NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6671858" data-attributes="member: 996">That's not logic, just a double-standard.  D&D is a fantasy game.  The fantasy genre doesn't cleave to mundane reality.  Magic is one of the ways in which it doesn't, but so are heroes who do (and survive) incredible things that'd be impossible by RL standards.  Logically, when you say 'because it's magic,' what you're really saying is 'because it's the fantasy genre (in which magic works).'  Apply the same logic to non-magical character types like fighters and warlords and things like 5e Second Wind, 4e Come & Get It, overnight healing and the like, and they're fine. No, a solution that relies mainly on temp hps would not be adequate.  HD might be a component of any hp-restoration mechanic, but it shouldn't be entirely dependent on them, nor is a single, limited mechanic going to be sufficient.  5e has a lot of open design space available, it doesn't have a consistent overall structure for classes or special abilities, so, in theory, almost anything might be added. The 5e DM is Empowered  to change /any/ element of the game he likes.  So, no, it's not practical to try to anticipate every change the DM might make.  It's not even practical to assure a new module would work with modules already in the DMG, and it's clear that some options would be antithetical to others.  There's no need to worry about how the Warlord would interact with a module intended to nerf non-magical healing into absolute worthlessness, since anyone using such a module wouldn't opt-in to the Warlord in the first place.  Even if they did, they'd be inclined to nerf any hp-restoration abilities it had, banning them or modding them to temp hps or the like.  Really, having the Warlord link to HD makes sense in that context, unpleasant a context as it is, and arguably irrelevant to the design of the class (optional classes should be designed for people who may want to use them, not people who object to their very existence). It'd be an optional class, it would be in the DM's wheelhouse, not the players'. It does mean it /could/ be, though.  There's no need to remove critical features from the class just because some h4ters are still fighting the edition war, for instance.  It also means it could be better, and do /more/.  Most 4e classes fell short when it came to having explicitly out-of-combat features, for instance, and the warlord concept could certainly encompass some.The Warlord should start with the full range of abilities it has always had, and then be explored and expanded to handle those abilities better in the context of 5e's design philosophy (which is much more open and less constrained by balance considerations), and/or add abilities that fit the concept but were excluded for 'gamist' reasons (like followers, for instance, or enemy-manipulation strategies that might have stepped on the toes of the Controller role).</blockquote>

Verification