# The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)



## MoonSong (Feb 15, 2013)

One of the biggest contributions 4e gave to the game in general was no doubt this new and interesting class. while some part of it ended up hurting some people's suspension of disbelief (myslef included) no doubt this class is awesome. Few other classes convey that sense of team play and colaboration, and I think it has been a clear omission in previous editions. 

Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition? 

[For the sake of pacefull conversation, please no "but the warlord is not a class" or another degradatory comments about the class, it is ok not to like the warlord, but please don't derail this thread with edition warring or enforcing minimalist thought. This is supossed to be a constructive thread.]


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 15, 2013)

Having read the OP I apologies in advance but I don't think that the warlord should be a class in Next, and I played a warlord for two years in 4e so I'm not from the warlord hating crowd.

when I think of a warlord I think about someone who lead large groups of men, considering that I don't want to play the advanced tactical rules module in next (the place where the warlord shined) having some sort of a class with granular combat bonuses would be out of place in Next IMO.

What I would like to have is a warlord speciality that will focuse on hiring henchmen and leading large groups of combatant, I would like it to be able to be taken by any class so you could have a warlord fighter, warlord paladin and warlord wizard.

Warder


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 15, 2013)

I think the soul of the Warlord is the cerebral aspect of war.  Some leaders are successful because they have a mind for tactics and strategy; they've been trained to think in terms of battlefield victory rather than thinking in terms of limited to killing the foe in front of them (though they may very well be skilled at that as well.)  Some leaders are successful because they have an innate talent to inspire greatness in others.  Some even have both qualities.  

An interesting idea for the Warlord might be a class which has combat dice similar to the fighter, but grants their uses to those around him rather than using them himself.  While the warlord might very well be an excellent combatant in his own right, I believe the heart and soul of the warlord is the ability to enhance the abilities of those around him and think in terms of the battlefield as a whole.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 15, 2013)

As for myself, the warlord can work as a bit of a litmus test. It basically needs 3 things:

(1) Exist. It's one of the key classes of 4e, and essential to my vision of modern D&D
(2) Help its allies in a very direct fashion - more than just auras. 
(3) Heal.

Pretty much, missing any of these is a (further) indicator I'm not that interested in Next as a whole because it's not what I want from a new edition of D&D. 

-O


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 15, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> One of the biggest contributions 4e gave to the game in general was no doubt this new and interesting class. while some part of it ended up hurting some people's suspension of disbelief (myslef included) no doubt this class is awesome. Few other classes convey that sense of team play and colaboration, and I think it has been a clear omission in previous editions.
> 
> Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition?




I think the warlord needs:
1) Something to encourage PCs to not take a high physical stat, and instead take high Int and/or Cha.
2) Maneuvers to give allies boosts. My favorite kind of power was Surprise Attack and Hammer and Anvil, since they let the warlord and his friend attack at the same time.
3) Healing is not necessary, if D&DN gets a sensible healing system. (In 4e, I'm a fan of making warlord-flavored NPCs. They never have the healing abilities, but often have things like Surprise Attack instead.)


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 15, 2013)

Thematically:  Needs to be - 

1)  A cool-headed warrior who leads from the front, with poise in the face of all manner of adversity.  
2)  A tactician that can tactically change the scope of battle in real time.  
3)  A strategic magician who can dictate the terms of a fight before the enemy even knows they are in one.  
4)  A bastion of courage who instills hope and bulwarks morale when normal men fail and demoralize their side. 
5)  Someone who knows wish buttons to push to provoke surrender and has the mental acumen to draw up terms of surrender and make the other side understand they are lucky to have those terms and wise to accept them.

Resource-wise:  Needs to be able to - 

1)  Heal morale damage.  
2)  Prevent, or at least buff resistance to, fear effects.  
3)  Improve the overall action economy of his side; immediate actions allowing ally attacks or strategic advance, withdraw, or maneuvering.
4)  Have skill in warfare based non-combat resolution; parlays, treaties,  strategic use of troops (such as recon teams).  This needs to have  overlap here with other general knowledges and general parlance.   Perception and spatial awareness is likely key here as well.  The  ability to buff others in his areas of expertise; or allow them  advantage in their own wouldn't be the worst idea.


----------



## Will Doyle (Feb 16, 2013)

I'm a big fan of the warlord. That said, I'm not sure the class needs to heal. Even in 4E I'd prefer the warlord to grant temporary HP through "Inspiring Word" rather than real HP. 

In play, the warlord is primarily a controller who affects allies. He grants extra attacks to the group's biggest hitters, typically by making a basic attack of his own (e.g. Hammer and Anvil), or by simply forgoing his attack to let another PC attack (Commander's Strike).  He allows allies to move into flanking positions when he attacks (Wolf Pack Tactics), grants defensive bonuses through attacks (Hold the Line), or grants extra damage/to hit to an ally by landing a blow of his own (Warlord's Favor). 

To me, these powers define the warlord during play - not healing. And so far, I don't see any reason why that essence couldn't be captured as a core class in 5e.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 16, 2013)

It's worth mentioning that the Marshal class from 3rd Edition was akin to 4th's Warlord.  We're not limited to solely 4th when it comes to things which would define a 'warlord.'


I support Warlord healing for the following reasons:
1) It makes sense in the context of how D&D HP are defined.
2) I find it far more fulfilling and interesting to be able to play a healer who can also hold his own in battle (Warlord) than to be a healbot (some 4th Edition Cleric builds.)


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 16, 2013)

I think that the warlord and the bard could be merged into a new class. There's a lot of conceptual overlap, but the warlord is more tactically focused, whereas the bard if more socially focused. Combinded, you would have a diverse, charisma based class with room for both mundane and magical abilities. Players could then build their warbard to be more of the tactical field commander, or more of the traveling performer. Ultimately, the abilities each would use would be much the same.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

Blackwarder said:


> when I think of a warlord I think about someone who lead large groups of men



Gibberish... that isnt the warlord class you are nit picking a name rank and there could be higher level extensions of the Warlord which does it differently. But I am holding skepticism on your claims over all purely because you seem rather clueless about the class.

*Mod Note*: Describing things as "gibberish" and calling people "clueless" are generally not the hallmarks of awesome conversation-having. Please be civil, even in disagreement -- KM.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

The healing aspect of the Warlord while certainly there wasnt really its true forte or focus central to the Warlord class is its ability as an enabler for the team, including creating extra opportunities for allies and enhancing and creating team coordinated maneuvers.


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 16, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> Gibberish... that isnt the warlord class you are nit picking a name rank and there could be higher level extensions of the Warlord which does it differently. But I am holding skepticism on your claims over all purely because you seem rather clueless about the class.




[/SARCASM]Rubbish... Just because I don't like what you wrote and dont agree to what you said I'll be rude and abrasive and question your  knowledge of the subject matter instead of engaging in a civilized discourse simply because I'm always right and those who see it otherwise are always wrong...[/SARCASM OFF]

Warder


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

Blackwarder said:


> [/SARCASM]Rubbish... Just because I don't like what you wrote  [/SARCASM OFF]
> 
> Warder




Im an astronaut the moon is made of blue cheese ...  trust me.

OK sorry most of the post wasn't actually irrational but sure had a low confidence start.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

Actually I think the Cleric (the heavily armored spell casting healer with a mace?) is the class that has the least representation in myth/legend and fantasy fiction - even the Turpin some claim the Cleric was based on didnt have miracles associated with him.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 16, 2013)

I'm a great fan of the warlord, and for me the core of the class is "I help you be more awesome". The class works well as a healer, and the one I play in 4e is built to maximise that aspect, but I don't think it's essential to include that side.

What the class should be doing is granting extra tactical opportunities to his allies, helping to deny such opportunities to his enemies, and mitigating the effects of enemy attacks.

I'd like to see options to grant allies extra attacks, to make enemies vulnerable to allies' attacks, to boost allies' defenses and saving throws, and to help allies gain positional advantage on the battlefield, all whilst being on the front line in combat.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Thematically:  Needs to be -
> 
> 1)  A cool-headed warrior who leads from the front, with poise in the face of all manner of adversity.
> 2)  A tactician that can tactically change the scope of battle in real time.
> ...




I like this take on it... one of the things i think is NEXT operates in BIG ways that are in keeping with the Warlord ... bolstering the action economy is a biggy and in general his abilities had a real multiplicative effect, I hear the Marshal was inadequate because it exactly wasnt - the Warlord actually followed through on its potential and brought out an archetype and enhanced the team in ways that hadnt been done before. 

(And not just fear bolstering his allies vs any attack would be appropriate by appropriate timed forewarning)


----------



## Roland55 (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> As for myself, the warlord can work as a bit of a litmus test. It basically needs 3 things:
> 
> (1) Exist. It's one of the key classes of 4e, and essential to my vision of modern D&D
> (2) Help its allies in a very direct fashion - more than just auras.
> ...




"...one of the key classes of 4E."

That's good enough for me.


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 16, 2013)

There are many good suggestions in this thread already, so there's not much I can add to it; but I'll try anyway. 
I'm going to start by paraphrasing the suggestions of  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], because his is the best post so far: 
The Warlord should lead from the front (or at least some Warlords should, though maybe not the lazy Warlords); influence the scope of battle; improve preparation for contingencies; instill hope; Heal morale damage; defend against fear effects; Improve the action economy; effect advantageous negotiation. 

Generally, I think the Warlord should give the effect of improved tactics, though it might not be necessary to spell out _how_ in each case: so, for example, the Warlord has ways to grant (combat) advantage, even if only once per encounter, but it might not be clear exactly what happens when he does so; or, for another example, the Warlord can insert allies into flanking position, though how he does it may not be clear; or he can extract allies from surrounded conditions, again with the means unclear; or he can augment the strength or effectiveness of an allied attack, or help to remove a condition, or bolster allied defenses, but we don't need to know exactly how he does any of those, because his tactical expertise must be fairly abstract to apply broadly enough. 

Such things are the essence of the concept of the "leader" role that 4E systematized; and for that reason I think the Warlord class (perhaps by a different name?) should still be a class in 5E Next. 

However, if that class is going to get a different name, what should the name be? Neither "Provoker" nor "Convoker" will work; "Cohort" simply means battle-comrade; "Proconsul" is a political/diplomatic position; "Veteran" needs to be available to all classes, and to unclassed NPCs; "Marshall" is a higher position, dealing more with strategy than with tactics; "Ensign" is naval and commissioned, not land-based; "Sparkplug" captures the spirit but refers to technology that didn't exist in medieval times; and "Coordinator" has too many syllables (5). 
"Hotspur?" "Goader?" "Dean?" "Valiant?" 

Better suggestions than those might help. . . .


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2013)

It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you. In either direction. I mean, everyone's got their thing, so it's not a problem, it just seems odd to me. Like, "I hate this one Wizard spell, and thus _it all sucks_." 

I get wanting a non-clerical healing option. Next already has a feat that lets anyone cast cure wounds. I get wanting a non-magical healing option. Next already has the "healer specialty" that allows that. I get enjoying the "military commander" archetype. I imagine that would fit well in Next's manuever system (or elsewhere). I get liking HPs as abstract measures of luck and chance -- Next EXPLICITLY says that's what they are (I've got some issues with them being that, personally, but I get the other side of that coin). 

So if the warlord is an archetype you tap by saying "Okay, inspiring tactical leader-type warrior who helps the whole team perform better!" I don't think scream-heals is a necessary part of that. Anything from temp HP to defense bonuses to "you can fight below 0 hp" kinds of mechanics can all represent that, and can functionally do the same mechanical thing that healing does (but with a better psychological exploit and fictional match). 

If the warlord is, to you, only "You instantly gain back lost HP without magic," then I imagine Next could support that (it's really just a math trick)...but I'm less convinced that it won't be in some Advanced-level module that talks about how different kinds of healing and defense can be used to identical mechanical effect but different play-style considerations.  I mean, maybe...they're staying silent on the Warlord, but I imagine they've been thinking a lot about it internally. But to me, it seems weird to reduce the warlord to that purely mechanical exhibition of what encouragement could look like. Personally.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 16, 2013)

Inspirational healing has many presentation forms... 
Oh my god no you cant, gushing streems of tears, dont you dare die on me we need you!
Get the hell back on your feet soldier what do you think this is a party you are a big damn hero... 
Trust in god and you will be redeemed (yup to me its the best representation of in combat clerical healing)


----------



## Obryn (Feb 16, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you. In either direction. I mean, everyone's got their thing, so it's not a problem, it just seems odd to me. Like, "I hate this one Wizard spell, and thus _it all sucks_."



"Scream HPs back at you?"  Honestly?  That's where we're going?  Thanks for illustrating my point...

It's a litmus test.  That doesn't mean that the warlord healing is specifically essential, in and of itself.  It means that a lack of warlords* and warlord healing can indicate whether the rest of the game will have any interest for me.

-O


* To be clear - I'm talking about the standard game, same place I'd expect to see barbarians and sorcerers.   Not the core game; I understand that's back-to-basics red box style.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 16, 2013)

tuxgeo said:


> However, if that class is going to get a different name, what should the name be? Neither "Provoker" nor "Convoker" will work; "Cohort" simply means battle-comrade; "Proconsul" is a political/diplomatic position; "Veteran" needs to be available to all classes, and to unclassed NPCs; "Marshall" is a higher position, dealing more with strategy than with tactics; "Ensign" is naval and commissioned, not land-based; "Sparkplug" captures the spirit but refers to technology that didn't exist in medieval times; and "Coordinator" has too many syllables (5).
> "Hotspur?" "Goader?" "Dean?" "Valiant?"




"Tactician" is the word you're looking for. That would work better for me. "Warlord" to me sounds more like what a high-level Fighter should be (not the "hey, I just had a great idea, you should attack that guy again" type character from 4e).


----------



## Obryn (Feb 16, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> "Tactician" is the word you're looking for. That would work better for me. "Warlord" to me sounds more like what a high-level Fighter should be (not the "hey, I just had a great idea, you should attack that guy again" type character from 4e).



Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name? 

-O


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name?
> 
> -O




Is it really that objectionable?  I mean, distilling his thematic portfolio down to Bobby Fisher and turning the "healing the morale portion of HPs" into a caricature such that he is "screaming wounds closed" doesn't sound like a problem to me.  I think there is room in D&D for that guy; a front-line, pencil-neck tactician who has visible, capital letter balloons (KNIGHT TO KING'S BISHOP 3) coming out of his mouth, gallivanting through the air while they turn into little angelic surgeons, and then landing on allies to perform field triage.  That might be pretty fancy.

Or we could just have the 4e warlord and he could be instilling morale by remoralizing the demoralized by way of the ruthlessly abstract nature of D&D Hit Points.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Is it that objectionable to throw a bone to 4e players who consider the Warlord class important? Why change its name?
> 
> -O



Because what's a level one warlord? Bilbo was a level 1 rogue at the very start of the _Hobbit_, but what's a first level warlord? Is "lord" really the right term? And "war"? 
This isn't an edition warring question, as plenty of people had problems with the name when it was renamed than at the start of 4e. 
Plus the name has real world connotations. It's like naming a class a "Führer". The term is apt and descriptive, but is ruined by history.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 16, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Because what's a level one warlord? Bilbo was a level 1 rogue at the very start of the _Hobbit_, but what's a first level warlord? Is "lord" really the right term? And "war"?
> This isn't an edition warring question, as plenty of people had problems with the name when it was renamed than at the start of 4e.
> Plus the name has real world connotations. It's like naming a class a "Führer". The term is apt and descriptive, but is ruined by history.



A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire. 

If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord. 

-O


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Now that Next is in the works, what would you say is the soul of the Warlord, it's baremonst essence that has to be kept and captured in the new edition? What do you fear are the biggest pitfalls to overcome in the translation to the new edition?




Aiding allies is the big one. Using your action to give an ally a boost or let an ally make an attack. Granting extra movement might also be nice. 
They'd work we'll with maneuvers, granting allies their damage dice and having assorted tactical maneuvers for different builds. 

I wouldn't have warlords heal because that steps on the toes of magic. Instead, warlords might be able to spent Hit Dice in combat and grant damage reduction.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire.
> 
> If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord.
> 
> -O



he's not an apprentice, no. He's a recent graduate. The apprentice first setting out from his master's side. He's not an apprentice, but only just. 
Warlord sounds too much like "general". Or "archmage". It's just too much for someone with literally 0 experience.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> A level 1 Wizard is called a Wizard, not an apprentice. A level 1 cleric isn't an "altar boy." A level 1 Paladin isn't a squire.
> 
> If you want to bring back AD&D level titles, that's fine, but the class is Warlord.
> 
> -O



5e is bringing back Prestige Classes. "Warlord" would be a great counterpart to 'archmage" and "hierophant". It is a good name, and it would be a nice nod to 4e. But it's not a good name for a 1-20 class.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 16, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> he's not an apprentice, no. He's a recent graduate. The apprentice first setting out from his master's side. He's not an apprentice, but only just.
> Warlord sounds too much like "general". Or "archmage". It's just too much for someone with literally 0 experience.



Because it doesn't mean Archmage.  It's the class's name.  Much like a new Wizard is still learning to Wizard, a new Warlord is still learning to Warlord.



Jester Canuck said:


> 5e is bringing back Prestige Classes. "Warlord" would be a great counterpart to 'archmage" and "hierophant". It is a good name, and it would be a nice nod to 4e. But it's not a good name for a 1-20 class.



How about making Wizard and Cleric "prestige classes"?

-O


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Because it doesn't mean Archmage.  It's the class's name.  Much like a new Wizard is still learning to Wizard, a new Warlord is still learning to Warlord.
> 
> -O



it was the Marshall for 5 years (2003-08) and the warlord for the same (2008-13). The name changed once it can change again. 
We're not going back to fighting man, thief, or magic user. Names are allowed to change if it's a better reflection of the class, especially if the name doesn't have 2+ editions of history. 

There's talk of renaming the barbarian, to something like berserker as "barbarian" has cultural implications. If we can change the name of the barbarian we can rename the warlord.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 16, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> it was the Marshall for 5 years (2003-08) and the warlord for the same (2008-13). The name changed once it can change again.
> We're not going back to fighting man, thief, or magic user. Names are allowed to change if it's a better reflection of the class, especially if the name doesn't have 2+ editions of history.
> 
> There's talk of renaming the barbarian, to something like berserker as "barbarian" has cultural implications. If we can change the name of the barbarian we can rename the warlord.



It's not a better reflection of the class, is the thing. If a 1st level Wizard can be a Wizard, a 1st level Warlord can be a Warlord.

Names can change, if there's good reason. Thief to Rogue made sense (and started in 2e class groups). Magic-User and Fighting Man were always cumbersome (and for the second one, sexist). I see no good reason to change it; every D&D player these days knows what the Warlord is, and its name is perfectly descriptive. 

Additionally, it's one of the only new 4e classes that made a big impact - it was mechanically tight and the first time the concept really worked in D&D. (Marshalls were just plain bad.) . The more Next retcons 4e out of existence, the less interested I am. 

-O


----------



## Jester David (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> It's not a better reflection of the class, is the thing. If a 1st level Wizard can be a Wizard, a 1st level Warlord can be a Warlord.
> 
> Names can change, if there's good reason. Thief to Rogue made sense (and started in 2e class groups). Magic-User and Fighting Man were always cumbersome (and for the second one, sexist). I see no good reason to change it; every D&D player these days knows what the Warlord is, and its name is perfectly descriptive.
> 
> ...



Warlord (from wikipedia):_A warlord is a person with power who has both military and civil control over a subnational area due to armed forces loyal to the warlord and not to a central authority_.
Warlord (from Dictionary.com): 1. a military leader, especially of a warlike nation. 2. a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country.
Warlord (from Merriam-Webster): 1. a supreme military leader 2. a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area

How does a level 1 character control a military and region? How is this an accurate name for someone who loosely commands (but may not actually be the leader of) a force of 3-7 people?
The story and narrative of the name are saying one thing, and the actual class is saying another. There is an unsatisfying narrative disconnect.

The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2013)

Obryn said:


> "Scream HPs back at you?"  Honestly?  That's where we're going?  Thanks for illustrating my point...




Is your point that some people aren't that impressed with "inspirational healing?" Because that's all I was illustrating there. That I'm not that impressed with inspirational healing. And I don't think that the presence or absence of such a thing is a dealbreaker for me one way or the other. I play 4e super fine with it in there. I'd play NEXT super fine with it in there, too. But changing the fluff of cure light wounds to be "GET UP YOU MAGGOT" instead of "God makes your chest wound go away" isn't anything especially earth-shaking in my world. 



> It's a litmus test.  That doesn't mean that the warlord healing is specifically essential, in and of itself.  It means that a lack of warlords* and warlord healing can indicate whether the rest of the game will have any interest for me.




Yeah, my litmus tests are personally much more about experience in play than about a certain limited mechanical expression of a given rule.



> * To be clear - I'm talking about the standard game, same place I'd expect to see barbarians and sorcerers.   Not the core game; I understand that's back-to-basics red box style.




Hey, maybe. Some people don't like paladins, and won't use 'em, some people don't like barbarians and won't use 'em, some people don't like inspirational healing, and won't use a warlord with it.

Personally, I think it would be a bit of a mistake to mandate that a warlord class be automatically and irrevocably saddled with inspirational healing, but I think it would make a lot of sense from a "Lets be inclusive!" standpoint to include it, along with several alternate mechanics for inspiring word not actually restoring HP. 5e's about options for everyone, and scream-heals are certainly essential for some folks, just like fat halflings are essential for some folks and Vancian wizards are essential for some folks, so lets put it in, but like we're including different Wizarding systems and different halfling sub-races, lets give Warlords some options other than putting HP back into you with stern words.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> How does a level 1 character control a military and region? How is this an accurate name for someone who loosely commands (but may not actually be the leader of) a force of 3-7 people?
> The story and narrative of the name are saying one thing, and the actual class is saying another. There is an unsatisfying narrative disconnect.
> 
> The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.
> [/FONT]



If we're quoting the dictionary, this conversation has degenerated. 

It's a class name.  In this case, it's an extremely recognizable class name from a successful edition of D&D, known to existing players and easily grasped by new ones.  I can't understand why changing it is so very important.

Now, if you want to bring 1e level titles back, I'm on board, but I don't think that's where you're going.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Is your point that some people aren't that impressed with "inspirational healing?" Because that's all I was illustrating there. That I'm not that impressed with inspirational healing. And I don't think that the presence or absence of such a thing is a dealbreaker for me one way or the other. I play 4e super fine with it in there. I'd play NEXT super fine with it in there, too. But changing the fluff of cure light wounds to be "GET UP YOU MAGGOT" instead of "God makes your chest wound go away" isn't anything especially earth-shaking in my world.
> 
> Yeah, my litmus tests are personally much more about experience in play than about a certain limited mechanical expression of a given rule.



I'd say "experience in play" is more an outright "whole game experience" than a litmus test.  I don't drink the beaker of fluid to find out if it's acidic.

It's a sampling of the design philosophy.  If Next is including it, then I know it says certain things about the design directions.  If it's not, then it's saying something different.  I can't grasp what's such a big deal here?

It's kind of like someone saying, "If Next has something like 'Come and Get It,' I'm not interested."  And it makes some bit of sense because it's a window into the system as a whole.  Without a Warlord it's basically saying that 4e's innovations aren't worth considering.  Without the warlords' healing, it's saying very specific things about the nature of hit points and simulation, and I'm not interested in a higher-sim system at this point.

Again - I'm not saying it means the system will be crap without these elements.  I'm saying I'll have very little interest in buying into it.



> Hey, maybe. Some people don't like paladins, and won't use 'em, some people don't like barbarians and won't use 'em, some people don't like inspirational healing, and won't use a warlord with it.
> 
> Personally, I think it would be a bit of a mistake to mandate that a warlord class be automatically and irrevocably saddled with inspirational healing, but I think it would make a lot of sense from a "Lets be inclusive!" standpoint to include it, along with several alternate mechanics for inspiring word not actually restoring HP. 5e's about options for everyone, and scream-heals are certainly essential for some folks, just like fat halflings are essential for some folks and Vancian wizards are essential for some folks, so lets put it in, but like we're including different Wizarding systems and different halfling sub-races, lets give Warlords some options other than putting HP back into you with stern words.



And all of this is dandy.  I'm not angling for a Core inclusion - I'm saying (1) the class must exist somewhere, and (2) it must have healing capabilities.  For my interest in playing the system, not for my determination of whether or not it's a good system to play.  I want Next to be successful, but that doesn't mean it has to be a system I want to play.

-O


----------



## PopeYodaI (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> The term "warlord" is simply too big. It's writing a cheque with its name that its class features can't cash. Like archmage or high priest. It's like calling a class "general". It's a fine name and evokes the right feeling, but a "general" is just too of a name for a level 1 sixteen-year-old farmboy taking father's sword and going out in search of adventure.




Just a quick side comment: Isn't the nature of virtually all class names to exaggerate?  Big world with big egos.  And playing off of your farmboy, if you were the best fighter in your little village and went out into the world one day (as seems to be the fashion in virtually all role-playing games), why wouldn't you call yourself something big and fancy?  Things like hubris can take awhile to beat out of people.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:
			
		

> It's kind of like someone saying, "If Next has something like 'Come and Get It,' I'm not interested." And it makes some bit of sense because it's a window into the system as a whole.




I agree that it's similar, but I still think someone not playing the game because of one thing they dislike is a little too Manichean for me to not be mystified by it. I feel the same way about single-issue voters. "Well, he doesn't agree with me on X, and therefore, he is unworthy of my vote." Or about picky daters: "Oh, I don't like people with blue eyes." Man, just go out with this girl, it will probably be fun. Dude, nobody agrees with you on X, why be so rigid?

I disagree that you can somehow divine an entire design ethos from a single rule like that. There's lots of powers in 4e that aren't _Come and Get It_ (and 4e had a pretty cohesive design ethos!).

That said, I won't say it's not fair. It's not something I share, but we've all got our things, and if inspirational healing is your thing, well, I'm not so free of sin that I can cast that first stone.  It doesn't seem particular to you, either (I've had convos with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] where he seems to feel much the same way), so it's probably something that's at least moderately prevalent in those who feel that 4e is their bag. So asking that NEXT have it doesn't seem like a bad idea -- it's supposed to be The Peacemaker Edition.  



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> And all of this is dandy. I'm not angling for a Core inclusion - I'm saying (1) the class must exist somewhere, and (2) it must have healing capabilities. For my interest in playing the system, not for my determination of whether or not it's a good system to play. I want Next to be successful, but that doesn't mean it has to be a system I want to play.




As an option, I've got no qualms with it, really. As the only option, it would make me a sad panda. Swapping "gives you HP back" for "lets you fight at negative HP" or "gives you temporary HP" or "gives you a bonus to AC" is mostly a trick of the maths, anyway.

I still am not sure I quite comprehend the dramatic monolithic importance placed on this singular particular game mechanic for some people yet, but I also don't understand why anyone dislikes ascending AC, which ruins anything after 2e for some people. I feel like an option for inspirational healing isn't something that NEXT would have to rule out.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 17, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you. In either direction. I mean, everyone's got their thing, so it's not a problem, it just seems odd to me. Like, "I hate this one Wizard spell, and thus _it all sucks_."



I completely agree. I occasionally read similar views expressed in messageboard posts, and I usually fail to see where the posters _come_ from. It is a point of view I can't underst_and_. I just don't _get it_.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm not sure how important healing is to the warlord. 

I think you could make a just fine and peachy version of the other leader classes that didn't heal. The fact all had to heal was a problem of 4e's symmetry if design and now all leaders had to also be healers. 
I think what makes bards into bards, or druids into druids, or artificers into artificers has little to do with pumping heals into the party. Alternate healing might actually help differentiate these classes from the cleric. An ardent might "heal" via biofeedback and speeding natural healing, bards might maximize natural healing during rests, and artificers might "heal" by preventing damage via armour buffs. 

5e classes do not do a lot. They might have one or two class features. I'd rather see a warlord that can do more uniquely warlordy things than one that has to do fewer warlordy things but can also heal like a cleric.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I disagree that you can somehow divine an entire design ethos from a single rule like that. There's lots of powers in 4e that aren't _Come and Get It_ (and 4e had a pretty cohesive design ethos!)....I still am not sure I quite comprehend the dramatic monolithic importance placed on this singular particular game mechanic for some people yet, but I also don't understand why anyone dislikes ascending AC, which ruins anything after 2e for some people. I feel like an option for inspirational healing isn't something that NEXT would have to rule out.





FireLance said:


> I completely agree. I occasionally read similar views expressed in messageboard posts, and I usually fail to see where the posters _come_ from. It is a point of view I can't underst_and_. I just don't _get it_.



You can think of it as symbolic, if that helps any.  It's not precisely, but if it helps...  Yeah, I think it's a keyhole into the design philosophy.  I've seen precious little from Next right now that shows much influence from 4e design or that WotC's design will be innovative or interest me.  If it's willing to jettison the most successful new 4e class, well... what _should_ the lesson there be?

And that's fine - it certainly doesn't have to be my new favorite game.  The bottom line is that there's a lot of good games out there that I'd like to play.  I'm fine with Next not being one of them, and I nevertheless hope it finds great success.



Jester Canuck said:


> I think you could make a just fine and peachy version of the other leader classes that didn't heal. The fact all had to heal was a problem of 4e's symmetry if design and now all leaders had to also be healers.
> I think what makes bards into bards, or druids into druids, or artificers into artificers has little to do with pumping heals into the party. Alternate healing might actually help differentiate these classes from the cleric. An ardent might "heal" via biofeedback and speeding natural healing, bards might maximize natural healing during rests, and artificers might "heal" by preventing damage via armour buffs.
> 
> 5e classes do not do a lot. They might have one or two class features. I'd rather see a warlord that can do more uniquely warlordy things than one that has to do fewer warlordy things but can also heal like a cleric.



This more or less exemplifies the design philosophy issue I'm talking about.  If hit points are defined in such a way that a warlord's inspirational healing all of a sudden seems cleric-like to the designers, I'm not a fan.

Healing's a pretty important function, when it comes down to it, and always has been.  I've seen nothing so far to indicate that healing will somehow become unimportant in Next; indeed, since HP/damage are the major scaling mechanics, it's going to be as vital as ever.  I'll say it plainly: Next shouldn't necessitate a cleric in the party.  If divine spellcasters are the only ones who can actually heal HPs rather than some kind of also-ran like temp HPs or damage reduction, we're (1) back to needing magic to solve all the party's problems, and (2) right back to needing a cleric.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

I want all mid battle healing inspirational an proportionate ... or non existant


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

AndI honestly cant see implementing that as a houserule without just outlawing the currently obligatory cleric and watching the games assumptions collapse


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> This more or less exemplifies the design philosophy issue I'm talking about.  If hit points are defined in such a way that a warlord's inspirational healing all of a sudden seems cleric-like to the designers, I'm not a fan.
> 
> Healing's a pretty important function, when it comes down to it, and always has been.  I've seen nothing so far to indicate that healing will somehow become unimportant in Next; indeed, since HP/damage are the major scaling mechanics, it's going to be as vital as ever.  I'll say it plainly: Next shouldn't necessitate a cleric in the party.  If divine spellcasters are the only ones who can actually heal HPs rather than some kind of also-ran like temp HPs or damage reduction, we're (1) back to needing magic to solve all the party's problems, and (2) right back to needing a cleric.
> 
> -O



I don't want a cleric to mandatory, but neither do I want a cleric analogue to be mandatory. Extra healing should be a bonus regardless of the source. 
Having all leader classes heal just mandates their need, and means fights need to be designed so healing is useful so as to not waste a universal class feature. 

Combat roles are a handy party design tool, but they were a mistake as a game design element. 

The warlord should be _more_ than a cleric for people who don't like clerics. It shouldn't be pidgeonholed into the healer role. That's what the healer speciality is for.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

And clerics healing characters potentially to full health at level 1,  in a game where one hit takes you down... doesn't mandate a cleric?

Not sure exactly how much healing makes itself obligatory... we are talking about psychology... ummm anybody with sound theories on this?

- cause I don't have any.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> I don't want a cleric to mandatory, but neither do I want a cleric analogue to be mandatory. Extra healing should be a bonus regardless of the source.
> Having all leader classes heal just mandates their need, and means fights need to be designed so healing is useful so as to not waste a universal class feature.



The thing is? You're not describing Next here. Not as the system stands. The design core has damage and HPs as the major scaling element. 

But sure - show me a system where healing is not vital* and we'll talk. It's simply not the case now. 



> Combat roles are a handy party design tool, but they were a mistake as a game design element.
> 
> The warlord should be _more_ than a cleric for people who don't like clerics. It shouldn't be pidgeonholed into the healer role. That's what the healer speciality is for.



Again, this is an example of design decisions I find regressive. Roles are just an acknowledgement that classes often have jobs. If you need healing, and a cleric is the only one who can heal, you're making a cleric mandatory. By expanding the healing role to include other classes, you're at least doing part of the job and making it so it's not always the cleric. 

Yes, warlords and clerics should have different niches. They certainly did in 4e, and the similar healing mechanic never overshadowed those distinctions. 

-O

Edited:

* Or, more to the point, hugely helpful to the point where it'd be silly to leave home without a healer.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 17, 2013)

I think the italics might have made my point a little too subtle. Maybe I should have used bold or underline instead.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Because it doesn't mean Archmage.  It's the class's name.  Much like a new Wizard is still learning to Wizard, a new Warlord is still learning to Warlord.
> 
> 
> How about making Wizard and Cleric "prestige classes"?
> ...




Works for me.. thats obviously an acolyte not a true Cleric.
pages are analogous to apprentices
squires are analogous to journeymen


How about the first 4 levels getting titles that show how incompetent and incomplete they really are...


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

FireLance said:


> I think the italics might have made my point a little too subtle. Maybe I should have used bold or underline instead.



Huh...  where you lost me.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

FireLance said:


> I think the italics might have made my point a little too subtle. Maybe I should have used bold or underline instead.



I was using tapatalk and not paying enough attention. I got you now! 

-O


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2013)

tuxgeo said:


> if that class is going to get a different name, what should the name be?



The only candidate I know is "captain" - which is the word that Tolkien uses to describe that sort of character in LotR.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems really odd to me to hang your opinion of an entire game based on whether or not some dude can scream HPs back at you.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> I still think someone not playing the game because of one thing they dislike is a little too Manichean for me to not be mystified by it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm not 100% sure what I'm supposed to be Manichean about.

I've never played an RPG where "some dude can scream HPs back at you" - though I have played more than one where hit point loss can measure declining morale and energy, and in one of those systems the well-timed words of a battle leader can reinvigorate and restore courage. (Tolkien, and romantic fantasy more generally, is my background model for this. I wouldn't expect to find such a mechanic in a game whose underlying feel was cynical - like The Dying Earth - or "magic as technology" - like some contemporary fantasy.)

I also agree with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] that the presence or absence of a mechanic can shed light on a game's "ethos" and the sorts of play and fiction it will support. I prefer to play a game that will support the sort of fiction I prefer, via the mechanical resolution that I enjoy.

Consider Burning Wheel, for instance. Despite its generally gritty tone, it has PC (and NPC) morale as an important factor in combat resolution (via the Steel stat), has a Command skill that boosts Steel, and has second-wind type actions for shrugging off wound penalties. So in BW there are moments, in play, in which morale, and resolution, and the support of a battle captain, shape how things unfold.

That is definitely something that appeals to me in a fantasy RPG.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> The thing is? You're not describing Next here. Not as the system stands. The design core has damage and HPs as the major scaling element.
> 
> But sure - show me a system where healing is not vital and we'll talk. It's simply not the case now.



Combat healer was always a sub-role in D&D. Bring in combat healer as a regular role just means combats have to last longer and be deadlier to necessitate the healer being useful. 
Most of the time, healing shoud just lengthen the adventuring day. There are ways to do that beyond replicating _cure light wounds_.

Damage reduction or temporary hitpoints are functionally the same thing as healing. Only they're better than healing. It's pre-healing. It's damage you're not taking. You never a miss a turn before being healed if you don't take the damage in the first place.



Obryn said:


> Again, this is an example of design decisions I find regressive. Roles are just an acknowledgement that classes often have jobs. If you need healing, and a cleric is the only one who can heal, you're making a cleric mandatory. By expanding the healing role to include other classes, you're at least doing part of the job and making it so it's not always the cleric.
> 
> Yes, warlords and clerics should have different niches. They certainly did in 4e, and the similar healing mechanic never overshadowed those distinctions.
> 
> -O



Classes shouldn't have roles. Characters have roles. If the player of the cleric doesn't want to heal instead they can tank, or be the party face, or deal damage.

Nothing in the warlord description relates to healing. They were the worst healers in 4e. 
But let's look at this from a class design perspective. Fighters are the class most comparable to warlords. They get two maneuvers at first level. 
A warlord would either get two maneuvers or one maneuver and some form of healing. Look at the list of what warlords should do (initiative bonuses, granting attacks, granting bonus damage, allowing allies to move, etc). Now, the warlord could do two of those at first level, or just one and also heal. Two things unique to the warlords that fit the class and its flavour... or half that number and also healing. 
Does healing make the warlord better with that design? No, it detracts from the warlord. The warlord loses something unique for something generic that could be aquired via a specialty or some multiclassing. 
Laaaame.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:
			
		

> If hit points are defined in such a way that a warlord's inspirational healing all of a sudden seems cleric-like to the designers, I'm not a fan.




It's not about what the designers think, though, it's about what individual tables want.

Not everybody wants HP's to be 90% luck/divine favor/plot armor/whatever. 5e currently defines it that way, but it's not going to be something that everyone who enjoys a less narrative or more realistic game, and who have been narrating HP just fine as actual wounds (if not always grievous, life-threatening wounds) for 30+ years is just going to automatically accept as true. 

So the definition of hit points needs to be flexible. Different tables are going to define them and use them differently. One possible definition of hit points must include that they are mostly meat, and the things that a Warlord does needs to be able to work in that context, too. If regaining HP means erasing wounds, then inspirational healing at that table is a non-starter, and that has to be a valid way to play the game. 

It doesn't have to be the only valid way to play the game, but it needs to be one of the ways that it is possible to play the game, because that's how a lot of people are going to use them, and no amount of WotC inveighing that they shouldn't be or quoting 1e about how they never actually were is going to stop people from narrating a hit with a sword as an actual hit with a sword. 

Which is why a warlord that has that mechanic hard-coded into it is going to be problematic.

Now, as one option among many (even a default option, given 5e's definition of hit points!), it's not a big deal. But if all tables must view HP all in the same way, that's gonna be a problem for WotC, because clearly, that's not how their game is actually played.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Damage reduction or temporary hitpoints are functionally the same thing as healing. Only they're better than healing. It's pre-healing. It's damage you're not taking. You never a miss a turn before being healed if you don't take the damage in the first place.



...and if you're unconscious already, or between fights?  DR and temp HPs are touchy to work with.  DR needs to be fine-tuned between "useless" and "overpowered."  Temp HPs generally don't stack and are pretty well inferior to real ones given the "temp" nature and - again - inability to get a downed combatant back in the running.



> Nothing in the warlord description relates to healing. They were the worst healers in 4e.



Wha?  Inspiring Warlords are second only to pacifist clerics.  I think it's the only class in the game that can pick up a 4th minor-action encounter heal, and between stuff like Stand the Fallen and Rousing Words, they're a top pick.



> But let's look at this from a class design perspective. Fighters are the class most comparable to warlords. They get two maneuvers at first level.
> A warlord would either get two maneuvers or one maneuver and some form of healing. Look at the list of what warlords should do (initiative bonuses, granting attacks, granting bonus damage, allowing allies to move, etc). Now, the warlord could do two of those at first level, or just one and also heal. Two things unique to the warlords that fit the class and its flavour... or half that number and also healing.
> Does healing make the warlord better with that design? No, it detracts from the warlord. The warlord loses something unique for something generic that could be aquired via a specialty or some multiclassing.
> Laaaame.



I think you just put together a lot of what-ifs and used it to make a conclusion.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not about what the designers think, though, it's about what individual tables want.
> 
> Not everybody wants HP's to be 90% luck/divine favor/plot armor/whatever. 5e currently defines it that way, but it's not going to be something that everyone who enjoys a less narrative or more realistic game, and who have been narrating HP just fine as actual wounds (if not always grievous, life-threatening wounds) for 30+ years is just going to automatically accept as true.
> 
> ...



So... who's on the "D&D must have this element I care about" side of this debate, again?  I'm struggling to understand why it's unreasonable for me to insist that hit points be allowed to have a more narrative function and reasonable for others to insist hit points be meat damage.  Otherwise... why exactly is it problematic?

But if you missed it - I said I'm fine (naturally) with switches, toggles, and options.  I am simply insisting that it be _an_ option.  If you call it "scream-heals" a few more times, I might get the point, though.

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> I'm struggling to understand why it's unreasonable for me to insist that hit points be allowed to have a more narrative function and reasonable for others to insist hit points be meat damage.
> -O



Gygax considered the meat damage model stupid enough to decry it as pretty ridiculous in the DMG and in magazine letters.

Give me scream-heals they are more honest.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:
			
		

> I'm struggling to understand why it's unreasonable for me to insist that hit points be allowed to have a more narrative function and reasonable for others to insist hit points be meat damage.




The point you're missing here is the subjectivity of a game mechanic.

At Bob's table, he can insist that hit points are narrative. At Alice's table, she can insist that hit points are meat. To serve both of their tables, WotC needs to design mechanics that work in both situations. WotC can also design mechanics that work in only one or the other situation, but these mechanics should not be inflexible elements of a thing, because that would limit the reach of the mechanic (and the associated game element). A mechanic that depended on all HP being meat wouldn't fly at Bob's table, for instance, so the design for a class that, say, grew more powerful as blood coated it might not want to use a mechanic of escalating damage as their HP went down (or, at least, it might want to provide a few other options for how that mechanic works in a game with more narrative HP's...perhaps less of a scale, and more of a switch...). I was under the impression we already agreed that inspirational healing is fine as long as it is not hard-coded, which is probably a decent solution here. This is just me explaining some of the reason why you might not be able to tell what the designers are thinking just from their HP rules, or whether or not there is inspirational healing -- why you might not want to use inspirational healing as a litmus test for the whole play experience (of course, if you still do, like I said, everyone's got their thing). 

Currently, the playtest shows them explicitly defining HP as primarily narrative, but they also have no inspirational healing at the moment. It doesn't seem like that's putting your mind at ease, despite the explicit view of HP in the game being apparently in line with what you already would like it to be.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 17, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> Huh...  where you lost me.



This post.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Combat healer was always a sub-role in D&D.



D&D right? Cleric in every party D&D? Clerics being made progressively more potent (beyond healing) so people will play them D&D? This is the D&D you are talking about right? 

Wait... that is what the becoming progressively more potent beyond healing was about making healing in to a lesser aspect of the class and requiring less resources. 

The warlord is the most versatile of the leader classes... so if you wanted to de-emphasize healing aspect it was certainly an option... 

Hmmmmm


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> ...and if you're unconscious already, or between fights?  DR and temp HPs are touchy to work with.  DR needs to be fine-tuned between "useless" and "overpowered."  Temp HPs generally don't stack and are pretty well inferior to real ones given the "temp" nature and - again - inability to get a downed combatant back in the running.



How does that work narratively, then? A Warlord healing an unconscious character, that is. How does a power called "inspiring word" take a character from being on the floor, helpless and bleeding out, to back on his feet and fighting in a few seconds?


----------



## FireLance (Feb 17, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The point you're missing here is the subjectivity of a game mechanic.
> 
> At Bob's table, he can insist that hit points are narrative. At Alice's table, she can insist that hit points are meat. To serve both of their tables, WotC needs to design mechanics that work in both situations. WotC can also design mechanics that work in only one or the other situation, but these mechanics should not be inflexible elements of a thing, because that would limit the reach of the mechanic (and the associated game element).



I'd be quite happy for warlords to have a mechanic that directly restores hit points for those who prefer that hit points are largely intangle, as well as an alternate ability (granting temporary hit points, or simply enhancing attacks and/or damage) for those who can't get behind the idea of non-magical hit point recovery. My only concern is that once that option is even on the table, you're going to get a chorus of, "Shouting wounds closed! 5e bad!" from that segment of the gaming population who went, "Martial mind control! 4e bad!" because fighters had the option of taking _come and get it_.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Feb 17, 2013)

FireLance said:


> I'd be quite happy for warlords to have a mechanic that directly restores hit points for those who prefer that hit points are largely intangle, as well as an alternate ability (granting temporary hit points, or simply enhancing attacks and/or damage) for those who can't get behind the idea of non-magical hit point recovery. My only concern is that once that option is even on the table, you're going to get a chorus of, "Shouting wounds closed! 5e bad!" from that segment of the gaming population who went, "Martial mind control! 4e bad!" because fighters had the option of taking _come and get it_.



The thing is, all it takes is for _one player_ to take that option, and then _everyone at the table _is playing a game with shout-healing and MMC. If you want to play in a game without shout-healing and MMC, you have to remove those options. Passing the buck to the DMs ("I know the book says you can take that option, but I say you can't") won't really work.

What you have is a class of mechanics (disassociated mechanics?) that some people like and some people don't. What happens depends on how much they like or dislike it. If it turns out that some people really can't stand it, and the other people just don't mind (some negative, some ambivalent - a net negative), then the best thing is just to remove it. If most people don't like it, but some people _really _like it, the best thing is to include it as an advanced optional rule.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Feb 17, 2013)

I really like the idea of the warlord.  Love it, in fact.  It's an archetype that includes a lot of fictional characters I'd like to play, such as, just in _The Black Company_, Croaker, Elmo, and the Captain.

Unfortunately I really don't like how 4E implemented it.  The warlord as a healer is the biggest problem I have with it.  I just can't see morale as part of hit points.  Physical health, luck, and fatigue are all fine in hit points, though I'd prefer a system where it was just physical health.  But when you're out of hit points you fall; you don't just run away.  If morale was a part of hit points I'd expect to see people go to zero, freak out, and flee combat.

For Next to have a warlord class I would play, it would need to introduce a proper morale system for D&D combat.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 17, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> The thing is, all it takes is for _one player_ to take that option, and then _everyone at the table _is playing a game with shout-healing and MMC. If you want to play in a game without shout-healing and MMC, you have to remove those options. Passing the buck to the DMs ("I know the book says you can take that option, but I say you can't") won't really work.



IMO, this is only a problem if there is a clash of playstyles at the table, and frankly, in the aftermath of the Idiotion Wars, I think gamers as a whole have already balkanized into groups who can tolerate the playstyles of the other players at the table and who are a lot more careful about checking for playstyle compatibility before adding new players ("Are you currently, or have you at any time in the past, been a Narrativist?")


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> If you want to play in a game without shout-healing and MMC, you have to remove those options. Passing the buck to the DMs ("I know the book says you can take that option, but I say you can't") won't really work.



Why not? After all, that's how they handle the issue of halflings and gnomes as PC races!



GX.Sigma said:


> How does that work narratively, then? A Warlord healing an unconscious character, that is. How does a power called "inspiring word" take a character from being on the floor, helpless and bleeding out, to back on his feet and fighting in a few seconds?



Well, for those who play games with inspirational healing, they don't narrate the unconscious and helpless PC as "bleeding out".

Another model to consider is the dream-sequence in the 2nd LotR movie "Two Towers" in which Aragorn regains consicousness dreaming of Arwen. Inspirational heals on unconscious PCs can be narrated in ways along those lines.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Currently, the playtest shows them explicitly defining HP as primarily narrative, but they also have no inspirational healing at the moment. It doesn't seem like that's putting your mind at ease, despite the explicit view of HP in the game being apparently in line with what you already would like it to be.



Nope, not putting my mind at ease.  Because for every voice saying one thing, there's another saying the opposite.



GX.Sigma said:


> How does that work narratively, then? A Warlord healing an unconscious character, that is. How does a power called "inspiring word" take a character from being on the floor, helpless and bleeding out, to back on his feet and fighting in a few seconds?



I dunno, how can a guy get shot with 5 crossbows, hit by 3 swords, get fireballed and fight just as well as he did before? 

I am going to make a guess that if having this discussion for the past 5 years didn't convince you, I won't be able to either.  But the key is how aware a person with the "unconscious" status is, and how incapacitated they are.

-O


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> D&D right? Cleric in every party D&D? Clerics being made progressively more potent (beyond healing) so people will play them D&D? This is the D&D you are talking about right?
> 
> Wait... that is what the becoming progressively more potent beyond healing was about making healing in to a lesser aspect of the class and requiring less resources.
> 
> ...



Yes. 
In 1e-3e healer was an important role, but _combat _healer was less important. Healing was done between combats or much more occasionally in combat, given it cost an action and was a touch spell. But not every combat, and certainly not every round like the other roles. Even in 4e, it's not something you do all the time, just 2-3 times a fight.

Dedicated healer classes are a mistake. Period. 4e made it so you didn't have to play the cleric but made it more important that someone played a leader. The "who's going to play the cleric" question shifted laterally to "who's going to play a leader." 

Having someone play the cleric should always be a bonus. Adventuring days might be shorter, but you can still play and the DM just writes different sorts of adventures.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2013)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'd be quite happy for warlords to have a mechanic that directly restores hit points for those who prefer that hit points are largely intangle, as well as an alternate ability (granting temporary hit points, or simply enhancing attacks and/or damage) for those who can't get behind the idea of non-magical hit point recovery. My only concern is that once that option is even on the table, you're going to get a chorus of, "Shouting wounds closed! 5e bad!" from that segment of the gaming population who went, "Martial mind control! 4e bad!" because fighters had the option of taking come and get it.




I'm of the opinion that part of being an adult is to have the capacity to let other people have fun in their own way. I'm not so sure we'd get much of an ardent chorus against the inspirational healing, if it was something you could swap in or swap out as you desired.



GX.Sigma said:


> The thing is, all it takes is for _one player_ to take that option, and then _everyone at the table _is playing a game with shout-healing and MMC. If you want to play in a game without shout-healing and MMC, you have to remove those options. Passing the buck to the DMs ("I know the book says you can take that option, but I say you can't") won't really work.




With the way 5e is structured, I'm pretty sure anything above "basic" is going to be explicitly optional, anyway. If you WANT to add in a warlord with inspirational healing, you can, but if you don't want that, no one will make you. Same thing with paladins (for people who don't like the Code) and barbarians  (for people who say "it's a society, not a class!") and monks (for those who don't like Asia in their fantasy make-believe!). The game won't assume their use, but it will certainly allow for it. DMs, I think, need to be active managers of their game, and so doing things like presenting a list of available classes is going to be par for the course. 

The only problem would be, I think, if WotC automatically tethered "Inspirational leader-type character" necessarily to shout-healing and martial mind control. As long as these things are recognized as not necessary for the archetype, just as Vancian spellcasting is being recognized as not necessary for the Wizard archeytpe, I don't see any reason why someone who doesn't like those things can't enjoy the game without them, while someone who loves those things can include them in their own games. 

And I think that not everybody is as extremist as all that. I'm not particularly a fan of inspirational healing, personally, but I play 4e on a regular basis, and have even played a Warlord or two in my time (though, I gotta say, I much prefer the Skald's Aura as the X Word mechanic, though it has some problems), and with more than one in the party, too. It's possible to let someone else have their fun twice a combat or so, and not get too worked up about it.  

So having it as a dial that you can switch, as a DM or as a player, isn't a bad place for it.



			
				Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> Dedicated healer classes are a mistake. Period. 4e made it so you didn't have to play the cleric but made it more important that someone played a leader. The "who's going to play the cleric" question shifted laterally to "who's going to play a leader."
> 
> Having someone play the cleric should always be a bonus. Adventuring days might be shorter, but you can still play and the DM just writes different sorts of adventures.




I've been following a different thread, but I saw this, and, with the caveat that some people really like to play dedicated healers, I'm going to agree, and even expand the argument: none of 4e's roles should be anything that anyone "has to play." Rather, each class should ultimately be capable of doing all of that and then some, even changing on a round-to-round basis. The roles were a (moderately successful) attempt to avoid Accidental Suck, but a better way to do that is just to make sure NONE of the "roles" are required.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:


> ...and if you're unconscious already, or between fights?  DR and temp HPs are touchy to work with.  DR needs to be fine-tuned between "useless" and "overpowered."  Temp HPs generally don't stack and are pretty well inferior to real ones given the "temp" nature and - again - inability to get a downed combatant back in the running.



There are plusses and minuses to both. But at the end of the day the results are the same: less lasting damage and more encounters per day. 
The point of combat healing is always to prevent people going down, because then they lose and action and the party's collective DPR drops. Healing is reactive. You need to take the damage first. But it's finicky as you cannot heal before they reach a certain amount of "damage" or you overheal, which is a waste. And there's always a risk of a couple lucky strikes between the healer's turn that can drop a non-injured-enough character. 
DR is pre-healing. So even if someone is not-injured-enough for healing, they can still take some DR. It prevents those lucky strikes from dropping the character. 
Plus, picking which ally to pre-heal is strategic and fits the theme of the warlord. So it compliments the playstyle of the class. 



Obryn said:


> Wha?  Inspiring Warlords are second only to pacifist clerics.  I think it's the only class in the game that can pick up a 4th minor-action encounter heal, and between stuff like Stand the Fallen and Rousing Words, they're a top pick.



They're a top pick because of the power bloat they've had compared to other classes. Which is really class neutral and more to do with warlords getting an extra book of powers and some extra articles. 
Divorced from powers, going with just the class itself, the warlord heals via surge+d6. Almost every other class heals more or gives a bonus. There's a little perk. The exception being the shaman that heals two people at once, one surgelessly (and surgeless healing in 4e is always gold). It's base healing is bland. Baseline. It's the least interesting thing about the class. Everything else a warlord can do is much, much, much more interesting than healing, and much more relevant to the theme of the class. 



Obryn said:


> I think you just put together a lot of what-ifs and used it to make a conclusion.



Which isn't answering my question or countering my point. It's deflecting.
 They may just be "what ifs" but they're valid deductions based on looking at the class material we have. 1st level characters do not do much. They have a couple small options. Fighters have two manoeuvres and cleric can cast two spells and channel divinity once. 

Should a warlord should have more options that other 1st level characters? No, that'd be silly. They also should follow the pattern of other martial characters and focus on manoeuvres, spending their MDD for bonuses. 
Which means they can either have at-will powers that rely on their MDD to reduce damage keeping with the design of the power source, _or_ they can have a daily heal that seems tacked-on from a design perspective and also comes at the cost of other more warlordy options. 



Obryn said:


> So... who's on the "D&D must have this element I care about" side of this debate, again?  I'm struggling to understand why it's unreasonable for me to insist that hit points be allowed to have a more narrative function and reasonable for others to insist hit points be meat damage.  Otherwise... why exactly is it problematic?
> 
> But if you missed it - I said I'm fine (naturally) with switches, toggles, and options.  I am simply insisting that it be _an_ option.  If you call it "scream-heals" a few more times, I might get the point, though.



...
I...
Words fail.
Do I really need to explain this? 

Why is it problematic? Well, first it's not unreasonable to want hitpoints to represent one thing any more than it is for the other side to insist it represents the opposite. That's not the issue. The point is that the game itself cannot take sides and _has _to cater to both parties. It can do this with abstract rules and optional rules (which currently exist in the playtest package) that give more abstracted hp and the meat damage model. 

Giving a class an ability tied to one interpretation of hitpoints changes this dynamic. One side "wins". And you can see for yourself what has happened to the balance of power by letting one side "win" for an edition.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> And clerics healing characters potentially to full health at level 1,  in a game where one hit takes you down... doesn't mandate a cleric?
> 
> Not sure exactly how much healing makes itself obligatory... we are talking about psychology... ummm anybody with sound theories on this?
> 
> - cause I don't have any.



No, it doesn't.

It mandates some what to heal between fights. 
Done. Hit Dice and potions.

It mandates options to allow people to heal in fights. 
Done. Potions again or resting overnight.

It mandates options to reduce damage below the "taking you down threshhold".
Done. Parry. 

All three (and likely more options) are valid replacements for clerical healing. 
Plus, in a game where one hit kills everything... fights seldom last long enough for the cleric to be able to heal anyone.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> Gygax considered the meat damage model stupid enough to decry it as pretty ridiculous in the DMG and in magazine letters.
> 
> Give me scream-heals they are more honest.



Gygax was never one to pass an opportunity to beat people with his opinions. 

Both options for hitpoints are valid expressions of the idea. 
Personally, I like the 5e vague default of 50/50 where your first half is luck-energy-skill and the second half is meaty goodness. But I appreciate some of the first optional rules added to the game being slower and faster healing and rules that make hp more or less abstractions. 

Here's the catch though: it should be up to the DMs to pick what hp are in their games. You should be able to decide hp represent lucky and skill. I should be able to have a mix. Other people should be able to have it be pure meat damage model. 
("meat damage model" is my new favourite phrase. I'm totally using it everywhere I can work it into conversation.)

Scream-heals break choice. I had a warlord in my 4e game. Suddenly, I had to change every single description I added to the combat. The entire narrative of how I played the game changed. Because of a player's choice. That's uncool.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> There are plusses and minuses to both. But at the end of the day the results are the same: less lasting damage and more encounters per day.



So tell me - why is inspirational healing immersion breaking, but DR and Temp HPs are suddenly not?  Can you get poisoned if you hit and the only damage is Temp HPs?  Does your skin get thicker?  If the problem is "immersion" you're going about it a funny way.



> Everything else a warlord can do is much, much, much more interesting than healing, and much more relevant to the theme of the class.



And everything a Cleric can do is more interesting than healing.  And everything a Bard can do is more interesting than healing.  We get it - healing is boring.  It's also non-optional at this point.



> Should a warlord should have more options that other 1st level characters? No, that'd be silly. They also should follow the pattern of other martial characters and focus on manoeuvres, spending their MDD for bonuses.
> Which means they can either have at-will powers that rely on their MDD to reduce damage keeping with the design of the power source, _or_ they can have a daily heal that seems tacked-on from a design perspective and also comes at the cost of other more warlordy options.



I have a hard time seeing how martial damage dice are going to work for a Warlord, and last I saw, Mearls was talking about stepping back from them as a core martial mechanic.  Which is good - I think they're pretty flawed.

As for class features, it's apparently not a problem for every class to get more trained skills than Fighters and Barbarians, so...



> ...
> I...
> Words fail.
> Do I really need to explain this?
> ...



I've said in pretty much every post here that I'm fine with warlord healing having a toggle switch.  I'm insisting it exist as an element of Warlords, but with other options for those who prefer other ways of doing it.

Having it _not be an option_ is what's unacceptable to me.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm of the opinion that part of being an adult is to have the capacity to let other people have fun in their own way. I'm not so sure we'd get much of an ardent chorus against the inspirational healing, if it was something you could swap in or swap out as you desired.



Oh, dear sweet lord.  I'm good with options.  If Next doesn't include this option, it won't be a game I'll go and seek out.  I'll wish WotC and fans of Next the best and play any number of other good games.  My goodness.



> shout-healing and martial mind control





Jester Canuck said:


> Scream-heals



Yep, just a few more times and I'll see how ridiculous inspirational healing is, folks.  We're almost there.

-O


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2013)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Oh, dear sweet lord. I'm good with options. If Next doesn't include this option, it won't be a game I'll go and seek out. I'll wish WotC and fans of Next the best and play any number of other good games. My goodness.




If you notice the context of the thing you quoted, you might realize I was replying to  [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] 's view that the people who don't like inspirational healing would be up in arms about any inclusion of it. I was saying that I don't think this should be a big concern, specifically because if someone isn't able to stomach the thought of other people playing their game differently than them, I don't think that's an audience that D&D needs to cater to.

I was also using the term "scream-heals" and "martial mind control" because they were used in the post I was responding to.

And, for what it's worth, in a game where grown adults pretend to be magical gumdrop elves, I'm pretty sure _everything_ is ridiculous, pretty much by definition.


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 17, 2013)

I just wanted to say that I love the warlord, but it wouldn't in principle bother me if it wasn't it's own class. All depends on the implementation. 

Can the warlord be a fighter with maneuvers that bolster allies and appropriate specialties? Maybe.

I also have no problem with martial healing but would ideally like it to have some flavor difference from magical healing.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Scream-heals break choice. I had a warlord in my 4e game. Suddenly, I had to change every single description I added to the combat.



The unavailability of martial healng _also_ breaks choice - namely, the choice to play a game of romantic fantasy in which a well-timed word from a battle-captain can restore courage in a fight (eg Gandalf's speech to Pippin in the RotK movie).



Obryn said:


> I've said in pretty much every post here that I'm fine with warlord healing having a toggle switch.



That's been clear enough to me!



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I was replying to  FireLance's view that the people who don't like inspirational healing would be up in arms about any inclusion of it. I was saying that I don't think this should be a big concern



At least two posters in this thread are "up in arms" about inspiration healing being an option: Jester Canuck and GX.Sigma.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 17, 2013)

pemerton said:


> The unavailability of martial healng _also_ breaks choice - namely, the choice to play a game of romantic fantasy in which a well-timed word from a battle-captain can restore courage in a fight (eg Gandalf's speech to Pippin in the RotK movie).



Which is fine IF the DM wants that style of play. If morale-based non-magical healing is something they want. However, the choice should not be a player's. 

A player picking one class over another should not change how the DM wants to narrative every single turn of every single combat for the entire campaign. It shouldn't push a DM to include one set of optional rules.

Here's an analogy. Would you allow a class that required encumbrance? A class wth a class feature - even if it was just one option of many - related to carrying capacity and only of use if the entire table started tracking weight. 
Is that fair? 
It's actually less of a stretch since it involves no optional rules, just rules seldom used. And doesn't involve anyone changing how they view a game element.


I can see warlord healing working in a couple ways. Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive. 
However, there could be class features tied to certain rules modules, and there could easily be a small morale-based healing module, a sidebar in the section of optional healing and health rules. Anyone can stop and give an inspiring speech and heal, but warlords (and bards) are better at it. Just like Gandalf, a wizard, can apparently heal in your example. 
Alternatively, it could be part of an optional expansion of the class, likely in an accessory or _Dragon_ article. A straight warlord option where you can drop a maneuver or have reduced MDD in exchange for a daily heal. (I'm saying an accessory because fitting all the core options into the initial books will be hard enough as it is without squishing variants for every class. It makes more sense to have optional features in one place, like the 3e _Unearthed Arcana_.)


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm of the opinion that part of being an adult is to have the capacity to let other people have fun in their own way. I'm not so sure we'd get much of an ardent chorus against the inspirational healing, if it was something you could swap in or swap out as you desired.
> /snip




Really?  The past 4 or 5 years has seen a chorus of criticisms about Schroedinger's HP and the like.  The only thing you have to do to change that in 4e is remove the Warlord.  Done.  Or, give the Warlord's healing powers a magical keyword.  Either way.

A one sentence fix.

But that hasn't stopped the ardent chorus against inspirational healing.  Has there been a month go by that hasn't seen someone weighing in to tell all and sundry how this breaks their immersion?  One single game element that is entirely optional and is removed with a single sentence.

I think you're being far too optimistic here if you think slapping an "optional" label onto something will stop the "ardent chorus".


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2013)

JesterC said:
			
		

> Which is fine IF the DM wants that style of play. If morale-based non-magical healing is something they want. However, the choice should not be a player's.




Umm, how is it the player's choice?  You are unable to say no, as the DM, to a given class?  There is something in the rules which tells you that you must not say no?  The player is holding your cat hostage and will sacrifice it to some unnamed demon if you say no?  You are incapable of adding a single sentence of house rules which would make morale based healing different?  
 [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]midget  - I think this pretty much shows my point no?  Here we have a perfect example of what, I believe, you termed the "ardent chorus".


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2013)

And, another thought about "in combat healing".  Yes, I understand why this is something of an issue.  But, the problem is, if healing only occurs out of combat (or mostly out of combat) then that means no combat is actually very dangerous.  Or, conversely, you are either mostly healthy or all dead (as is the case in something like Basic/Expert D&D).  There's no in between because, without in combat healing, there's no way to make the combat dangerous, without making it very lethal and seriously swingy.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but, I don't think it's a good baseline when the game is going to expect character generation to take more than 10 minutes.  Not in a game which is so combat heavy as D&D typically is.

So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2013)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really? The past 4 or 5 years has seen a chorus of criticisms about Schroedinger's HP and the like. The only thing you have to do to change that in 4e is remove the Warlord. Done. Or, give the Warlord's healing powers a magical keyword. Either way.
> 
> A one sentence fix.




I think you might be over-simplifying it a bit, here. Adding a keyword doesn't address the fluff of the Warlord class, or the nature of the magic it wields, and it's also clearly house-rule territory. As always with 4e, refluffing is crazy easy, but it's also just easy enough for someone who isn't a big fan of it not to play 4e (just as it'd be easy for  [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] to not play 5e if they didn't support the kind of warlord he wants to play), and as we've seen over and over in this thread, getting the psychology right is more important than getting the mechanics right, in a lot of cases. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I think this pretty much shows my point no? Here we have a perfect example of what, I believe, you termed the "ardent chorus".






			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> At least two posters in this thread are "up in arms" about inspiration healing being an option: Jester Canuck and GX.Sigma.




And I think I've made it pretty clear that this is something of an overreaction in my mind. I've already responded to GX.Sigma. But let me illustrate in some more detail to JC here:



			
				Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive.




It can be inclusive, because it can give you, right in the Warlord class, several different variations on Inspiring Word to use. It can even do that without picking a default ("here's 3 options, choose one!").

So the idea is that the Warlord's healing might end up as optional as the Paladin's code or the Monk class or a Barbarian's alignment restrictions (or whatever): no one who dislikes the thing needs to include it, and those who like it can feel free to use it. 

A DM who specifically dislikes that option just won't enable it. Monks are optional, paladins are optional, pretty sure the whole Standard game is going to be opt-in.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?




I think you're kind of looking at this the wrong way around.

4e's assumption was that every combat was a slog-fest to the death, more or less: it was designed to put most characters into at least bloodied in an encounter, so that they needed healing to continue. Healers would then "unlock" your extra HP for you. 

5e's assumption tends to be that combats aren't necessarily crazy lethal, so you can see more attrition over the course of an adventuring day: imagine if all of your surges were converted to HP and then just added to your total. 

You make a lethal combat in 5e by giving it the ability to drain the party's entire day of resources at once, making it a true "give it your all!" kind of moment. If they don't have in-combat healing, the only way to recover from that is to kill the other guys first, so that the party can then rest and recover naturally. 

And if you DO have in-combat healing, you get that yo-yo effect: you've got a few HP's sitting out there in your teammates that they just need to unlock for you, whenever they get around to it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> And, another thought about "in combat healing".  Yes, I understand why this is something of an issue.  But, the problem is, if healing only occurs out of combat (or mostly out of combat) then that means no combat is actually very dangerous.  Or, conversely, you are either mostly healthy or all dead (as is the case in something like Basic/Expert D&D).  There's no in between because, without in combat healing, there's no way to make the combat dangerous, without making it very lethal and seriously swingy.
> 
> Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but, I don't think it's a good baseline when the game is going to expect character generation to take more than 10 minutes.  Not in a game which is so combat heavy as D&D typically is.
> 
> So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?




As important as that, lack of activatable, intra-combat healing (either a dedicated healer/lead or distributed to all PCs a la Second Wind and its various analogs), or an equally effective and elegant source of activatable "death mitigation", completely nullifies the genre trope of the "rally" and especially multiple "rallies" in a particularly epic fight.  Under that scenario, going to the brink of death would mean that you either offensively nova (if such resources are available) or you are utterly at the mercy if the dice for the rest of the fight.

I suspect the loss of the "rally" from the brink of defeat/death trope and corresponding tactical angle (by way of activatable, defensive resources) would put a considerable number of folks out of the 5e big tent.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 18, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> I can see warlord healing working in a couple ways. Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive.
> However, there could be class features tied to certain rules modules, and there could easily be a small morale-based healing module, a sidebar in the section of optional healing and health rules. Anyone can stop and give an inspiring speech and heal, but warlords (and bards) are better at it. Just like Gandalf, a wizard, can apparently heal in your example.
> Alternatively, it could be part of an optional expansion of the class, likely in an accessory or _Dragon_ article. A straight warlord option where you can drop a maneuver or have reduced MDD in exchange for a daily heal. (I'm saying an accessory because fitting all the core options into the initial books will be hard enough as it is without squishing variants for every class. It makes more sense to have optional features in one place, like the 3e _Unearthed Arcana_.)



That's funny - I was thinking the non-morale meat-points definition of healing is what should be in a sidebar or Dragon article.  The Warlord heals _now_.  It seems pretty silly to insist that its healing capabilities be jettisoned and thrown into a module.

-O


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2013)

Hussar said:


> if healing only occurs out of combat (or mostly out of combat) then that means no combat is actually very dangerous.  Or, conversely, you are either mostly healthy or all dead (as is the case in something like Basic/Expert D&D).  There's no in between because, without in combat healing, there's no way to make the combat dangerous, without making it very lethal and seriously swingy.



I think this is an excellent point.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e's assumption was that every combat was a slog-fest to the death
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Manbearcat said:


> of activatable, intra-combat healing <snip> completely nullifies the genre trope of the "rally" and especially multiple "rallies" in a particularly epic fight.  Under that scenario, going to the brink of death would mean that you either offensively nova (if such resources are available) or you are utterly at the mercy if the dice for the rest of the fight.



Is it possible to discuss things without pejorative labels like "slog fest", "scream heals" etc? No one who enjoys 4e and its warlords and incombat healing reaches for those particular labels to describe why they like it.

Anyway, Manbearcat here captures what is different for me in 4e combat compared to traditional D&D. (I don't know 3E well enough to compare it, but have got the impression from reading others' posts over the years that incombat healing, especially Heal spells, becomes important at least at mid-to-high levels). Namely, 4e combat has rallies that turn on something other than the swing of the dice, namely, skillful play that unlocks healing surges. (It's also worth noting that this function of healing surges is largely independent of their role in rationing out healing over the course of an adventuring day.)

No doubt D&Dnext permits tough combats that require "nova-ing" (per Manbearcat) or "giving it your all" (per KM), but that is not something that 4e can't do. I assume 3E can do that too. But can D&Dnext do the rally? (You don't need incombat healing for that, of course - as Manbearcat noted other forms of death mitigation could do the job, and so could some form of escalation mechanic.)


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 18, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I suspect the loss of the "rally" from the brink of defeat/death trope and corresponding tactical angle (by way of activatable, defensive resources) would put a considerable number of folks out of the 5e big tent.




This...

I really want some big time sense of the heroic turn around... not sure it needs to be constant or every fight but as a significant element of big battles it may actually be a must.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2013)

pemerton said:


> "slog fest"
> 
> rally




I've never had a slog fest in any of my 4e combats to date.  I've seen rallies repeatedly.  One wonders if one man's "slog fest" is another man's "rally"...or if other things are going on which create a "slog fest" vs those things that might go on which create a "rally."  

These things could be:

1)  Too many participants (PC and NPC).
2)  Too much PC-side mitigation or action denial focus or synergy within either of the two. 
3)  Poor/limited usage of terrain, hazards and other elements that create a dynamic and mobile fight (by GM or PCs).
4)  Poor encounter setup by the GM; too many Soldiers, poor/no NPC group synergy, incoherent thematically.
5)  Tactically deficient GMing.
6)  Mathematically inefficient or slow GM (or PCs).

I wonder how much 1 comes into play here.  In my estimation, 4 PCs is probably the sweet spot for 4e.  5 is the upper limit threshold.  Anything beyond 5 PCs and I could easily see "slog-fest".  If you have 6-8 PCs with 2 Defenders and 2 Leaders...kill me now.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 18, 2013)

Obryn said:


> That's funny - I was thinking the non-morale meat-points definition of healing is what should be in a sidebar or Dragon article.  The Warlord heals _now_.  It seems pretty silly to insist that its healing capabilities be jettisoned and thrown into a module.
> 
> -O



It's always easier to add options than subtract. 
Having the default being hp as an abstraction means taking away related powers when swapping to the module. It's easier not to have powers related to one option or the other and add them later in supplements. 

I'd love to see lasting wounds and injuries in the game. But stuff like that is so much better as a module for the same reason. Because modules should always add non-standard content and keep the baseline as generic as possible for the widest possible audience.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 18, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> As important as that, lack of activatable, intra-combat healing (either a dedicated healer/lead or distributed to all PCs a la Second Wind and its various analogs), or an equally effective and elegant source of activatable "death mitigation", completely nullifies the genre trope of the "rally" and especially multiple "rallies" in a particularly epic fight.  Under that scenario, going to the brink of death would mean that you either offensively nova (if such resources are available) or you are utterly at the mercy if the dice for the rest of the fight.
> 
> I suspect the loss of the "rally" from the brink of defeat/death trope and corresponding tactical angle (by way of activatable, defensive resources) would put a considerable number of folks out of the 5e big tent.



The rally is fun, but it shouldn't be a design baseline. It should not be what you design combats, classes, or combat roles around. 
What makes epic fights interesting is that they are special and rare. If you turn every fight up to 11 then you need to keep escalating for the extra-epic fights.


----------



## n00bdragon (Feb 18, 2013)

Haven't we had this same "Should healing be magical only" topic about ten times now? Why is it still here? People, for the most part, roughly fall into one of two camps:
- You shouldn't be able to do anything that resembles putting meat back together by shouting because that's unrealistic. Ergo, only magic can heal because realism doesn't apply to magic.
- Everyone should be able to heal all injuries instantly because the game is more fun that way! Who cares what makes sense? It's just a game!

Both sides can give you a long list of examples of how D&D has always historically catered to either side except for 3e which catered to the former and 4e which catered to the latter. Then they'll list off all the fantasy literature, and movies, video games, etc they can think of which support whichever point of view they support. It doesn't really matter though. 5e has already made it's choice. It's going to be a game that honors the former. If you don't like that well that's a shame. You probably already understood you weren't in the target audience for this game anyhow.

Just as a note: I'm not trying to say either point is right or wrong. I myself fall into the latter group. I'm just stating what is in fact the case. Can we all please stop arguing about what 5e should be when it's clearly been decided what it _will_ be already or is that just no fun?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> Because modules should always add non-standard content and keep the baseline as generic as possible for the widest possible audience.




Partially for this reason, I think it's smarter to have HP be "90% narrative, but we also don't have inspirational healing" as the "basic" option (assuming the Warlord gets into the "standard-" level game). That way, you can narrate them as wounds or luck if you want, and it provides room for the warlord healing to work and room for grittier HP to work, right up front, without any special modules re-writing the underlying rules of the game. Want inspirational healing? Grab the warlord class with the Inspiring Word ability. Don't? Ignore Inspiring Word and take Battle Speech (or whatever). 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Is it possible to discuss things without pejorative labels like "slog fest", "scream heals" etc? No one who enjoys 4e and its warlords and incombat healing reaches for those particular labels to describe why they like it.




I'll do what I can, but it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf. If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant. We are just dorks talking on the internet about a very obscure point of a tremendously nerdy hobby, and it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough. 

FWIW, I used "slog fest" as a way to describe the nature of 4e's combat as being intensive from both sides, a conflict each side throws everything they have (or nearly so) into, each time. 



			
				Manbearcat said:
			
		

> I suspect the loss of the "rally" from the brink of defeat/death trope and corresponding tactical angle (by way of activatable, defensive resources) would put a considerable number of folks out of the 5e big tent.




The solution to this is simple: if you have a dedicated healer in your party, you will have the rally (at least in the big combats).

If you do not, you will not (and it is not necessary for the big combats).

And either way, the game will work.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 18, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> It's always easier to add options than subtract.
> Having the default being hp as an abstraction means taking away related powers when swapping to the module. It's easier not to have powers related to one option or the other and add them later in supplements.



It's a Warlord healing actual HPs. That's what we're discussing. That's independent of any other options in the game. Right now, HPs are specifically NOT "meat-points" in Next. 

Adding/subtracting has no relevance here, either. It's no harder for you to do so than it is for me.

-O


----------



## Jester David (Feb 18, 2013)

Obryn said:


> It's a Warlord healing actual HPs. That's what we're discussing. That's independent of any other options in the game. Right now, HPs are specifically NOT "meat-points" in Next.



No. As a default they're 50/50. 
So, by that default warlord healing would be possible, but only so long as you're above half hp. And it wouldn't bring back anyone unconscious. 



Obryn said:


> Adding/subtracting has no relevance here, either. It's no harder for you to do so than it is for me.



No, it isn't harder for me to add. It is harder for me to subtract. Telling players they're not allowed a core option is awkward. It's always easier to give them more options and powers.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> Telling players they're not allowed a core option is awkward. It's always easier to give them more options and powers.




While this is true, I think you may be over-estimating what "core" may be in NEXT.

I would not be surprised if the only thing they assume your using for most products is the Basic game (and even that might not be a "tight" assumption): everything else will be explicitly opt-in. I imagine this includes monks as much as it includes inspirational healing.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 18, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'll do what I can, but it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf. If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant. We are just dorks talking on the internet about a very obscure point of a tremendously nerdy hobby, and it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough.



Oh, come the hell on. 

First, calling it a "hyper-emotional response" is ridiculous. I have no idea where in that post you're concluding this, so it just looks like you're disrespecting him, personally. 

Second, I think there's a word for being intentionally provocative then mocking the people you provoked for having the temerity to get provoked. 

We're all talking about pretend elfgames here, and I think it's safe to say nobody's crying themselves to sleep over it. Implying [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is, is pure BS. 

-O


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2013)

n00bdragon said:


> People, for the most part, roughly fall into one of two camps:
> - You shouldn't be able to do anything that resembles putting meat back together by shouting because that's unrealistic. Ergo, only magic can heal because realism doesn't apply to magic.
> - Everyone should be able to heal all injuries instantly because the game is more fun that way! Who cares what makes sense? It's just a game!
> 
> ...



I'm in the variant of the latter group that thinks that heroically pushing on through injuries, while sometimes unrealistic, is part of the heroic fantasy genre. (And the superhero genre that is closely related to it.)



Jester Canuck said:


> The rally is fun, but it shouldn't be a design baseline. It should not be what you design combats, classes, or combat roles around.
> What makes epic fights interesting is that they are special and rare.



This may signal a fundamental divergence of preferences. And, to my mind at least, it relates back to  [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s post upthread about using certain key design elements as a litmus test.

There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")

At least in my own experience, real life - the weeks between sessions, and the moments during sessions when people eat food or take other sorts of breaks - delivers the necessary downtime to make the pursuit of ingame drama at every opportunity desirable.

If I'm looking at a system, and I'm seeing that in order to get the awesome I'm going to have to game through hours of non-awesome - eg combats or traps that nickle-and-dime away the first third or half of PC hit points; calculating encumbrance, inventory etc - then I don't think I'm interested. Whatever pleasure I am able to get out of that sort of thing I can get solving crosswords by myself.

So for me, the litmus is - when I look at this system can I see where it is going to deliver all awesome, all the time? And for me, the warlord in 4e was one marker of that. The very fact that the game has as part of its core build _that class_, with those abilities and that function, tells me something about what the game apsires to. (Whether it also meets its aspirations is important too - in my own experience 4e mostly does, though it's not without its flaws.)



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'll do what I can



Thank you.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf



Because I thought board rules mandated respect for other posters? And putting that to one side - after all, in the real world we all know people who don't actually warrant respect - because discussion generally proceeds more productively when the ideas in play are described using language that is neutral as between the preferences of various sides, and (where possible) is acceptable to both sides.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough.



I didn't think my response was hyper-emotional - it was a one line request. I'm sorry it came across differently to you.

From my point of view, everyone posting on ENworld is doing so voluntarily and for recreational purposes. I do my best not to make fun of other peoples preferences, even though I don't always share them, and I do my best to describe their play and their play experiences in language they themselves might use, because I figure that's a way to make their recreation more pleasant for them.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This may signal a fundamental divergence of preferences. And, to my mind at least, it relates back to   @_*Obryn*_ 's post upthread about using certain key design elements as a litmus test.
> 
> There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")
> 
> ...




I'll just echo these sentiments here rather than contriving my own.  They cross all the Ts and dot all the lowercase js.  I don't want to "slog" through 5 or 6 Nazi dinner or classroom scenes of Indiana Jones to get to the horse/cart chases, the crypt crawls and the temple raiding.  When you spend only a few hours a month on gaming, concepts such as "the tyranny of fun" and "too much awesome" are a wee bit foreign.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 18, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The solution to this is simple: if you have a dedicated healer in your party, you will have the rally (at least in the big combats).
> 
> If you do not, you will not (and it is not necessary for the big combats).
> 
> And either way, the game will work.




Ummm completely impersonal I shouldnt have to have a cleric in the party to get a sense of the heroic turn around ( or even a Warlord...) ie yuck dude yuck. Second wind and action points and abilities that trigger on a bloodied state aren't perfect but are better than that and if the game really treats this as an after thought its going in the solid MEH category.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 18, 2013)

Obryn said:


> As for myself, the warlord can work as a bit of a litmus test. It basically needs 3 things:
> 
> (1) Exist. It's one of the key classes of 4e, and essential to my vision of modern D&D
> (2) Help its allies in a very direct fashion - more than just auras.
> ...



I'm generally in this boat as well, and I agree that it's implementation can serve as a litmus test, as can several other key 4e-isms.

Regarding point #1 - The warlord was a class that did things which no other edition has been able to accomplish for me; it has enabled an archetype that has been mostly lacking or implemented poorly previously. Suddenly some of my favourite martial characters from 2nd edition can be played effectively again!

No warlord in Next is therefore a bit of a dealbreaker for me, or rather a warlord archetype that doesn't accomplish what the 4e one does would be.

Regarding point #2 - I like the "game-changing" nature of their abilities, though I was actually a bit disappointed that there were not more Aura effects in the game for PCs to use. Their natural home would have been with classes such as the Warlord, Paladin, and Bard. We eventually got constant auras with the Skald bard, but more would have been nice.

Regarding point #3 - I like warlord healing. I know this is the big sticking point for most of the hate directed at both the class and the edition as a whole, but for me, it should be an option, if not mandatory (and from the hackles that were raised yet again by its very mention, I should think we know how this _must_ go, sadly).



Manbearcat said:


> Thematically:  Needs to be -
> 
> 1)  A cool-headed warrior who leads from the front, with poise in the face of all manner of adversity.
> 2)  A tactician that can tactically change the scope of battle in real time.
> ...



I like these thematic elements. I think that a "lead from the rear" warlord archetype should also be supported.



> Resource-wise:  Needs to be able to -
> 
> 1)  Heal morale damage.
> 2)  Prevent, or at least buff resistance to, fear effects.
> ...



An emphatic "yes" from me to all these points, but especially the 4th one; non-combat resolution is most often where the martial characters have been hamstrung in D&D, and I would love nothing more than to see this tradition put to rest (outside of my own houserules).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2013)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Second, I think there's a word for being intentionally provocative then mocking the people you provoked for having the temerity to get provoked.




It was never my intention to provoke anyone. I can try to be civil and refrain from those two terms, knowing it is a problem to the folks I'm trying to have a convo with, but I cannot be expected to preemptively be aware of others' sensitivities regarding a flippant term for inspirational healing and a rather awkward description of a combat where each side gives it their all. 

As far as warlord healing goes, I think I'm in accord with you and pemerton, and I'd much rather have a convo about how D&D might be able to thread that needle than I am about potentially irritating verbiage. 

Apologies for any offense.



			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> Ummm completely impersonal I shouldnt have to have a cleric in the party to get a sense of the heroic turn around ( or even a Warlord...) ie yuck dude yuck. Second wind and action points and abilities that trigger on a bloodied state aren't perfect but are better than that and if the game really treats this as an after thought its going in the solid MEH category.




I think this is totally fair, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see optional mechanics like this in 5e to create that combat arc in more situations. It's not something I personally love in every combat, but if 5e is supposedly going to also support more encounter-based design, it'd absolutely be a smart thing to include.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2013)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I like these thematic elements. I think that a "lead from the rear" warlord archetype should also be supported.




Could be done in a Sun Tzu or Patton motif (although both of them still scrapped) I suppose, but that might be difficult given the logistics of D&D (small units and correspondingly intimate skirmishes).  For my money though, when I think of the 4e Warlord I think of Captain Winters from Band of Brothers and Captain Miller from Saving Private Ryan; coincidentally both with completely non-martial backgrounds thrust into the role of Captains of Army Rangers.  Interestingly enough, when an officer with strings artificially advanced through the ranks and tried to "lead from the rear" at Foy, near Bastogne, it almost got Easy Company massacred during the Battle of the Bulge.

Its hard to be a "field captain" and be a "leader of men" and "lead from the rear" but I suppose it could be done.  Are most folks thinking of the lazy-lord when considering that niche.  The lazy-lord can still lead from the front.

I'm curious what source material folks are drawing on when they think of "lead from the rear" battle captains/warlords.  I'm not disputing that it can't be done or that there isn't a precedent (that can map to D&D) but assuming there is, I'm just not familiar with it.  Even Gandalf mixed it up on the front lines (class/race, he was a Fighter/Mage Angel, but thematically he was basically a warlord for FotR).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 18, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Its hard to be a "field captain" and be a "leader of men" and "lead from the rear" but I suppose it could be done.  Are most folks thinking of the lazy-lord when considering that niche.  The lazy-lord can still lead from the front.
> 
> I'm curious what source material folks are drawing on when they think of "lead from the rear" battle captains/warlords.  I'm not disputing that it can't be done or that there isn't a precedent (that can map to D&D) but assuming there is, I'm just not familiar with it.  Even Gandalf mixed it up on the front lines (class/race, he was a Fighter/Mage Angel, but thematically he was basically a warlord for FotR).




I am referring to that particular turn of phrase in it's most D&Dish form - one which is most closely associated with the lazy-lord. And when I say that the archetype should be supported, I mean only that I'd like to see a continuation of viable warlords with higher mental stats than physical, which under 4e did not preclude being on the front lines either, thanks to feats like Melee Training.

It's a bit tangential to the conversation, but that was one of my favourite things about 4e, and something that the inherent flexibility of the warlord class highlighted very well for me - that not every class that hit things needed Strength to be effective in combat. I see next has made a half-hearted implementation of this by tying weapon choice to stats, but still we're left with only Strength or Dexterity as options. This is another major point of contention, even among 4e fans, but I'd be very sorry to see it go (and I see nothing to indicate that they'd bring this idea back).


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2013)

@*Nemesis Destiny* Gotcha.  That all makes sense and I agree with it.  I too would hate to see those things go.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2013)

Nemisis Destiny said:
			
		

> I see next has made a half-hearted implementation of this by tying weapon choice to stats, but still we're left with only Strength or Dexterity as options. This is another major point of contention, even among 4e fans, but I'd be very sorry to see it go (and I see nothing to indicate that they'd bring this idea back).




Honestly, this hits in the Big Win column for me, too. Not having to worry about keeping a given ability score at a decent level frees up a lot of interesting character concepts -- I'd even encourage 5e to go even farther with this than 4e did. 

I wouldn't imagine it would be part of the "basic" game (blah blah classic play blah blah), but I can imagine a pretty easy rule that would allow it. Even something as simple as "Use your highest ability score modifier in place of other ability score modifiers when you roll an attack" could work. You'd lose some granularity, but you'd gain a tremendous wealth of character options.

I'm now imagining a STR-based bard who is a half-orc modeled after Animal from the Muppets:

[video=youtube;2cEPydnb0Ns]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2cEPydnb0Ns[/video]

...but the Warlord was the first time you could really have an Int or Cha based non-magical melee character and have it work just fine, mechanically (I mean, 3e had Combat Expertise, but it was kind of a marginal choice, and didn't erase the need for your other ability scores to be tremendous). 

MAD is BAD, generally speaking.


----------



## n00bdragon (Feb 18, 2013)

Most other RPGs out there have moved away from tying stats to attack rolls at all. This is for a good reason. It's dumb and forces people to max out stat X so that they can hit things, which is by far the most common action taken by players in RPGs. Just give people a flat bonus based on their level and leave it at that.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 18, 2013)

Yeah, agreed. There was even a project undertaken by some ambitious houserulers over on Something Awful, I believe, to free D&D 4e of all stat-dependance entirely. The gist of it was that they decided to bake-in some assumed stat bonuses to everyone's attack, damage, secondary, and skill values. Pretty interesting actually.

That said, D&D will never be rid of this particular legacy baggage; it's too much sacred animal flesh for many. At the end of the day, I respect that, but it would be some tasty hamburger for some Unearthed Arcana splat.


----------



## steeldragons (Feb 18, 2013)

So we're agreed then... Ok, so no one agrees on anything...but to just throw in a coupla coppers on the [semi-relevant?] topic of what the Warlord should/could/might entail...in the future...in 5e...

First off, I'm of the "Warlord should be a theme/specialty takeable by any class" camp, but whether it appears that way in the "Basic" game or appears in the "Standard" product as its own class...or attached as a class [or specialty] in the "Advanced tactical options" product...I see no problem with a "Warlord" that presents the following (as best I understand the current 5e mechanics):

The way I see it...the Warlord is a legitimate archetype for the genre and the game of D&D. If one looks as Fighters as being the Strength-based warrior character. Paladins, I think it safe to say, are the Wisdom-based warrior archetype. Rangers are the Intelligence Fighters. Barbarians are the Constitution fighters...Warlord fits nicely as the Charisma warrior. (and then, I suppose you'd have a Swashbuckler or Duelist or something as the Dexterity fighter to complete the list...or the Monk?...but one marginal class/theme at a time...ANYwho...)

The Warlord: 
1) Has an ability/trick/maneuver/whatever you want to call it that allows them to "give/spend" their combat/extra Dice on an ally's [or allies'] attack, granting them some bonus to hit or damage or to perform some maneuver they don't, themselves, possess ("Grab him!") or any/all of the above.
2) Has an ability/trick/maneuver/whatever you want to call it that allows them to "unlock" allies' Hit Dice within combat.
OR that allows the Warlord to spend their OWN HD on their allies inside of combat? Maybe Warlords get more/extra HD as a class feature?
Either option, I'm not sure should be allowed more than once per combat...but I'm flexible.
3) Has an ability/trick/maneuver/whatever you want to call it that allows them to apply a bonus to saves against fear/confusion/morale effects to allies within a certain distance of the Warlord. Maybe size of the bonus and/or area of effect scales with level...maybe not...
4) Non-combat "field medic"/mundane healing skill...to, possibly, assist in the "exploring time" stuff.
i.e. You guys camp for the night? The warlord bandages folks up for an extra X hp of healing/or renewal of HD for relieving fatigue/etc...or, for literal "exploring", suppose the Thief fails a trap check and takes a crossbow bolt to the face? Or there is no Rogue and the Fighter falls into a pit? Here ya go, get back X hp/HD. No magic/spell resource drain necessary. No magic/spell -or screaming- explanation needed. Just bindin' up some wounds...something they can do outside of/in between actual combat situations to help out.
5) Non-combat negotiations/diplomacy skill...to, possibly, assist in "interacting time" stuff. (seems self-explanatory)

I think that's all it needs...and none of it breaks my immersion [or hurts my feelings] or seems ridiculously "over the top" or anything. Could be a specialty...could be a Standard Class...could be available as BOTH! Maybe the specialty one has a set number/amount of bonuses they can do/spend/effect, but the full class option (obviously) would "get better"/increase as they level up...

And, again, this is coming from someone who doesn't think they should be a class...but I could see something like this working out just fine if it were offered in the Standard game. Does that [or ANY of that, really] sound like it scratches the pro-Warlord pundits' itch?

--SD


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 18, 2013)

This is how I envision leading from the back and the front simultaneously:
http://mangafox.me/manga/history_s_strongest_disciple_kenichi/v28/c255/11.html
read until this page
http://mangafox.me/manga/history_s_strongest_disciple_kenichi/v28/c256/10.html

In this scene, Hermit (the guy in a hoodie) is basically a monk, a striker, and thanks to the combined effort of all the team lead in the front by Takeda (the long haired guy with bandaged arms) and in the back by Nijima, (the weird guy with the big point nose) he manages to land a critical blow thank to the advantage bought by this combined effort. 

Takeda is how I like to think of a frontline warlord, using his might and skill to buy the rest of the party opportunities, he also evaluates the situation and reacts in situ.

Meanwhile Nijima is a lazy warlord, doing almost nothing himself, but ensures the group tactics are kept tight and sound. He himself doesn't buys opportunities for the group, but he coordinates their efforts making them more effective. Also while he is disliked by most of the group, he is responsible for keeping them as a team.

(and the guy with the hat and coat? definitely a bard...)


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 18, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> The way I see it...the Warlord is a legitimate archetype for the genre and the game of D&D. If one looks as Fighters as being the Strength-based warrior character. Paladins, I think it safe to say, are the Wisdom-based warrior archetype. Rangers are the Intelligence Fighters. Barbarians are the Constitution fighters...Warlord fits nicely as the Charisma warrior. (and then, I suppose you'd have a Swashbuckler or Duelist or something as the Dexterity fighter to complete the list...or the Monk?...but one marginal class/theme at a time...ANYwho...)




I'm sorry but I digress with this, IMHO Fighters are STR based and Barbarians CON based, no doubt, but Rangers are WIS based, Paladins are CHA based (or even MAD based), and Warlords are ANY based or NONE based. That is part of the cool factor of warlords, they can have almost any stat combo and still be usefull. 

I don't disagree with your ideas on the warlord (except that I think it has to be a class), but the possibilities are way wider:

Grant damage reduction/parry or a bonus to AC as a reaction
Grant extra attacks.
grant extra reactions
Grant advantage on attacks or even attribute checks
Grant free disengage actions to allies

And that is without even getting the grid involved


----------



## Grimmjow (Feb 18, 2013)

somewhere in 4e it said about the warlord "Your fighter hits the orc with his sword, you hit the orc with your fighter" Thats what the warlord needs to be helping the rest of your party succeed in and out of combat


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 18, 2013)

*Rethinking my own previous position:*



tuxgeo said:


> However, if that class is going to get a different name, what should the name be? Neither "Provoker" nor "Convoker" will work; "Cohort" simply means battle-comrade; "Proconsul" is a political/diplomatic position; "Veteran" needs to be available to all classes, and to unclassed NPCs; "Marshall" is a higher position, dealing more with strategy than with tactics; "Ensign" is naval and commissioned, not land-based; . . .




I may have been wrong about the (one-L)"Marshal": the higher, more strategic position is "Field Marshal," as in "Field Marshal Erwin Rommel." However, the verb "to marshal" has meanings that include: "to arrange" (as in "to marshal the facts"), "guide, conduct, or usher"; and those are the sorts of things that a 4E Warlord often does.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 18, 2013)

The focus of the warlord should be on Intelligence first and foremost, with flavour suggesting tactics and strategy and general knowledge of warfare and enemy actions. 
The Charisma-based warlord is fine, but overlaps a little with the bard. Having both classes inspire through rousing charismatic speeches is an unnecessary overlap. There could be some inspiring warlord design later, but it might shouldn't be a core build unless there's some free space. 

I think some freedom in weapons would help differentiate warlords. By not mandating Strength or Dexterity, warlords could stack one or the other and favour heavy weapons, ranged weapons, sword & board, etc. Warlord powers could be ranged neutral just mentioning spending an action to attack or attacking with a weapon. 

Martial Damage Dice and maneuvers would really compliment the warlord. As they get more MDD they can help more allies at once, eventually moving or buffing the whole party, or really stack a boost on one character.  

Unlike the fighter, who is differentiated by their weapon choice, the warlord should not. That's a big difference between the warlord and fighter, none of their builds or choices should depend on weapon.
I think you can break the warlord down into a few different builds: offensive, defensive, and debuffing. I think all builds should have some movement component; all warlords should have the ability to reposition allies, spending a MDD to move an ally 5 feet. That's their "parry" that all warlords get.
An offensive warlord would focus on giving his MDD to allies, granting extra attacks, negating attack penalties, and potentially granting advantage. Defensive warlords would reduce damage against allies, grant DR, mitigate crits, grant saves, and the like. Normally I'd include spending Hit Dice in combat to heal here, but today's Legends & Lore article suggests might not fit their simple core. Debuffing is something warlords haven't done a lot of in the past because they were trapped in the "leader" role and debuffing is part of a controller's job. But you can certainly turn the warlord's powers around and use them on enemies, stopping or inducing movement, imposing penalties to attack or damage, preventing reactions, etc.


A different direction would be to rework the warlord. D&D has a history of a "cavalier" class, the mounted knightly warrior. It's always been a little awkward because it overlaps with mounted fighters and paladins. The warlord shares a lot of similarities with a leader-build fighter. Combining the two classes gives them both extra flavour and more differentiation from the fighter. 
In addition to the other builds above there might also be a "mount" option, where the class inspires their steed so the two fight as one.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think you might be over-simplifying it a bit, here. Adding a keyword doesn't address the fluff of the Warlord class, or the nature of the magic it wields, and it's also clearly house-rule territory. As always with 4e, refluffing is crazy easy, but it's also just easy enough for someone who isn't a big fan of it not to play 4e (just as it'd be easy for  [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] to not play 5e if they didn't support the kind of warlord he wants to play), and as we've seen over and over in this thread, getting the psychology right is more important than getting the mechanics right, in a lot of cases.




But, I think the psychology thing is dead on.  

Adding an "Arcane" keyword to a warlord makes him a bard that doesn't suck.  We've had years of people not having an issue with bards healing through arcane magic, so, I'm thinking this isn't too much of a stretch.

Do people REALLY need that spelled out for them?  I guess a sidebar would have ended this conversation pretty quickly.  

To be honest, the psychology seems a lot more to do with, "It's in a 4e book, therefore it's bad" than anything else.  The fact that Next healing gets a pass but healing surges are a problem pretty much shows that.





And I think I've made it pretty clear that this is something of an overreaction in my mind. I've already responded to GX.Sigma. But let me illustrate in some more detail to JC here:




> /snip
> I think you're kind of looking at this the wrong way around.
> 
> 4e's assumption was that every combat was a slog-fest to the death, more or less: it was designed to put most characters into at least bloodied in an encounter, so that they needed healing to continue. Healers would then "unlock" your extra HP for you.
> ...




The problem here though is that X encounters are never really dangerous.  X is the number of encounters you can have before you run out of between encounter healing.  What incentive is there to do X+1 encounters?  Only that X+1 encounter is actually threatening in any real sense.  So, we're right back to the 15 minute adventuring day where as soon as your healer is out of healing juice, you stop for the day unless there is some time dependent issue in game (which means that in order to make this work, you need to make virtually every adventure time dependent.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2013)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Adding an "Arcane" keyword to a warlord makes him a bard that doesn't suck. We've had years of people not having an issue with bards healing through arcane magic, so, I'm thinking this isn't too much of a stretch.
> 
> Do people REALLY need that spelled out for them? I guess a sidebar would have ended this conversation pretty quickly.
> 
> To be honest, the psychology seems a lot more to do with, "It's in a 4e book, therefore it's bad" than anything else. The fact that Next healing gets a pass but healing surges are a problem pretty much shows that.




First, I don't think it's as simple as a keyword, as I mentioned above. A keyword or a sidebar aren't going to change the feel of the thing, and this is about the feel of the thing. 

I also don't imagine most folks are as biased as all that. Being close-minded is kind of an exceptional trait. So there's more going on here than ill will. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem here though is that X encounters are never really dangerous. X is the number of encounters you can have before you run out of between encounter healing. What incentive is there to do X+1 encounters? Only that X+1 encounter is actually threatening in any real sense. So, we're right back to the 15 minute adventuring day where as soon as your healer is out of healing juice, you stop for the day unless there is some time dependent issue in game (which means that in order to make this work, you need to make virtually every adventure time dependent.)




Not all encounters are the same difficulty, and whether or not to have encounters is not always entirely in the PC's hands. Even if those things were not true, if healing isn't an essential part of the game, we don't have characters rushing off to rest when you're out of heals.

The challenge comes in determining if you can survive the next encounter, and about knowing when to retreat and when to press on -- the same thing it's always been in D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 19, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> I'm sorry but I digress with this, IMHO Fighters are STR based and Barbarians CON based, no doubt, but Rangers are WIS based, Paladins are CHA based (or even MAD based), and Warlords are ANY based or NONE based. That is part of the cool factor of warlords, they can have almost any stat combo and still be usefull.
> 
> I don't disagree with your ideas on the warlord (except that I think it has to be a class), but the possibilities are way wider:
> 
> ...




Good stuff! And those thinking that somehow making the grid gone makes the Warlord less effective or less iconic just arent getting the possibilities.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 19, 2013)

Warlord Powers....

Warlord Management
All members in a groups that has rested with a Warlord start their day with temp HP equal to 25 percent of their HP Total (so a Fighter with 40 HP would start a new day with 40HP and 10 Temp HP).  These temp HP do not expire but do not stack with themselves. 

"Being a Warlord is all about making the group run better.  It's making sure the Wizard goes to bed and gets enough sleep instead of staying up night studying.  It's making sure the Cleric doesn't annoy everyone with sermons. it's ensuring that the Rouge doesn't steal from the party and making sure the party doesn't kill the rouge when they think he did.  That way, when the fight comes, everyone can focus everything they have on winning."

Watching their Backs
As a swift action, select one enemy and one party member.  The damage that enemy deals to that party member is reduced by 1d6.

"Hey, goblin on your six!  Be ready!"

Grit those teeth!
In place of a regular melee attack, you may instead make an unarmed melee against an ally.  It automatically hits that ally and they take 1d6 damage but gains 3d12 temp HP.  Also, remove any moral penalties/negative effects on that alley.  You may do this a number of times a day equal to your cha modifier.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNU993ijZA


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think it's as simple as a keyword, as I mentioned above. A keyword or a sidebar aren't going to change the feel of the thing, and this is about the feel of the thing.



I'm not sure I follow this. At least as far as warlord healing is concerned, I thought the complaint was that it feels _just like_ clerical healing except for having the Martial rather than the Divine keyword.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2013)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I follow this. At least as far as warlord healing is concerned, I thought the complaint was that it feels just like clerical healing except for having the Martial rather than the Divine keyword.




I think the missing nuance is that the Warlord's not meant to be a magical character. There's a clear and fill-able demand for a non-magical character that can fill the role of a cleric, so adding a magical keyword to it sort of defeats the concept. The conceit that's difficult for many players to accept is inspirational healing. This means that ideas like the Skald's aura work notably better than slapping a magical keyword onto the power -- the idea is to have a warlord who doesn't rely on inspirational healing, rather than turn a non-magical character into a magical character. As I've mentioned in the L&L thread, doing the same thing as a heal might not mean literally restoring hit points, either. 

I think this points out another little nuance, in that I believe a significant chunk of the dislike of inspirational healing is related to the healing surge mechanic, perhaps more so than to the warlord in particular. But that gets deeper down a rabbit-hole than this thread probably wants to go.  For now, lets just say that a better solution than inspirational healing should be possible without making the warlord magical (even if inspirational healing is also an option, for those who don't think it feels very magical).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This means that ideas like the Skald's aura work notably better than slapping a magical keyword onto the power -- the idea is to have a warlord who doesn't rely on inspirational healing, rather than turn a non-magical character into a magical character.



Maybe I'm missing something, but how is the skald's aura radically different?

Flavour text: You chant, sing or otherwise inspire your allies with your words . . .

Effect: You activate an aura 5 that lasts until the end of the encounter. . . you or any ally in the aura can use a minor action to spend a healing surge . . . Alternatively, you or any ally can use a minor action to allow an adjacent
ally to spend a healing surge  . . .​
What's the significant difference between the skald's chanting allowing me to rouse my adjacent ally from unconsicousness, and the warlord's words of encouragement rousing an ally 25 feet away from unconsciousness?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2013)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something, but how is the skald's aura radically different?




I wouldn't call the difference radical (and someone with an issue with healing surges in specific or non-magical healing more broadly is probably still going to have an issue with the skald's healing), but the subtle difference goes quite a long way toward alleviating the problem in that the minor action used by yourself or an ally can be representative of actually performing some sort of quick first-aid. That is, it doesn't have to be inspirational -- it can actually be mending wounds (at least as much as spending a surge during a short rest is mending wounds), at least simply (aided, of course, by your party's Elan singing "Stop, stop, stop the blood! Stop from dying noooow!"). 

I understand that the distinction is fairly minor, mechanically, but that's the whole "psychology!" mantra I've been on about. Something as simple as requiring someone to spend a minor action and be adjacent to the target to be healed can go *miles* in the direction of making it more palatable for some folks. Not the full way, or for 100% of everybody, but it's quite a lot of bang for your fairly cosmetic buck.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2013)

From Twitter: 

@_*Slate*_field
#dndnext Very concerned about @_*MikeM*_earls assertion that Cleric healing is required in a party, or at least unthinkable to be without.



@_*MikeM*_earls 
@_*Slate*_field Sorry if this isn't clear in the article - other classes can heal, too. Cleric is just the healer in the basic game.


‏@GX_Sigma 
@_*MikeM*_earls @_*Slate*_field But every party will need a healer of some kind?


@_*MikeM*_earls
@GX_Sigma @_*Slate*_field Only if you want it that way - you can include HD or such if no one wants to play a cleric/druid/bard etc.


@_*sleypy*_
 @_*MikeM*_earls @GX_Sigma @_*Slate*_field Does warlord fall under etc?

@_*MikeM*_earls 
@_*sleypy*_ @GX_Sigma @_*Slate*_field Warlord is looking like it will deal more in damage mitigation/prevention via defensive maneuvers.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 20, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> @_*MikeM*_earls
> @_*sleypy*_ @GX_Sigma @_*Slate*_field Warlord is looking like it will deal more in damage mitigation/prevention via defensive maneuvers.




I can already hear the screams of rage if a Warlord is able to reduce damage inflicted by magic, able to make multiple reactions so that an attack that affects multiple targets can have all the damage mitigated, and work at all ranges or on unwilling targets. Also, once your hit points have been reduced the Warlord is as useful to you as a chocolate teapot.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 20, 2013)

Disappointing. They should have at least made it an *option*. I thought Next was supposed to be all about *options*. Oh well, I have the *option* to keep doing what works for me already. I have the *option* to not support Next.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 20, 2013)

Yeah, I'll be looking to see what options there are... 


Rightly or wrongly, I'm still judging Core in the context of an OSR game, and I wouldn't expect an OSR game to have anything but cleric healing. It's Standard/Advanced I'm looking at. 

-O


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 20, 2013)

Bluenose said:


> I can already hear the screams of rage if a Warlord is able to reduce damage inflicted by magic, able to make multiple reactions so that an attack that affects multiple targets can have all the damage mitigated, and work at all ranges or on unwilling targets. Also, once your hit points have been reduced the Warlord is as useful to you as a chocolate teapot.




I dont consider it an issue. Personally not a fan of the warlord, but i also get that they are walking a fine line. If warlords make it into core I will just ignore them but it wont infuriate me. I think enough people feel strongly enough about the warlord either way that having a pro or con warlord discussion prior to play will be pretty typical.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 20, 2013)

As someone who thinks the "HP can only be healed by magic, screamhealing is breaking my immersion" argument is ridiculous and at best, tunnel vision (there are a great many things in 3E that make, far, FAR less sense); I'd actually want to take away HP healing from warlords just because that way, they don't become flat out scarier than the cleric.  

I like the idea of making them enablers / defenders, so where as a cleric might patch you up from that fireball, the warlord tells you to get the hell out of its' way.  

I would not judge WotC's plans with healing & warlords with much certainty; they are very much in the "well, we sort of think we have a plan, but we have no idea whether we'll like it or not till we actually play with it."


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 21, 2013)

For me to even consider buying D&D Next, the Warlord class would have to be:

1. Extant. It's my favorite class in all of D&D, and its inclusion or exclusion makes a statement about whether my interests are remotely connected to what Next is trying to achieve.
2. Potentially a purely martial character. I don't care if the Warlord has magical options, but it must be possible to play one from level 1 to level (wherever the level cap is) without taking a single magical option.
3. A full cleric replacement. A party with a Cleric and an otherwise identical party with a Warlord must be approximately equally effective at adventuring.

That doesn't have to mean healing, but balancing a non-healing Support role is exceedingly difficult, and the kind of person who objects to Warlord healing will almost certainly object to the _huge_ numbers any healing-equal damage mitigation would have to involve. A 1st level damage mitigation Warlord needs to be handing out around 30 points of temporary hit points to equal a Cleric (and even then he can't function in panic mode), and that scales, _hard_.

Of course, explicit or implicit acknowledgement in the rules that hit points = physical damage is, itself, an instant no-sell for me. I can't contextualize a world in which that's the case, and it violates what HP have been declared to be since OD&D. If that's in the game then the game is not one I'll purchase.

EDIT: I take it back, the earliest case where I _know_ HP are defined is in AD&D:



			
				AD&D DMG pg. 82 said:
			
		

> It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 22, 2013)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> For me to even consider buying D&D Next, the Warlord class would have to be:
> 
> 1. Extant. It's my favorite class in all of D&D, and its inclusion or exclusion makes a statement about whether my interests are remotely connected to what Next is trying to achieve.
> 2. Potentially a purely martial character. I don't care if the Warlord has magical options, but it must be possible to play one from level 1 to level (wherever the level cap is) without taking a single magical option.
> ...




I remember making similar computations about thp... I dont recall my exact numbers but it was spooky enough to start my head shaking... similarly when I figured out the number and nature of battlefield mobility improvements required to get even close to what a basic flight spell provided.


----------



## Libramarian (Feb 22, 2013)

> Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the  actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as  indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such  areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the  "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen  events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections  and/or divine protection.



Where does the Warlord's healing fit into this? The sixth sense part? HP as morale is not part of this definition.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 22, 2013)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> That doesn't have to mean healing, but balancing a non-healing Support role is exceedingly difficult, and the kind of person who objects to Warlord healing will almost certainly object to the _huge_ numbers any healing-equal damage mitigation would have to involve. A 1st level damage mitigation Warlord needs to be handing out around 30 points of temporary hit points to equal a Cleric (and even then he can't function in panic mode), and that scales, _hard_.




Given the other thread....I'm thinking healing in D&D needs to be changed and drastically reduced.



MoogleEmpMog said:


> Of course, explicit or implicit acknowledgement in the rules that hit points = physical damage is, itself, an instant no-sell for me.




I've felt similarly for a long time. The HP system only works as an abstraction...abstractly. It seems to generate lots of problems down the line (problems which are usually blamed on the other rules HP is interacting with, rather that HP themselves.)


----------



## Obryn (Feb 22, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> Where does the Warlord's healing fit into this? The sixth sense part? HP as morale is not part of this definition.



Do you think that list was intended to be exhaustive? Never mind the silliness inherent in Gygaxian DMG Fundamentalism, it's saying "such as." As in, there's other stuff, too. 

-O


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 22, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> Where does the Warlord's healing fit into this? The sixth sense part? HP as morale is not part of this definition.




I would generally fit it under "skill in combat and similar life and death situations," but that reflects my preferring Int-based to Cha-based Warlords. Morale was a separate set of rules in AD&D.

The important thing is that HP do not equal physical resilience.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 22, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> I've felt similarly for a long time. The HP system only works as an abstraction...abstractly. It seems to generate lots of problems down the line (problems which are usually blamed on the other rules HP is interacting with, rather that HP themselves.)




See, I don't agree with this at all. What's wrong with HP as Gygax described them in the 1e DMG? They represent a grab bag of things that set PCs apart, they represent the toughness of huge beasts, they represent the supernatural vitality and sheer _presence_ of powerful demons - it's the fact that they _don't_ mean any one thing that makes them so great!


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 22, 2013)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> See, I don't agree with this at all. What's wrong with HP as Gygax described them in the 1e DMG?




Seriously? I'm so stunned.... I mean, are you trolling me?

Schrodinger's Wounds.
 Tougher people (in most incarnations) take longer to heal.
Non-combat injuries. (The barbarian dropped from orbit.)
Save or Die effects get higher-value.  
Traditional healing spells make no narrative sense.
I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. OMG! I'm dying! Help! Help!

... and I'm sure there's more that I'm missing in my currently shocked state.

I mean, a cursory search will reveal the multitude of HPs problems (and related arguments) stretching back to the game's beginning. And no, "You're all doing it wrong, they're _abstract._" doesn't make it any better, because many of the narrative problems are _because_ you can't tell what any given "hit" did. They are (along with alignment) among the worst mistakes in the original game, period. For crying out loud, they're descended from rules for ironclad ships! Maybe I'm being too harsh. Y'know, for a very gamist game, where your character is just your pawn as you try to make it through an FFV dungeon, the "energy bar" of HP above everyone's heads makes some sense. However, the game evolved (for most of us, most of the time, I would say) beyond that even before I started playing 30 some years ago.

All that said, I'm not an advocate for adding a zillion fiddly bits to combat and injury. I don't need a stack of charts to determine hit-location, etc. I'm perfectly happy with a system where HP represent the quasi-mystical ability to not take a significant wound in combat, a combination of endurance, will, and skill. Then trigger an injury mechanic when you lose your last one (with death as a possibility). Then we can say "You have a <light/serious/critical/mortal> wound, and <take a penalty\limits of some kind> until it is healed." Assassinations and non-combat injuries, can bypass your hitpoints and just go straight to the injury mechanics. Medusae, and many other SoD effects could simply deal damage and carry override exceptions to the injury table (which makes getting a sneak attack from her even worse). The warlord _isn't_ shouting wounds closed, he's just boosting up your Will=HP. You can't confuse his abilities with that, because _heal_ing magic would actually remove i.e. _heal _the wounds, not just replenish your energy bar. 

Okay, must stop ranting....


----------



## Libramarian (Feb 22, 2013)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> I would generally fit it under "skill in combat and similar life and death situations," but that reflects my preferring Int-based to Cha-based Warlords. Morale was a separate set of rules in AD&D.
> 
> The important thing is that HP do not equal physical resilience.




I don't think anybody actually thinks that though. I have never seen anyone narrate 3 points of damage from a dagger to a 56hp character in the same way that they would narrate the same damage to a 2hp character.

I don't like morale to be mixed in with HP because I prefer to use a separate system for it.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 22, 2013)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> That doesn't have to mean healing, but balancing a non-healing Support role is exceedingly difficult



Honest question.  I've seen this statement before, but I'm not exactly sure if or why it's true.  What is the difference between, say, a Cleric using a spell, either on their turn or between encounters, that heals, say, 1d8 of damage and a Warlord using a reaction to mitigate 1d8 of damage?


----------



## Obryn (Feb 22, 2013)

Iosue said:


> Honest question.  I've seen this statement before, but I'm not exactly sure if or why it's true.  What is the difference between, say, a Cleric using a spell, either on their turn or between encounters, that heals, say, 1d8 of damage and a Warlord using a reaction to mitigate 1d8 of damage?



Generally, damage mitigation needs to be much more potent than healing for it to keep up. There are a few factors to this... Healing (1) Can bring someone back from unconsciousness and stabilize the dying, (2) is precise; you're unlikely to waste extra points, (3) Can be done after the damage is taken, and (4) stacks with other regained hit points if one heal is not enough. Oh, and (5) it can be used in downtime. 

Mitigation can have perks, too, but its best use is as an accessory to healing instead of an outright replacement. 

In your warlord example above, (1) You may waste points, (2) You need to be in range when the damage is dealt, and (3) You may have action economy limitations. On the upside, though, it could stop someone from going unconscious and may save an action on your turn, depending on how it's implemented. 

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 22, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> I have never seen anyone narrate 3 points of damage from a dagger to a 56hp character in the same way that they would narrate the same damage to a 2hp character.




And that is because people naturally think in terms of proportionate damage its why that heal light wounds that brings my low level character from dying to near full health but barely touches the higher level characters status and so on -  seems weird.

Proportionate healing another coolness from 4e thrown in the dust-bin.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 22, 2013)

Iosue said:


> Well, I have to think that preventing a player from going unconscious/dying is at least as valuable as standing them back up, particularly since going down and getting stood up is going to take a character out of the action for at least a little bit, while preventing that from happening can allow the player to stay in the game, do some damage, or find a more advantageous spot.  As for stacking it seems to me that healing 8 hp and healing 12 hp is pretty much the same effect as healing 8 hp and mitigating 12 hp.  It still adds up to 20 hp worth damage mitigated.  But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?



The last part was addressed above - when you mitigate, you're wasting points more often because in effect you can heal, at maximum, the damage from a single attack. 

As for not dropping.... The circumstances where it's better to mitigate are rather more rare. You need (1) to have someone go from good to really bad where healing beforehand was not possible, and (2) mitigate enough to make a difference and cause them not to drop. If those work out and you're in range, it's good... Still not as good as being healed reactively, though.

As I've said - it's an advantage, but it's situational and tricky to arrange. Whereas healing is much more of a sure thing. 

-O


----------



## Obryn (Feb 22, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> Of course, I would guess you could balance that out, mathemagically.



Yep, which is why I'm saying it would need to be better in some way to keep pace. Like usable more often, or adding extra thp or something like that. 

It's tricky though. 

-O


----------



## MarkB (Feb 22, 2013)

The advantage of having healing surges in the game was that you _could_ characterise hit point damage as 'meat' damage and still allow inspirational healing, because surge-healing a person up to full hit points no longer meant restoring them to full health.

Healing surges became another axis of character health, with hit point loss representing wounds that were of immediate concern, and surge loss representing those wounds being treated via (mundane or magical) first aid so that they could be dealt with properly later.

I've grown to like the healing surge system a lot over the course of playing 4e, both game-mechanically and narratively, and I'll be sad to see it go.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 22, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Generally, damage mitigation needs to be much more potent than healing for it to keep up. There are a few factors to this... Healing (1) Can bring someone back from unconsciousness and stabilize the dying, (2) is precise; you're unlikely to waste extra points, (3) Can be done after the damage is taken, and (4) stacks with other regained hit points if one heal is not enough. Oh, and (5) it can be used in downtime.
> 
> Mitigation can have perks, too, but its best use is as an accessory to healing instead of an outright replacement.
> 
> ...



Well, I have to think that preventing a player from going unconscious/dying is at least as valuable as standing them back up, particularly since going down and getting stood up is going to take a character out of the action for at least a little bit, while preventing that from happening can allow the player to stay in the game, do some damage, or find a more advantageous spot.  As for stacking it seems to me that healing 8 hp and healing 12 hp is pretty much the same effect as healing 8 hp and mitigating 12 hp.  It still adds up to 20 hp worth damage mitigated.  But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 22, 2013)

Iosue said:


> But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?




Because if you're down 30hp, I can hit you with Cure Serious, and know for sure that I won't "lose" any by going past your Max HP. Since you are just as good either way, I don't have to actually push your HP to the max.  However, if you're about to take some damage, and I need to keep you up...its much better for me to err on the side of caution and use an ability that will prevent _more_ damage than you will take. So I might use a 2d8 +2 prevention ability to stop a hit that I expect to cause 7 points. (Maybe even a bigger ability, if I _really_ need you up.)

Of course, I would guess you could balance that out, mathemagically.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 22, 2013)

Obryn said:


> Yep, which is why I'm saying it would need to be better in some way to keep pace. Like usable more often, or adding extra thp or something like that.
> 
> It's tricky though.
> 
> -O




Tricky indeed, many variables, some ill-defined. AFAICT, the best way would be to playtest the rules repeatedly...oh wait.


----------



## Libramarian (Feb 23, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> And that is because people naturally think in terms of proportionate damage its why that heal light wounds that brings my low level character from dying to near full health but barely touches the higher level characters status and so on -  seems weird.
> 
> Proportionate healing another coolness from 4e thrown in the dust-bin.




I don't think of it fully proportionately. I don't narrate 56 points of damage to a 56hp character the same way as 2 points of damage to a 2hp character.

I think of high hp characters like good boxers. They're good at defense so you have to wear them down with some body shots before you have a chance at a haymaker. Low hp characters have no defense so they can go from fine to dead in one hit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 23, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> And that is because people naturally think in terms of proportionate damage its why that heal light wounds that brings my low level character from dying to near full health but barely touches the higher level characters status and so on -  seems weird.
> 
> Proportionate healing another coolness from 4e thrown in the dust-bin.




I could do with some proportionate healing if it were simple. Anything that involves healing percentages I would rather not deal with, but something like the HD mechanic (provided it isn't a self heal system) I would be on board for. Maybe the first heal spell, you roll half the target's Hit Dice to see how much they heal. The second could be you roll their Hit Dice to see how much they heal. The third you roll double their HD (though the potential overflow might annoy some people). The fourth brings them back to full automatically. You could mix it up even more and key the die you roll to the spell instead. So heal one you roll 1d4 per HD of the target, heal two you roll 1d6 per HD of the target, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> I don't think of it fully proportionately. I don't narrate 56 points of damage to a 56hp character the same way as 2 points of damage to a 2hp character.
> 
> I think of high hp characters like good boxers. They're good at defense so you have to wear them down with some body shots before you have a chance at a haymaker. Low hp characters have no defense so they can go from fine to dead in one hit.




I think the question becomes, why not?  Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?  

I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same?  The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?

I agree that we have likely all done something similar, but, that doesn't really make it right.  After all, I think we all agree that the 56 HP guy isn't actually physically different from the 2 HP guy.  You can't look at either one and know that one is able to take more HP damage than the other.  There's no little floating bar of HP above their heads.

So, why do we narrate them differently?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 24, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I think the question becomes, why not?  Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?
> 
> I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same?  The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?
> 
> ...



I think maybe player pride? That is, the 56 damage attack will outright kill most commoners, animals, and low level PCs/NPCs, regardless of your take on what hit points represent. It's a very powerful attack, obviously. An attack that did 2 damage obviously has a "low" potential, so it's harder to call (it's probably not 1d20 or 1d100 being rolled, it's probably more like 1d4 or 1d6). With that in mind, a lot of those same commoners, animals, and low level PCs/NPCs can or almost certainly will survive the hit, it means the attack is less powerful.

So, when the PC survives (or barely falls to? I know 0 HP in older editions can be hazy) the very powerful attack, then you narrate them doing their best to avoid the damage, taking more than most could, or the like, as a sort of "narrative" reward for earning their "high level" status. Whereas, if they go down to that 2 HP damage attack, and you know it's an attack that many level 1s would shrug off, you describe it in the more "nicked and falls over" way (though maybe not that extreme).

I don't know. Just a thought on why it might be that way. It's an interesting question, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## Libramarian (Feb 25, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I think the question becomes, why not?  Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?
> 
> I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same?  The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?
> 
> ...




To give objectivity to the damage roll.

Interestingly, Moldvay Basic assumes that the DM rolls damage for both the monsters and the players behind the screen, perhaps to make it easier for them to relativize their damage narration to the HP of the target, but I've never heard of any DMs actually doing that.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 25, 2013)

Oh you got a scratch and fell unconscious is not a cool at low level.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 25, 2013)

And here's the death knell for the hopes of fans of the 4e Warlord:


			
				Mearls via twitter said:
			
		

> "Some people asked about the warlord - the class  deserves an L&L of its own, along with an update on classes in  general. Long and short of it is that there should be a  tactical/commander guy in  the game, but it might not have healing and  might be a type of ftr. And when I say healing, think of it in terms of  use X to give back hit  points. There are other ways to mitigate damage  or keep PCs going."




And this is pretty much, as others have stated, the canary in the coalmine for many of us. Next is a non-starter before it even launched.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2013)

I really have to wonder why the warlord is getting thrown under the bus.  Looking at 5e's mechanics, adding in a warlord seems pretty simple.  Using the Fighter's Combat Superiority mechanics for granting other actions and a bit of healing seems a no-brainer to me.  Hrm, spend a die, ally gains that many HP.  Done.  For those who don't want to use it, just don't use the class.

Not impressed with this.


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 26, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I really have to wonder why the warlord is getting thrown under the bus.  Looking at 5e's mechanics, adding in a warlord seems pretty simple.  Using the Fighter's Combat Superiority mechanics for granting other actions and a bit of healing seems a no-brainer to me.  Hrm, spend a die, ally gains that many HP.  Done.  For those who don't want to use it, just don't use the class.
> 
> Not impressed with this.




What makes you think they are throwing the warlord under the bus? 

Warder


----------



## fendak (Feb 26, 2013)

I think making it a specialty fits nicely. although, I'm sure it would work as a class. I just don't feel like it embodies where D&D Next is going.


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 26, 2013)

fendak said:


> I think making it a specialty fit nicely




Exactly what I said on the first comment in the thread.

Warder


----------



## fendak (Feb 26, 2013)

Blackwarder said:


> Exactly what I said on the first comment in the thread.
> 
> Warder




Oh I apologize, I actually meant to quote you but I'm a newb. Full credit to you for the idea


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 26, 2013)

fendak said:


> Oh I apologize, I actually meant to quote you but I'm a newb. Full credit to you for the idea




I wasn't complaining mate  welcome to the forums!

Warder


----------



## Obryn (Feb 26, 2013)

Blackwarder said:


> What makes you think they are throwing the warlord under the bus?
> 
> Warder



If it's a specialty, that's pretty much throwing it under the bus, imo. 

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 26, 2013)

fendak said:


> I think making it a specialty fits nicely. although, I'm sure it would work as a class. I just don't feel like it embodies where D&D Next is going.




And that's fine. Many of us disagree, and therefore don't feel like Next embodies where we are going with D&D.



Obryn said:


> If it's a specialty, that's pretty much throwing it under the bus, imo.
> 
> -O



Yep, pretty much.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 26, 2013)

The Warlord is far, far, far too tactically and thematically deep to reproduce at the specialty level.  What's more, I'm uncertain if the load-bearing power of feats can passably produce the potency of Warlord features.  They would be neutered to the point of being pretty close to unrecognizable.  I've had that concern about a lot of things that feats are supposed to reproduce.  They just don't have the payload to reliably bring to bear certain class features of the past.  I would like to see feats be much stronger than they are but, of course, then you run into trouble with the game at the Basic level of play.  But hey, this was the design framework they went for so they have to live with the consequences of that decision.  Fitting all the disparate puzzle pieces together is a 2nd and 3rd order effect, chainsaw-juggling, circus sideshow.  I hope they maxed their Dexterity!

What's more, you run into the same problem where you're embedding (at least attempting to) former class features into extra-class resources (backgrounds and feats).  It disallows people who want to play a warlord and then customize their character via feats to support that style of play.  If the multi-classing rules are considerably open and the PC build tools considerably deep such that class-feature poaching is relatively easy, then this could work.  But I'd have to see that be actually functional, and not Frankenstein-like and unwieldy at the table, before I give it a stamp of approval.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 26, 2013)

Hussar said:


> To be honest, the psychology seems a lot more to do with, "It's in a 4e book, therefore it's bad" than anything else.  The fact that Next healing gets a pass but healing surges are a problem pretty much shows that.




See, I see plenty of "4e did it right! 5e must do it exactly as 4e did or I won't play." at least in this thread. ::shrug::

I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem? is that really "throwing the Warlord under the bus"? I don't think so. Its just repurposing or reassigning the various parts of 4e warlord and, as a side effect, giving you more options.

And just so folks don't think I'm taking edition war sides. I feel the same way about old-school proponents of Assassins (when that comes up) and Barbarians of any school. To me, its about creating the character's thematic archetype, whether that's from a class or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Dragoslav (Feb 26, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem? is that really "throwing the Warlord under the bus"? I don't think so. Its just repurposing or reassigning the various parts of 4e warlord and, as a side effect, giving you more options.



You have fewer options if you want to play a Warlord, though. Your option is: Play a Fighter and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 26, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> See, I see plenty of "4e did it right! 5e must do it exactly as 4e did or I won't play." at least in this thread. ::shrug::



In the singular case of the warlord, I think 4e did do it right.  It didn't do *everything* right, but in this specific example... 

I do think the concept merits a class, not a specialty. And the existence and/or quality will influence my opinion about the game. I know it won't be in Core, but it is - like I said - a keyhole into the game's design philosophy and will drive whether or not I buy any further. 

I'm not seeing how any of this is crazy, so...


----------



## D'karr (Feb 26, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> I mean, if you could play an effective warlord, but "Warlord" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Warlord class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?




You could play an effective druid, but "Druid" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Druid class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?

If that is the "tack" to take, then you could make that assertion of almost any class.

The problem, as I see it, is that a specialty/theme are not complete/robust enough to encompass all the nuances of a class.  You use a specialty or theme to tailor and "sprinkle" small details to an existing class.  A class has a lot of load bearing to do, and warlord is a "thick" class with a lot of features not easily dumped on a specialty/theme.


----------



## sheadunne (Feb 26, 2013)

I like the warlord but always felt its abilities belonged under the paladin, at least in my view of the paladin. However I also think the paladin belongs under a knight class. Any which way it shapes up, I like the abilities and don't want to lose the melee support archetype. With the exception of healing which I'm a strong proponent of belonging with the cleric. Temp HP is fine though. Shrug.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like


----------



## Obryn (Feb 26, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like



For the record, this would satisfy me completely as well.  I don't need healing to be the default, just an option.

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 26, 2013)

Obryn said:


> For the record, this would satisfy me completely as well.  I don't need healing to be the default, just an option.
> 
> -O




Agreed. Particularly if you can do both, depending on your build choices. Unfortunately, Mearls' tweet doesn't indicate that they're heading in that direction. This is both confusing and saddening, since I thought Next was supposed to be _*all about*_ the Options, but it looks like that's true only insofar as those options don't irritate the militant traditionalist crowd.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm definitely in favor of Warlord being its only class, but I do support it mitigating damage as an option. If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class. As always, play what you like




Gonna chime in with a "Me three" post.  

I have no problems with martial healing being an option, so long as it actually IS an option.  

I don't even have a problem with a warlord being a subclass of paladin or knight.  In fact, knight isn't a bad name for warlord IMO.  I realize that not all knights were leaders, but, it does fit the archetype rather well.  And probably carries far less baggage for some people than warlord.

But, yeah, if a class is being broken up and then bits fed to the background/feat/whatever sections, that's pretty much throwing the class under the bus.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 26, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Gonna chime in with a "Me three" post.



Well aren't I popular with Warlord players?


Hussar said:


> I don't even have a problem with a warlord being a subclass of paladin or knight.  In fact, knight isn't a bad name for warlord IMO.  I realize that not all knights were leaders, but, it does fit the archetype rather well.  And probably carries far less baggage for some people than warlord.



Yeah, knights were generally trained in tactics, both large and small scale, so I wouldn't mind it having the name knight. I'm okay with the name Warlord getting in due to the name from 4e, though.


Hussar said:


> But, yeah, if a class is being broken up and then bits fed to the background/feat/whatever sections, that's pretty much throwing the class under the bus.



I totally agree. This is what I think of Paladin being disassembled (Fighter / Cleric, or Fighter + Specialty or whatever), or Monk being Fighter + Theme. It's not at all the same. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2013)

Now, just to jump the fence a bit, I don't think all classes are equal.  Not every class actually needs to be a full "class".  Assassin leaps to mind here.  An assassin isn't really a class IMO, simply because it lacks the depth needed for a full class.  It's a rogue/thief with a death attack.  At least, that's the 1st edition version of Assassin.  Do we really need an entire class for this?  Not IMO.

OTOH, I can see a ninja class separate from rogue.  Ninja combines too many elements, both mundane and magical to really be a good fit for either a rogue with benefits or monk with benefits.  So, I can see Ninja (at least the 3e Ninja) being its own class.

It's all about how much depth a given class has.  It would be extremely difficult to recreate a warlord's functions using feats.  I mean, even a low level warlord (say 5th level) is granting actions pretty much every single round he acts.  That's not possible using the feat/background system.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2013)

sheadunne said:


> I like the warlord but always felt its abilities belonged under the paladin, at least in my view of the paladin.



I think the CHA warlord in particular has a reasonable degree of thematic overlap with the paladin.

But my concern with the warlord in D&Dnext is a bit of a different one.

In 4e, the warlord, and especially the granting of actions, is fairly tightly integrated into a rich action economy which uses multiple "points of entry" to signal the effectiveness of encounter powers:

* Bonus damage dice;

* Bonus effects;

* Bonus actions - immediate actions, minor actions, or free actions for your friends.

The warlord's ability to grant actions is tightly bound up in this situation.

D&Dnext, though, doesn't really have the encounter power as a concept, so it's harder to see where it has space for warlord-style bonus actions, other than either the at-will version ("You attack instead of me") or the lending-damage-dice-to-my-friends version.

I therefore have some sympathy for Mearls, insofar as the mechancial simplicity of his system seems to leave little space for a class like the warlord, that expresses its theme by leveraging 4e's mechanical sophistication.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 27, 2013)

Personally, I'd really like to have a healing class option other than Cleric.

I also like having an inspiring/charismatic fighter type which isn't bound to being a paladin.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 27, 2013)

I just wanted to chime in to say that, upon reflection, renaming the warlord to "knight" makes a tremendous amount of sense. The warlord name always felt awkward to me, and previous knight classes have been too narrow and lacking. Merging the two feels more robust, be creating a leader-warrior skilled in arms, tactics, and strategy.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2013)

Heh, Johnny3D3D - For as much as people complain about the term warlord, is there another class with as much baggage as a paladin?


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 27, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I just wanted to chime in to say that, upon reflection, renaming the warlord to "knight" makes a tremendous amount of sense. The warlord name always felt awkward to me, and previous knight classes have been too narrow and lacking. Merging the two feels more robust, be creating a leader-warrior skilled in arms, tactics, and strategy.




I'm conflicted: I do agree with this sentiment, but the specifics leave me gasping for air -- just refer to Henry V, with their 500 French knights newly-created that day at Agincourt. 

_Any-danged-body_ can be a knight if the monarch says so; but being a real warlord and "leader of others" takes certain qualifications that are not possessed by some of the people who are thrust into such leadership roles. 

Personally, I think the D&D 5E Next packets already have it right: a "Knight" is a Background. 

Let's leave it at that, and find a better name for the "full class" version of the Warlord that hasn't made it into the 5E "Advanced" ruleset yet.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 27, 2013)

tuxgeo said:


> I'm conflicted: I do agree with this sentiment, but the specifics leave me gasping for air -- just refer to Henry V, with their 500 French knights newly-created that day at Agincourt.
> 
> _Any-danged-body_ can be a knight if the monarch says so; but being a real warlord and "leader of others" takes certain qualifications that are not possessed by some of the people who are thrust into such leadership roles.
> 
> ...




I considered that, but ultimately it's no different than the cleric, druid, or ranger in that respect. While you don't necessarily have to fit the archetype to be given the title, the title very much is intended to evoke the archetype. Traditionally, what it meant to be a knight fits rather well with what the warlord is mechanically.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Personally, I'd really like to have a healing class option other than Cleric.
> 
> I also like having an inspiring/charismatic fighter type which isn't bound to being a paladin.



Sure. What's interesting to consider is how far you can achieve this with a class that is mechanically similar but thematically different:

* the paladin serves a god, calls for a warhorse, and heals by saintly touch;

* the warlord serves a mortal liege (or perhaps no one), earns/tames a warhorse, and heals by inspiration.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2013)

On alternative names, I still favour "captain" because that is the word Tolkien uses.

But personally I don't see that the name needs to be changed. "Warlord" has traction.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 27, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I just wanted to chime in to say that, upon reflection, renaming the warlord to "knight" makes a tremendous amount of sense. The warlord name always felt awkward to me, and previous knight classes have been too narrow and lacking. Merging the two feels more robust, be creating a leader-warrior skilled in arms, tactics, and strategy.




I'd prefer Noble, which has traction as a "leader"-type class in Star Wars RPGs and doesn't come with the same cultural baggage that you get with Knight. Plus it has a wider range of possible class options, ranging from warrior-aristocracy to more courtly types with limited combat skills. 

Someone needs to remind Rodney Thompson about it.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Sure. What's interesting to consider is how far you can achieve this with a class that is mechanically similar but thematically different:
> 
> * the paladin serves a god, calls for a warhorse, and heals by saintly touch;
> 
> * the warlord serves a mortal liege (or perhaps no one), earns/tames a warhorse, and heals by inspiration.




Warlords create Paladin that serve them...


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 27, 2013)

Bluenose said:


> I'd prefer Noble, which has traction as a "leader"-type class in Star Wars RPGs and doesn't come with the same cultural baggage that you get with Knight. Plus it has a wider range of possible class options, ranging from warrior-aristocracy to more courtly types with limited combat skills.




Hmmm like my princess build warlord.


----------



## sheadunne (Feb 27, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I think the CHA warlord in particular has a reasonable degree of thematic overlap with the paladin.
> 
> But my concern with the warlord in D&Dnext is a bit of a different one.
> 
> ...




Thematically, I don't think the warlord plays well if it has to give up its own actions. Unlike say the cleric, where I don't like healing as a rider, I don't have that same issue with the warlord providing bonus as a secondary effect of their attack. Perhaps similar to 3x TOB Crusader with HP being given out on a successful hit, or recharging another character's dice on a successful hit, or granting a move action when the warlord charges. I don't seen the warlord as a stand back and let others fight, I see him as a charge in and inspire others with your own actions. Leading the charge so to speak. 

That said, it does work better I think in the AEDU system. I have never been a fan of the 3x attempt to do similar things with the Marshall and Crusader.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2013)

Dragoslav said:


> You have fewer options if you want to play a Warlord, though. Your option is: Play a Fighter and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.




Or play a Rogue and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
Or play a Wizard and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
Or play a Cleric and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats. 
Or play a Paladin and spend all your character resources taking the "Warlordy" feats.
etc.
Then multiply each of those by the number of backgrounds...you wouldn't be starved for choices.

It works either way. Option-wise, there isn't really a big advantage or disadvantage to putting such things in one category or another. (There can be, mathematically, if one category has significantly fewer options than the other.)

In this case, I feel like D&D has suffered from a proliferation of fiddly-bits in characters over (at least) the last 2.5 editions. _Some _of whatever composed <class X> in 4e or 3e must get shifted into the theme or background area, or we've just added even more complexity. We are well-past the point of diminished returns in that dimension.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2013)

D'karr said:


> You could play an effective druid, but "Druid" doesn't happen to be a class, or if the Druid class doesn't include healing which is in a "healer" specialty instead...is that really a problem?




Not to me. Not at all, AFAICT. I'm not sure why some people seem to feel that its some kind of insult if their character concept isn't a class, but is instead a combo. (There may be solid mechanical reasons for doing one or the other, but few people seem to be arguing that in these kinds of threads.)



D'karr said:


> If that is the "tack" to take, then you could make that assertion of almost any class.




Probably not the "core 4" (or at least the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue), they seem to form the foundation for all the other classes. I think we should examine it for just about any other classes. It might even lead to new ways of imagining or mechanically presenting those character concepts.



D'karr said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that a specialty/theme are not complete/robust enough to encompass all the nuances of a class.  You use a specialty or theme to tailor and "sprinkle" small details to an existing class.  A class has a lot of load bearing to do, and warlord is a "thick" class with a lot of features not easily dumped on a specialty/theme.




It seems to me that specialties (I did prefer "theme" ::sigh: are a bit heavier than feats were in the WotC editions. They carry a bit more weight. I agree that class has a lot of load-bearing to do, but with Backgrounds and Specialties its a lot less load than previously. My gut feeling at this point is that Warlord should be a martial class that uses its combat dice (or whatever they are called) to grant all the fancy maneuver stuff. Leave the healing in a specialty, then folks that hate it can leave it out.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, yeah, if a class is being broken up and then bits fed to the background/feat/whatever sections, that's pretty much throwing the class under the bus.




I don't think so. Could you tell me more? I mean, to me, if the character concept is still viable and supported, what difference does it make? What is so magical about "its a class?" I personally don't care if Druid is a subtype of Cleric, Assassin is a subtype of Rogue, Barbarian\Ranger\Cavalier is a subtype of fighter? If, at the end of chargen process, I've got a thing that is functionally equivalent, what's the difference?


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Now, just to jump the fence a bit, I don't think all classes are equal.  Not every class actually needs to be a full "class".  Assassin leaps to mind here.  An assassin isn't really a class IMO, simply because it lacks the depth needed for a full class.  It's a rogue/thief with a death attack.  At least, that's the 1st edition version of Assassin.  Do we really need an entire class for this?  Not IMO.




I tend to agree.



Hussar said:


> OTOH, I can see a ninja class separate from rogue.  Ninja combines too many elements, both mundane and magical to really be a good fit for either a rogue with benefits or monk with benefits.  So, I can see Ninja (at least the 3e Ninja) being its own class.




ermm...seems more like a specialized "scheme" to me. Although it probably depends on whose version of "Ninja" you're shooting for.



Hussar said:


> It's all about how much depth a given class has.  It would be extremely difficult to recreate a warlord's functions using feats.  I mean, even a low level warlord (say 5th level) is granting actions pretty much every single round he acts.  That's not possible using the feat/background system.




I would say a few things: First, I think that a Warlord class makes some sense to allow use of the "combat dice" for Warlordy maneuvers, but that those maneuvers might look very different under 5e (i.e. maybe they don't grant extra actions as much.) That's simply because the 5e Warlord is in a different rules environment than the 4e Warlord, not because anything was particularly wrong with the 4e Warlord. Secondly, specialties are carrying more weight than feats of previous editions. I mean probably half the Fighter/Thieves I've seen would be happily represented in the playtest by a Fighter with the Skulker or Ambusher specialties. In such a setup, moving some of an old class's functions into a portable specialty makes some sense. (For the Warlord, I would suggest the healing.)


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 27, 2013)

Whether the warlord should be a class, specialty, or part of another class really depends on how deep the mechanics need to be to express the concept. And at this point, I think that's the direction this conversation should turn.



What is the warlord's concept? 
What does he do (without mentioning mechanics)? 
How might that be expressed within the constructs of D&D Next? 

My Answers:



I see the warlord as a warrior who, while skilled at arms, focuses on leadership and support. He may fight from the front, but some of his focus must always be on the battle as a whole. Outside of combat, the warlord is still a leader, driven toward goals both personal and for those he leads and serves. 
The warlord fights with weapons, inspires allies, keeps aware of the fight, and issues commands.  Commands, if followed, augment the abilities of allies or provide new opportunities. 
Just as the fighter is "martial skill + maneuvers", the warlord is "martial skill + commands". For balance purposes, commands should be equal to maneuvers.*

Inspiration:* as a concept, this is a lot like rage, and should follow similar mechanics. Advantage on some specific action, bonuses on more general actions, and/or resistance to damage.*

Awareness of the Fight:* the warlord is trained in spot and listen, and perhaps the ability to add the skill die to initiative.*

Commands:* These would function a lot like words of power, allowing the warlord to issue commands while still taking actions. Commands would never force an ally to act, but provide benefits if they do, such as the warlord adding extra dice to their attack or damage, or granting them an extra maneuver, attack, or at-will spell. I see a lot of opportunity for synergy commands, where if two allies both follow a command, the effects are extra large. For example, an area of effect spell causing just enough confusion in the enemy for the fighter to get several attacks in.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 28, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Heh, Johnny3D3D - For as much as people complain about the term warlord, is there another class with as much baggage as a paladin?




tell me about it...

I'm a big fan of the knight in shining armor archetype.  However, I have very very rarely played a paladin because there's just way too much religious/alignment baggage.  To be fair, I understand that and it makes sense in the context of a holy warrior.  However, I find it odd that the idea of a paladin seems to be so heavily tied to how I imagine the stereotypical crusader in a world where polytheism is the rule of the day.

Sometimes I'm also unsure of what the paladin's place is in comparison to the cleric.  What does a paladin offer that a cleric/fighter doesn't?  Does it make sense that paladins can only be LG in world where many religions don't share the same moral outlook?  What exactly does a paladin of Aphrodite do and how does that differ from what one of her clerics may do?

Yet, in spite of all of that, it's an accepted part of the game.  Why then is the idea of a charismatic leader who leads via tactical savvy (the warlord) is viewed so strange?  Because the name 'warlord' implies rank?  ...paladin certainly implies a lot of things to me, and that doesn't seem to make a difference.  How is 'knight' better?  That also implies rank and social status.  

Personally, I'd be happy with neither warlord nor paladin being classes *if* 5th Edition were to stick with backgrounds and themes as presented in the first playtest.  However, as that doesn't seem to be the case, I believe Warlord should be a class.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 28, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen - I think the best description of a warlord came out in a previous game.  One of the players commented that when you play a warlord, you play the entire party.  And I really think that's the heart of it.  The warlord needs the mechanical framework to all him or her to influence the entire group and the entire group's tactics.

Without granting extra actions, I'm not really sure if that's possible.  Sure, straight up buffing is nice, but, that's all a bard did.  It's not really enough.  Where a warlord's draw is, at least for me, is in the ability of having this character be able to look at the combat situation, and actually directly influence how it plays out, beyond what he can do just by himself.

Which, to me, means granting actions.  To me, this is a much bigger element than healing to be honest.  I never played a warlord to be the healer.  I played a warlord because, for the first time in my D&D experience, I could actually be able to add tactics directly to situations.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 28, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> If healing HP is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), and mitigating damage is an option (and labeled as such, not just on a list of powers), I think I'll be perfectly fine with the class.



A bit of a side trek, but I wonder why the distinction between an explict label as an option and an implicit label as an option (say, as one of a list of powers which the player must choose from, and presumably cannot choose all from). After all, it pretty much boils down to the same thing in the end: either you or the people you are playing with at the table have it, or not.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> What is the warlord's concept?
> What does he do (without mentioning mechanics)?



I think it's hard to describe what the warlord does without mentioning mechanics, for the same sort of reason that it's hard to describe the difference between a 3E wizard and a 3E sorcerer without mentioning mechanics.

The warlord, in 4e, is defined by the way that s/he occupies the action economy of the game: every 4e class has ways of "spiking" their output (via encounter and daily powers). Some clases get bonus dice with such powers; some get bonus conditions; some get to do AoEs instead of single target attacks; some get to do minor or immediate action attacks; the warlord gets to grant bonus actions to other PCs.

Stripped of that - or, in 4e terms, confined to at-will abilities - the warlord becomes much less interesting, I think. You can sacrifice you own action to have another PC act (Commander's Strike etc), which is a bit of a power-up on Aid Another; and you can hand out some modest buffs, like a cleric or a bard.



Hussar said:


> The warlord needs the mechanical framework to all him or her to influence the entire group and the entire group's tactics.



I agree with you that this is the quintessence of the warlord. But I don't see how it is going to be done in Next - it would require a martial class to be balanced around encounter powers (I take it that we can agree that granting bonus actions at will would be broken), and that seems to be outside the scope of Next's design.



Ratskinner said:


> I think that a Warlord class makes some sense to allow use of the "combat dice" for Warlordy maneuvers, but that those maneuvers might look very different under 5e (i.e. maybe they don't grant extra actions as much.) That's simply because the 5e Warlord is in a different rules environment than the 4e Warlord



I think you are right that the influence of the different rules environment - and in particular, the absence of a unified approach to PC "output spikes" - will inevitably have a big impact on the warlord, at least as big as the influence on the thief of introducing a generalised skill system.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 28, 2013)

FireLance said:


> A bit of a side trek, but I wonder why the distinction between an explict label as an option and an implicit label as an option (say, as one of a list of powers which the player must choose from, and presumably cannot choose all from). After all, it pretty much boils down to the same thing in the end: either you or the people you are playing with at the table have it, or not.



It's different for my group, and many others, I assume.

From my experience, my players are perfectly fine with me saying "no druids" or "no bards" or "no barbarians" when we start the game; it's a sweeping campaign setting choice. They get a little iffy if I say "no Natural Skill feat", but they'll go along without too much fuss if I explain that I think it can make things overpowered; it's trying to stop problems before they start, and they appreciate the effort.

However, they question things a lot if I go on a line by line basis on what is or isn't an option; if I say "no, Bards can't get Cure Light Wounds" they'd question it, then question it again when I say "no, you don't get the Barbarian's damage reduction, you get this instead". These choices take away some player power (I'll go into that below), and in the Warlord's case (or others like it), one player taking one option alters how we all potentially play the game (where I don't run HP as explicitly luck and fate, and never as morale).

Now, in all of these situations, my players go along with it, because I'm running the game (and when I run the game, what I say goes; it's just my deal when I agree to run a game, and they know that and have no problems with that inherently). The reasons the last objections seem stronger has to due with reliable player control, in a sense. They don't mind me having the final say on what flies or doesn't, but they can't reliably build a class now without me holding their hand, because I have to say "yes" and "no" to everything I want in my game. This is why I like game systems with a "rule for everything"; yes, I can modify them, but it gives players an incredibly strong grasp on what they can do without permission from me. They can reliably make informed choices, and this last area takes that away.

This is a YMMV situation, but that's why I said it the way I did. It's not as big a deal at my table (where I say "here's the deal" and now that's the deal), but I still like letting my players have a reliable rules base for them to make decisions on, and having it be explicitly optional means that I don't have to objecting to a player making a decision that alters the very interpretation of the rules for the entire table. And, at other tables where there's a more relaxed "everyone decides setting stuff together", I would think a more explicit option for setting the interpretation of the rules (what HP means, and how it gets used in-game) wouldn't be a bad thing, either. That's just where I'm coming from, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2013)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think it's hard to describe what the warlord does without mentioning mechanics, for the same sort of reason that it's hard to describe the difference between a 3E wizard and a 3E sorcerer without mentioning mechanics.




I'm not sure that's so hard.

A 3e wizard is a magical scholar, a researcher and scientist of the forces Man Was Not Meant To Know. They tap into knowledge as power.

A 3e sorcerer is a magical savant, born with something more-than-human in their blood and capable of breaking the laws of nature as if they didn't apply. 

Or, put another way, 3e Wizard = Elite programmer of reality; 3e Sorcerer = Transhuman cyborg. Or 3e Wizard = Nuclear physicist with a personal uranium store, 3e Sorcerer = Radiation-mutant.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> The warlord, in 4e, is defined by the way that s/he occupies the action economy of the game: every 4e class has ways of "spiking" their output (via encounter and daily powers). Some clases get bonus dice with such powers; some get bonus conditions; some get to do AoEs instead of single target attacks; some get to do minor or immediate action attacks; the warlord gets to grant bonus actions to other PCs.
> 
> Stripped of that - or, in 4e terms, confined to at-will abilities - the warlord becomes much less interesting, I think. You can sacrifice you own action to have another PC act (Commander's Strike etc), which is a bit of a power-up on Aid Another; and you can hand out some modest buffs, like a cleric or a bard.




This would seem to be the 4E mechanic for representing commands that open up opportunity. While D&D Next doesn't have encounter powers, it has another mechanism for manipulating the action economy: Reactions.

In this paradigm, the Warlord's commands could grant his allies the immediate ability to use their reaction for something they normally can't. Because each character only gets one reaction per round and often doesn't get an opportunity to use it, these abilities would be both powerful and self-limiting.

For example, a simple command could be to select a creature. All allies in melee range of that creature may take an opportunity attack against it. This represents the warlord coordinating their actions. 

This exact ability might not work as written, but it represents the concept.

Similarly, I could see the warlord having something akin to stances. Hey shouts out a battle plan that has effects on the combat that last until his next turn. These effects could be bonuses and such, or they could also open up a new option for reactions. Such as one that allows spellcasters to use an at-will spell as a reaction.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> While D&D Next doesn't have encounter powers, it has another mechanism for manipulating the action economy: Reactions.



That's an interesting suggestion.

My handle on the mechanical balance of Next isn't that strong - would it be broken to allow reactions to be used for attacks?


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Feb 28, 2013)

pemerton said:


> That's an interesting suggestion.
> 
> My handle on the mechanical balance of Next isn't that strong - would it be broken to allow reactions to be used for attacks?




At the moment, attacks are one of the few things they are used for, in the case of the opportunity attack for someone leaving your threatened area.

Getting the balance right would mostly be a matter of how much damage these attacks are allowed to do, or how many allies are able to take them at a time. But making this work is simple a matter of making sure that the extra damage per round of having a Warlord in the game is similar to having another fighter or wizard.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 28, 2013)

Really, if reactions are similar to 3e AOO's, it shouldn't be too much to allow.  Granted, allowing everyone to take their AOO at a target might be a bit much, but, granting someone the ability to use their reaction now and not later does open some interesting tactical options.  Yup, you get to smack him, but, you also no longer threaten anyone until after your next turn.

That might work.  Spend a reaction to move, attack or make a saving throw.  Something like that.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 28, 2013)

The other thing to take into account is that action generation is exponential power gain.  There is a balance issue to take into account, and I wonder whether that's part of 5E's reticience to add a character that enables actions / bonuses to a system that is very tight on both.


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 1, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> While this is true, I think you may be over-estimating what "core" may be in NEXT.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the only thing they assume your using for most products is the Basic game (and even that might not be a "tight" assumption): everything else will be explicitly opt-in. I imagine this includes monks as much as it includes inspirational healing.




That, I think is spot on. Basic D&D, I think, will be a _very_ small game rules-wise. If the Basic DMG\gameguide is supposed to fit in 16 pages...That's not a lot of room for options and discussion.


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 1, 2013)

pemerton said:


> There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")
> 
> At least in my own experience, real life - the weeks between sessions, and the moments during sessions when people eat food or take other sorts of breaks - delivers the necessary downtime to make the pursuit of ingame drama at every opportunity desirable.
> 
> If I'm looking at a system, and I'm seeing that in order to get the awesome I'm going to have to game through hours of non-awesome - eg combats or traps that nickle-and-dime away the first third or half of PC hit points; calculating encumbrance, inventory etc - then I don't think I'm interested. Whatever pleasure I am able to get out of that sort of thing I can get solving crosswords by myself.




I agree, and generally feel the same way. Although, honestly, I haven't found any edition of D&D very good at this. While I am curious to try 4e again, based primarily on our discussions here, I find that the generally slow (real-world) pace of resolution and all the fiddly-bits to be a distraction/detraction from the awesome. (True in both WotC editions.) To be fair, there are also those who find the "Fantasy Logistics and Accounting" portion of the game to be exciting/rewarding. (Gods help me I dunno why, but they're there.  ) 

More to the point. Lately I find that other systems, which began from the "Story Now" perspective and serve it wholeheartedly, have a tremendous advantage over D&D with its sacred cows in this regard.  I've gotten a chance to try out the latest incarnation of FATE, with kids even, and it just rolls right past D&D. So much so that, to some extent, I've given up trying to fit D&D's square peg into that round hole. I'd much rather play a fantasy version of FATE or one of the MHRP hacks when I'm looking for that story. D&D still has a place in my heart (and my weekly schedule), because its much better at scratching a different itch.



pemerton said:


> So for me, the litmus is - when I look at this system can I see where it is going to deliver all awesome, all the time? And for me, the warlord in 4e was one marker of that. The very fact that the game has as part of its core build _that class_, with those abilities and that function, tells me something about what the game apsires to. (Whether it also meets its aspirations is important too - in my own experience 4e mostly does, though it's not without its flaws.)




I almost hate to say this, but...

For better or worse, I don't think that's even close to the primary design goals for Basic/Core 5e. To wit: I think they are going for a "just slightly more than a board game" basic dungeon-crawl. I'm conjecturing that from all that "essence of D&D" talk combined with their recent revelations of what the Basic game product will be. They seem to believe that they can tack on the rest of it (for any given value of "the rest of it") in optional modules....who knows for certain?

Side Note: I will invoke some possibly hot-button terms here out of necessity. I'm not trying denigrate any particular aspect of 4e or its playstyle(s). Rather, I'm trying to make a point about designing 5e in the wake of 4e.

One side-effect of that gambit which seems to have many 4e fans upset is that far less is being built right into the root of the system. However, I think they are forced to take that route. See, 4e has very tight table-presence (I don't even want to call it playstyle), particularly in combat. I've heard words like "gonzo fantasy", "cinematic", "super-heroic", "set-piece battles", and a lot of others used to describe it. I'm not a particular fan of any of those terms, but whatever-you-want-to-call-it, 4e is focused on making it happen. In part, not surprisingly, because it was built from the ground up to play to those conceits using a D&D framework. The numbers, the mechanics, and the interaction of the mechanics, are all tightly integrated and focused in that direction. I think you're right in saying that 4e does a great job of creating that sort of thing...that _particular _sort of thing. I suspect that since they are trying to make 5e hit a far wider range of table-presence, they _can't_ start from such a tightly-knit root as 4e did. (Or perhaps they feel any such root would be essentially meaningless? - hard to tell.) Even if that's not the case, they have fairly plainly stated their belief that it's easier to create this variability through add-ons to a stripped-down core than re-building the core to different specifications. Which indicates that even if a more variable form of the 4e root _did_ exist, they have chosen not to make finding it their priority. 

Of course just about all of that is pure speculation and conjecture.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 1, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> While I am curious to try 4e again, based primarily on our discussions here, I find that the generally slow (real-world) pace of resolution and all the fiddly-bits to be a distraction/detraction from the awesome. (True in both WotC editions.)



And as we've discussed before, I think that's completely and utterly reasonable. 4e's a heavy system, and it relies upon you being able to look at a piece of action economy (say, Calastryx growing an extra head when bloodied) and have that speak to you in a way that generates an emotinal response.

I personally think it's well suited for a crossover of light narrativism and traditional heavy mechanics lovers - based mostly on conjecture, I would put it in the same sort of space as Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel in this respect.

A game like MHRP is so obviously lighter - when I wrote up my own rules summary trying to teach myself the system I got it onto 2 A4 sheets - I think there's almost no comparison. _If the mechanical bits of 4e don't speak story to you_, I think there's no way you'll get story out of it, because of its mechanical weight.

That's why I was so surprised and excited when it was released - it's _the_ game for a Rolemaster-lover who finds The Forge a great RPG advice site - and I didn't think the market for that sort of thing was as big as D&D's market. And maybe it wasn't.



Ratskinner said:


> For better or worse, I don't think that's even close to the primary design goals for Basic/Core 5e. To wit: I think they are going for a "just slightly more than a board game" basic dungeon-crawl.



That may be right. Given they're trying to go lighter, I think it's a pity they aren't going more of the MHRP-ish route: as well as backgrounds as free descriptors you could loosen up spells a whole lot, and really give the idea of "rulings rather than rules" the space to flourish. I find the mix of lightness in places like skills with traditional AD&D-ish exhaustive detail on spells a bit inconsistent - to me, they really seem to pull in different directions.



Ratskinner said:


> One side-effect of that gambit which seems to have many 4e fans upset is that far less is being built right into the root of the system. However, I think they are forced to take that route. See, 4e has very tight table-presence (I don't even want to call it playstyle), particularly in combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



That all sounds very plausible to me. As I've already indicated on some other threads, my feeling is that when you go this way it might just turn out to be impossible to recapture that "table presence" via the modularity route. Particularly when a key part of the table presence is such a distinctive approach (by D&D standards) to metagame
mechanics and GM force, and the game seems to have at its core an aversion to metagame mechanics and a heavy reliance on GM force.


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 1, 2013)

pemerton said:


> A game like MHRP is so obviously lighter - when I wrote up my own rules summary trying to teach myself the system I got it onto 2 A4 sheets - I think there's almost no comparison. _If the mechanical bits of 4e don't speak story to you_, I think there's no way you'll get story out of it, because of its mechanical weight.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That may be right. Given they're trying to go lighter, I think it's a pity they aren't going more of the MHRP-ish route: as well as backgrounds as free descriptors you could loosen up spells a whole lot, and really give the idea of "rulings rather than rules" the space to flourish. I find the mix of lightness in places like skills with traditional AD&D-ish exhaustive detail on spells a bit inconsistent - to me, they really seem to pull in different directions.




I very much agree. I think there's precedent, especially within D&D's earlier versions, for this kind of disparity, but I don't think its a _good_ precedent.  Now, rather than having rules that give you some kind of real structure to the non-combat parts (like FATE, BW, or MHRP/Cortex+ do) they appear to be throwing their hands up and saying "do what thou wilt." The other nasty side-effect is having to resort to looking up spell effects/descriptions during play. I utterly and profoundly hate having play come to a screeching halt to dig up some particular detail of a spell (which even Old-school doesn't avoid), or feat, or equipment, or whatever....yech. Not only does it slow play at precisely the wrong time, but it encourages DMs to limit source material so as to avoid the problem in the first place. (OTOH, they need _some_ reason to sell you splat books. Hard to do with FATE, where conversions often start with the question "do we need anything other than aspects?")



pemerton said:


> That all sounds very plausible to me. As I've already indicated on some other threads, my feeling is that when you go this way it might just turn out to be impossible to recapture that "table presence" via the modularity route. Particularly when a key part of the table presence is such a distinctive approach (by D&D standards) to metagame
> mechanics and GM force, and the game seems to have at its core an aversion to metagame mechanics and a heavy reliance on GM force.




Hard for me to say. When I think of 4e's table presence, I find it hard to distinguish the effects of the overall structure and design and the character of the powers as written.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 1, 2013)

Count me in as someone who values speed of play. Personally, I started to find combats taking too long beginning in 3E (continuing into 4E). Especially when I went back to 2E after years of 3E, I noticed the differencevwas considerable. For me, I don't want combat to slow down the things going on in between fighting (because for me that is actually the heart of the game). So i find that if you have the colossally slow battlese inbetween the ingame drama, it really cuts deeply into my enjoyment. I recently started playing cubicle 7's doctor who and one thing I love about it so far is the speed of combat encounters (perhaps this has just been the combats we have had so far, but i think it is a fast system). I my own games, I try to keep combat lightning fast.

i do think there is a valid point being made about the magic system even in AD&D being somewhat at odds with the speed of its other parts. I am working on a new game using a very fast system we devised for action and investigations. But this one has magic and that makes it a lot harder to maintain the speed. I think it is a trade off. If you want a robust magic system that will tend to slow things down. I D&D, i feel it kind of works because wizard is "the complex class". You go in knowing it takes a but more mastery than a fighter to run. So when I pay, we always have an unspoken rule that when you play a wizard you have to know your spells before using them (we dont want to slow down combat because you have to look the spell up and read on your turn). This has worked out okay for me. But in the past, i have seen conbat reduced to a crawl when a player doesn't know the details of his spell.


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 1, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Count me in as someone who values speed of play. Personally, I started to find combats taking too long beginning in 3E (continuing into 4E). Especially when I went back to 2E after years of 3E, I noticed the differencevwas considerable. For me, I don't want combat to slow down the things going on in between fighting (because for me that is actually the heart of the game). So i find that if you have the colossally slow battlese inbetween the ingame drama, it really cuts deeply into my enjoyment. I recently started playing cubicle 7's doctor who and one thing I love about it so far is the speed of combat encounters (perhaps this has just been the combats we have had so far, but i think it is a fast system). I my own games, I try to keep combat lightning fast.




Absolutely. After a brief D&D hiatus following my group collapsing from the edition wars, I went back to a hacked BECMI game and just about fell over from the lightning-fast resolution. The DM was caught unprepared on the first night because he simply hadn't anticipated that we'd chew through so much in one night! -"I haven't written level 2 yet, guys." 



Bedrockgames said:


> i do think there is a valid point being made about the magic system even in AD&D being somewhat at odds with the speed of its other parts. I am working on a new game using a very fast system we devised for action and investigations. But this one has magic and that makes it a lot harder to maintain the speed. I think it is a trade off. If you want a robust magic system that will tend to slow things down. I D&D, i feel it kind of works because wizard is "the complex class".




I guess it depends on what you mean by "robust." I don't really find the traditional D&D magic system to be very robust. The fact that its a patchwork of wonky effects and mechanics is indicative of its fundamental weaknesses. (At least, its weaknesses outside of its original gamist paradigm.) The key is, IMO, to fall out into a more narrative or "abstract" stance on the adjudication/resolution end of the rules (for magic _and _mundane effects) i.e. "rulings not rules". So, for instance, you could still have spellcasters being very complicated characters with spell lists and the like. However, the _functioning_ of those spells could be greatly simplified into something more like what you get with FATE or MHRP. So (to use FATE-like structures) _*Charm Person*_ would place a _charmed_ aspect on the target. This aspect could be invoked by the caster to help cause the subject to react favorably to the caster and suggestions the caster may make, perhaps granting (dis)advantage on any relevant checks or actions. Having a mechanic that works in a nice generally accessible way like that makes it very easy and speedy to handle things, while still giving plenty of depth and variety. Which seems much more robust, to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 1, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> Absolutely. After a brief D&D hiatus following my group collapsing from the edition wars, I went back to a hacked BECMI game and just about fell over from the lightning-fast resolution. The DM was caught unprepared on the first night because he simply hadn't anticipated that we'd chew through so much in one night! -"I haven't written level 2 yet, guys."
> .




Fast combat definitely changes things for the GM. I mostly run my own game and its pretty fast and lethal with combat. So fights often are over in a round or two and it can literally just take a few minutes if things are really clipping along. The pacing of an evening is totally different when this is the case. Battles are more like percussive beats that step in and out of the game but the focus tends to become the charracters and the RP (this is also a consequence of the lethality,because combat is something you just are not seeking out all the time, you are usually trying to avoid it). 

Another great thing about this is you really could have a whole adventure in an hour or two if you wanted. There have been times when I ran network and the players finished an adventure in an hour or two (it certainly isnt the norm but you could make it so). I noticed the same thing with Dr. who. We finished our first adventure of that in about 2-3 hours. Had we known the system better it probably would have gone even faster. I love that. I dont need the 30-60 minute miniature battles.


----------

