D&D 5E Would you prefer warlord or psion as a new class?

[generic]

It was a poll created by me a week or so ago. But I do have w clever nickname, so you’re not wrong

Deepest apologies, your nickname is clever indeed, but you can't be holier than thou, perchance?

 

[Mecheon]

You disagree with ccs, but most of your points actually support what they said. I.e, you cite the battlemaster and pdk, but those are exactly the reasons why ccs said the warlord wouldn’t add anything. Because that theme already exists and can be done with existing options (along with using feats with those subclasses)

Does the existence of the wizard-based Psion mean that a full class wouldn't bring anything to the table? What about the Eldritch Knight or Spellthief, do they invalidate wizards, or add options?

Battlemaster and PDK can be split into a full class as they're still fighter-chassis at heart, and don't go fully into the idea of the Warlord. Otherwise, well, saying things don't bring enough to the game is gonna get us down the path of "Why do we have paladins again?"

 

[cbwjm]

I would point out that the Warlord that Mike Mearls created as part of his Happy Hour did feature having actual HP healing, with overhealing over the maximum gained as temporary HP, as a feature.

It's a pretty cool subclass. I hope they do something with it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It seems Psion is winning so far.

Okay, disclosure time:

I expected psion to win, for a very simple reason: time. warlord was part of the game for much shorter fraction than psion (roughly 6 years vs 20 years, depending on how you measure it). Since folk on this forum seem to have been playing since the year dot, you would expect a lot more practical experience of psion vs warlord.

Taking that into account, the warlord is doing rather well: predicted ratio 3:10, poll ratio (roughly) 3:7.

I think my takeaway from this poll is there is quite a high level of interest in new base classes of any sort for 5e.

 

[Argyle King]

“Mearls strawman”

Can you stat that up as a creature?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Can you stat that up as a creature?

Shouldn't it be Mearls' Strawman?

Everyone knows warlords don't shout severed limbs back on. They shout "stop slacking, pull yourself together and hold your sword with your stump - it's only a flesh wound!"

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Folks,

Be kind. Be nice to each other. Treat each other with respect. Remember that we are all talking about pretending to be elves, not anything weighty.

Really, that's it. It isn't a big thing to ask. If you demonstrate that a class is worth being a snarky ball of jerkitude over... this week you are apt to be removed from the conversation quickly, without warning or discussion.

I hope that's clear.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Doesn't work. 5e's concept-first, natural-language design approach gets in the way. Spells are magic designed & 'balanced' as such. You can't just re-skin them as inspiration or psi powers or whatever and take away their components or render them immune from being countered or dispelled, for instance.

Doesn't take much adjustment however. Simply saying "Your effects don't count as magic, and can't be counterspelled or dispelled. However they only work on a target that is aware of and able to receive input from you." seemed to work.
Some careful spell selection and houserules, and Hey presto! My player's Bard is now a Warlord.

Let me try one more time, because apparently the point was completely lost. When that comment is made, about shouting an arm back on, it’s not meant to be literal. It’s hyperbole. The core rules for current D&D do not have limb loss (it takes a special exemption or rule to do that). In standard combat, losing an arm or leg won’t happen. So it’s obvious that comment isn’t literal. What it’s meant to illustrate through a hyperbolic example is that for a lot of people, they have an issue of a PC being healed instantly via non magical means after taking a serious wound. Who cares if it hits the head, or whatever. Again, not the point. Most attacks cause damage and wounds to an opponent. It’s why the weapon tables and monster stat blocks have attacks as “X points of damage” and not “X points of fatigue”. Every livestream and game table out there has the DM narrate actual bodily damage when attacks hit.
And yes, many of the folks who have an issue with the warlord doing non magical healing also have issues with the hit point recovery for rests, second winds, and every other form of instant non magical healing. But those are already in the rules, and for people who don’t like them, often houserule them.
I really don’t care if there is a warlord class or not in the game. I don’t know how they would do it to be unique and not overlap with another class’s abilities (like the battle master), but if people want it, sure. Doesn’t bother me.
But if you (general you) refuse to even acknowledge the point of what that comment is referencing to because you’re taking it literally, then there’s no point in even trying to discuss it. Especially if you’re taking it literally after already being informed that it’s hyperbole and not meant to be literal. That’s just disingenuous.

I think that the issue that is sticking with a lot of people is that not only may they be stuck on thinking that HP are physical injuries, they are also thinking of healing HP as physical wounds actually closing up.
(Which is actually sort of understandable from the viewpoint that they are starting from.)
It makes more sense if you think of restoring HP as bringing back to a state where defeat is less likely. So the character's wounds aren't actually healing, but the character is simply inspired/exhorted to ignore the effects of the wounds that it had received.

 

[generic]

Okay, disclosure time:

I expected psion to win, for a very simple reason: time. warlord was part of the game for much shorter fraction than psion (roughly 6 years vs 20 years, depending on how you measure it). Since folk on this forum seem to have been playing since the year dot, you would expect a lot more practical experience of psion vs warlord.

Taking that into account, the warlord is doing rather well: predicted ratio 3:10, poll ratio (roughly) 3:7.

I think my takeaway from this poll is there is quite a high level of interest in new base classes of any sort for 5e.

Actually, especially as I am a 4E apologist, I quite agree with this postulation. We simply require more options.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It makes more sense if you think of restoring HP as bringing back to a state where defeat is less likely. So the character's wounds aren't actually healing, but the character is simply inspired/exhorted to ignore the effects of the wounds that it had received.

I get how many view it that way, but it requires overwriting how the game is presented and how language is used. It’s entirely reasonable to view the default position that most HP do equal actual damage, and most healing is curing that damage when the language includes but is not limited to:

• spell names are called “cure wounds”, or “healing”, or “cures X HP”. Curing, healing, and wounds are not words typically associated with fatigue or motivation, but with physical ailments
• attacks that are successful are described as “hitting”, which again references a physical act
• when hit, you take damage. Not fatigue. But what is described as damage, which of course is associated with physical. The weapons table lists a damage value, not a fatigue or other value
• when narrating the effects of an attack roll that did well, almost everyone does so as a physical attack that does physical damage.

So when someone says that HP loss isn’t physical damage and they aren’t actual wounds, it requires ignoring who the entire combat phase is described in the rules. If people want to do that, fine. But they shouldn’t act like others are in the wrong for using words how they are actually defined.