D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[Obryn]

IOW, I think the 4E warlord pays lip service to its inspirations, and is only very loosely "based on the true story of" supposed warlords in literature and media. Once you translate a warlord-like character from a book or movie into a 4E warlord, there is so much lost in translation that one hardly resembles the other any more. Or perhaps the translation problem lies in the fact that warlord in literature/media is not really an archetype at all.

The same can be said for any fictional inspiration when you abstract it, generalize it, and translate it down into a class/level structure. That's how D&D works. D&D wizards are nothing like Merlin. (Heck, they're almost nothing like Turjan of Miir, one of their direct inspirations.) D&D Fighters and Barbarians aren't very much like Conan at all. D&D thieves bear little or no resemblance to Cugel the Clever. Rangers are not much like Aragorn. Clerics are ... clerics from D&D. And so on...

-O

 

[urLordy]

The same can be said for any fictional inspiration when you abstract it, generalize it, and translate it down into a class/level structure. That's how D&D works. D&D wizards are nothing like Merlin. (Heck, they're almost nothing like Turjan of Miir, one of their direct inspirations.) D&D Fighters and Barbarians aren't very much like Conan at all. D&D thieves bear little or no resemblance to Cugel the Clever. Rangers are not much like Aragorn. Clerics are ... clerics from D&D. And so on...

Right, so if the popularity and implementation of a D&D class is one thing, and fictional inspiration is another thing, then my stance is this thread is being sidetracked (at least, I see it as side-tracked and I explained why) by red herrings such as the warlord in D&D being somehow legimitized by fictional or historical or comic book references (and then to clarify, I asked Neonchameleon exactly what the OP is about; otherwise, this will go nowhere, albeit like most threads).

 

[The Choice]

You're absolutely right that the explanation of hit points in the game text, the most detailed being in 1e, has always been that hit points have both a physical and non-physical component.

Hit points are part of the greater combat abstraction present in D&D : an attack roll isn't a single swing of the sword for exemple.

However this explanation didn't square well with the way hit points actually functioned in rules terms - their loss is irrelevant until a character is down to zero, which seems to indicate that they represent nothing important, either physical or non-physical

HPs are an abstraction of relative combat-readiness. In a sense, they represent nothing concrete; you can "die" from mentally inflicted damage that is wholly "psychic", without a hint of physical/physiological trauma. So really, their interpretation is entirely circumstantial.

[...] healing spells are named Cure X Wounds, which seems to indicate that they are purely physical; hit points take a long time to recover, which also seems to indicate that they are physical; there are game features which affect morale, luck, skill and so forth but these don't seem to have a bearing on hit points, for example the spell bless in 1e affects morale but not hit points.

This was a limitation of the game, back then. A direct contradiction between what hit points represent (as stated in the rulebook), and the way they are recovered. Had the authors of the time taken the time to reevaluate that aspect of the game, and made it consistent with their operating definition of HPs, we probably would've had vastly different outside-of-combat healing mechanics, and in-combat mechanics (with spells or abilities being called "restore vitality" or something).

So there's always been this contradiction, where the rules said one thing and the explanation of hit points said another. I think most D&Ders either, like me, never really bothered about it in actual play, or went with the rules over the explanation and thought that hit points were physical.

If hit points are purely a physical resource, why do they grow beyond a certain limit? Are characters just packing on more meat, more muscle, more fleshy tissue, more blood? The answer is, of course, no. They are becoming more resilient, more confident or determined, more aware of their physical, mental and emotional limits. When you accept that fact, when you realise how insane it would look if HPs were purely physical, you can see the use in effective non-magical healing as a way of accurately portraying the world of D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We will know that the game is designed not to need a panic button when they get rid of the cleric class as we know it. Are clerics still walking round with a panic button? Yes? Then they haven't got rid of it....Which is why as long as the Cleric gets healing and remains in the core four classes arguments that "we could do things without healing" fall IMO utterly flat.

This assumption that seems to be part of the core of your argument -- that as long as spike healing exists spike healing must be required -- is false.

Spike healing is a particular kind of defense, but it is not an essential or necessary kind of defense, and where it exists, other types of defense could exist, and compete favorably, mechanically, mathematically. There is distinct psychology and flow at work with spike healing, but it is simply one kind of pace. It is not the only way for an inspirational leader to help their allies cling to life despite the cold pull of the grave sans magic.

WotC has shown clear interest in designing 5e with these other kinds of defense firmly in mind, and the existence of one spike healer isn't going to automatically mandate that everyone use spike healing.

I think 5e is going to go with the default assumption that if you want spike healing, with that particular pace as a goal, you have a cleric in your party, and use healing magic. If you'd like spike healing without the magical fluff, there's HP modules that help facilitate that. This is also something they've showed a clear interest in designing.

And regardless, even if you're designing 5e and what you ultimately want is someone who can spike heal without magic fluff attached, you probably don't want a specific character class to do that. It's not a great idea to include a character class that redefines what hit points are for the table -- it's not the best point for that decision. Much better to let the table decide what hit points mean via a module, and then let whoever spike heal (maybe a feat chain with high CHA as a prerequisite) when you've decided that such a thing is possible because HP's aren't meat.

 

[Obryn]

Right, so if the popularity and implementation of a D&D class is one thing, and fictional inspiration is another thing, then my stance is this thread is being sidetracked (at least, I see it as side-tracked and I explained why) by red herrings such as the warlord in D&D being somehow legimitized by fictional or historical or comic book references (and then to clarify, I asked Neonchameleon exactly what the OP is about; otherwise, this will go nowhere, albeit like most threads).

I do think that fictional parallels are interesting. I don't think they're necessary - some of the most flavorful classes from 3e and 4e had none.

However. I think that wanting to represent fictional characters in D&D is a worthy goal, and important for attracting new players. So I don't think it's really a sidetrack. I'm just saying that a complaint that the warlord loses something by being translated to a class is not unique to it.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

The Warlord isn't a solution to a no-healer campaign. It's a solution to the "We don't want Divine Vancian Casting" campaign for whatever reason. And the 4e Warlord doesn't actually heal. Actual healing in 4e is surgeless healing.

Sure, but if you want to solve the problem of needing divine vancian casting, why would you use a solution that still has a lot of the other problems of Clerics? Why not try to make something that has none of the problems of Clerics?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

To those who think that "spike healing" (Neonchameleon's "panic button") can be handled other than via a particular class or suite of abilities, what is your mechanical model for a leader/commander?

I would probably go with an inspiration bonus or advantage to actions. Benefits to overcoming fear effects. Things like that.

Hit points may represent an number of things, but they're pretty terrible and modeling the effects of fear, despair, hope, inspiration, or adrenaline. Primarily, this is because they have no effects until you hit 0 hit points.

Inspiration should actually help you perform better.

 

[urLordy]

So I don't think it's really a sidetrack. I'm just saying that a complaint that the warlord loses something by being translated to a class is not unique to it.

Hmm, not sure if we're somehow agreeing or disagreeing and we don't know it. OK, these are 2 different statements:
#1: The warlord is a desirable D&D class just because there are warlord archetypes in literature/history/mythology
#2: The warlord is a undesireable D&D class just because something is lost in translation from its literary/historical/mythological archetype

I didn't claim either of the above (I dislike the warlord class for other reasons). I understood some were claiming the former in order to legitimize the inclusion of a 4E warlord in D&D Next, which I wouldn't agree with.

Now imagine someone was saying this:
#3: The D&D cleric is an undesireable class because there are no D&Dish clerics in literature/history/mythology

If you like both Clerics and Warlords in the core game, it would be inconsistent to say #1 and #3, right? And assuming that nobody is saying that, then IMO this whole subtopic is a tangential one, because archetypal inspiration isn't sufficient to (de)legitimize the existence of any D&D class.

 

[Ratskinner]

Almost no magic in fiction that isn't D&D derived is like Vancian Casting - it doesn't even bear more than the most superficial resemblance to mages written by Jack Vance. But far, far less even than the resemblance of D&D wizards to D&D worlds is the D&D Cleric to ... just about anything. Looking through Appendix N, I've read about half the sources - and can't recall one single character who looked like a Cleric.

<snippage>

Which means that with the Warlord we finally had the ability to run a low magic campaign, or a campaign not set in a D&D specific universe (or a CRPG universe) without crippling the party's ability to compensate for misfortune. Or we could play a party without significant magic (like, for example, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) in a magical setting, and not be looking round desperately for a healer to join the party.

And this is why 4e fans want a Warlord resembling the 4e Warlord in D&D Next. So we can continue to play the vast range of settings and campaigns into which D&D Clerics simply don't fit. And do it without the gap in our abilities sticking out like a sore thumb.

I don't have any particular objection to the 4e Warlord (one of my favorite classes, the little I got to play of it). However, I think this is putting a lot on the class' shoulders that shouldn't be there. I mean, if you're looking for a Warlord for healing...then you're still looking around for a "healer", he just doesn't do it with spells. As others have mentioned, I think you're better of changing the HP mechanics, rather than continuing the assumption that somebody in the party has to be able to restore HP.

I've not found any particular edition of D&D to be good at evoking anything other than its own particular flavor of fantasy, if that. (And yes, even 4e has plenty of flavor assumptions baked right in.) My interest in rpg game design/theory was originally sparked when I tried switching a D&D campaign world to a different system and discovered how much the system had affected my original choices. IMO, the basic problem is that D&D is not focused on emulating the way stories work so much as emulating the way some presumed fantasy universe works (while simultaneously trying to keep things reasonably on-key for the strict gamist types.) If you want to play in any of these non-D&D environments, you're better off grabbing a game like FATE Core (picked only because I'm familiar with it, I'm sure there are others) and setting up a game with it.

 

[Ratskinner]

This was a limitation of the game, back then. A direct contradiction between what hit points represent (as stated in the rulebook), and the way they are recovered. Had the authors of the time taken the time to reevaluate that aspect of the game, and made it consistent with their operating definition of HPs, we probably would've had vastly different outside-of-combat healing mechanics, and in-combat mechanics (with spells or abilities being called "restore vitality" or something).

I tend to suspect that it happened the other way 'round. The definition came after they had established the mechanic (taking it from a naval wargame, IIRC) and healing. Later, after they realized there were some rough edges around treating heroes like self-improving battleships, they invented the definition to try and account for that, neglecting to rename or rework healing spells in a way that made narrative-physical sense of their names.