D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Lanliss]

Ah, got it.

Yes, some people do seem opposed to some of the mechanics.

However, my opposition is specifically because of the fluff. I'm ok with "you are healed because...well, it's magic". What I'm not ok with is "you are healed because your character find's somebody else's character to be inspiring". The latter is telling me what my character thinks.

So mechanics that I'm willing to accept from an Avatar or a Cleric or a Bard are not necessarily mechanics I'm willing to accept from a character whose fluff is "other people look up to your natural leadership and general all-around awesomeness".

A common response to that is, "It's just fluff...ignore it." But then when I say, "Well, the Cleric and the Bard also have fluff...why can't you ignore that?" all of the sudden the fluff becomes really important. I'm not saying my position conclusively demonstrates that the Warlord shouldn't exist, just that the validity of my position is equal to the validity of the pro-Warlord position.

And the Dispel Magic argument is just a distraction. Sure, that's a real mechanical effect, but it's an edge case. Almost all of the abilities I see proposed, and the ones most argued about, wouldn't be subject to Dispel Magic anyway. (And if there were an exception, and immunity to Dispel Magic really made that much of a difference, I would posit that that only demonstrates the need to make sure it's somehow dispellable.)

I can certainly agree that I don't want my character being told "You are inspired" without some possibility of magic (like the bard) being involved. However, I also don't see my own opinion as a reason to not let others have what they want. If a warlord comes up, and is loaded to the brim with mechanical effects that tell me how I feel, I will just ignore it. If someone decided to play it in the same game as me, my reaction would depend on my character. It would probably be in one of three broad categories.

1) My character is a nice person, and does not want the Warlord to feel bad, and so forces themselves to act "inspired", thus pushing themselves beyond previous limits (mechanically, they gain some health through force of their own need to keep people happy).

2) They get stronger through spite. classic "I'm doing it, but NOT because YOU told me to. Just because I FEEL like it!".

3) My character actually has a reason to feel inspired by the Warlord character (probably a rare occurrence, where I specifically build my character to look up to someone elses.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can certainly agree that I don't want my character being told "You are inspired" without some possibility of magic (like the bard) being involved. However, I also don't see my own opinion as a reason to not let others have what they want. If a warlord comes up, and is loaded to the brim with mechanical effects that tell me how I feel, I will just ignore it. If someone decided to play it in the same game as me, my reaction would depend on my character. It would probably be in one of three broad categories.

1) My character is a nice person, and does not want the Warlord to feel bad, and so forces themselves to act "inspired", thus pushing themselves beyond previous limits (mechanically, they gain some health through force of their own need to keep people happy).

2) They get stronger through spite. classic "I'm doing it, but NOT because YOU told me to. Just because I FEEL like it!".

3) My character actually has a reason to feel inspired by the Warlord character (probably a rare occurrence, where I specifically build my character to look up to someone elses.)

Sure, fine.

But it doesn't answer the question: if it's ok for me to just re-fluff a Warlord, why isn't it satisfactory for the guy who wants to play a Warlord to just re-fluff a magical/supernatural class?

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, fine.

But it doesn't answer the question: if it's ok for me to just re-fluff a Warlord

It is fluff consistant with the internals of the archetype and your characters response to it not actually not a refluff between magical and mundane...

Or you can fluff that Warlord as having the blood of kings (supernatural bloodline like Aragorn/Arthur and others )<-- see the difference, that is telling you to flavor text it cross domain?

 

[Hussar]

Are you sure? I suspect D&D players tend towards being mythology buffs enough for at least a substantial minority of them to be at least peripherally aware that the Myrmidons have something to do with Achilles and ants.

Also, I'm already using the word for a homebrewed race of, well, antlike warriors, so hard pass from me personally on those grounds.

And how is "paladin" a comparably poor name? True, the Peers of Charlemagne didn't do much supernatural healing or thunderous smiting, but other than the difference in magic level the connotation of "chivalrous, loyal, and pure knight" seems to fit like a glove.

Well, considering chivalrous, loyal and pure knight does not describe a 5e paladin (or at least 2/3rds of the subclasses), it's hardly a good fit anymore. It gets the pass mostly because of the history of the game, rather than any actual relation to what the class is anymore. And, let's not forget, one of the arguments against warlord is that you cannot be a novice warlord. There's no such thing as a novice paladin either. These were the elite of the elite. Not some schmuck just out of school.

Ah, got it.

Yes, some people do seem opposed to some of the mechanics.

However, my opposition is specifically because of the fluff. I'm ok with "you are healed because...well, it's magic". What I'm not ok with is "you are healed because your character find's somebody else's character to be inspiring". The latter is telling me what my character thinks.

So mechanics that I'm willing to accept from an Avatar or a Cleric or a Bard are not necessarily mechanics I'm willing to accept from a character whose fluff is "other people look up to your natural leadership and general all-around awesomeness".

A common response to that is, "It's just fluff...ignore it." But then when I say, "Well, the Cleric and the Bard also have fluff...why can't you ignore that?" all of the sudden the fluff becomes really important. I'm not saying my position conclusively demonstrates that the Warlord shouldn't exist, just that the validity of my position is equal to the validity of the pro-Warlord position.

And the Dispel Magic argument is just a distraction. Sure, that's a real mechanical effect, but it's an edge case. Almost all of the abilities I see proposed, and the ones most argued about, wouldn't be subject to Dispel Magic anyway. (And if there were an exception, and immunity to Dispel Magic really made that much of a difference, I would posit that that only demonstrates the need to make sure it's somehow dispellable.)

But, the problem is, you already lost this argument. Sorry, but, in 5e, you simply are wrong. There's a non-magical healing with the bard and you have the Inspired Leader feat. Never minding the Battlemaster and the Mastermind, both of whom can do these things without any magical support whatsoever. There's no nice way of putting this. That ship has sailed. These mechanics are now part of the game. You might not like them, but, that doesn't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well, considering chivalrous, loyal and pure knight does not describe a 5e paladin (or at least 2/3rds of the subclasses), it's hardly a good fit anymore.

Different codes, same loyalty.

It gets the pass mostly because of the history of the game, rather than any actual relation to what the class is anymore.

I'd say the biggest offender on this front is the druid.

And, let's not forget, one of the arguments against warlord is that you cannot be a novice warlord. There's no such thing as a novice paladin either. These were the elite of the elite. Not some schmuck just out of school.

That's never been one of my arguments against "warlord". It's hardly the only name to connote a certain elitism -- "ranger" is traditionally an elite title, too. A class title may represent something a character aspires to as much as something they are. And a 1st-level character is in certain respects elite already even if they're not yet slaying elder dragons. When a ranger stalks into the local tavern heavily armed and draped in furs, the patrons certainly aren't going to think of him as normal whatever his level. And for the record, there are lots of stories of young Roland and his early days in the service of the Emperor, so I don't think "novice paladin" is an oxymoron anyway.

There's a non-magical healing with the bard...

There is?

 

[Hussar]

Sure. Bardic inspiration and bardic song of rest are not magical. Or at least, they are not called out as magical. They might be. It's one of those fuzzy things that isn't detailed in the books.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sure. Bardic inspiration and bardic song of rest are not magical. Or at least, they are not called out as magical. They might be. It's one of those fuzzy things that isn't detailed in the books.

I always interpreted Song of Rest as an enhancement to what the HD are already doing. I get where you're coming from, but it seems strange to call it nonmagical healing in its own right -- the bard isn't exactly creating the effect. And is there some way Bardic Inspiration can heal that I don't know about?

 

[Lanliss]

Sure, fine.

But it doesn't answer the question: if it's ok for me to just re-fluff a Warlord, why isn't it satisfactory for the guy who wants to play a Warlord to just re-fluff a magical/supernatural class?

To clarify, because I would not want to mistake your stance, are you talking about me changing my characters' reaction to the Warlord? Because that is just on my end, and has no effect on their character at all. I am not reskinning them, or their character, and am not taking anything away from it, only judging what my own character would do that may reflect those mechanics. If you are not referring to those examples, could you explain which part of the long conversation in this thread you are referring to?

As for an answer to your question, that horse has been a pile of mush for a long time, and always leads back to the same thing. One day, someone will have an anti-magic field. Easy to ignore, I know, but apparently a deal-breaker. I will not go more into this, as I am at risk of trying to represent an argument I know nothing about, which is rarely a good idea. I will leave that answer for someone who actually knows what they are talking about, lest I give false ideas about what the actual issue is.

 

[Lanliss]

I always interpreted Song of Rest as an enhancement to what the HD are already doing. I get where you're coming from, but it seems strange to call it nonmagical healing in its own right -- the bard isn't exactly creating the effect. And is there some way Bardic Inspiration can heal that I don't know about?

No, but both being bardic dice powers put them in the same boat of "maybe magical, maybe not". Also, there is the Second-wind ability on Fighter, and spell-less ranger has poultices (though that is a UA, so take that as you may). I actually recommended a spell-less Bard for Warlord, where all of the spell-casting can be replaced with support abilities. The response was that it already basically exists in AiME, IIRC.

 

[mellored]

Sure, fine.

But it doesn't answer the question: if it's ok for me to just re-fluff a Warlord, why isn't it satisfactory for the guy who wants to play a Warlord to just re-fluff a magical/supernatural class?

Power points and spells are daily resources. It's hard to refluff it as martial. I mean, you do this cool maneuver, and then... what? Sprain a muscle and need to rest to do it again?

It's better at higher level, when you have enough to do the cool maneuver all day. At least then if you run out of PP you can more reasonably chalk it up to fatigue. (Or reduce your max HP to keep going, that fits).

Now if you did something like having a max of 5 PP, but regained 2 PP a turn, then it would fit a martial character much better. Or just at-will.