice) to do so for only a few rounds, would be even more constraining.

Default to action economy resource expenditure (spend something-do something).

Another possibility is making some things, especially 'tactical exploits' say, more situational than usual for D&D abilities (even compared to spells, which get highly situational), and correspondingly more numerous/available/powerful.

Design, as much as possible, to be consistent with multiple levels of interpretation (narrative, meta-game, reality).

That's an unnecessary constraint. As long as the class presents at least one reasonable narrative interpretation for any given thing that it does, it's fine. Myriad alternatives are always possible, but can be safely left up to the reader. Though, really, there's no need to provide such hand-holding for every single ability.

Design, as much as possible, to appeal to both 4E fans and non-4E fans.

The Warlord only existed in 4e, so clearly needs to be designed to do justice to that version. And the non-4e-fans includes committed h4ters who could never find any appeal in anything so emblamatic of 4e, those latter non-4e fans deserve absolutely no consideration. Other no-4e fans, for instance, may or may not find something appealing in the Warlord, but there's really no way to design for that, specifically. Make a good class, and any reasonable D&D fan of any edition will appreciate it. "Compromise" with h4ters who only want to sabotage the class, though, and you will get a bad class that no one will be able to appreciate.

Design for functionality in all three tiers of play (combat, exploration, social interaction).

Noble goal! If only all classes were so designed. But, again, you may be setting yourself a bar too high. 5e uses spotlight balance, so it's considered OK for a class to shine more in one 'pillar' than another. The Warlord is clearly a strong candidate to shine in both Combat and Interaction, though.

Design to (hopefully) show WotC the feasibility of an official or UA Warlord (not just develop for use as a potential houserule - which is why I plan on posting it here and not in the houserules forum).

At the risk of seeming as pessimistic and cynical as I actually am, Mike Mearls has publicly expressed disdain for the very concept of the class.

I'm going to explore all possible forms and vehicles a Warlord might use (class, archetype, feats, etc.), and post them for everybody to peruse, playtest, and critique/provide-feedback. We'll see which ones float to the top and best provide the Warlord experience within 5E's constraints.

A shotgun approach can work...

• A dedicated class. (closest to a direct port/translation of the 4E Warlord)

• Obviously the best choice. ;P
  

  [*]A more generic Leader class meant to be multiclassed with other classes (facilitating not just Warrior/Fighter Warlords, but Cleric Warlords, Bard Warlords, Rogue Warlords, etc.)

  Fascinating idea, but how would you get something that meshes well with both the Fighter's multi-attacking and casters' spell progressions?
  
  

  [*]An expanded/revised Battle Master archetype more consistent with a Warlord (adding things a Warlord should have, getting rid of things they shouldn't)

  At best, you might come up with a warlord-lite that would be to the Warlord as the EK is to the Wizard. At best, CS dice & maneuvers strike me as too limited, and too intermeshed with the fighter's multi-attacking design, to be workable as a way of modeling the same genre character types as the Warlord.
  
  

  [*]A Warlord archetype customized for each class (a Bard Warlord archetype, a Cleric Warlord archetype, etc.)

  That'd be unique.
  

  [*]Warlord Feats that any class can take to have Warlord-esgue abilities (Leadership, Inspiration, Facilitation, etc.)

  A number of classes have feats like that for other classes to take.
  
  

  Thoughts? Opinions?

  I think you're taking on a tremendous challenge, and are too open to taking input from those whose agenda is to watch you crash and burn, but I with you the best of luck.