Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Lord Twig]

Yet here we are in a fantasy world of non-magical fighters and rogues. There's even a certain expectation that they won't be magical. It's almost as if there is a niche within fantasy (gaming) of playing non-magical characters who nevertheless perform extraordinary deeds, feats, and actions that - while non-magical in nature - fantastically defy the mundane and the ordinary. It's a shame that we only have thousands of years of literature to draw upon for such examples.

And yet the non-magical Fighters and Rogues will use magic weapons and armor and drink magical healing potions. Just because they don't cast spells doesn't mean they don't use magic. Again, why use a musket (a normal sword) when I can use an assault rifle (a +3 magic sword)?

Is your Fighter going to throw away a Ring of the Ram because he doesn't want to use spells? Does the Rogue scoff at a Ring of Invisibility? I think not.

What literature allows for extraordinary deeds without magic? It may not explicitly be described as magic, but I bet the vast majority of ancient heroes had some kind of fantastical origin that explains their abilities. Hercules didn't cast spells, but having a god for a parent goes a long way toward explaining his abilities.

I would imagine that the preferred choice would be to have the beloved commander whose sound, inspirational command and tactical thinking helped prevent you from being in the situation where you are bleeding out in the first place and needing the paramedic so badly.

That might be temporary hit points or maybe a bonus to AC. Many people want a Warlord to be able to talk you out of unconsciousness. Or tell you to stop dying.

And, of course, even for the mitigation abilities to work you have to assume that the receiving character loves and respects the Warlord and finds his words inspirational.

 

[Aldarc]

And yet the non-magical Fighters and Rogues will use magic weapons and armor and drink magical healing potions. Just because they don't cast spells doesn't mean they don't use magic. Again, why use a musket (a normal sword) when I can use an assault rifle (a +3 magic sword)?

Is your Fighter going to throw away a Ring of the Ram because he doesn't want to use spells? Does the Rogue scoff at a Ring of Invisibility? I think not.

What literature allows for extraordinary deeds without magic? It may not explicitly be described as magic, but I bet the vast majority of ancient heroes had some kind of fantastical origin that explains their abilities. Hercules didn't cast spells, but having a god for a parent goes a long way toward explaining his abilities.

Okay? Well then so do Warlords.

That might be temporary hit points or maybe a bonus to AC. Many people want a Warlord to be able to talk you out of unconsciousness. Or tell you to stop dying.

Yes, and I don't see this issue with that. Will the medic-mage be better than the commander at that? Sure. But that should not preclude the commander from being able to at some capacity.

And, of course, even for the mitigation abilities to work you have to assume that the receiving character loves and respects the Warlord and finds his words inspirational.

Why? There could be some other commanding officer who I don't know, respect, or care about who still finds a way to motivate me. That happens.

 

[Lord Twig]

And yet the non-magical Fighters and Rogues will use magic weapons and armor and drink magical healing potions. Just because they don't cast spells doesn't mean they don't use magic. Again, why use a musket (a normal sword) when I can use an assault rifle (a +3 magic sword)?

Is your Fighter going to throw away a Ring of the Ram because he doesn't want to use spells? Does the Rogue scoff at a Ring of Invisibility? I think not.

What literature allows for extraordinary deeds without magic? It may not explicitly be described as magic, but I bet the vast majority of ancient heroes had some kind of fantastical origin that explains their abilities. Hercules didn't cast spells, but having a god for a parent goes a long way toward explaining his abilities.

Okay? Well then so do Warlords.

The point is there is really no need for Warlords to do things without magic. They don't need to be able to heal without magic. Magic is available. Why wouldn't you use it?

Now if you are incapable of using magic, then sure, you can fall back on more primitive methods. But they are not going to be as effective. The same as a medic with a first aid kit isn't as effective as a doctor in a surgery room.

That might be temporary hit points or maybe a bonus to AC. Many people want a Warlord to be able to talk you out of unconsciousness. Or tell you to stop dying.

Yes, and I don't see this issue with that. Will the medic-mage be better than the commander at that? Sure. But that should not preclude the commander from being able to at some capacity.

And, of course, even for the mitigation abilities to work you have to assume that the receiving character loves and respects the Warlord and finds his words inspirational.

Why? There could be some other commanding officer who I don't know, respect, or care about who still finds a way to motivate me. That happens.

And he can do this in under 6 seconds? That really would be magical.

 

[mellored]

And he can do this in under 6 seconds? That really would be magical.

Anyone can stabilize with a DC 10 medical check in 6 seconds.

Anyone with a med-kit can stabilize you in 6 seconds, no medical knowledge needed.

And anyone with a med-kit and some training can give you a moderate amount of HP in under 6 seconds.

 

[Lord Twig]

Anyone can stabilize with a DC 10 medical check in 6 seconds.

Anyone with a med-kit can stabilize you in 6 seconds, no medical knowledge needed.

And anyone with a med-kit and some training can give you a moderate amount of HP in under 6 seconds.

And if a Warlord want to use a med-kit, that's fine. What I find difficult to swallow is a Warlord seeing an unknown, unconscious, dying man 30' away and in less than 6 seconds convincing him that he should stop dying and recover some hit points using only his inspirational words and commanding presence.

How is that not magic again?

 

[pemerton]

If a Cleric of an enemy god cast Bless on you (for some reason), yes you would fight better, but not because you were so inspired by that Cleric or his god. You would fight better because there was magic guiding your attacks.

<snip>

In a world of magic not using magic would be like not using science in our world.

This seems consistent with what I posted upthread.

You are positing that no ever performs better unless some changes or enhancement to their internal mechanism takes place, such as "magic guiding their attacks".

To me, this doesn't fit particularly well with the real world, where sometimes people perform better than other times, in part because of the degree of inspiration or emotional intensity. And also fails to fit with fantasy literature.

What I find difficult to swallow is a Warlord seeing an unknown, unconscious, dying man 30' away and in less than 6 seconds convincing him that he should stop dying and recover some hit points using only his inspirational words and commanding presence.

How long had some of those Gondorian soldiers known Gandalf? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

How long had some of Henry V's soldiers known him? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

That's what a commanding presence means in literary trope terms.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

<shrug> Just like watching the DM's NPC demigod wizard handle the balrog for you while you run away with the rest of the PCs isn't necessarily fun in a D&D game either...

It's surprising how many iconic "fantasy literature" moments are either not practical and/or can be unfun in a D&D game. Totally different mediums with similar themes I guess.

 

[Jester David]

How long had some of those Gondorian soldiers known Gandalf? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

How long had some of Henry V's soldiers known him? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

That's what a commanding presence means in literary trope terms.

That's the Inspiring Leader feat. It's already in the game. Which is how a wizard like Gandalf or ranger like Aragorn can use it.
It's not like they inspired Faramir back onto his feet or Strider was able to speech Frodo into surviving a knife wound.

 

[Lord Twig]

This seems consistent with what I posted upthread.

You are positing that no ever performs better unless some changes or enhancement to their internal mechanism takes place, such as "magic guiding their attacks".

To me, this doesn't fit particularly well with the real world, where sometimes people perform better than other times, in part because of the degree of inspiration or emotional intensity. And also fails to fit with fantasy literature.

That's what the dice are for. Sometimes you roll well and have a hot steak. You are on your game, feeling good and doing awesome! Other times you can't catch a break no matter how well prepared you are.

A lot of this really should be done through role-playing and not limited to a class. Fighting for your One True Love(tm)? The DM can give you Inspiration. There is even a rule for it already in the game!

How long had some of those Gondorian soldiers known Gandalf? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

How long had some of Henry V's soldiers known him? Yet he inspired and heartened them.

That's what a commanding presence means in literary trope terms.

I would imagine that they grew up hearing tales of Gandalf. He's legendary. Literally. And how many soldiers don't know their own king? And in both cases they are inspiring NPCs.

Did Gandalf stand back and encourage Aragorn to fight better? Did anyone in the Fellowship of the Ring need to be inspired or commanded by anyone else? They were all friends and comrades. They were extremely competent individuals that worked well together (for the most part).

An example occurs to me...
In The Avengers movie, Captain America gives a cop a bunch of orders. The cop basically says, "Why should I listen to you." Cap then proceeds to kick a whole lot of alien butt, then turns back to the cop. The cop turns and starts following Captain America's orders. Why? Because he is an incredibly good fighter.

I have role-played the same thing many times in my games. Big battle with the good guys losing. The heroes rush in and start kicking butt. A character yells out, "To me! To me!" And the NPCs do it. Why? Because the heroes are heroes and the NPCs are NPCs. They are inspired by the heroes. At no time was a Warlord required to do this.

Edit: Jester Canuck is a bit more concise in the above post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This brings us back to the issue that 5e is not 4e.

5e isn't AD&D, but it does evoke it really well. It's not 3e, but it's got good 3e stuff in it, and some missing elements, like PrCs have at least been floated. 5e isn't any one past edition, but it set out to be 'for' fans of all past editions, not to exclude fans or repudiate any specific edition.

5e doesn't succeed perfectly. There are still characters you could do in 3.x/PF and 4e that you can't do in 5e. Unless you cut WotC a little slack on the in-development Mystic, there's still some 1e characters you can't quite pull off.

The Warlord is a glaring example of a character type you could play to very good effect in 4e, PH1-only, that you can't come close to in 5e.

I threw out some sub-classes and got the response: "But it doesn't do support actions every round."

But the problem is that no class does support every round. A Cleric casts Bless then has to concentrate on it. After that you start throwing damage down range.

That Bless is providing support every round, and it goes away if the Cleric does.

I'm willing to bet that the number of players that are willing to play a pure support class is pretty small. And of those the number that insists on a non-magical support class is even smaller.

Support classes have never been that wildly popular with players. Through most of the game's history, the stereotypical Band-Aid Cleric has been like the grenade that the last player to join the group is obliged to jump on. Druids weren't a very differentiated alternative, and we all know how much respect the singing-in-combat Bard has always gotten. 4e did make support characters a lot more balanced and playable, and covered more possibly-appealing support concepts than ever before. 5e hasn't backpeddled that far, either: the Bard and Druid are still solidly support-capable, even as they're spellcasting versatility has exploded. There are still alternatives to the stereotypical Band-Aid cleric, just not as many. The Warlord would be another one. Another chance for a party to get together all the needed contributions without someone having to play a class concept they don't much care for.

There'd still be more room for support types after that, too: Shaman, Ardent, Artificer...