Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6675967" data-attributes="member: 996">It'll probably just lead you into unnecessarily detailed/convoluted mechanics, but if it makes you feel better, I won't stop you.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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).   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.  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.  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. 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....</blockquote>

Verification