# New D&D Survey: What Do you Want From Older Editions?



## the Jester (Jun 30, 2015)

Link.


----------



## CM (Jun 30, 2015)

There was positive feedback for Dragon+?


----------



## halfling rogue (Jun 30, 2015)

could anyone provide link to the direct survey?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 30, 2015)

Psionics was on not on the "update" list; hoping that means its a given.

Though oddly, Aasimar was. Isn't it in the DMG?

Anyway, I picked Realms, Eberron, Mystara, Planescape, and Ravenloft, Artificer, Catfolk, Vryloka, and all Planar Races. Here's hoping.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jun 30, 2015)

I picked Realms, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Eberron, and Planescape, which are some of the settings that (if we see any at all) we should be guaranteed to see (hopefully sooner rather than later).  These are the ones that are most important to me, and they're the ones I'm most likely to buy. (Though I'd _love_ if they did something like they did with Eberron, having some kind of contest to introduce a completely new and distinct setting.)   I was very light on picking races and classes, since those kinds of customizations just don't interest me much. I wrote in that I'd like to see new races and classes added in the context of setting support (though I like how they did aarakocra and genasi with PotA and wouldn't mind more of that); and that I'd really like to see subclasses utilized as a mechanism for more customization than new classes whole-cloth.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jun 30, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> could anyone provide link to the direct survey?




http://sgiz.mobi/s3/D-D-5e-Elements-Survey-5


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2015)

Go Greyhawk Go! Been way too long since we had a decent update.


----------



## halfling rogue (Jun 30, 2015)

SigmaOne said:


> http://sgiz.mobi/s3/D-D-5e-Elements-Survey-5




thanks!

#filters


----------



## kalil (Jun 30, 2015)

Warlord not on the list


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jun 30, 2015)

It's a long shot but I added a request for the Tome of Magic Binder in the comments section.  [MENTION=6796368]kalil[/MENTION], maybe you could do the same for the Warlord.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jun 30, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> thanks!
> 
> #filters




No problem!


----------



## kalil (Jun 30, 2015)

Wednesday Boy said:


> It's a long shot but I added a request for the Tome of Magic Binder in the comments section.  [MENTION=6796368]kalil[/MENTION], maybe you could do the same for the Warlord.




I guess I could. But if it is not even considered an option by the dev team I don't think it would matter much if I did.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 30, 2015)

*Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success.*

I don't believe this for one second.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 30, 2015)

Wednesday Boy said:


> It's a long shot but I added a request for the Tome of Magic Binder in the comments section.  [MENTION=6796368]kalil[/MENTION], maybe you could do the same for the Warlord.




That's what I did for Psionics.

We'll see.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 30, 2015)

I'm still waiting for some actual, classic Planescape/2e/3e style tieflings.

I also don't exactly trust that anyone not on drugs has provided positive feedback for Dragon+


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jun 30, 2015)

kalil said:


> I guess I could. But if it is not even considered an option by the dev team I don't think it would matter much if I did.




I see what you mean.  I figured it couldn't hurt to try, even if it's incredibly unlikely.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (Jun 30, 2015)

Shemeska said:


> I'm still waiting for some actual, classic Planescape/2e/3e style tieflings.
> 
> I also don't exactly trust that anyone not on drugs has provided positive feedback for Dragon+




I gave it somewhat positive feedback and haven't done drugs since the nineties.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 30, 2015)

I asked for sepcific sub-classes for settings, like White/Red/Black robe Wiz sub classes for DL. I love that sort of tied to setting thing


----------



## halfling rogue (Jun 30, 2015)

I use every survey as an opportunity to keep pounding the drum to tell 'em I think that modules or shorter Lost Mine-ish adventures are needed/wanted/desired. I don't care if that's not what they are looking for. I look at the write in box as a way to legitimately register a request because, whether they reject it or not, I know it will be read by someone over there.


----------



## Darrius_Adler (Jun 30, 2015)

I went with Eberron and Ravenloft, along with the goblinoid races and gnolls to be given PC writeups.  I have wanted to do a goblin/Dhakaani campaign for a long time in Eberron.  Gnolls are also a good race for Eberron


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 30, 2015)

*I WANT IT ALL*

But I am a setting whore and I would even love to see their updated take on also-ran classes like seekers and runepriests, just to see what they'd do with 'em. Like, iteration is key for good design, so if they had to think about "what did the Seeker offer and how did it succeed and how can it be improved and what is worth saving in it?" I think we'd see something interesting. It's not like these things are inherently bad ideas, but the context they were presented in was less-than-encouraging, so I'd like to see another take on it. If there is a world where illumian runepriests and catfolk seekers and shardmind warmages are the new hotness, I'd like to see what that might look like.  

So, yeah, there is nothing on that list that I would not like to see in one form or another. 

I also like how they said "character types" not "classes." Savvy. 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I also don't exactly trust that anyone not on drugs has provided positive feedback for Dragon+




IIRC, the questions on this were a little wonky for that result - most of the questions were like "what's your favorite bit?" and "what would you like to see more of?" and not "do you think this concept is fundamentally flawed?"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 30, 2015)

kalil said:


> Warlord not on the list



 It was never even mentioned in any of the Playtest surveys, either.


----------



## timbannock (Jun 30, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *I WANT IT ALL*
> 
> But I am a setting whore




I'm not, but after two seconds of skimming all those lists, I pretty much clicked on every option (maybe 85-95% of them, at least).

I mean, I don't need fluff -- that's what Dndclassics is for -- but if they want to give me fun and interesting, playtested and balanced mechanics for stuff, I'm ALL FOR IT.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jun 30, 2015)

Asked for a warlord update in the comments as well. I don't see it as core material, but still would want to see a 5E take on the class by WotC.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 30, 2015)

Kender! Kender! Kender! You know you want to!


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 30, 2015)

I tried to limit myself to a few options on each question. For settings, I love many of them but only voted for my top 3: Eberron, Dark Sun, and Greyhawk.

I wish I'd thought of asking for a Binder update in the comments.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 30, 2015)

kalil said:


> Warlord not on the list




I noticed that as well. I guess they think the joke that is the fighter suffices...


----------



## Agamon (Jun 30, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I also like how they said "character types" not "classes." Savvy.




D'oh, I missed that.  I checked None of the Above for the classes, and wrote in the notes that I'd rather see them as archetypes than new classes.


----------



## spinozajack (Jun 30, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> I noticed that as well. I guess they think the joke that is the fighter suffices...




The fighter's one of the strongest classes in the game! Why on earth would anyone think it needs moar power?

I'm very happy the warlord is not coming to 5th ed. If you want a combination of fighting man with tactics and some healing, multiclass a valor bard with a battlemaster, and you're done.

I'm going to fill the survey tonight to make sure my vote cancels out any others desire to add the kitchen sink of bad ideas and overpowered classes to the new edition.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 30, 2015)

I went with Dark Sun, Eberron, and Spelljammer for the settings, and I think I only picked Thri-kreen for the races. For classes, I chose Artificer, Martial adept, and Shaman.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jun 30, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> I noticed that as well. I guess they think the joke that is the fighter suffices...




Dry your bitter tears and homebrew. The fighter rocks as is.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 30, 2015)

None of the above on those classes.

But I absolutely want Spelljammer!!


----------



## Paraxis (Jun 30, 2015)

Added warlord and a proper bladesinger (no I don't like eldritch knight, bladelocks, and valor bards), was happy to checkmark Birthright, Eberron, and Spelljammer.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 30, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Psionics was on not on the "update" list; hoping that means its a given.






SigmaOne said:


> The fighter rocks as is.





spinozajack said:


> The fighter's one of the strongest classes in the game! Why on earth would anyone think it needs moar power?



The fighter /is/ a powerful class, in terms of DPR, which makes it an unsuitable chassis to build a Warlord sub-class/archetype onto - even if the Warlord were narrow enough that it didn't need several sub-classes of it's own to do it justice.

Warlord needs a full class.

A sub-class as teaser for psionics in UA might be OK, but it really demands at least a psion full class.

Doing justice to either might be beyond the scope of a UA.


----------



## CM (Jun 30, 2015)

kalil said:


> Warlord not on the list




I mentioned warlords and avengers in the text field.


----------



## jgsugden (Jun 30, 2015)

Warlord, Avenger and Invoker were 3 I'd like to see.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jun 30, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The fighter /is/ a powerful class, in terms of DPR, which makes it an unsuitable chassis to build a Warlord sub-class/archetype onto - even if the Warlord were narrow enough that it didn't need several sub-classes of it's own to do it justice.
> 
> Warlord needs a full class.




I'm fine with them introducing a new warlord class if warlord players feel (as some clearly do) that the battlemaster does not properly replace the 4e class. But people shouldn't take their anger out on the fighter; it's a good class with fun subclasses.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 30, 2015)

My list
1.  Settings: Darksun, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Mystara, Ravenloft.  Was Al Qadim on the list? If so, I voted for it.
2.  Races: Kobolds, Lizardmen plus a few others
3. Classes: Shaman
4 Comment section
a. New Classes: Warlord, Witch (with a note to hire Steve Kenson to design the Shaman and Witch)
b. a variant to make the cleric more like 2e specialty priests
c. a variant environmental abilities for the Circle of the Land Druids by type  as a call back to 2e environmental druid abilities by Roger E. Moore
d. a variant for 2e Complete Figher/2e PO: Combat and Tactics/3e Unearthed Arcana Weapon Groups
e. a variant so all classes get subclasses at first level to help tailor classes at first level more like 2e kits
f.  sorcerer subclass focused on metamagic without draconic/storm sorcerer type manifestations or wild magic in order to be closer to the 3e sorcerer.  Also, infernal and fey subclases to cover the 3e bloodline feats
g. class variants to replicate the 3e Unearthed Arcana cloistered cleric, divine bard, savage bard
h. racial variants based on 3e Unearthed Arcana environmental race varians
i. a variant covering 3e skill points.​
I realized afterward that I had forgot to add both a 1e weapon proficiency systemvariant, a 4e hit point variant, and 4e healing surge variant


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 30, 2015)

y'all can feel free to put "inspirational healing and detailed grid-movement mechanics" in the text box ifn' ya miss the 4e warlord that fierce. If they get enough stuff, they'll probably address it in some fashion!


----------



## IgnatiusJ.Reilly (Jun 30, 2015)

I wasn't sure whether to check the Seeker or not, so I didn't. There were a few semi-neat prestige classes for Paladins (Seeker of Truth), Wizards (Seeker of Lost Traditions), and Seeker of Dreams (D&D 3.5). They may be talking about the 4e Seeker, most likely I imagine, and I'm entirely ambivalent about that class.


----------



## Dartavian (Jun 30, 2015)

Birthright!


----------



## CM (Jun 30, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The fighter's one of the strongest classes in the game! Why on earth would anyone think it needs moar power?
> 
> I'm very happy the warlord is not coming to 5th ed. If you want a combination of fighting man with tactics and some healing, multiclass a valor bard with a battlemaster, and you're done.




I'd hazard a guess that the great majority of players interested in a warlord class specifically _do not_ want a magic-using class. 5e has plenty of room for a "face" oriented warrior class that is moderately competent in hand-to-hand combat but excels at supporting his allies and the social pillar in general.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 30, 2015)

There was actually very little on the list that I'm interested in. I ticked Planescape, Dark Sun, Artificer and Kender only.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 30, 2015)

CM said:


> I'd hazard a guess that the great majority of players interested in a warlord class specifically _do not_ want a magic-using class. 5e has plenty of room for a "face" oriented warrior class that is moderately competent in hand-to-hand combat but excels at supporting his allies and the social pillar in general.



 There's even more room that than.  There are only 5 arguably-pure 'martial' sub-classes in 5e.  All are focused on DPR as their main combat contribution.  That leaves a healer or leader, a less-focused damage 'blaster' type, a battle-field-interdiction 'controller' type, an action-enabling Commander, even a more effective 'defender' build.   There were six Warlord builds, plus the unofficial 'Lazy' build. There were 3.x fighter builds you couldn't do in 4e, and still can't in 5e.   Really, martial design space is wide open.  5e has barely touched it.  

The one example of that in the survey, BTW, is the Scout (I assume, along the lines of the 3.5 PHII scout).  But, even if it sees the light of day, it'll probably be a high-DPR skirmisher.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 30, 2015)

I ticked everything on the list except for a few very specific items. In fact after a bit of thought I realized all of the classes and almost all of the races were something I'd like updated, because honestly my players love trying out lots of different things, and have a lot of older edition characters they'd like to "officially" update.

Only settings I didn't check were Dragonlance, Birthright, Mystara and Kara-Tur because "reasons" and "personal preferences." Nothing wrong with them, just not setting I ever benefited much from (I like elements of Mystara though, just not the entire patchwork whole). And Kara-Tur is an example of a setting in need of a massive modern revision.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 30, 2015)

We need some Across the tier adventures - ones that run levels 3-6, and 9-12... ESPECIALLY for AL play.


----------



## CrusaderX (Jun 30, 2015)

I voted for Greyhawk and Mystara, and commented that I would love to see official 5e conversions of the classic AD&D 1st edition modules and D&D Basic/Expert modules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 30, 2015)

CM said:


> I'd hazard a guess that the great majority of players interested in a warlord class specifically _do not_ want a magic-using class. 5e has plenty of room for a "face" oriented warrior class that is moderately competent in hand-to-hand combat but excels at supporting his allies and the social pillar in general.




...makes me wonder what a spell-less bard a la the spell-less ranger would look like...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 30, 2015)

Dartavian said:


> Birthright!




*BUT NO MAZTICA*


----------



## Troy70 (Jun 30, 2015)

I voted for Eberron


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 30, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> There was actually very little on the list that I'm interested in. I ticked Planescape, Dark Sun, Artificer and Kender only.




Are you looking at it as a player or DM? I ask only because as DM little of the data benefits me....I run my own world settings and modules and rarely ever play, so it will be a long time before I've explored all the PHB has to offer (as DM I think I'd check Planescape and Ravenloft and that's it...maybe Spelljammer too). 

But my players, on the other hand, are voracious consumers of content and have already used everything that has been provided on UA so far and in the Player's Companion, and all classes have now seen play through 8-13 levels in my ongoing games. For them I checked pretty much every class and race because I know they'll like the variety of options....and it's more grist for the mill, so to speak.


----------



## gyor (Jun 30, 2015)

I voted for most of it, but added in the comment I prioritize Forgotten Realms, Shadar-Kai, Vyrloka, Aasmir, Satyrs, Planescape, Ravenloft.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 30, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *BUT NO MAZTICA*




I'd like an actual Mesoamerican mytho-historic supplement like the old green-cover historical reference books from 2E's days. Whatever they do for FR though Maztica and Zakhara both deserve some face time.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 30, 2015)

camazotz said:


> Are you looking at it as a player or DM? I ask only because as DM little of the data benefits me....I run my own world settings and modules and rarely ever play, so it will be a long time before I've explored all the PHB has to offer (as DM I think I'd check Planescape and Ravenloft and that's it...maybe Spelljammer too).
> 
> But my players, on the other hand, are voracious consumers of content and have already used everything that has been provided on UA so far and in the Player's Companion, and all classes have now seen play through 8-13 levels in my ongoing games. For them I checked pretty much every class and race because I know they'll like the variety of options....and it's more grist for the mill, so to speak.




I guess primarily as a DM, yeah. I play a fair bit too. I can understand wanting lots of options, I mean generally more options the better. It is easy enough to ignore content you don't want to use, and those who like it can use it. Everyone wins.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 30, 2015)

gyor said:


> I voted for most of it, but added in the comment I prioritize Forgotten Realms, Shadar-Kai, Vyrloka, Aasmir, Satyrs, Planescape, Ravenloft.




I'd play in your games, excellent choices.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Jun 30, 2015)

Eberron!  *drops mic and walks away*


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 1, 2015)

1) Birthright, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Mystara
2) None of the above
3) Githzerai, Half-Giant, Kender, Thri-Kreen


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2015)

Truenamer not found?

nam, skcus tahT


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jul 1, 2015)

I clicked on most of the settings. I think I left out Eberron (because it's a given that we're already getting the mechanical bits, and if I want to use it I'll buy the 3e book), and Mystara, just because I'm not a big fan, and it doesn't need much of an update. Neither of them would bother me, and I'd use the material if it came out.

For class types, the only one I clicked on was Shaman (and I forgot to mention in the comment that I meant the OA shaman/priest, not the 3e spirit shaman or 4e shaman). We're already going to get a revised artificer, so that option was only on the list so people didn't spend hundreds of posts saying "WHAT ABOUT ARTIFICER??? HAVE THEY ABANDONED EBERRON??"

The other classes included a few 4e options that people might want, and then a bunch of fringe stuff from the late 3e explosion of weird crap. While I don't generally bregrudge people getting stuff they want (I don't need 4e stuff, but it's cool if they make some for others), I just can't get behind bringing back the cornucopia of corny from late 3.5e.

That's a complete waste of the developer's time in my opinion, and would be backpedaling on 5e minimalist design philosophy. Hopefully they don't get a bazillion people saying "YES, GIVE ME THE FRENZIED ALCHEMICAL CHOSEN UR-ROGUE!" because that's a way to tune me out of their products for the time frame where they waste time doing it. Maybe those options will just highlight a couple really specific archetypes that are very popular and they'll come up with subclasses for those. That's fine. Warlock was like that for me in 3e. The new kid on the block that actually felt right and was cool and deserved to get D&D tenure.

For races I picked the ones that were around when the settings were made in 2e, so kender, half-giant, thri-kreen (was mul on the list?), maybe a couple others.

I didn't pick any of the weird ones that came out in the same corny-copia timeline, nor the monsters (gnolls, kobolds). For the monsters, I'd rather they come up with a general rule to turn any monster like that into a PC, rather than selectively release a couple every now and again. 

So if there is an UA where they take every humanoid in the MM and create a player race, sure. But I don't want "This Month: Scaly PCs" where they make kobolds and lizardfolk into races, because that's just going to mean we may get this race and we may get that race, and 6 years down the line people will still be saying, 

"Why haven't they given us orc yet? We have kobolds and bugbears, and kenku for crying out loud?"

and others will say

"Just use the half-orc stats!"

etc.

I just can't see that being a good thing.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

CM said:


> I'd hazard a guess that the great majority of players interested in a warlord class specifically _do not_ want a magic-using class.




It's clear that the designers of 5th edition listened to the mass of feedback from the playtests saying they didn't want instantaneous, non-magical healing happening from across the room again.

Didn't you get the memo?

Overruled.

Your fun is not more important than my fun. I can't play a game of D&D where healing an ally is happening like that without using magic or even touching the PC or using bandages or some such.

There already is a way for non-magical healing to occur, walk up to your fallen ally, use your healing kit from the healer feat that you took, and spend your action doing that.

Let's let magic take care of magical things. It's easy, we play a game with magic in it, so we already have that design space open to us. It's called a paladin, a cleric, or a ranger, or a bard, or a favored soul, or a druid can all do that. Using spells or other magic. 

No warlord on the survey means they won't go there again. They already told the fans of the warlord class how to play one : a war college bard. Why make redundant classes? You can already do exactly what you want. But you do need to use magic to do it. Because that's life.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> There's even more room that than.  There are only 5 arguably-pure 'martial' sub-classes in 5e.  All are focused on DPR as their main combat contribution.  That leaves a healer or leader, a less-focused damage 'blaster' type, a battle-field-interdiction 'controller' type, an action-enabling Commander, even a more effective 'defender' build.   There were six Warlord builds, plus the unofficial 'Lazy' build. There were 3.x fighter builds you couldn't do in 4e, and still can't in 5e.   Really, martial design space is wide open.  5e has barely touched it.




Martials aren't getting across-the-room healing without magic in 5th edition, sorry man. You lost that debate. The PHB is proof of that. Plus the comments by the designers that if you want to play a warlord, with healing, you have to multiclass a bard to get it. Or just play a paladin or a ranger, take some feats, or use maneuvers to grant allies some attacks. All that design space has already been used.

"Design space" to let specifically non-magical classes do magical things is not a design space I want to ever see explored. Because it's stupid.


----------



## CM (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> <impressively arrogant edition war bait snipped>




If you think "warlord" is synonymous with martial healing, then i'm sorry, but you don't know warlords at all. It's so much more than that. Note that nowhere in my post did I even mention healing.

By the way, "because it might not fit every campaign" is about the weakest argument around to _not_ flesh out a class. More options does not infringe on your fun.


----------



## CM (Jul 1, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...makes me wonder what a spell-less bard a la the spell-less ranger would look like...




http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-at-the-nonmagical-bard&p=6558638#post6558638


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Martials aren't getting across-the-room healing without magic in 5th edition.  The PHB is proof of that.



 So what you're saying is, the PH is it, nothing else will ever be added to the game.  I am unconvinced.



> Plus the comments by the designers that if you want to play a warlord, with healing, you have to multiclass a bard to get it.



 Mearls has made some very anti-martial/anti-warlord comments, in an off-hand way, in the context of a podcast not actually about D&D.  Maybe they reflect his own personal prejudices, and maybe he'll let those prejudices get in the way of making 5e the best game it can be.  Or maybe not.  



> "Design space" to let specifically non-magical classes do magical things is not a design space I want to ever see explored.



 Nothing magical about hp restoration, everybody does it every night.  Nothing magical about the design space (everything but DPR) left open to martial archetypes by 5e.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Mearls has made some very anti-martial/anti-warlord comments, in an off-hand way, in the context of a podcast not actually about D&D.  Maybe they reflect his own personal prejudices, and maybe he'll let those prejudices get in the way of making 5e the best game it can be.  Or maybe not.




Out of curiosity, what podcast?


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 1, 2015)

Wednesday Boy said:


> It's a long shot but I added a request for the Tome of Magic Binder in the comments section.  @_*kalil*_, maybe you could do the same for the Warlord.




I expect the binder to show up as a "vestige pact" option for the warlock...that is how they handled it in 4e and I believe Mearls mentioned that this is likely what they would do in 5e if they brought it over.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jul 1, 2015)

I only selected FR and Greyhawk.  None of the other items interest me at all.  And I left comments that Eric's Grandmother would not approve of in regards to the fact they have not published any settings as yet.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 1, 2015)

I selected all of the class content. I'd sure love to explore settings in more detail, but character customization is much more lacking in this edition. I'd really like to see some playtested and fully developed character options.

I also suggested the Warlord. The Warlord I played so much is not a fighter, they're a support character. As it was the most popular 4E character I hope someone will dust off those books and take a look at it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

SigmaOne said:


> Out of curiosity, what podcast?



 Apparently, 'Blood of Gruumsh,' March 2013, though I can't confirm that atm, due to a "*CRITICAL FAILURE!*"


----------



## Staffan (Jul 1, 2015)

ppaladin123 said:


> I expect the binder to show up as a "vestige pact" option for the warlock...that is how they handled it in 4e and I believe Mearls mentioned that this is likely what they would do in 5e if they brought it over.




That's a bit of a shame. The cool stuff about the Binder was that they got to connect with these weird entities and gained strange powers from doing so, and each day they got to connect with *different* entities. It made them very flexible, in a way usually only highly diversified wizards are - but with a slightly more martial/skill-based bent. It was also nice that many of the vestiges granted what was effectively 1/encounter abilities (once per 5 rounds), which was a pretty new thing in D&D at the time.

The warlock, on the other hand, is a very un-flexible class - there are plenty of ways to make a warlock, but once any power is chosen it is pretty much locked in. That's the very antithesis of the binder.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2015)

The Cavelier

Now, it was a walking sack of bonuses with a code to balance it.

Do we want:
A warrior who gets +X bonuses to attack and damage rolls with certain weapons 
A warrior treats certain weapons as magic
A warrior who can trade those +X bonuses to AC.
A warrior who straight up is attached to his or her mount in combat
A warrior who gets even more ability score increases
A warrior who attacks things in toughest order, toughest to wimpiest

maybe?
If we have the cri-happy champion, how much worse could Mr(s) 20Str/20Dex/20Con lance/sword/flail guy be?



Staffan said:


> That's a bit of a shame. The cool stuff about the Binder was that they got to connect with these weird entities and gained strange powers from doing so, and each day they got to connect with *different* entities. It made them very flexible, in a way usually only highly diversified wizards are - but with a slightly more martial/skill-based bent. It was also nice that many of the vestiges granted what was effectively 1/encounter abilities (once per 5 rounds), which was a pretty new thing in D&D at the time.
> 
> The warlock, on the other hand, is a very un-flexible class - there are plenty of ways to make a warlock, but once any power is chosen it is pretty much locked in. That's the very antithesis of the binder.




You could still do that.
You could have the warlock form a pact each day with vestige and get different but weaker features.
I suspect the patrons were written in that way _on purpose_ so they can swap out a single patron for a collection of vestiges for the binder.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> < bulk of post snipped for space >
> . . .
> 
> No warlord on the survey means they won't go there again. They already told the fans of the warlord class how to play one : *a war college bard*. Why make redundant classes? You can already do exactly what you want. But you do need to use magic to do it. Because that's life.




_(Emphasis added.)_ 

When you say, "war college bard," do you mean College of Valor? If not, where is this "war college bard" of which you speak?
(Link, please?)


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Yes, that's what I meant. If you actually read L&L and tweets from the developers, that's precisely the advise they give.

If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room. I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Didn't you get the memo?
> 
> Overruled.





Please keep it respectful.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Yes, that's what I meant. If you actually read L&L and tweets from the developers, that's precisely the advise they give.
> 
> If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room. I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.




Wow.  So, if they include an optional class, perhaps in a UA article, that includes martial healing (which 5e ALREADY HAS), you'll drop the hobby?  Really?  You hate the idea so much that giving it to someone else will make you stop.

Do you think that's a ... rational position to take?


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

CM said:


> If you think "warlord" is synonymous with martial healing, then i'm sorry, but you don't know warlords at all. It's so much more than that. Note that nowhere in my post did I even mention healing.
> 
> By the way, "because it might not fit every campaign" is about the weakest argument around to _not_ flesh out a class. More options does not infringe on your fun.




Thanks for not telling me what impinges on my fun or not, bro.

Warlords were overpowering every single 4th edition game I saw them in. I've played one twice, it got tiresome how easy the game was. They make a mockery of the action economy, make it so enemies literally couldn't even get a turn in before they were smoked by your party. It's like being a liberal on Fox news, unable to get a single word in edgewise because being assaulted from all sides. It's fun to see that once or twice, but after that it cheapens the game and I don't want my game cheapened through reducing the challenge to zero.

Their non-magical shouting healing was just one area that I never want to see happen again in another game of D&D I play in, either as a player or a DM. I also don't want players controlling other players every round, and grossly unbalancing the game with out of turn shenanigans that make straightforward play impossible and slow the game down.

No, I never want to see such a class again. I've seen DMs give up on trying to throw encounters together because the players had a warlord who make the game a walk in the park. I want the game to be a challenge, not a gotcha or an exercise in futility for DMs.

So yes, my fun does depend on the game remaining as it is. There are already a few exploitatively strong elements in the game as is (polearm master + gwm is better than anything else on the battlefield), I don't want them compounding this with even more reason that the only way to challenge PCs is to give NPCs at least 4 levels in character classes so they can compete.

Take the warlord power "Reorient the Axis". Now how on earth would you explain how a warlord can grant extra movement rate to his entire group every 5 minutes the second any combat starts, without using magic? Why even bother having combats? Just let the wookie win. I don't enjoy playing games in god mode.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2015)

[MENTION=6794198]spinozajack[/MENTION] - considering that the complaints you are making about the Warlord class are very specific to your experience and are not generally (as far as I know) shared by the wider community, what conclusions would you make from that?

You're the only person I've ever read consider the warlord to be so overpowered that it's like playing in God mode.  Have you considered that your experiences might just be the result of user error rather than mechanical?

By the way, "Move your asses!" would be pretty much the way I'd narrate Reorient the Axis.  But, then, I have never really thought of game mechanics as having physics explanations.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  So, if they include an optional class, perhaps in a UA article, that includes martial healing (which 5e ALREADY HAS), you'll drop the hobby?  Really?  You hate the idea so much that giving it to someone else will make you stop.
> 
> Do you think that's a ... rational position to take?




It's irrational to play a game that I find ridiculous, yes.

One can heal their ally from a grievous injury due to falling into a trap or getting a critical from an ogre's club, or you can play a strictly non-magic using class. Not both. You have to pick one. 

That exclusion is required, because : logic.

Thankfully Mr Thompson is gone now so the chance of Mike Mearls adding the warlord back in is very low. Maybe working on Destiny will disabuse Rodney of such unrealistic and to my mind, lazy game design as he is known to use. Verisimilitude is exclusionary. I want my non-magical PCs to follow the laws of newtonian physics, as best as they can be approximated in a table top game. Which means no spooky action at a distance, no quantum mechanics, no spiritual ghost particles making stuff happen over there when your character is over here.

That kind of sheer absurdity offends my rational sensibilities and is therefore, not fun to me. Back in the playtests you couldn't go two days without a new warlord thread. And people wanting that lost. What on earth would make anyone think that Wizards wants to throw money away like that? Like Donald Trump, Wizards is one off-the-cuff "come and get it" or warlord shout away from alienating their players off that 3-5 year sales cliff Mearls was tweeting about. Fortunes can be made and they can just as easily be lost. They are well aware of these hot button topics and have already shown their hand, namely that they want to keep making money with this game. Adding in disruptive elements that drive customers away isn't good for business.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2015)

I'm thinking that perhaps you may be overstating things just a smidgeon.  After all, 5e already has non-magical healing.  A fighter's second wind is a perfect example.  I could take lethal levels of damage over the course of a day, yet finish that day with full hp, presuming I get to short rest a few times.  How does this not trip your "lazy game design" issues?  How is it perfectly fine for a fighter to have non-magical regeneration, but, not okay to have a warlord grant extra movement or attacks?

Heck, have you read a battle master?  How does me smacking something with my sword allow an ally to move (allowing an ally to move half its speed without drawing opportunity attacks from the guy I smacked)?  Or, how is it I can give up my attack to grant someone else an attack, with bonuses, but, no one else in the game can do that?  Why do these things not offend your "rational sensibilities"?

And, how in the hell does allowing an _OPTIONAL_ class into the game, that you are in no way obligated to play, cause you to leave the game?  Good grief.  Are you really so arrogant to think that your preferences are just that important?


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

SigmaOne said:


> I'm fine with them introducing a new warlord class if warlord players feel (as some clearly do) that the battlemaster does not properly replace the 4e class. But people shouldn't take their anger out on the fighter; it's a good class with fun subclasses.




Most campaigns wont see the levels requires to make the fighter worth choosing over the valor bard or the paladin. It is a weak class in comparison, with little/nothing to offer in the exploration/social pillars over other options. 2 levels get you most of the good stuff. 

All the short rest dependent classes should be slightly superior to the long rest based classes, because the latter can nova. What would you rather do - be average all day during the pre-season, or dominate the Superbowl? Being able to pull out all the stops in a one fight day (which is normally going to be a balls to the walls fight) should come at a significant premium. I'm tired of running pointless trash encounters to make non-daily classes measure up.


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> It's clear that the designers of 5th edition listened to the mass of feedback from the playtests saying they didn't want instantaneous, non-magical healing happening from across the room again.
> 
> Didn't you get the memo?
> 
> ...




Or you could not be willfully inflexible when it comes to imagination.  "Herp a derp, HP is meat!" "I cant conceive of narrative rules. Lets consult 50 ing charts and a spreadsheet like in Pathfinder to achieve the same battlefield repositioning effect!"


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2015)

Settings: Birthright, FR, Mystara
Classes: Cavalier (or Knight, or something similar to fill that archetype)
Races: confusion - did they mean races to be played as PCs (in which case, only Kender) or to be expanded on as monsters and opponents for the PCs (in which case do them all, particularly the Githi)

I didn't think to comment on anything outside the poll, but more 1e-style adventures (rather than huge hardcover books) would be on my list.  That said, if one looks at Princes of the Apocalypse as a bunch of stand-alone adventures instead of as a linked story it's pure gold - there's about ten good ones in there and half a dozen more that are salvageable with some work.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Most campaigns wont see the levels requires to make the fighter worth choosing over the valor bard or the paladin. It is a weak class in comparison, with little/nothing to offer in the exploration/social pillars over other options. 2 levels get you most of the good stuff.
> 
> All the short rest dependent classes should be slightly superior to the long rest based classes, because the latter can nova. What would you rather do - be average all day during the pre-season, or dominate the Superbowl?



Well, to dominate the Superbowl you first have to *get* to the Superbowl; and if your nova-guy wants to be a passenger all season while the rest of the team does the heavy work he'll not be very popular with his team-mates.

That said, if all you look for in a class is its mechanical "good stuff" we are talking across a huge gulf dividing our approach to the game.

Lanefan


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 1, 2015)

Heh. If not for ENWord, I would never know what is going on at WotC.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jul 1, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> *Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success.*
> 
> I don't believe this for one second.




"Overall feedback has been positive" is pr code for "certain things received very negative feedback."

In this case I'm willing to bet that the things in question are the content of the magazines (or lack thereof).


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> Well, to dominate the Superbowl you first have to *get* to the Superbowl; and if your nova-guy wants to be a passenger all season while the rest of the team does the heavy work he'll not be very popular with his team-mates.
> 
> That said, if all you look for in a class is its mechanical "good stuff" we are talking across a huge gulf dividing our approach to the game.
> 
> Lanefan




In general, classes are just mechanical packages. That level dip taken in fighter just represents stabbing people more and jogging in armor. Its not a lifestyle shift as you go back to your superior skald class. 

The 6-8 fight days are going to, by nature, be easier fights. The short rest classes are still dependent on long rest classes to keep them up with healing. Preventing rests generally requires external pressure or railroading on the part of the DM. And unless you're running 6-8 random encounters PER DAY, the daily classes dominate. Even if they assume THREE random encounters while traveling (highly suspect), they are still ruling over the short rest guys, which require SIX to be on par. In general, its better to have everything on tap at your disposal, than hope you get to cram in a couple hour long rests to achieve the same results.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> It's clear that the designers of 5th edition listened to the mass of feedback from the playtests saying they didn't want instantaneous, non-magical healing happening from across the room again.
> 
> Didn't you get the memo?
> 
> ...





I feel like they could do a warlord with temp hp, temporarily granted DR, and downtime healing bonuses. The kind of guy that helps you find strength you didn't know you had, story wise, and the kind of class that prevents damage rather than heals it, mechanics -wise.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 1, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Link.



Thank you for bypassing what amounts to little more than click bait.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 1, 2015)

This was only about very basic stuff, things you choose at first level.

What I want most from previous editions wasn't even close to being discussed: the magic item pricing economy from 3e


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> One can heal their ally from a grievous injury due to falling into a trap or getting a critical from an ogre's club, or you can play a strictly non-magic using class. Not both. You have to pick one.



 You are powerless to enforce that little dictum.


----------



## Ricochet (Jul 1, 2015)

I wrote in a vote for Al-Qadim.


----------



## delericho (Jul 1, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> *Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success.*
> 
> I don't believe this for one second.




If "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" can be nominated for the ENnie for best adventure (and especially when "Lost Mine of Phandelver" is not) then Doppelganger+ can receive positive feedback.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jul 1, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> Added warlord and a proper bladesinger (no I don't like eldritch knight, bladelocks, and valor bards)...




Out of curiosity, what would you want to see in a bladesinger that's missing in those other classes?



ppaladin123 said:


> I expect the binder to show up as a "vestige pact" option for the warlock...that is how they handled it in 4e and I believe Mearls mentioned that this is likely what they would do in 5e if they brought it over.






Staffan said:


> That's a bit of a shame. The cool stuff about the Binder was that they got to connect with these weird entities and gained strange powers from doing so, and each day they got to connect with *different* entities. It made them very flexible, in a way usually only highly diversified wizards are - but with a slightly more martial/skill-based bent. It was also nice that many of the vestiges granted what was effectively 1/encounter abilities (once per 5 rounds), which was a pretty new thing in D&D at the time.
> 
> The warlock, on the other hand, is a very un-flexible class - there are plenty of ways to make a warlock, but once any power is chosen it is pretty much locked in. That's the very antithesis of the binder.




Maybe a vestige pact could work--WotC has clever designers.  I would be disappointed if a 5th Edition version followed the 4E version and sacrificed the bargaining aspect that the 3.5 Binder had.  My favorite part about the 3.5 Binder was how the various vestiges influenced the character's personality and physical appearance.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2015)

My comments just mention 3 classes and 1 race.

Truenamers (an at will magic class who can get inverted effects by reserving spells and targets a creature's, place's, or object's existence rather than the target itself)

Dragonfire Adepts (a magical warrior who utilizes various breath weapons and invocations to reach victory)

Totemist (a magical warrior who binds magic in the spirits of magical beasts to their bodies for power and utility)

Hamadryad (a race that is both fey and plant who has an array of plant magic and tough skin)


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2015)

I'm just happy the Vryloka (a race I designed entirely for Heroes of Shadow) made it to the list!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 1, 2015)

Klaus said:


> I'm just happy the Vryloka (a race I designed entirely for Heroes of Shadow) made it to the list!




I voted for it along with my class write in for warlord...


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jul 1, 2015)

Warlord and Nentir Vale.

That is all.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Or you could not be willfully inflexible when it comes to imagination.  "Herp a derp, HP is meat!" "I cant conceive of narrative rules. Lets consult 50 ing charts and a spreadsheet like in Pathfinder to achieve the same battlefield repositioning effect!"





Strike two!

Ladies and Gents, upthread I already warned someone to keep discussion respectful.  Here's a second case of someone who cannot seem to mind their manners.  

The third and following issues will likely be given a vacation from the boards, probably without warning.  I strongly suggest you treat each other with the utmost respect from this point on.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room. I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.



If a warlord class is released, please attach a Vine of the money being burned, please.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 1, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Or you could not be willfully inflexible when it comes to imagination.  "Herp a derp, HP is meat!" "I cant conceive of narrative rules. Lets consult 50 ing charts and a spreadsheet like in Pathfinder to achieve the same battlefield repositioning effect!"




Please don't create strawmen. I'm firmly on HP is meat, but I don't mind, in fact I was also for: Please give us warlords!. One thing doesn't preclude the other.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Jul 1, 2015)

I fully expect this survey to play into Mike Mearl's hypothesis that "current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers".

New edition -> new versions of every borderline or unprofitable product that has ever been produced.

And it seems a strong rejection of the expected "if you want it, you can house-rule it" tone of the edition so far.

But this thread and forum are a small sample size.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 1, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> What I want most from previous editions wasn't even close to being discussed: the magic item pricing economy from 3e




You're not getting that, Capn. They've been very clear about it. 5e isn't doing that...to the rousing gratitude and enjoyment of many of its users. You're not among them. That's fine. The heart wants what it wants, as they say.

Your options are:
1. Let it go and play 5e as defined and intended.
2. Incorporate a 3e "magic item economy" into your 5e games. Yes...YOU [if you DM]. If that's what you want, _you_ have to do that in _your_ games at _your_ tables.
3. Go back to 3e and play the game you, obviously, want...which, as one must surmise from every post you make, is not 5e.

Those are the only possible approaches to this perceived "problem."


----------



## Eric V (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Yes, that's what I meant. If you actually read L&L and tweets from the developers, that's precisely the advise they give.
> 
> If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room.* I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.*




This is an excellent reason for them to do so; let's see that warlord!!


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Most campaigns wont see the levels requires to make the fighter worth choosing over the valor bard or the paladin. It is a weak class in comparison, with little/nothing to offer in the exploration/social pillars over other options. 2 levels get you most of the good stuff.
> 
> All the short rest dependent classes should be slightly superior to the long rest based classes, because the latter can nova. What would you rather do - be average all day during the pre-season, or dominate the Superbowl? Being able to pull out all the stops in a one fight day (which is normally going to be a balls to the walls fight) should come at a significant premium.




To you, D&D is something very different from what it is to me. Everything you've said is irrelevant to my game and sounds boring as hell to me. Fighters rock. They're a ton of fun. 



> I'm tired of running pointless trash encounters to make non-daily classes measure up.



What the hell game are you even playing? It's alien to me.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Jul 1, 2015)

I also wrote in warlord. I think that it's one of the few idea's from 4e that needs to be revisited. Yes you can come close if you multi bard and fighter, but if you want to play that concept before level 7 or 8 right now your sol...


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2015)

Eh, honestly I don't care whether 5e gets a warlord or not... but there are a ton of things I'd rather see for 5e before it... Mainly a Planescape for 5e.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 1, 2015)

I asked for them to vet Unearthed Arcana a bit better.  It needs to be more than picking it up off the editing floor and pasting it to a document.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I fully expect this survey to play into Mike Mearl's hypothesis that "current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers".
> 
> New edition -> new versions of every borderline or unprofitable product that has ever been produced.
> 
> ...




I think it is more

Player: My DM won't let me play this cool race or class I found online. He says its overpowered. And he's a lazy bum and wont create and test a whole class all by himself. Make an official hobgoblin warblade for me, Mearls.

DM:  Please make a warblade and shaman. My players won't SHUT UP ABOUT IT and the kids won't stop crying and the spouse... ugh. New classes and races, please.

Mearls: But I made it so you could do it yourse... Fine. Whadayawant?


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Please don't create strawmen. I'm firmly on HP is meat, but I don't mind, in fact I was also for: Please give us warlords!. One thing doesn't preclude the other.




My apologies to everyone in the thread that I directly and indirectly insulted and was rude to. I was being a jerk last night, and we all love the same game. Take care!


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?


----------



## Barantor (Jul 1, 2015)

I voted for Greyhawk, Mystara and Dark Suns, three which I think are more interesting than Forgotten Realms.

Shaman, Cavalier and Warden (even though Fey Pally is really close to Warden) are the classes I chose. I think they offer something just a little different than the current offerings.

Races I chose none of the above, because the majority of the races they listed have bonuses listed already in the DMG and Aasimar and Eladrin are fully fleshed out in the DMG as examples.


----------



## MoonSong (Jul 1, 2015)

Barantor said:


> Races I chose none of the above, because the majority of the races they listed have bonuses listed already in the DMG and Aasimar and Eladrin are fully fleshed out in the DMG as examples.




But aren't AL legal and lack that visibility that lets players use them.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?




I should have!!  It's taking up all my free time to convert it to 5e!  I just didn't know if it fell under FR or not....


----------



## greylurk (Jul 1, 2015)

Say it with me: Spelljammer!  Planescape, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun too, for the fun of it.  Mystara, FR, and Greyhawk are all interchangeable as far as I can tell, so just pick one and stick with it.  I don't care which one, though it seems 4e piled a lot of love on FR, so we might as well keep going on that.


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

ParagonofVirtue said:


> I wrote in a vote for Al-Qadim.




I LOVE Al-Quadim (and am currently playing in a 5E Al-Q game), but I'm wondering if why it (and Maztica) didnt make the list was because they are technically part of the Forgotten Realms.

Al-Quadim would make a good UA article. The're not much meta plot in the setting, so while we might need a lot of updates on the realms post sundering, you really can just grab the 2E book/boxed sets and go with it. The single element wizards work well as refluffed dragon sorcerers, Shai'ir and warlock go really well in flavor and mechanics, and all you'd need is a new dual element wizard tradition. 

The Sha'ir's Handbook had a bunch of really awesome and gonzo kits that were actually more full blown classes that might be harder to convert.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> It's irrational to play a game that I find ridiculous, yes.
> 
> One can heal their ally from a grievous injury due to falling into a trap or getting a critical from an ogre's club, or you can play a strictly non-magic using class. Not both. You have to pick one.
> 
> ...



Why play D&D at all? It is not, and never has been, a physics simulator.


----------



## greylurk (Jul 1, 2015)

I have a vague worry that Al-Quadim is a bit too close to Al-Queda to be republished without a name change.


----------



## CM (Jul 1, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> Added warlord and a proper bladesinger (no I don't like eldritch knight, bladelocks, and valor bards), was happy to checkmark Birthright, Eberron, and Spelljammer.




I suspect that a good array of new spells would go a long ways to making the eldritch knight feel more like the 4e bladesinger and/or swordmage. Currently the great majority of spells are more aligned towards a full caster.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> Why play D&D at all? It is not, and never has been, a physics simulator.




Excluded middle here.  One can prefer a certain level of verisimilitude without it needing to be a physics simulator.  Everyone has certain levels of "expected realism" in their games about how things work.  I'm assuming you wouldn't let your players defy the laws of gravity, for example, unless they had a magical (or similar) ability to do so.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

SigmaOne said:


> To you, D&D is something very different from what it is to me. Everything you've said is irrelevant to my game and sounds boring as hell to me. Fighters rock. They're a ton of fun.
> 
> .




Yeah, us too.  The fighter is most definitely the most common class our group plays.  It's a great class and we've had a ton of fun with it.  One of my favorite 5e PCs is a Halfling fighter with a criminal background as a matter of fact.  It almost seems like people forget to factor in the "role-playing" part of the class when picking which one to play, but only look for the most optimized.  That's fine, but it's hardly a universal playstyle.  What I mean by that is people who want to play the paladin, but don't ever want to follow the role-playing guidelines of the class.  We saw that ALL THE TIME back in the day lol.  And it still seems to exist.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 1, 2015)

I wrote in warlord as well. Hopefully they got a lot of write ins for that!

Also, bariaur, githyanki, and githzerai would be nice. Ticked thise box as well, although I have my own written up, as well as Modron. Darn... should have written Modron in... missed opportunity there.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

greylurk said:


> I have a vague worry that Al-Quadim is a bit too close to Al-Queda to be republished without a name change.




If that were the reason, that would be sad.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> And it seems a strong rejection of the expected "if you want it, you can house-rule it" tone of the edition so far.



 I don't see it as a rejection, at all.  The DMG, for instance, was full of options, those don't take away the ability of the DM to customize the game to this campaign, they just make it easier, if one of the options is a close enough fit.  More options doesn't mean no house-ruling, it just means more options that might make the process easier for some DMs.  Not a bad thing.


----------



## Lidgar (Jul 1, 2015)

Planescape...Greyhawk....SPELLJAMMER!

I really want to drop my party into the middle of a battle between drow and mind flayers...in space.

Not too interested in additional races and classes. I can wing anything not there already.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, us too.  The fighter is most definitely the most common class our group plays.




I've gotta echo this sentiment. Fighters are well represented. The Dragonlance game I play in has one straight Fighter, and two others that multiclassed because Action Surge is the _sauce_. The Lost Mine game I'm running has a fighter in it, too (Sentinel feat is _owning_ the goblins!).


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm assuming you wouldn't let your players defy the laws of gravity, for example, unless they had a magical (or similar) ability to do so.




If you roll well enough, sure, you can run up a wall or whatever.

Every D&D character is defying the laws of physics by doing what adventurers do. If Godzilla existed, it would be impossible for a man with a sword to handily kill him. So if you're accepting that a high-level fighter can kill a dragon but "can't violate Newtonian physics" you are already going down a totally ridiculous line of thinking.

Ever since 3e tried to turn D&D into a universal system, some people have gotten into their heads that D&D rules are supposed to be a virtual reality simulator. Everything has to make sense in terms of physics, unless it has the "magic" label applied to it, which means it's full of midichlorians that can do anything even if it makes no sense. This is not D&D.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> If you roll well enough, sure, you can run up a wall or whatever.
> 
> Every D&D character is defying the laws of physics by doing what adventurers do. If Godzilla existed, it would be impossible for a man with a sword to handily kill him. So if you're accepting that a high-level fighter can kill a dragon but "can't violate Newtonian physics" you are already going down a totally ridiculous line of thinking.
> 
> Ever since 3e tried to turn D&D into a universal system, some people have gotten into their heads that D&D rules are supposed to be a virtual reality simulator. Everything has to make sense in terms of physics, unless it has the "magic" label applied to it, which means it's full of midichlorians that can do anything even if it makes no sense. This is not D&D.




Once again, you're excluding a giant middle.  Also, I'm pretty sure if I were in your game and said my 1st level fighter wanted to jump over that 30' wall via high jump, you wouldn't just say, "Roll high enough,and sure."  I also assume that you assume your players have to eat and sleep at some point, even if it's in the background.  And a million other laws of our universe work the same way in the game world as we do here.

So _everyone_ accepts verisimilitude, it's just at varying levels.  Stop acting like someone who likes more than you is trying to run a physics simulator.  That isn't helpful to the conversation.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> Why play D&D at all? It is not, and never has been, a physics simulator.




There's a world of gray area between D&D being a physics simulator and having fighters that can summon enemies to his side without using magic, or a halfling sliding a two-ton dragon using his at-will and no magic at all, and nary a strength check in sight.

If you compare battlemaster maneuvers that are limited by size differences and mandatory checks in 5e, with how such push/pull/slide shenanigans functioned every time without fail in 4e, you will see a clear difference.

I don't need or want D&D to be a physics simulator, but I don't want it to be a cartoon simulator either.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Thankfully Mr Thompson is gone now so the chance of Mike Mearls adding the warlord back in is very low. Maybe working on Destiny will disabuse Rodney of such unrealistic and to my mind, lazy game design as he is known to use. Verisimilitude is exclusionary. I want my non-magical PCs to follow the laws of newtonian physics, as best as they can be approximated in a table top game. Which means no spooky action at a distance, no quantum mechanics, no spiritual ghost particles making stuff happen over there when your character is over here.




First: Wow. Lazy game design? Really?

Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?

Third: ...but you're fine with the Battlemaster, which I did help design?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?




Crap on a stick, I forgot to write in Al-Qadim!


----------



## Zaran (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> First: Wow. Lazy game design? Really?
> 
> Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?
> 
> Third: ...but you're fine with the Battlemaster, which I did help design?




Just ignore him Rodney.  Your work in the RPG industry is exemplary.  You are already missed.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.

Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jul 1, 2015)

Why couldn't Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, and Maztica be a part of Forgotten Realms since they are already on the same planet?


----------



## Zaran (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.
> 
> Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.




Dude, that UA was the best one so far.  It is a Beta draft.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> First: Wow. Lazy game design? Really?
> 
> Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?
> 
> Third: ...but you're fine with the Battlemaster, which I did help design?




I already answered your first question, above (using but one example, there were many others).

If you didn't have anything to do with the warlord, that's good, because the warlord is the single most immersion breaking class to ever have been introduced to D&D and one of the reasons many wouldn't touch 4th edition with a ten foot pole. It doesn't take a game design genius to not include that a second time. Hence, the 5e PHB doesn't include one. And neither does this survey. Too logic-breaking and headache-inducing to imagine how anyone can make an unconscious ally stand up from across the room. That is lazy game design, disassociated mechanics which 5e largely nixed, and pervasive throughout 4th edition.

The battlemaster works and isn't lazy design at all. Every single maneuver can't be spammed, requires your character to be within a ballpark range of size difference to even attempt to pull off, then requires checks to actually function. No more halflings sliding around dragons any more, thank the heavens.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Zaran said:


> Just ignore him Rodney.  Your work in the RPG industry is exemplary.  You are already missed.




Excuse me? That's pretty rude. What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine? That's an argument by authority and invalid.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

Zaran said:


> Dude, that UA was the best one so far.  It is a Beta draft.




Yeah, I liked it.  And I just ignore the limit in medicine to whatever you can carry and what materials are available.  Funny enough, they aren't mutually exclusive.

For example, the limit to WIS modifier can easily be explained as "the higher wisdom/perception you have, the more herbs you were able to find."  That makes total sense, and isn't gamist at all.


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.
> 
> Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.




It's also narrativist simulation, because that's what the story says you find.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, I liked it.  And I just ignore the limit in medicine to whatever you can carry and what materials are available.  Funny enough, they aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> For example, the limit to WIS modifier can easily be explained as "the higher wisdom/perception you have, the more herbs you were able to find."  That makes total sense, and isn't gamist at all.




Nope. A higher wisdom score does not and cannot in any logical way impact how much of anything that a character can carry. It's purely gamist on its face. The fact that it's beta is no excuse at all, the problem is is that it was even considered in the first place. The thought process is lacking a "does this make sense, logically" counterpoint.

Even Mike Mearls' articles on overall 5e design having associated mechanics, where a character has a similar understanding of his abilities in-game as what the player has when deciding whether to use it, makes it clear that this type of ivory tower game design was being curtailed in favor of rules that made sense.

Imposing a limit of wis mod number of poulstices that a ranger can carry, makes about as much sense an int-mod limit on the number of daggers a rogue can carry.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.




Actually, the original text (which may not have made it through editing; not sure) said that the ranger can only _maintain_ so many poultices at a time, the idea being that the ranger needs to keep the herbs they use fresh, keep them from drying out, etc. and that as you gain levels you get more efficient at maintaining them. So, it wasn't "to heck with why" by any stretch.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> It's also narrativist simulation, because that's what the story says you find.




What if you're in a field with those herbs all around and want to stock up for the long journey into the frozen wastelands?

It's not a simulation of anything, because it don't make no sense, bro. There is no story, logic, physical, reason for why that type of limitation should exist. It has no foundation, no rationale, at least none that even makes remote sense.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Once again, you're excluding a giant middle.  Also, I'm pretty sure if I were in your game and said my 1st level fighter wanted to jump over that 30' wall via high jump, you wouldn't just say, "Roll high enough,and sure."



I'd tell the guy playing a 1st level anything that he knows he can't jump that far. A few levels later, though...



> Stop acting like someone who likes more than you is trying to run a physics simulator.  That isn't helpful to the conversation.



I'm not throwing a fit at people who have different tastes from me, and saying what they like should be written out of the game and forbidden. That's spinozadude you're thinking of.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Nope. A higher wisdom score does not and cannot in any logical way impact how much of anything that a character can carry. It's purely gamist on its face. The fact that it's beta is no excuse at all, the problem is is that it was even considered in the first place. The thought process is lacking a "does this make sense, logically" counterpoint.
> 
> Even Mike Mearls' articles on overall 5e design having associated mechanics, where a character has a similar understanding of his abilities in-game as what the player has when deciding whether to use it, makes it clear that this type of ivory tower game design was being curtailed in favor of rules that made sense.
> 
> Imposing a limit of wis mod number of poulstices that a ranger can carry, makes about as much sense an int-mod limit on the number of daggers a rogue can carry.




I imagine you'd have a less vitriolic response if you went back and reread what I wrote.  I said the WIS modifier can be directly tied to how much you _find_.  And since WIS = perception, that's entirely logical.  Kind of hard to carry 8 poultices when you only find enough material for three.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> Ever since 3e tried to turn D&D into a universal system, some people have gotten into their heads that D&D rules are supposed to be a virtual reality simulator. Everything has to make sense in terms of physics, unless it has the "magic" label applied to it, which means it's full of midichlorians that can do anything even if it makes no sense.



 All very true.



> This is not D&D.



 Not true.  The supremacy of magic and denigration of classic heroic archetypes is a very D&D trope. 



RodneyThompson said:


> Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?



 I've always been curious who worked on each of the 4e Martial Classes.  It always seemed to me that the Warlord and Rogue had a different style to their design than the Ranger or Fighter.  Were they giant collaborations built by consensus, did Heinsoo make the final calls an everything, or did each have a distinct 'Auteur?'


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've always been curious who worked on each of the 4e Martial Classes.  It always seemed to me that the Warlord and Rogue had a different style to their design than the Ranger or Fighter.  Were they giant collaborations built by consensus, did Heinsoo make the final calls an everything, or did each have a distinct 'Auteur?'




I'll be honest, I don't really know; when 4E was being designed and developed, I was running the Star Wars RPG line, so I didn't have a lot of insight into who was responsible for what. Sorry.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> Actually, the original text (which may not have made it through editing; not sure) said that the ranger can only _maintain_ so many poultices at a time, the idea being that the ranger needs to keep the herbs they use fresh, keep them from drying out, etc. and that as you gain levels you get more efficient at maintaining them. So, it wasn't "to heck with why" by any stretch.




I find this explanation only slightly less implausible than a carry limit.

There are better and simpler ways to implement poultices that don't require such arbitrary, head-scratching limits. Like, for example, it's up to the DM how many you can find. Then you just say they don't last more than 24 hours. There is already a wisdom limit on the number you can find, if I remember correctly, so a wis limit on the number you can maintain is redundant. We aren't playing a videogame here, there is a human DM, as I'm sure you're well aware. If the DM doesn't want the ranger to have incredible access to healing, he simply says, "no, you can't find any more in this region, no matter how many times you try".


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Excuse me? That's pretty rude. What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine?



You take "dissociated mechanics" seriously.


----------



## SuperTD (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack, have you ever considered that you not liking something doesn't make it objectively bad? Including the Warlord means anyone who wants to use it can. Anyone who doesn't want it can outlaw it at their table.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> There is already a wisdom limit on the number you can find, if I remember correctly, so a wis limit on the number you can maintain is redundant.




This is, where I believe, the change was made, from the original _maintain_ to the word _find_, but I can't say for certain, as I don't have my files in front of me. 

As for the rest, well, I guess I must be a truly lazy game designer, since it seems to me like putting the burden of determining how much a player can heal another character wholly on the Dungeon Master strikes me as a good way to put one more task on the plate of the DM, thus making the game more difficult to run and potentially slowing the game down. Not to mention the perils of distracting the Dungeon Master from his or her other tasks, and the potential discomfort that a DM might face when being asked to adjudicate a player-expended resource. I'm all for verisimilitude, and I felt like it was acceptable to say that the ongoing attention to maintaining a delicate herbal remedy was dependent on some level of expertise. My wife used to bake professionally, for example, and she would tell you that some baking requires your attention, and at a certain point you can only have so many things in the oven at once, despite abundant available resources, because the in-progress baked goods require her time, focus, and effort beyond just mixing ingredients and pouring them.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> I'm not throwing a fit at people who have different tastes from me, and saying what they like should be written out of the game and forbidden. That's spinozadude you're thinking of.




One of the brilliant things that the designers did for 5e, including RT presumably, was to recognize different playstyles have wildly different tolerances for various types of game mechanics, and made the common ones default, and the rare ones optional in the DMG instead of always-on player choices in the PHB.

Placing something in the DMG or even a PHB sidebar is hardly forbidding it, it's just acknowledging that the default game rules should not contain things that people don't want to play with. I don't want to play another edition with non-magical warlords healing unconscious allies from across the room. I'm not alone in that. Presumably, again, the reason it wasn't included is because they actually wanted to recognize the playstyle tension (even angst) that this type of class created in the game and drove players away. Come and get it was another one. Effectively, the Martial Power Source was a magical power source, so that means there were effectively no strictly non-magical classes in 4e.

Many of us wanted the inclusion of non-magical classes or at least subclasses, and to do that, it means recognizing and properly identifying what should be and what shouldn't be considered magical. A little hint : if something is otherwise impossible, it can only be included by magic. Which means, we exclude it from class abilities for classes that don't use magic. It's very straightforward common sense.

I just don't understand why a spell-less ranger would need his wisdom to find poulstices, which is subject to DM veto as well if there aren't any around, and then another wismod limitation on the number he can maintain. Just say they don't last more than 24hours, then you have to find more. It's easy and doesn't require any kind of mental gymnastics. If your DM wants to, you could search again and again and find wis mod each time and stock up for the dungeon. I don't see why Sam couldn't stock up barrels worth of those elven herbs if he had enough time. There was also a limit on how many a given player could benefit from their application, if I remember correctly. So that made the "maintenance" limit redundant anyway.

Why not trust DMs to limit how much to let the ranger find and keep? Is this not the exact same reasoning that people said fighters had when the party is deciding how many short rests should be allowed in a row? 

I'm not sure why it's important to impose a carry limit on ranger poultices but not a daily limit on Second Wind. The former done for balance reasons, which is understandable (from a game balance point of view), but there is no limit on the number of times a level 1 fighter can use his Second Wind. Does not make sense to put a limit on one but not the other. Inconsistent application of the same balance concern. I think balance is important, so I don't allow fighters in my games to use second wind as a bonus action, instead it's involuntary and happens on a reaction to going under half HP, but I don't see the point in a carry limit on herbs and such. All one needs is the number of times a character can benefit from healing herbs in a day, to make wanting to carry more or gather more strictly a question of game time spent and ability to find and carry them. 

As a DM, I'd rather rangers have a chance to stock up on healing herbs in the Abundant Forest of the Elves (even if there is a chance of random spider encounters) before delving into the Frozen Wastes, which could take them days and days to get through. The main question is how much healing one can benefit per day. And these two mechanics are at odds. There is a scaling factor by level in the poultices that are not there for second wind either, keeping poultices relevant for higher character level than second wind is. And Rodney even mentioned that in his article! That it's important to have it scale by character level to maintain utility. So why isn't second wind scaling by level in a similar way? Second Wind is overpowered at level 1-5, and gradually more and more useless after that. 

Whereas the poultices make sense from a scaling point of view, but having arbitrary carry limits, when finding them is already subject to DM approval in a way that taking a few short rests in a row instead of one longer short rest isn't.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> it seems to me like putting the burden of determining how much a player can heal another character wholly on the Dungeon Master strikes me as a good way to put one more task on the plate of the DM, thus making the game more difficult to run and potentially slowing the game down. Not to mention the perils of distracting the Dungeon Master from his or her other tasks, and the potential discomfort that a DM might face when being asked to adjudicate a player-expended resource.




My god yes.

If it was up to me how much a character could heal I'd probably shrug and say "uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" a lot and roll a dice and it would have zero correlation to anything resembling a carefully thought-out consideration of balanced healing resources.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

So, some of us like a variety of class options, and some of us experience tension, even angst, at the thought of other people having fun we think is "illogical." And WotC decided to cater to the latter group.

That's definitely not crazy at all.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine?




It may have to do with your apparent tendency to conflate your own preferences with what should be allowed in a game, coupled with your harsh and occasionally rude approach to discussion.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> This is, where I believe, the change was made, from the original _maintain_ to the word _find_, but I can't say for certain, as I don't have my files in front of me.
> 
> As for the rest, well, I guess I must be a truly lazy game designer, since it seems to me like putting the burden of determining how much a player can heal another character wholly on the Dungeon Master strikes me as a good way to put one more task on the plate of the DM, thus making the game more difficult to run and potentially slowing the game down. Not to mention the perils of distracting the Dungeon Master from his or her other tasks, and the potential discomfort that a DM might face when being asked to adjudicate a player-expended resource. I'm all for verisimilitude, and I felt like it was acceptable to say that the ongoing attention to maintaining a delicate herbal remedy was dependent on some level of expertise. My wife used to bake professionally, for example, and she would tell you that some baking requires your attention, and at a certain point you can only have so many things in the oven at once, despite abundant available resources, because the in-progress baked goods require her time, focus, and effort beyond just mixing ingredients and pouring them.




Restricting DM preoccupation with such things, like easy access to healing resources is very important, as you say. 

But for consistency, let me ask, why did you (or the other designers) not put a similar daily limit on the number of Second Winds a fighter can use per day? That has caused a huge amount of discussion, with the usual solution of "let the DM throw a random encounter after the first hour" to prevent that kind of (ab)use. I don't find that fair, when I play a fighter who wants to second wind twice because I can, being told that after each hour an orc will show up to prevent me from healing without spending HD.

Second Wind, contrary to Poulstices, doesn't have a "con mod" limit per daily use, so it does do exactly what you just said is bad, it places the burden on DMs to threaten players resting more often to bring the fighter back to full, with arbitrary / punitive / coercive random encounters to make up for that lack of game rule limit.

As a DM, I find it very easy to say "your ranger has scoured the area for three hours and found enough herbs for 10 poulstices total, but you think you will have to venture much further to find any more", than to say "you can't ever rest for more than one hour at a time" to prevent Second Wind abuse. If the PCs find a safe cave to rest in, why not let the fighter heal to full without spending HD? Because of balance! Like you said. Right. So why not add a daily limit.

The maintenance requirement of the herbs definitely feels gamist and rather odd, no matter how it's justified with fluffy ribbons. 

It's just simpler to add "the poulstices lose their potency after 24 hours, and any character can't benefit from more than your wis mod per day". So there are other ways to limit it without saying "no", you have to play a game of herb juggler, which to me destroys immersion. 

Maintaining immersion is important, right? That's why halflings can't trip dragons or oozes in 5th ed, right? Many of us bought into your game because the rules were grounded in plausible explanations and made sense in the story.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> So, some of us like a variety of class options, and some of us experience tension, even angst, at the thought of other people having fun we think is "illogical." And WotC decided to cater to the latter group.
> 
> That's definitely not crazy at all.




To be fair, I think there's a lot of room to have issues with inspirational healing in a game. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that this is a welcome thing. So WotC leaving it basically out of the core rules is a smart move.

Which isn't to say it can't be brought in as an option somewhere along the line.

I, for one, consider the Battlemaster a worthy successor to the "leader and commander" Fighter archetype that goes back to name-level OD&D Lords, and pre-dates the warlord by years, and I'm not exactly enthusiastic about morale-hit-points. But it's not like 5e doesn't have room for something more of what folks liked about the 4e warlord.



			
				spinozajack said:
			
		

> But for consistency, let me ask, why did you (or the other designers) not put a similar daily limit on the number of Second Winds a fighter can use per day?




Speaking as someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Second Wind, I think it might have to do with actual problems people actually experience in play.

My issue with SW is more or less aesthetic. It's a little annoying to think of a fighter standing in the corner just taking Second Winds, chilling out for an hour, and doing it again, until he's topped up. 

But in practice, the short rest limitation - and short rests being an hour - means that this really isn't happening in practice. I've seen lots of fighters! Lots of second winds! Nothing close to what I was concerned about. 

Like most of my issues with 5e (I'll chuck the 3-item limit for attunement into there, too!), it disappears in practice and becomes a non-issue.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

I think I'm just gonna say this:

"Let s(he) who disparages game design or designers create their own game and be judged by the masses first."

Armchair game designers bug the heck out of me, because they don't have a clue as to how much work actually goes into it, and they fail to understand the concept that not everyone will be happy but that doesn't make it a bad game.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like most of my issues with 5e (I'll chuck the 3-item limit for attunement into there, too!), it disappears in practice and becomes a non-issue.





This.  OH, so much this.  Probably more than any other rpg I've ever played.  I've been harping it for a long time--theorycrafting or assumptions do 5e a huge disservice, because in actual play, 99% of "problems" aren't.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

The problem with inspirational, non-magical healing is that it forces those of us who believe the orc critical that landed on the fighter caused real damage, can no longer do so, when that damage is reversed by a warlord saying "there, there".

It effectively makes combat a cartoonish joke with no real threat. When you can erase any and all physical damage with words alone, you can no longer interpret any damage as physical. And that is just stupid. Nobody imagines that PCs never get wounded in mortal combat with deadly weapons. If you can get knocked out and come this close to bleeding to death, it shouldn't be possible to just talk such a person back to their feet or even back to full health. No way. That's exactly what the 4e warlord could do, and it was incredibly immersion-breaking.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 1, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> To be fair, I think there's a lot of room to have issues with inspirational healing in a game.



Then don't play a warlord! You're happy, and I'm happy, because I don't care about enforcing my tastes on complete strangers. The warlord has never been like, say, casters in 3e, where the party is screwed if they choose not to play those classes.


> I'm not exactly enthusiastic about morale-hit-points.



HP in D&D have always been part morale. Or at least since AD&D.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> So there are other ways to limit it without saying "no", you have to play a game of herb juggler, which to me destroys immersion.
> 
> Maintaining immersion is important, right?




Maintaining immersion is one of several important goals.

Maintaining *your personal* immersion probably shouldn't be the highest thing on a designer's list of priorities, since you are only one person.  Your personal preferences are applicable as one very small portion of an aggregate, the details of which we do not have.

So, to you, it destroys immersion.  Therefore, you shouldn't use it.  That is not a solid argument for it not appearing at all - merely that if it appears, it should be in a way that is easily excluded from games.  By, say, putting it in an entirely optional class or class feature.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

Man after reading so much about machinations that people seem to go through to "prevent abuse", I feel bad that so many groups can't just figure out how to sit down and have fun together.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> HP in D&D have always been part morale. Or at least since AD&D.




Pedantic, but not true.  In AD&D, it was "physical damage, luck, skill, and other magical factors."   Morale was it's own rule.


----------



## Lidgar (Jul 1, 2015)

And here I thought this thread was about the survey. Shocking to see it devolve into an arguement over play style. 

Simply shocking.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The problem with inspirational, non-magical healing is that it forces those of us who believe the orc critical that landed on the fighter caused real damage, can no longer do so, when that damage is reversed by a warlord saying "there, there".
> 
> It effectively makes combat a cartoonish joke with no real threat. When you can erase any and all physical damage with words alone, you can no longer interpret any damage as physical. And that is just stupid. Nobody imagines that PCs never get wounded in mortal combat with deadly weapons. If you can get knocked out and come this close to bleeding to death, it shouldn't be possible to just talk such a person back to their feet or even back to full health. No way. That's exactly what the 4e warlord could do, and it was incredibly immersion-breaking.




That is certainly YOUR opinion, and you're welcome to it. Other games (including mine) had warlords that were nowhere near cartoonish in their healing capabilities -- or rather, their ability to make other *ignore the pain for a while* (plenty of real-world instances for that).

As for game design, Rodney has authored some of the finest games EVER, from Star Wars Saga Edition to Lords of Waterdeep, not to mention D&D 5e. I'll take his opinions on game design anytime (in fact, I already have). And I'd certainly appreciate if you showed some respect to an accomplished, award-winning game designer who is just coming back to EN World after a hiatus.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think I'm just gonna say this:
> 
> "Let s(he) who disparages game design or designers create their own game and be judged by the masses first."
> 
> Armchair game designers bug the heck out of me, because they don't have a clue as to how much work actually goes into it, and they fail to understand the concept that not everyone will be happy but that doesn't make it a bad game.




And they love to toss about the phrase "lazy game design" as if it has any meaning... maybe occasionally the complaint is valid, when justified with precise arguments, but it almost always means "it's not my style, and I want to be really arrogant in expressing that"


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 1, 2015)

Lidgar said:


> And here I thought this thread was about the survey. Shocking to see it devolve into an arguement over play style.
> 
> Simply shocking.




There must be something like a "5 Page Rule" that states every thread on an rpg forum with 5 pages or more has hopelessly devolved into tangential arguments. Never open a thread of 10 pages or more unless you want to wade into an ongoing battle where the weapons are opinions wielded as if they were facts.  

I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule.


----------



## angrylinuxgeek (Jul 1, 2015)

How are magic, dragons, dwarves and elves logical and believable but someone who gets his cohorts back into fighting order, which actually happens in real life, totally unbelievable and immersion breaking?


----------



## Ristamar (Jul 1, 2015)

Since this thread seems to have turned into a survey within a survey, I'll add my two cents...

Aside from Second Wind, I'm glad they removed motivational/inspirational/martial healing from the game.  I never cared for it, unless it came in the form of temporary hit points. 

That being said, I won't throw a fit if they release a single class in an _Unearthed Arcana_ article that features said mechanics, though I would be concerned that similar mechanics could continue to creep into future content.


----------



## Lidgar (Jul 1, 2015)

SigmaOne said:


> There must be something like a "5 Page Rule" that states every thread on an rpg forum with 5 pages or more has hopelessly devolved into tangential arguments. Never open a thread of 10 pages or more unless you want to wade into an ongoing battle where the weapons are opinions wielded as if they were facts.
> 
> I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule.




I can think of one exception. The wonderful Forest Oracle thread.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> I'll be honest, I don't really know; when 4E was being designed and developed, I was running the Star Wars RPG line, so I didn't have a lot of insight into who was responsible for what. Sorry.



 Well, you certainly can't be held responsible for Warlord design, then, I guess.  I've lived with that bit of curiosity for 7 years, I think I'll survive.   Thanks for participating in the thread, though.



SigmaOne said:


> And they love to toss about the phrase "lazy game design" as if it has any meaning...



 Could mean 'rules lite' design, or 'efficient use of design resource,' or even 'elegant design.'


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Restricting DM preoccupation with such things, like easy access to healing resources is very important, as you say.
> 
> But for consistency, let me ask, why did you (or the other designers) not put a similar daily limit on the number of Second Winds a fighter can use per day? That has caused a huge amount of discussion, with the usual solution of "let the DM throw a random encounter after the first hour" to prevent that kind of (ab)use. I don't find that fair, when I play a fighter who wants to second wind twice because I can, being told that after each hour an orc will show up to prevent me from healing without spending HD.
> 
> ...



Why limit bardic songs per day? Let the DM decide when the character is getting hoarse. 

Why limit rages per day? Let the DM decide how angry the Barbarian is. 

Why limit superiority dice per combat? Let the DM decide how many is appropriate.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Why limit bardic songs per day? Let the DM decide when the character is getting hoarse.
> 
> Why limit rages per day? Let the DM decide how angry the Barbarian is.
> 
> Why limit superiority dice per combat? Let the DM decide how many is appropriate.




Good point.

Why NOT limit Second Wind uses per day, given all these other things have daily limits.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jul 1, 2015)

Writing in Warlord and Al Qadim.

Maybe they'll release a book called Warlords of Al Qadim!


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Lidgar said:


> And here I thought this thread was about the survey. Shocking to see it devolve into an arguement over play style.
> 
> Simply shocking.




It was inevitable. Warlords were excluded from the PHB and their parts were divided between magical (bard) abilities, and non-magical ones (battlemaster), who took over those roles.

Now people want to undo that decision. Which to many, is re-hashing old battles that were already won.

This survey is asking what classes should be added to the game, presumably because they are considering what to add in the future, duh. If they add "martial healing" back to the game, I'm done with D&D for good. And probably many others as well.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Klaus said:


> That is certainly YOUR opinion, and you're welcome to it. Other games (including mine) had warlords that were nowhere near cartoonish in their healing capabilities -- or rather, their ability to make other *ignore the pain for a while* (plenty of real-world instances for that).
> 
> As for game design, Rodney has authored some of the finest games EVER, from Star Wars Saga Edition to Lords of Waterdeep, not to mention D&D 5e. I'll take his opinions on game design anytime (in fact, I already have). And I'd certainly appreciate if you showed some respect to an accomplished, award-winning game designer who is just coming back to EN World after a hiatus.




First, a warlord could literally take a PC from the brink of death back to being unbloodied, or from bloodied to full health, from across the room, by using words alone, and not using magic, to negate the narrative effect of enemies trying, and succeeding, to cause damage to them. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The fact is, warlords forced you to reinterpret past narrative events in order to rationalize their abilities. That is anti-immersion by definition. It's also ridiculous.

Rodney has plenty of good products to his credit, but that is irrelevant. You have no idea who everyone is on this website, and even if Gary Gygax were to come here and post anonymously, his words and pedigree do not automatically make him right on every topic, or even any topic. What you are saying is that you believe the logical fallacy of an argument by authority. Rodney is an authority on the topic of D&D, therefore his opinions are inherently right.

Wrong.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2015)

Can we not turn this into another warlords-meat-hit-morale-inspiration-guts-blood-damage-death a-thon? Because we've got PUHLENTY of other threads for that, my friends.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Rodney has plenty of good products to his credit, but that is irrelevant. You have no idea who everyone is on this website, and even if Gary Gygax were to come here and post anonymously, his words and pedigree do not automatically make him right on every topic, or even any topic. What you are saying is that you believe the logical fallacy of an argument by authority. Rodney is an authority on the topic of D&D, therefore his opinions are inherently right.
> 
> Wrong.



No, but it does lend his opinions more weight than yours. I trust a doctor's medical opinion a whole lot more than some dude who read stuff on WebMD. 

Game design is a field of study. A craft, if you will. He's a celebrated and respected designer with a host of big successes. You're an angry dude with regressive ideas about game design, posting on the Internet. Yes, his words have more weight.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Can we not turn this into another warlords-meat-hit-morale-inspiration-guts-blood-damage-death a-thon? Because we've got PUHLENTY of other threads for that, my friends.



I demand the immediate re-opening of the Damage on a Miss subforum.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

angrylinuxgeek said:


> How are magic, dragons, dwarves and elves logical and believable but someone who gets his cohorts back into fighting order, which actually happens in real life, totally unbelievable and immersion breaking?




The first part of your sentence has nothing to do with the latter. It is a rhetorical slight called "begging the question". You assume the game containing fantasy elements means that non-magical fantasy elements can be illogical or even impossible and get a pass.

This is forum meme that is pure nonsense.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2015)

No love for Magic of Incarnum or  Dragon Magic classes?

Come on guys. Come on. Write them in guys. 
They need new homes in a system which is addition freely.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Jul 1, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Game design is a field of study. A craft, if you will. He's a celebrated and respected designer with a host of big successes. You're an angry dude with regressive ideas about game design, posting on the Internet. Yes, his words have more weight.




While I appreciate the kind words, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Look, I can be dead wrong as easily as the next person. I've had plenty of ideas about game design over the years that I no longer agree with; indeed, there are plenty of things I've designed that, looking back on them through the lens of 15 years of experience, I think were mistakes. In fact, when working on a new game design, I actively work to test ideas with the expectation that they will produce bad results, because bad ideas often open the door to good ideas. I think it's actually a sign of someone who doesn't want to continually hone their craft if their opinions and philosophies are unchanged after continued years of work. You try things out, you learn what works and what doesn't, you adjust your philosophies based on new data, and then you repeat the process.

The only things I ask of people who disagree with me about game design is that they 1) show proper respect for and avoid value judgments about the person espousing a different philosophy, 2) avoid hyperbole, and 3) recognize that games are complex things with many factors contributing to what is enjoyable. 

So, while I do have a lot of experience under my belt, I think it's highly likely that anyone on these forums could make a salient point about a given topic and change my mind on it. Calling something lazy design because it makes some concessions to abstraction for the purposes of gameplay benefit pretty much violates all three of those tenets, which is the reason I decided to respond.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

Obryn said:


> No, but it does lend his opinions more weight than yours. I trust a doctor's medical opinion a whole lot more than some dude who read stuff on WebMD.
> 
> Game design is a field of study. A craft, if you will. He's a celebrated and respected designer with a host of big successes. You're an angry dude with regressive ideas about game design, posting on the Internet. Yes, his words have more weight.




Oh, the delicious irony.

By this quote, you admit that any professional game designers who may post here are inherently to be taken more seriously than yours.

Also, LOL @ comparing game design with being a medical doctor. You can be a game designer with a high school diploma. Game design is about as evolved as medicine was, back in the dark age.

What game designers do is really not that important, and that complex if you ask me. It's pure thought, and rather simplistic if we're being honest. The smartest people in games are not game designers anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 1, 2015)

I wonder what they will do if a large % of people write in warlord. 

I mean on this thread alone we have 5 or 6 that did... I wish I was more public a face (BUT my twitter following is low 2 digit) or I would start a campign to write them in...


----------



## Klaus (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> First, a warlord could literally take a PC from the brink of death back to being unbloodied, or from bloodied to full health, from across the room, by using words alone, and not using magic, to negate the narrative effect of enemies trying, and succeeding, to cause damage to them. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The fact is, warlords forced you to reinterpret past narrative events in order to rationalize their abilities. That is anti-immersion by definition. It's also ridiculous.




I'll refrain from commenting any further on this, to respect KM's request.



> Rodney has plenty of good products to his credit, but that is irrelevant. You have no idea who everyone is on this website, and even if Gary Gygax were to come here and post anonymously, his words and pedigree do not automatically make him right on every topic, or even any topic. What you are saying is that you believe the logical fallacy of an argument by authority. Rodney is an authority on the topic of D&D, therefore his opinions are inherently right.
> 
> Wrong.




It doesn't matter who posts anonymously. What matters is that when an accomplished professional posts on the board (under his/her true name, to boot), we ENWorlders should treat him/her with respect. As is the tradition of these boards since the beginning. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

As for game design opinions, it is not automatically an Appeal To Authority to pay special attention to authorities in the a given field. That is, after all, how one learns.


----------



## angrylinuxgeek (Jul 1, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The first part of your sentence has nothing to do with the latter. It is a rhetorical slight called "begging the question". You assume the game containing fantasy elements means that non-magical fantasy elements can be illogical or even impossible and get a pass.
> 
> This is forum meme that is pure nonsense.




That's...not what begging the question means.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

I could literally quote half this board saying otherwise. If Gygax posted here, would that make his opinions about D&D, right? Gygax, unlike Rodney, actually invented this game. That makes him a genius. Releasing a successful 5th iteration 40 years later is not really that impressive, all things considered. It's certainly good news for the fans of this game that 5th edition is successful (due to it being inherently better designed than its predecessor, and therefore selling better). Rodney should be proud of his accomplishment, but no one should compare him to a medical doctor who saves peoples lives every day, or even someone like Gary Gygax who created the entire genre. Let's stick to reality here. I do respect Rodney's contributions, but his articles show a focus on gamism over narrative coherency, and that's why I disagree with him. It takes only the slightest thought to poke holes through gamist rules that make no sense in the story, and I'm glad here's here to set the story straight because there was plenty wrong with 4e, and still 5e is far from perfect. Disagreeing with him or calling certain class abilities "lazily designed" is my own opinion, and you cannot force me to state otherwise. I'm entitled to my opinion and many others share my point of view on many topics.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 1, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> So, while I do have a lot of experience under my belt, I think it's highly likely that anyone on these forums could make a salient point about a given topic and change my mind on it. Calling something lazy design because it makes some concessions to abstraction for the purposes of gameplay benefit pretty much violates all three of those tenets, which is the reason I decided to respond.




Abstraction is not a pass though, it does not let you make game rules that are free from criticism, especially when you could easily write something entirely free of criticism merely by changing one aspect of it.

I would never even consider making a non-magical ability something that is literally impossible or totally makes no sense. Gamism, on the other hand, allows this. 4e was gamist to the nth degree, hence 5th edition being released so soon after. 5th edition's success is clearly a result of game designers acknowledging that players rejected disassociated, overly complex mechanics.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jul 1, 2015)

Birthright is one that I would love to see get the 5e treatment. The Downtime Activities of the PHB and DMG provide some nice stuff regarding building strongholds, and BR could crank that to 11. I really loved the idea behind BR in 2nd Edition, though execution was a bit swingy.

Mapping out your own stronghold is just too cool.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2015)

Folks, please remember you're all guests here, and as such you are expected to refrain from being jerks to the other guests. Even _if_ you don't enjoy their style of game design, you do not get to insult them. If you can't make a point without insulting somebody, your point gets to be left unmade.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 2, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> No love for Magic of Incarnum or  Dragon Magic classes?




Nope. None whatsoever from me.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Excuse me? That's pretty rude. What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine? That's an argument by authority and invalid.




Nah...its an argument by comparison...we've seen his opinions and we've seen yours.  And a conclusion was drawn.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> I could literally quote half this board saying otherwise. If Gygax posted here, would that make his opinions about D&D, right? Gygax, unlike Rodney, actually invented this game. That makes him a genius.




Gygax did post here.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 2, 2015)

Going back to the practical aspects of adding a new Warlord class, there's a few big stumbling blocks.

1.  Warlord healing isn't really needed in the form that it was in.  In 4e, because combat was generally so long, the group needed mechanisms to "unlock" healing surges during combat.  So, all the leader classes got lots of powers that let you heal in combat.  But 5e doesn't work that way.  Combats are generally only 3-4 rounds at most and you aren't really healing in combat all that much.  The fighters can self heal anyway, so, it's not like they need a second character stroking their HP every round to keep them on their feet.

2.  Tactical positioning in 5e is less important.  In 4e when every single class had burst and blast effects, it really mattered where characters were on the battle map.  Additionally, since 4e combats tended to focus on larger scale encounters with a dozen or more PC's and NPC's on the board at once, it was very important to know where everything was.  So, the Warlord got lots of battle map friendly powers to change the positioning on the map.  5e, where you have far fewer opportunity attacks, far, far fewer area attacks and, again, much shorter combats, means that tactical positioning in combat is far less important.

So, I'm not sure what a 5e warlord would actually look like.  I understand why they didn't bring it forward.  A lot of its raison d'être simply doesn't exist in 5e.  

What I think I'd like to see is a non-magical Bard of Valor who has some of the 4e style tactical options, but a lot simpler than a 4e warlord.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> What game designers do is really not that important, and that complex if you ask me. It's pure thought, and rather simplistic if we're being honest. The smartest people in games are not game designers anyway.




I'd love to read more about the games you've designed.

Seriously though, I cannot disagree with you more on this.  I've designed games.  An award winning one even (Gasp!).  And there is a *BIG* difference between Joe Schmoe coming up with some weird hybrid of a game in his parents basement and someone who has designed a game where LOTS of people enjoyed playing it.

Right now you're coming off as "that dude" who claims auto mechanics is super easy and simple because it's just turning a wrench.  I feel pretty comfortable in saying that everyone who _has_ designed games is reading your posts and just shaking their heads at the sheer ignorance about what you think goes into the process.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My god yes.
> 
> If it was up to me how much a character could heal I'd probably shrug and say "uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" a lot and roll a dice and it would have zero correlation to anything resembling a carefully thought-out consideration of balanced healing resources.




Nice to know that so many people agree with me that Second Wind should never have been published as it was, without any daily limit on its use.

Thanks.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Gygax did post here.




Considering that I've often seen people mock 1st edition, and many of the assumptions behind it, I think we all know the answer about how seriously "due respect" is granted to those who truly deserve it.

Someone working on Windows 10 is hardly to be put on the same pedestal as Bill Gates, yet it's popular to mock industry visionaries and greats while giving respect to Nth iteration contributors. 

The currency of who one gives respect to is lessened if one is expected to respect anyone who contributes, 40 years later, to a successful iteration.

If anyone on this board came out with a new game idea that is successful as D&D was and I'll take note and give respect. Until then, I'll treat anyone who does a competent job at making minor improvements to a previous product comparably with the noteworthiness it deserves. Gygax is a somewhat famous name, worldwide. Everyone else who iterated on his ideas? Not really. Let's keep things in perspective here.


----------



## Hriston (Jul 2, 2015)

I voted for Greyhawk, the Shaman, and all the humanoids.

Twice.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 2, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Gygax did post here.




Mostly about his favorite books.  But he was a class act, to coin a phrase.

-The Gneech


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Considering that I've often seen people mock 1st edition, and many of the assumptions behind it, I think we all know the answer about how seriously "due respect" is granted to those who truly deserve it.
> 
> Someone working on Windows 10 is hardly to be put on the same pedestal as Bill Gates, yet it's popular to mock industry visionaries and greats while giving respect to Nth iteration contributors.
> 
> ...




Was just letting you know since you brought him up.  Thats all.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I've designed games.  An award winning one even (Gasp!).



And for that, of course, you have to tell us what game it is. 


			
				spinozajack said:
			
		

> Considering that I've often seen people mock 1st edition, and many of the assumptions behind it ...



While mocking parts of 1e is sometimes fair game (says one who has played it for well over 30 years), mocking the assumptions behind it is not.  In fact, I rather suspect that abandoning some of those assumptions in later editions caused far more problems than were solved; from this thread, the obvious example is divorcing effects that should take magic to achieve (e.g. a hobbit pushing a dragon around, or warlord-like healing) from actual magic.

In 1e there's a pretty clear deliniation between magic and non-magic (except for the Monk, but did it ever fit into any patterns?) - the spell-like abilities of monsters (e.g. the darkness that demons can generate sometimes) are still obviously magical.  This particular assumption is one that 4e largely dropped, but note that others were dropped by different editions and 4e is not solely to blame.

Lan-"the asnwer, though, is not to mock 1e but to redesign it; that process has also been going on for 30+ years"-efan


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jul 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Going back to the practical aspects of adding a new Warlord class, there's a few big stumbling blocks.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, I'm not sure what a 5e warlord would actually look like.  I understand why they didn't bring it forward.  A lot of its raison d'être simply doesn't exist in 5e.




This was helpful. Personally, while I don't like inspirational healing, I had no problem with the warlord, and I wouldn't have had a major problem with it in 5e (as long as any inspiration healing it might provide were in temporary hit points). I mean, while I wasn't a fan of 4e, the very first character I played was a dwarf warlord, because I thought the idea was interesting. (The _name_ of the class on the other hand, I can't tolerate.)

But you helped me figure out why I'm uncomfortable with the ongoing calls for a 5e warlord.

In addition to the things you mentioned, I'm not really seeing anything substantive that is missing from the warlord's schtick in the offerings we currently have. Unless I don't know how to read the 4e PHB, the warlord's main things were healing and buffing allies and granting them actions.

The *Rally* maneuver heals allies (temp hit points).
The *Distracting Strike *maneuver buffs an ally's attack, and the *Inspiring Leader* feat buffs your entire party's hit points.
The *Maneuvering Attack* maneuver allows you to grant an ally movement, and the *Commander's Strike* maneuver lets you grant an ally an attack.

Conceptually, I can't see anything else needed to fit the archetype than a Battle Master fighter taking those 4 maneuvers and that feat.

Would the demand for a warlord feel met by a list of new maneuvers to provide additional options? I mean, that could be done, but even then it seems like the current maneuvers more or less have the bases covered. There are only so many things to mechanically do in 5e combat.

Perhaps a new Fighting Style that is only half about fighting and half about warlording somehow (take the Mariner style for precedent).

I mean, really, I think it may be an emotional appeal more than a logical appeal. I get it. I wanted an assassin base class. Why? Because they felt different than just a type of rogue. You know, more _assassin-y_. But really, what could they have done with an assassin that really justified a base class, given the design philosophy of the edition? Not a whole heck of a lot. A fighter/rogue multiclass really does the job. Did anyone listen to the interview with R.A. Salvatore when he was talking about the directive he got from TSR to kill off the assassin Artemis Entreri because all the assassins died in the fiction of the change from 1e to 2e? After a long discussion the idea finally hit him: Artemis Entreri isn't an assassin. He's a fighter/thief who kills people for money.

The point is that assassin is covered by rogue in the level of detail and abstraction that fits 5e. Warlord seems to be covered by the Battle Master in a similar level of 5e-appropriate detail. I can understand not being happy with a favored class being just a sub-build of a subclass (those 4 maneuvers are the only ones that have anything to do with being a warlord). But I can't really see how a warlord class could be elegantly introduced to the 5e class design space. It has to pretty much either just be a few more maneuver or feat options, or it has to add an entirely new set of systems to 5e, and risk throwing off the way the various elements of the game cohere.



spinozajack said:


> What game designers do is really not that  important, and that complex if you ask me. It's pure thought, *and rather  simplistic* if we're being honest.




No, no it's not.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

It's a good point, SoS, but I'd be willing to give up many of the fighter's other combat abilities for team-helpful abilities based on Int like some of the better warlord builds from 4e had.

That kind of enabling/buffing class that isn't STR based is a worthwhile one.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Oh, the delicious irony.
> 
> By this quote, you admit that any professional game designers who may post here are inherently to be taken more seriously than yours.
> 
> ...



Uh, taken more seriously and given more weight when it comes to game design questions? Yeah, probably. Experience matters. Automatically right? No way.

And game design isn't hard? It's simple? Professional designers aren't any more informed than any average poster? You're adorable.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> In addition to the things you mentioned, I'm not really seeing anything substantive that is missing from the warlord's schtick in the offerings we currently have. Unless I don't know how to read the 4e PHB, the warlord's main things were healing and buffing allies and granting them actions.
> 
> The *Rally* maneuver heals allies (temp hit points).
> The *Distracting Strike *maneuver buffs an ally's attack, and the *Inspiring Leader* feat buffs your entire party's hit points.
> ...



No.... Part of the whole Warlord concept is that a party with a Warlord shouldn't necessarily need to rely on a Cleric/Bard for their healing/buffing, and the Battlemaster falls well short of this metric.

One issue is with how watered down and limited these abilities all end up, and it's very much tied in with the miniscule dice pool available. A Battlemaster gets to play at being a weak Warlord for only a handful of actions every few encounters before reverting to a straight Fighter. For example, the basic Commander's Strike takes up dice instead of a more at-will basis. 

On the healing front, leaving aside the real vs. temp HP debate, and the ability to bring allies back into a fight, Rally provides just a pittance at the cost of a valuable die and a bonus action. 1d10+5 (at best) at 10th level? It's pretty bad, frankly. The scaling is awful. 

Also missing are the more substantial, combat-changing stuff like the impressive Stand the Fallen. Especially absent is any setup for full-party teamwork or buffing as opposed to just helping one buddy.

And this is also where the lack of higher-level maneuvers is problematic. All maneuvers are balanced properly for 3rd level characters. Higher level characters are picking from the same list. There's no better stuff gated behind higher levels. 

It's clear where the inspiration for those maneuvers came from, but they're a poor substitute. 

Mind you, the Battlemaster still has the Fighter chassis with all of its perks like Action Surge, Second Wind, feats, etc. But that's frankly part of the problem; giving all these perks to a guy who still gets all this stuff seems poorly-balanced. Which is why I'd like a real Warlord as a class all its own.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 2, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> And for that, of course, you have to tell us what game it is.




I won DieHard Gamefan's best new game of 2011 with Compact Heroes, and I got rave reviews for the prototypes of All Your Mechs, but the high cost of the transparencies (for mech construction) made the game prohibitive to manufacture.  Which is too bad, really, because most players who played it really liked being able to mix and match mech parts to form a fully visual mech using those transparencies.  You can sort of see it in the pic on the character sheet.  That's actually five different overlays on top of each other.

But enough of that self promotion.  My point was simply to point out how he's way off on his assumptions.  And yeah, maybe I'm biased a bit when I see another designer, especially one so successful, get attacked or to have their career belittled.

And to be more on point, I think there is a place for the warlord in 5e.  I probably wouldn't ever play one, but like it or not, 4e is part of the D&D brand, and the warlord is a big part of that version.  It should be in 5e, as best as it could be done to fit in that system.  This coming from an AD&D player myself    See?  Not all of us grognards are unreasonable


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 2, 2015)

I ticked a few things but my favourites were Spelljammer, Artificer and Cat-folk.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 2, 2015)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Mind you, the Battlemaster still has the Fighter chassis with all of its perks like Action Surge, Second Wind, feats, etc. But that's frankly part of the problem; giving all these perks to a guy who still gets all this stuff seems poorly-balanced. Which is why I'd like a real Warlord as a class all its own.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Want-From-Older-Editions/page21#ixzz3ehtuCaxt




I'm not convinced that there really is enough left over for the warlord to be its own class.  I mean, once you strip out all the fightery bits so it's not stepping on the fighter's toes, there isn't a whole lot left over.  Mostly, as I pointed out above, because the action economy and the realities of the table are just so different between 4e and 5e.  

But, OTOH, I think that a fighter subclass warlord is a viable option.  He'd be a bit more... fightery than a 4e warlord, but, give him a lot more tactical tricks he can do - borrowing from the Eldritch Knight subclass maybe - not as a caster, but, give him a palette of tricks and whatnot, keyed off short or long rests, and have him gain more and more tricks the way an EK gains more and more spells.

Nice thing is, for those who are dead set against the idea of martial healing, since it's siloed off into one single class or subclass, it's pretty easy to ignore.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 2, 2015)

Would the Warlord work as a nonmagical Paladin archetype?


----------



## Ricochet (Jul 2, 2015)

Perhaps moving the discussion about the Warlord class and the analysis of such into another thread (if that is even possible for a mod?) would help clean this one slightly up and restore the simpler "what did you vote" aspect of this one?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I'm not convinced that there really is enough left over for the warlord to be its own class.




If they are going to continue putting out new classes, overlap of niches is going to happen.  

And, given they already have a wizard, a sorcerer, *and* a warlock, I am not sure "not enough left over to be its own class" is as meaningful as one might think.



> Nice thing is, for those who are dead set against the idea of martial healing, since it's siloed off into one single class or subclass, it's pretty easy to ignore.




This, I agree with.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 2, 2015)

Klaus said:


> I'm just happy the Vryloka (a race I designed entirely for Heroes of Shadow) made it to the list!



Hey Klaus, do you happen to have a totally unofficial 5e conversion of the vryloka hanging around for people to use?


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> immersion





spinozajack said:


> verisimilitude





spinozajack said:


> associated mechanics





spinozajack said:


> dissociated mechanics



This is forum meme that is pure nonsense.


----------



## edutrevi (Jul 2, 2015)

I want Dark Sun!


----------



## qstor (Jul 2, 2015)

I voted the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. Although I'd strongly prefer a hardback for either.


Mike


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Halloween_Jack said:


> This is forum meme that is pure nonsense.




Mike Mearls has written about player vs character understanding of the same mechanic in Legends and Lore, but I can't seem to find any links on their site any more. He even explicitly calls out what an "associated" mechanic is in the same article. 

I would take time to find it if I believe it would change your mind, but it probably won't. I have better things to do than argue about whether the 5e designers know what an associated vs disassociated mechanic is. Simple and straightforward, clear, natural language mechanics that have a similar thought process behind whether to use it if from the player or character point of view, is a good example of an associated mechanic. 5th edition is largely built on the concept. Things like trying to trip or prone an enemy, swing a sword or dodge are purely associated mechanics. Not so in 4th edition "powers", which needed often needed interpretation and a character in the world would often have no way of knowing what was happening. For example, marking. What does it mean? What does it do? It was a meaningless concept that the character didn't think about, but the player did. That's disassociated.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 2, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> (The _name_ of the class on the other hand, I can't tolerate.)



 It's funny, because it's the best name they've ever come up with.  Marshal is terrible - it has two possible meanings, to Europeans, it's a general, so locks in military rank and all that implies, to Americans, it's a law-enforcement officer, totally inappropriate.  Most other alternatives are military ranks, or otherwise imply rank (like Captain, which can also refer to the civilian commander of of ship) - too narrow in what they imply, and in-use, today, so bringing with them modern anachronisms.  Warlord both has a strong fantasy sound to it, and has no implication of military rank.  A Warlord can lead merely by example, by formal authority such as military rank, by acclaim, by threat, etc...  And, yes, a Warlord could be an aweful person like a tribal strongman or rapacious orc chieftain - just as a Sorcerer or Wizard is often a villain in genre (or RL, where 'Sorcerers' are charlatans who exploit the superstitious).



> I'm not really seeing anything substantive that is missing from the warlord's schtick in the offerings we currently have. Unless I don't know how to read the 4e PHB, the warlord's main things were healing and buffing allies and granting them actions.
> 
> The *Rally* maneuver heals allies (temp hit points).and the *Inspiring Leader* feat buffs your entire party's hit points.



 Not healing.  Healing can stand a fallen ally.  Temps are a very appropriate buff for the Warlord, and he had a lot of things to grant them, but they're not healing.  They don't even fit the name, which implies recovery. If Inspiring Leader were hp-recovery, it'd only make thing worse, since it'd be giving the Warlord's fairly unique schtick to anyone who wanted it.


> The *Distracting Strike *maneuver buffs an ally's attack,
> The *Maneuvering Attack* maneuver allows you to grant an ally movement, and the *Commander's Strike* maneuver lets you grant an ally an attack.



CS dice are just too few, and these effects to minor.  You can do one of these a couple of times between rests, and their impact is minor.  Commander's Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and Furious Smash did those three things in 4e, and they were at wills, and they didn't obviate the need for the hundreds of other maneuvers the class had to choose from.



> Conceptually, I can't see anything else needed to fit the archetype than a Battle Master fighter taking those 4 maneuvers and that feat.



 Would you think a Rogue with expertise in arcana who could learn 4 cantrips and take a Ritual Caster feat would be an adequate replacement for the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock?  That's how far your Battlemaster is from being a Warlord.



> Would the demand for a warlord feel met by a list of new maneuvers to provide additional options? I mean, that could be done, but even then it seems like the current maneuvers more or less have the bases covered. There are only so many things to mechanically do in 5e combat.



 That is another issue.  5e obviates some potential maneuvers by removing a lot of depth from combat in the name of speeding it up.  That just means any maneuvers or resources modeling tactics/strategy/etc need to be yet more abstract.

Battlemaster-style manuevers are hopelessly hobbled by the need too keep the class balanced in spite Fighter's very potent, high-DPR, easily-breakable, multiple attacks.  A Warlord class wouldn't be a DPR monster, and probably wouldn't make multiple attacks (at least, not himself, every round - possibly he'd have some options that allow them sometimes).



> Perhaps a new Fighting Style that is only half about fighting and half about warlording somehow (take the Mariner style for precedent).



 No style, sub-class, feat or background takes away from a class the way you'd need to take away from the fighter to make room for the kinds of abilities needed.  The fighter's core, before sub-class, is so focused on high single-target DPR, that it's not given any meaningful features to use in Interaction or Exploration, for instance - no other class is so invested in a single function as to require such extreme measures to balance.  



> I mean, really, I think it may be an emotional appeal more than a logical appeal.



 Actually, it's the objection to the warlord that's emotional.  The reaction to the name.  The reaction to non-magical hp restoration.  The lingering, irrational, spite still directed at 4e.



> I get it. I wanted an assassin base class. Why? Because they felt different than just a type of rogue.



 It was a Thief 'sub class' from the beginning, and it's abilities have never been that different from the fighter.  It's like the Illlusionist, that way. 

Now, if you wanted a 4e Assassin, with Shrouds, no, the Rogue sub-class wouldn't cut it. But you'd be talking a de-facto caster, or at last magic-using class of somekind.  




> The point is that assassin is covered by rogue in the level of detail and abstraction that fits 5e. Warlord seems to be covered by the Battle Master in a similar level of 5e-appropriate detail.



 It's really, really not.  The assassin started as a Thief sub-class, has been nothing more than a Kit at times, and has always just done some of what a thief does, plus disguise (which thieves/rogues have been able to do for a while) and death attack. The 5e Assassin does most of what a thief does, plus death attack.  It works because they are very similar.  The same is not true of the Warlord, which has always been a full class, and which does a great many things the fighter has never been able to, and has never had the uber-DPR of the 2e figther that is the template for the 5e fighter.



> I can understand not being happy with a favored class being just a sub-build of a subclass (those 4 maneuvers are the only ones that have anything to do with being a warlord). But I can't really see how a warlord class could be elegantly introduced to the 5e class design space. It has to pretty much either just be a few more maneuver or feat options, or it has to add an entirely new set of systems to 5e, and risk throwing off the way the various elements of the game cohere.



 The 'coherence' of 5e is a non-issue, balance was never a goal, and they DM imposes as much balance or coherence as he feels his campaign needs.  

Design space for new martial classes is wide open.  Consider the existing all-martial classes:  there are none.  Now, consider the few exclusively martial sub-classes:  The Barbarian (high DPR), the Champion (high DPR), the Battlemaster (high DPR), the Thief (high DPR, skills) and the Assassin (high DPR, skills).  

So, what's left:  everything but high DPR and traditional 'thief' skills (stealth, thieves tools, etc).  That is a tremendous amount of design space, including the Leader, Defender, and Controller formal roles from 4e.

The Warlord was not a high DPR class (it could goose other class's DPR, but it wasn't, one, itself), didn't really impinge on the Thief's traditional skill bailiwick, and was a Leader (secondary defender or, maybe controller, if you squinted).  

There is not only room for the Warlord, but an expansive Void where the 4e Fighter and Warlord should be. 




Yaarel said:


> Would the Warlord work as a nonmagical Paladin archetype?



 No, but a non-magical Paladin archetype could be pretty darn awesome!  I've had one percolating, but haven't really tried to bang it into shape.  Called "Oath of Fealty."  The idea is a knight as committed and honorable as a Paladin, but committed to a temporal power or cause, like a King or order or nation.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Mike Mearls has written about player vs character understanding of the same mechanic in Legends and Lore, but I can't seem to find any links on their site any more. He even explicitly calls out what an "associated" mechanic is in the same article.
> 
> I would take time to find it if I believe it would change your mind, but it probably won't. I have better things to do than argue about whether the 5e designers know what an associated vs disassociated mechanic is. Simple and straightforward, clear, natural language mechanics that have a similar thought process behind whether to use it if from the player or character point of view, is a good example of an associated mechanic. 5th edition is largely built on the concept. Things like trying to trip or prone an enemy, swing a sword or dodge are purely associated mechanics. Not so in 4th edition "powers", which needed often needed interpretation and a character in the world would often have no way of knowing what was happening. For example, marking. What does it mean? What does it do? It was a meaningless concept that the character didn't think about, but the player did. That's disassociated.



I don't need you to explain dumb edition war memes to me, I'm familiar with all of them.

Associated/dissociated mechanics is hot garbage. It's based on a notion of "immersion" that is out of touch with reality and likes it that way. In the very same essay the author acknowledges that hit points don't make sense either, but they get a pass because...look at the silly monkey!

Spinozadude, I'm going to tell you about a great class I just invented. It's called the MAGIC Warlord. The MAGIC Warlord uses MAGIC to inspire the party to do MAGIC things, giving MAGIC bonuses and MAGIC free attacks and healing wounds with MAGIC! There, feel better now?

The only indictment of "Verisimilitudinous Associated Immersion" that's needed is that every single related complaint vanishes instantly when that precious codeword, "magic," is invoked. Immersion geeks take some fractured notion of realism extremely, extremely seriously but as long as something is "magic" you don't care. 

Because magic doesn't have to make sense, does it? Except that it should. Why can a paladin only lay on hands 3/day? If magic is written down, why can't anyone who can read a spellbook's language memorize a spell? Why are spells "memorized," anyway? What god made magic work like that? How can you memorize a spell twice? I don't memorize a recipe in 2 or 3 different parts of my brain. Why is magic divided into 2 types? Why do clerics have to prepare spells, and why do they have limits at all? If D&D gods are aware of all things in their sphere of influence, why don't they give extra spells to clerics fighting for them when they really need them?

I've put this question to the Alexandrian himself, and his smug, stupid answer was that if you want to know how and why the gods grant spells, go ask them. That’s a terrible answer, because you can! You can go to Pelor or Lord Ao and ask them why, and their answer will be whatever excuse the DM makes up. There is no "in-universe" logic behind why magic in D&D works the way it does. The answer is "Gary stole it from Jack Vance, and it worked well enough at the time." There are just as many "gamist" conceits related to your precious MAGIC as there are for martial skills, but you pretend they don't exist because you have this broken, clockwork-universe perspective on how a fictional world works. 

D&D is a fantasy game, not a virtual reality simulation. If you can't deal, maybe you should try a different game, where the designers cared very, very deeply about perfectly simulating many aspects of reality. Believe it or not, there are other games out there, and you don't have to "quit tabletop forever" if you don't like the latest edition of D&D.


----------



## Fralex (Jul 2, 2015)

jgsugden said:


> Warlord, Avenger and Invoker were 3 I'd like to see.




I understand why people don't feel the battlemaster is a sufficient warlord, but how is avenger not covered by the paladin subclass? Aren't they just really angry paladins? The one I'm playing right now feels fine.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 2, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Actually, it's the objection to the warlord that's emotional.  The reaction to the name.  The reaction to non-magical hp restoration.  The lingering, irrational, site still directed at 4e.



My objection is to non-magical healing in combat, whether done by a warlord or by anyone else.   I see healing as something mostly done in safety after the battle's over, and that should be very risky to do during battle.  Shouting at someone to keep them going, while elegant and dramatic, doesn't carry much risk; where trying to cast a spell in the middle of a battle certainly does - or certainly should.

I could be wrong, but reading between some lines tells me there's a large overlap between those who want the warlord back and those who are looking to do away with (or very much reduce the role of) the traditional healer or combat medic.  So what then becomes of the Cleric?


> No, but a non-magical Paladin archetype could be pretty darn awesome!  I've had one percolating, but haven't really tried to bang it into shape.  Called "Oath of Fealty."  The idea is a knight as committed and honorable as a Paladin, but committed to a temporal power or cause, like a King or order or nation.



Did you vote for 'Cavalier', then?  That could easily be your jumping-off point for a class like this.

Lanefan


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> For example, marking. What does it mean? What does it do? It was a meaningless concept that the character didn't think about, but the player did. That's disassociated.



Marking is a soccer/football term which amounts to sticking to a guy and preventing them from organizing an effective offense. Hilariously, it's used by defenders, often against strikers. Really! Look it up. 

In a colloquial sense it's "keep that monster occupied!" In a narrative sense, it's a combat style which protects your allies and presents a threat to enemies. Just because it's abstract is irrelevant; hit points, initiative, class/level... All of those are abstractions for game purposes, too.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Mike Mearls has written about player vs character understanding of the same mechanic in Legends and Lore, but I can't seem to find any links on their site any more.



Here, let me help.

A character's "understanding of a mechanic" is a fictional viewpoint. A work of fiction itself; a part of character's mental state, which is invented by the player/author.

A player's "understanding of a mechanic" is a real viewpoint. Held by a real person reflecting their understanding of real thing, ie a rule. Though it's true a player's understanding of a mechanic may sometimes bear more relation to fiction that fact, depending on their grasp of the particular rules. For example, my understanding of a lot of 3e (for the first year or two I ran, it least . Maybe longer...).


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jul 2, 2015)

Levels and experience to me are far worse than warlord healing. There is actual and fictional precedent for getting inspired to push through your wounds. Levels and experience as they exist make no immersive sense.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 2, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> My objection is to non-magical healing in combat, whether done by a warlord or by anyone else.



 On the theory you "can't shout a hand back on," I guess?  Really, if you want healing to only represent realistic closing and healing of severe physical injuries, even 5e HD & overnight healing or the full week to recover from a mortal wound in 1e, are questionable, given the realistic challenges of recovering from injuries under medieval medical care.  Of course, Cure Wounds can't grow back a hand, either, and hps in D&D are so broad and abstract in what they model that there's nothing at all wrong with restoring hps by boosting morale. 

(I can see how using 'healing' as the jargon term for it could be unintuitive, though - a more neutral 'restores' would work better for the rules jargon term than 'heals.'  "Healing Potion restores 2d4+2 hps.  Inpiring Word restores 1d6+CHAmod hps, etc...)






> I see healing as something mostly done in safety after the battle's over, and that should be very risky to do during battle.  Shouting at someone to keep them going, while elegant and dramatic, doesn't carry much risk; where trying to cast a spell in the middle of a battle certainly does - or certainly should.



 Casting a spell in combat currently carries no risk, just an action-economy price.  And, Rallying allies could certainly entail a great deal of risk, at least in the lead-from-the-front style.  

Though, in both cases, for game purposes, a resource and action-economy 'price' would be sufficient. 



> I could be wrong, but reading between some lines tells me there's a large overlap between those who want the warlord back and those who are looking to do away with (or very much reduce the role of) the traditional healer or combat medic.  So what then becomes of the Cleric?



 The same thing that became of the Cleric when the Druid got healing, the Bard got healing, or Wands of Cure Light Wounds became commodities:  people who actually want to play Clerics play Clerics.  People who want to play something else, play something else.




> Did you vote for 'Cavalier', then?  That could easily be your jumping-off point for a class like this.
> 
> Lanefan



I assumed by Cavalier they meant the 1e Cavalier, of which the Paladin was briefly a sub-class.  It was an armored Knight, who, like the Fighter, was all about doing lots of damage, just from horseback while wrapped in metal.  So, not really, though a mounted-combat-focused fighter sub-class would be a nice addition.  (The 4e Cavalier was a divine aura-based defender, a Paladin sub-class.  Not the worst thing in Essentials, but indifferent, IMHO.)


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Marking is a soccer/football term which amounts to sticking to a guy and preventing them from organizing an effective offense. Hilariously, it's used by defenders, often against strikers. Really! Look it up.
> 
> In a colloquial sense it's "keep that monster occupied!" In a narrative sense, it's a combat style which protects your allies and presents a threat to enemies. Just because it's abstract is irrelevant; hit points, initiative, class/level... All of those are abstractions for game purposes, too.




There's a line beyond which the narrative becomes too abstract to be workable or acceptable. 4e crossed that line for many people, including myself. The fact that we're discussing this in a 5th edition thread only a few short years after 4e came out is proof that excessive abstraction is not a good direction to take the game. 

KISS


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Patrick McGill said:


> Levels and experience to me are far worse than warlord healing. There is actual and fictional precedent for getting inspired to push through your wounds. Levels and experience as they exist make no immersive sense.




"Don't make perfect the enemy of good" -Umbran

Just because there exist immersion-breaking abstractions in D&D, does not mean we should make the game so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand. 

Simple, straightforward, easy to understand, natural language. These are all cornerstones of 5e design, and it's a massive success because of it.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> There's a line beyond which the narrative becomes too abstract to be workable or acceptable. 4e crossed that line for many people, including myself. The fact that we're discussing this in a 5th edition thread only a few short years after 4e came out is proof that excessive abstraction is not a good direction to take the game.
> 
> KISS




Uh, you're the one who brought it up. We're talking about it because you brought it up. You asked what "marking" even means and now you have your answer.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 2, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> On the theory you "can't shout a hand back on," I guess?  Of course, Cure Wounds can't grow back a hand, either, and hps in D&D are so broad and abstract in what they model that there's nothing at all wrong with restoring hps by boosting morale.  (I can see how using 'healing' as the jargon term for it could be unintuitive, though - a more neutral 'restores' would work better for the rules jargon term.  "Healing Potion restores 2d4+2 hps.  Inpiring Word restores 1d6+CHAmod hps, etc...)



All true; and would be further helped if h.p. were broken down into body points and fatigue points (or wound-vitality, whatever).



> Casting a spell in combat currently carries no risk, just an action-economy price.



And people wonder why casters have become so overpowered through the editions...



> The same thing that became of the Cleric when the Druid got healing, the Bard got healing, or Wands of Cure Light Wounds became commodities:  people who actually want to play Clerics play Clerics.  People who want to play something else, play something else.



I see Druids as a sub-class of Clerics anyway; and Bardic healing and dime-a-dozen cure wands are both design mistakes IMO.



> I assumed by Cavalier they meant the 1e Cavalier, of which the Paladin was briefly a sub-class.  It was an armored Knight, who, like the Fighter, was all about doing lots of damage, just from horseback while wrapped in metal.  So, not really, though a mounted-combat-focused fighter sub-class would be a nice addition.  (The 4e Cavalier was a divine aura-based defender, a Paladin sub-class.  Not the worst thing in Essentials, but indifferent, IMHO.)



Yes, the 1e Cavalier; but it wouldn't be a huge jump to work that into some sort of non-magical holy warrior, would it?  Maybe lose some of the horsey bits and replace them with holy bits?

Lanefan


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> "Don't make perfect the enemy of good" -Umbran
> 
> Just because there exist immersion-breaking abstractions in D&D, does not mean we should make the game so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand.
> 
> Simple, straightforward, easy to understand, natural language. These are all cornerstones of 5e design, and it's a massive success because of it.




This is nonsensical. 

It amounts to, "this is okay because I'm used to it." If D&D, tomorrow, removed hit points and levels, but added marking, it would be a less abstract game. If it used simultaneous initiative, it would be a less abstract game. If it started using Phoenix Command rules for combat, it would be less abstract.

Abstraction is not bad. Abstractions are what allow us to play RPGs.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

Fralex said:


> I understand why people don't feel the battlemaster is a sufficient warlord, but how is avenger not covered by the paladin subclass? Aren't they just really angry paladins? The one I'm playing right now feels fine.




Not really.  They were introduced as 'Batman with a holy symbol.' In 4e, they were dexterous, stealthy, Wis-based toons who wielded big weapons in the name of their god.  You are right, that OoV paladins cover some of the concept, but people who played them in 4e couldn't really convert them over well.  

That said, it probably would just require some ability exchanges, as described in the DMG.  I would want them to be WIS based as opposed to CHA-based, however.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> Shouting at someone to keep them going, while elegant and dramatic, doesn't carry much risk; where trying to cast a spell in the middle of a battle certainly does - or certainly should.
> 
> Lanefan




Is there such a risk in 5e?


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Marking is a soccer/football term which amounts to sticking to a guy and preventing them from organizing an effective offense. Hilariously, it's used by defenders, often against strikers. Really! Look it up.




Couldn't care less about what happens during a soccer game. If I'm expected to see D&D combat versus 8 headed hydras, swordsmen and archers and oozes as similar to the world cup, the game has already failed in its purpose, which is to engage the player. (I find soccer to be about as exciting as baseball, it's good to put on if I want to fall asleep)

My point is, one shouldn't have to "look it up" to pay D&D. Not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to run interference, or be akin to a defensive line. That is another place where the game designed failed to match player expectation, by assuming the default fighter meant anything beyond "striker". Putting the line "role : defender" immediately turned me off playing a 4e fighter. Actually, same thing with the paladin. I didn't want to play a defensive paladin, either. I want to kill monsters, not "run interference with some highly abstract jiggery pokery"


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Not really.  They were introduced as 'Batman with a holy symbol.' In 4e, they were dexterous, stealthy, Wis-based toons who wielded big weapons in the name of their god.  You are right, that OoV paladins cover some of the concept, but people who played them in 4e couldn't really convert them over well.
> 
> That said, it probably would just require some ability exchanges, as described in the DMG.  I would want them to be WIS based as opposed to CHA-based, however.



Yeah, Avenger is one of those concepts - like Seekers - that worked well as a class, but didn't (imo) have much thematic resonance. I don't think too many people longed for "unarmored holy executioners with big swords" before the class was made. Kind of like 3e dragon shamans, etc. 

It's a cool concept, mind you, and I'd love to see a 5e version anyway.


----------



## occam (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> There's a line beyond which the narrative becomes too abstract to be workable or acceptable. 4e crossed that line for many people, including myself. The fact that we're discussing this in a 5th edition thread only a few short years after 4e came out is proof that excessive abstraction is not a good direction to take the game.
> 
> KISS




I think the point Obryn was making is that marking is not an abstraction in the context of a soccer/football game. When someone is told to mark an opposing player, that person knows what to do and is aware of the fact that he or she has marked someone else, in real life. Perhaps it's the general American unfamiliarity with the details of soccer that made the term more problematic than it should've been?


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Just because there exist immersion-breaking abstractions in D&D, does not mean we should make the game so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand.




It's amazing to me that Hit Points, _as described in the official game_ are not "so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand" but inspiration-based restoration of hit points, _which is 100% completely consistent with the aforementioned definition,_ makes the game "meaningless."

Just strikes me as a lack of imagination, no offense intended.  I suppose, though, I would find it consistent if the people who were anti inspiration-based restoration of hit points also did away with HD healing on short rests and full healing on long rests...but that would require a different definition of hit points from that officially presented in the game.

E


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Couldn't care less about what happens during a soccer game. If I'm expected to see D&D combat versus 8 headed hydras, swordsmen and archers and oozes as similar to the world cup, the game has already failed in its purpose, which is to engage the player. (I find soccer to be about as exciting as baseball, it's good to put on if I want to fall asleep)
> 
> My point is, one shouldn't have to "look it up" to pay D&D. Not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to run interference, or be akin to a defensive line. That is another place where the game designed failed to match player expectation, by assuming the default fighter meant anything beyond "striker". Putting the line "role : defender" immediately turned me off playing a 4e fighter. Actually, same thing with the paladin. I didn't want to play a defensive paladin, either. I want to kill monsters, not "run interference with some highly abstract jiggery pokery"




???!!

Most of us didn't have to look it up.  We just read the rules in the PHB and narrated the mechanics like good D&D players.  Obryn was just giving you the real-world origin of the term.

Yeesh.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Couldn't care less about what happens during a soccer game. If I'm expected to see D&D combat versus 8 headed hydras, swordsmen and archers and oozes as similar to the world cup, the game has already failed in its purpose, which is to engage the player.
> 
> My point is, one shouldn't have to "look it up" to pay D&D. Not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to run interference, or be akin to a defensive line. That is another place where the game designed failed to match player expectation, by assuming the default fighter meant anything beyond "striker". Putting the line "role : defender" immediately turned me off playing a 4e fighter. Actually, same thing with the paladin. I didn't want to play a defensive paladin, either. I want to kill monsters, not "run interference with some highly abstract jiggery pokery"



Nobody needs to look it up. Marking makes intuitive sense if you're not actively trying to misunderstand it, and it is well explained in the class write-up. You don't need to know soccer - but you asked and I figured I'd share the knowledge.

Your second argument ignores the players who *do* want that out of their Fighters and Paladins. Nobody is asking that the existing 5e options go away - only that more options would be welcome. Needed, even, with the likely backgrounds of many new players. On the other hand, you're very insistent that new content must adhere to your peculiar POV.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Eric V said:


> It's amazing to me that Hit Points, _as described in the official game_ are not "so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand" but inspiration-based restoration of hit points, _which is 100% completely consistent with the aforementioned definition,_ makes the game "meaningless."
> 
> Just strikes me as a lack of imagination, no offense intended.  I suppose, though, I would find it consistent if the people who were anti inspiration-based restoration of hit points also did away with HD healing on short rests and full healing on long rests...but that would require a different definition of hit points from that officially presented in the game.
> 
> E




The official definition of hit points in 5th edition game is that below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0, you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal injury.

I would advise you to actually read the rules before lecturing others, guy.

Even in 4th edition, being below 50% was explicitly called "bloodied", and you could tell when a monster or another PC was in that state at a glance. That's not at all abstract, that's very clear and straightforward. Except, then comes along the warlord, and his soothing words make your wounds (you know, those holes through which the blood came out from), close up and there, you're all better. Without magic. Without bandages. Without even touching the player. And the player might not even be able to hear the warlord using his inspirational talk! You could be unconscious, at death's door, and still be inspired to stand up to fight by mere words alone. 

Which is total BS, obviously.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The official definition of hit points in 5th edition game is that below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0, you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal injury.
> 
> I would advise you to actually read the rules before lecturing others, guy.




It's such a fatal and deadly wound that you can probably get over it in an hour, or overnight at most. Terrifying!


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Nobody needs to look it up. Marking makes intuitive sense if you're not actively trying to misunderstand it, and it is well explained in the class write-up. You don't need to know soccer - but you asked and I figured I'd share the knowledge.
> 
> Your second argument ignores the players who *do* want that out of their Fighters and Paladins. Nobody is asking that the existing 5e options go away - only that more options would be welcome. Needed, even, with the likely backgrounds of many new players. On the other hand, you're very insistent that new content must adhere to your peculiar POV.




I have no problem with the protection fighting style, or attacks of opportunity when your foe runs away. What I do have a problem with, is an enemy that is mindless like a zombie thinking tactically because of some abstract game rules due to him having been marked by a player. 

You do understand that marking, warlord healing, and extremely abstract game mechanics, MMO  combat roles, are major reasons that drove people away from 4th edition, right? I'm hardly alone in this. 

Mike Mearls and the rest admitted they made huge mistakes during the design of that game.

What we're seeing are people who are asking them to revisit those mistakes, and make them again.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 2, 2015)

Obryn said:


> It's such a fatal and deadly wound that you can probably get over it in an hour, or overnight at most. Terrifying!




So D&D combat is a bunch of guys with makeup on whacking each other with nerf baseball bats and pillows, right?

That's _adorable_.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> I have no problem with the protection fighting style, or attacks of opportunity when your foe runs away. What I do have a problem with, is an enemy that is mindless like a zombie thinking tactically because of some abstract game rules due to him having been marked by a player.




Have you ever seen a defender at work? That's.... Not even remotely how marking plays out. The DM is still making all the tactical decisions; the defender is there to capitalize on any opportunities. 



spinozajack said:


> So D&D combat is a bunch of guys with makeup on whacking each other with nerf baseball bats and pillows, right?
> 
> That's _adorable_.



I'm just reading the rules and letting them tell me what's happening.  In D&D combat, there's no such thing as severe injury, so it looks like it'd only an actual deadly wound if you, you know, _die_. But seriously, a mod asked that the hp debate not take over this thread, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word! 

I'd leave out the misogyny and/or transphobia, though. It was a bit uncalled for.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 2, 2015)

In 5e Warlords would use the hit die mechanic. They would allow you to expend hit die to heal just like a short rest, but couldn't give you hit points like a cleric.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 2, 2015)

Here's another one.

Did anyone write in the craziness that is the Factotum?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> Here's another one.
> 
> Did anyone write in the craziness that is the Factotum?



Oh yeah. That one was really wacky. 

The thing about all these oddball concept classes is, though, they lend the game some real character. Soulknives, Avengers, Runepriests, Dragon Shamans, Seekers, Duskblades, bladesingers... Those really showcase an editions's strengths and add a lot to the world, imo. Since they're designed for their game, there's a lot more freedom to explore a narrow and interesting concept. Inevitably, those are some of my favorites.

I'm hopeful that 5e will have something neat and novel, too.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> The official definition of hit points in 5th edition game is that below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0, you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal injury.
> 
> I would advise you to actually read the rules before lecturing others, guy.
> 
> ...




I did the read the rules, "guy."  And I didn't see this part: "below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0,  you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal  injury."  Could you point me to the page number for that?

I _did_ find this: "When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."  Cuts and bruises, I should point out, that are really of such little importance that 8 hours of rest make them a non-issue as Obryn points out.

You read the part about below half...what about above it? Does your imagination allow for, in the game, inspiration-based restoration of hp when the target is above half its hp?

I am going to go ahead and guess "no."

Point is, in 5e, Hit points "represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."  Warlord-type healing makes perfect sense under that definition, even if it isn't in everyone's imagination.


----------



## Halloween_Jack (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Couldn't care less about what happens during a soccer game. If I'm expected to see D&D combat versus 8 headed hydras, swordsmen and archers and oozes as similar to the world cup, the game has already failed in its purpose, which is to engage the player.



Marking your man is a key feature of rugby, too. Rugby is a big fight that happens to involve a football. And where do you think football players got the _idea_ of marking your man? It's a nonlethal melee.

When I mark my man, he either has to engage me, or turn toward my teammate and leave himself open to a beating. I can do this with a human, a dog, or a zombie, it doesn't matter.

Yet again you reveal that your precious "immersion" and "associated mechanics" are ridiculous. You think you understand how a magic lightning bolt works and you're at peace with it, but you can't grasp rules tracking how real people in the real world actually behave in a real struggle.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> What we're seeing are people who are asking them to revisit those mistakes, and make them again.





What I see are people - or at least person - who seems driven to revisit the mistake of fighting with fellow gamers over it, all  over again.

Enough with the edition warring.  We get it - you don't like the mechanics.  You have repeated this, and most of your points, several times over, and are adding nothing new or constructive to the conversation.  You are now simply aggressively butting heads.

If you are not interested in working *with* people to discuss solutions other than "zero tolerance", it is time for you to consider your work here complete, because the continued browbeating is uncivil.

That goes for everyone else - no more lining up to shout at each other, folks.  Keep it civil and constructive, or go find something else to do with your weekend.


----------



## Fralex (Jul 2, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Not really.  They were introduced as 'Batman with a holy symbol.' In 4e, they were dexterous, stealthy, Wis-based toons who wielded big weapons in the name of their god.  You are right, that OoV paladins cover some of the concept, but people who played them in 4e couldn't really convert them over well.
> 
> That said, it probably would just require some ability exchanges, as described in the DMG.  I would want them to be WIS based as opposed to CHA-based, however.




Oh, maybe something like what they did to make a spell-less ranger would work? I wonder if the battlemaster could also be warlordified in this way. As I understand it, the main problem was just that there wasn't enough focus on combat maneuvers, and running out of shouting felt weird. Maybe if you could make a couple maneuvers at-will abilities that don't add superiority dice to their attacks and things. Commander's Strike, for instance, doesn't sound too strong if the attack doesn't do extra damage.


----------



## grizzo (Jul 2, 2015)

I want bugbears to back the way there were meant to be . Bring back the pumpkin heads.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 2, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> All true; and would be further helped if h.p. were broken down into body points and fatigue points (or wound-vitality, whatever).



 I'm not sure if that would be 'helped' rather than 'complicated.'  I've played games that make that sort of distinction, and they can easily break down if you can find a way to target just one of those pools, typically the smaller, make'em dead, one. 

D&D hps actually work pretty well, apart from over-promoting 'focus fire,' for capturing the 'plot armor' common to the genre.  (Well, they worked a little better at it with old-school saving throws at high levels.)  But, they are abstract and varied enough in their definition, in order to do that, that they do leave the door open for all sorts of odd ways to heal or do damage - including inspiring back hps or intimidating them away.



> And people wonder why casters have become so overpowered through the editions...



 Preach it, brother. 



> I see Druids as a sub-class of Clerics anyway; and Bardic healing and dime-a-dozen cure wands are both design mistakes IMO.



 You think the Cleric concept is so unappealing that it needs that level of niche-protection for it's healing function?



> Yes, the 1e Cavalier; but it wouldn't be a huge jump to work that into some sort of non-magical holy warrior, would it?  Maybe lose some of the horsey bits and replace them with holy bits?



'Holy?'  Holy, sure, like I said, Paladin with a sub-class briefly in post-UA 1e, for those that used it at all.  I guess turn it around:  have a Cavalier as Paladin sub-class in 4e.  But another divine sub-class that could just as easily be done with MC'ing doesn't really accomplish much, IMHO.



Obryn said:


> This is nonsensical.
> 
> It amounts to, "this is okay because I'm used to it."



 Yes.  Or, to put it another way "representative of the feel of the Classic Game."  




> If D&D, tomorrow, removed hit points and levels, but added marking, it would be a less abstract game. If it used simultaneous initiative, it would be a less abstract game. If it started using Phoenix Command rules for combat, it would be less abstract.
> 
> Abstraction is not bad. Abstractions are what allow us to play RPGs.



 We could play RPGs without Abstraction.  We'd probably get arrested or killed, but we could do it.  



spinozajack said:


> My point is, one shouldn't have to "look it up" to pay D&D.



 That's a hard fail for every edition, then. 



> Not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to run interference, or be akin to a defensive line. That is another place where the game designed failed to match player expectation, by assuming the default fighter meant anything beyond "striker". Putting the line "role : defender" immediately turned me off playing a 4e fighter.



The 'defender' was /based/ on the fighter's Iconic role, from 2e, all the way back to Chaimail, as a front-line infantry figure who protected his back-line artillery support.

Part of the awesome of the 3.x fighter was that it could thumb it's nose at iconic role.  It could interdict a portion of the battle field with a pole-arm, loose hails of arrows from the back lines, tank in the front, leap-attack-charge with a big weapon, mow through lesser foes like wheat before the scythe, disarm or trip less skillful foes, and on and on - and that's just combat, with 18 feats to everyone else's 7 (instead of 8 to their 6), it actually /could/ manage to pull together some interesting alternatives.  Compared to that, the 4e & 5e fighters are both potentially disappointing.    

The 5e fighter starts to go there:  it can be STR or DEX based, style lets it be melee or ranged... and then, multi-Attack DPR, that's it, you're a beatstick, non-negotiable.   You've already pointed out the downside of the Defender-role 4e fighter relative to the 3.x fighter's customizability.



Fralex said:


> Oh, maybe something like what they did to make a spell-less ranger would work? I wonder if the battlemaster could also be warlordified in this way. As I understand it, the main problem was just that there wasn't enough focus on combat maneuvers, and running out of shouting felt weird. Maybe if you could make a couple maneuvers at-will abilities that don't add superiority dice to their attacks and things. Commander's Strike, for instance, doesn't sound too strong if the attack doesn't do extra damage.



The spell-less ranger took away a major class feature, so, yes, you could take the Fighter, take away it's major class feature (those extra attacks, or maybe even just two of them), and replace them with, say, 'Commands.'  So, as his action, instead of 3 attacks, a mid-level Warlordified Fighter might Make 2 attacks and issue 1 Command.  Commands would be similar to Battlemaster maneuvers, but give up damage (thus have room to be much more powerful), and be essentially at-will.   Presumably, you could trade in an attack for an extra Command, too.  

Could work. Would need more commands/maneuvers, and "higher level" and/or resource-limited ones, as well.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 2, 2015)

Eric V said:


> I did the read the rules.  And I didn't see this part: "below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0,  you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal  injury."  Could you point me to the page number for that?
> 
> I _did_ find this: "When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."  Cuts and bruises, I should point out, that are really of such little importance that 8 hours of rest make them a non-issue as Obryn points out.
> 
> ...




Yeah, reaching 0 hp defines the moment when critical damage occurs. Zero is the moment when the spear goes thru a vital organ, when the target succumbs to blood loss, when the target goes into shock, or so on.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 2, 2015)

The concept of the 4e Warlord makes sense in 5e too.

My only worry is, the 4e Warlord was extremely grid-oriented.

Is it possible to design an effective Warlord that doesnt refer to specific grid positioning?

If not, then the Warlord might need to be an exclusive feature of a more grid-oriented variant setting.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 2, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's funny, because it's the best name they've ever come up with.  Marshal is terrible - it has two possible meanings, to Europeans, it's a general, so locks in military rank and all that implies, to Americans, it's a law-enforcement officer, totally inappropriate.  Most other alternatives are military ranks, or otherwise imply rank (like Captain, which can also refer to the civilian commander of of ship) - too narrow in what they imply, and in-use, today, so bringing with them modern anachronisms.  Warlord both has a strong fantasy sound to it, and has no implication of military rank.  A Warlord can lead merely by example, by formal authority such as military rank, by acclaim, by threat, etc...  And, yes, a Warlord could be an aweful person like a tribal strongman or rapacious orc chieftain - just as a Sorcerer or Wizard is often a villain in genre (or RL, where 'Sorcerers' are charlatans who exploit the superstitious).




Personally I would prefer an implication of law-enforcement officer rather then tin-pot African dictator.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, reaching 0 hp defines the moment when critical damage occurs. Zero is the moment when the spear goes thru a vital organ, when the target succumbs to blood loss, when the target goes into shock, or so on.




Kinda sorta.  After all, I could roll a 20 the next round on my death save and stand right back up.  I could go negative to 1 short of flat out dying and a single HP of healing and I'm back on my feet and 12 hours later, I'm back to full health.

IOW, you can't narrate that the spear went through a vital organ until the PC dies.  It's Schroedinger's HP all over again.  The only difference this time around is that it's not written in a 4e book, so, it's okay.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Personally I would prefer an implication of law-enforcement officer rather then tin-pot African dictator.



 It sounds like something you'd hear in genre, and it can be taken many ways.  For an American listener, 'Marshal' just gets you Matt Dillon or some other guy in a western, it misses the mark completely.  Ranks, including 'Marshal' to the European ear, just get you officers in a formal military hierarchy, too narrow in concept.  Marshal is the worst of 'em, but all military ranks are right out.  It would be like calling the Fighter a Grenadier.

Are there evil warlords?  /Sure/.  No alignment restriction on the class.

I've yet to hear any suggestion that's near as good, that way.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Kinda sorta.  After all, I could roll a 20 the next round on my death save and stand right back up.  I could go negative to 1 short of flat out dying and a single HP of healing and I'm back on my feet and 12 hours later, I'm back to full health.




Yeah, but that happens in reallife too. A person falls out of an airplane, hits the ground, but stands up, and seems to be ok. Of course, there are many other examples that are less extreme.



Hussar said:


> IOW, you can't narrate that the spear went through a vital organ until the PC dies.  It's Schroedinger's HP all over again.  The only difference this time around is that it's not written in a 4e book, so, it's okay.




Narratively, a vital organ *was* struck, when reaching zero. But miraculously, the hero comes to, and presses on.



In my gaming, because nonzero injuries are by definition superficial, actually reaching zero is always a big deal.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Pedantic, but not true.  In AD&D, it was "physical damage, luck, skill, and other magical factors."   Morale was it's own rule.




Loss of HP always has triggered morale rolls, since Morale was added in AD&D. They're related.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, but that happens in reallife too. A person falls out of an airplane, hits the ground, but stands up, and seems to be ok. Of course, there are many other examples that are less extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let's see someone do it twice.   

And totally fair.  Everyone has different levels of unbelievability.  But, I guess my point is, if reaching zero is always a big deal, do you have a similar issue with warlord healing?  That's always been my issue.  Some people, and i'm not saying you personally, have no problems with the idea of reaching zero being this big deal, but totally healable in a day or two, but, can't accept the idea of morale healing.  It's totally baffling to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2015)

Thinking about it a bit, the idea that Warlords heal by letting you use Hit Dice is something that I think has legs. 

It would result in a very different pacing in the game.  Clerics give a group stamina - you don't heal so much in combat, simply because combat is so short, but, clerics let you have more encounters per day because you're not running out of Hit Dice as fast.  OTOH, if you're burning Hit Dice with a Warlord, that would give the group speed but less endurance.  You wouldn't have to short rest as often because you could recover HP without a short rest.  But, you'd burn through Hit Dice faster, meaning your adventuring day might be a bit shorter.

But, if we continue the thought, maybe warlords could give bonus HP on Hit Dice to give a bit more endurance, and then have other powers/commands that might refresh short rest abilities in other characters.  The higher the level of the warlord, the more HP he grants and the more he can refresh other character's powers.  In combat, he grants additional actions for the rest of the party, or buffs/debuffs.  

Now, he's not stepping on the cleric's toes, the cleric still has a nice solid niche, but, also has a nice niche of his own - a tactician character makes the party faster and deadlier, but, lacks endurance and perhaps lacks a bit of the effects mitigation - no curing poison or removing other effects or raising the dead.  The cleric keeps his information gathering schtick as well. 

I could really see that.  Not sure if it needs a new class, perhaps a fighter or a spell less paladin or bard could work here as well.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jul 3, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's funny, because it's the best name they've ever come up with.  Marshal is terrible - it has two possible meanings, to Europeans, it's a general, so locks in military rank and all that implies, to Americans, it's a law-enforcement officer, totally inappropriate.  Most other alternatives are military ranks, or otherwise imply rank (like Captain, which can also refer to the civilian commander of of ship) - too narrow in what they imply, and in-use, today, so bringing with them modern anachronisms.  Warlord both has a strong fantasy sound to it, and has no implication of military rank.  A Warlord can lead merely by example, by formal authority such as military rank, by acclaim, by threat, etc...  And, yes, a Warlord could be an aweful person like a tribal strongman or rapacious orc chieftain - just as a Sorcerer or Wizard is often a villain in genre (or RL, where 'Sorcerers' are charlatans who exploit the superstitious).




The main problem I had with the name is that implies (in addition to the things you already mentioned) a certain degree of achievement or rank. In 4e, where you are assumed to be already heroic at 1st level, that may be doable, but in 5e where 1st level doesn't imply that level of experience, it just seems odd to call you a "warLord". I mean, you're more of a warStudent for a few levels at least.

I started a topic about it over on the WotC forum before, or soon after, the first playtest came out, and the alternative name that seemed to have the most support was "captain." It doesn't totally fix the issue, but it's a bit less of a problem.



> Not healing.  Healing can stand a fallen ally.  Temps are a very appropriate buff for the Warlord, and he had a lot of things to grant them, but they're not healing.  They don't even fit the name, which implies recovery. If Inspiring Leader were hp-recovery, it'd only make thing worse, since it'd be giving the Warlord's fairly unique schtick to anyone who wanted it.




Are you saying that you (and others) consider actual non-temporary healing to be an essential part of the warlord?

Because that changes the issue somewhat. I haven't been addressing that topic, because it usually turns into nothing but an argument, and it's really just a matter of playstyle preference that people try to argue for logically. I'm not interested in participating in that.

So if actual healing is considered an essential part of why people want a warlord (rather than simply healing-like functions in addition to their other roles), then I don't really have anything to say about the issue. I assumed that was not the case, and it was feel and general function rather than a level of detail like "must be actual regaining of hit points."



> CS dice are just too few,




That's a fair point. If warlord has to be able to do those things all the time, then you can't get that with a Battle Master fighter.



> and these effects to minor.  You can do one of these a couple of times between rests, and their impact is minor.  Commander's Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and Furious Smash did those three things in 4e, and they were at wills, and they didn't obviate the need for the hundreds of other maneuvers the class had to choose from.




I just don't see those hundreds of other maneuvers doing a lot of substantially different effects from one another.

Unless they made some sort of "martial spells" for 5e, there is no way to represent that many discrete effects, without condensing them down. While I'm sure there are probably a couple more maneuvers they could make, I don't think there is a lot more room within 5e design to expand beyond that.



> Would you think a Rogue with expertise in arcana who could learn 4 cantrips and take a Ritual Caster feat would be an adequate replacement for the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock?  That's how far your Battlemaster is from being a Warlord.




No, but I probably would consider it an adequate replacement for assassin. (The Magic Initiate, and perhaps Ritual Caster feat is actually how I represent assassins that dabble in arcane magic like in 3e.)



> That is another issue.  5e obviates some potential maneuvers by removing a lot of depth from combat in the name of speeding it up.  That just means any maneuvers or resources modeling tactics/strategy/etc need to be yet more abstract.




No disagreement here.



> Battlemaster-style manuevers are hopelessly hobbled by the need too keep the class balanced in spite Fighter's very potent, high-DPR, easily-breakable, multiple attacks.  A Warlord class wouldn't be a DPR monster, and probably wouldn't make multiple attacks (at least, not himself, every round - possibly he'd have some options that allow them sometimes).
> 
> No style, sub-class, feat or background takes away from a class the way you'd need to take away from the fighter to make room for the kinds of abilities needed.  The fighter's core, before sub-class, is so focused on high single-target DPR, that it's not given any meaningful features to use in Interaction or Exploration, for instance - no other class is so invested in a single function as to require such extreme measures to balance.




I understand what you're saying about needing room for more extensive abilities (and I'll address that below). 

As far as taking away things from the fighter, is that something people consider an essential part of the warlord? They _can't_ be almost as good at personal combat as (the other) fighters?



> Actually, it's the objection to the warlord that's emotional.  The reaction to the name.  The reaction to non-magical hp restoration.  The lingering, irrational, spite still directed at 4e.




The name is just aesthetics. If the class was enjoyable for me I'd change the name. I don't consider actual healing an essential part of the warlord. I may have underestimated how big of deal that was for warlord supporters. I'm not a warlord-hater, so edition preferences aren't relevant to my argument.



> It was a Thief 'sub class' from the beginning, and it's abilities have never been that different from the fighter.  It's like the Illlusionist, that way.
> 
> Now, if you wanted a 4e Assassin, with Shrouds, no, the Rogue sub-class wouldn't cut it. But you'd be talking a de-facto caster, or at last magic-using class of somekind.
> 
> It's really, really not.  The assassin started as a Thief sub-class, has been nothing more than a Kit at times, and has always just done some of what a thief does, plus disguise (which thieves/rogues have been able to do for a while) and death attack. The 5e Assassin does most of what a thief does, plus death attack.  It works because they are very similar.




Didn't 1e assassin's have what amounted to martial weapon proficiency? (I might be misremembering that.) That would be a pretty big distinction. I do disagree that it was probably the least distinctive of the "subclasses" in 1e. The 3e version expanded it in interesting ways, and I never got to see the actual specifics of the 4e version, but it seemed interesting.

Just to be nitpicky, but "subclass" meant something different in AD&D anyway. Both rangers and paladins were "subclasses." It was term used, very, very, poorly. 2e cleaned up the concept when it made the class categories, and expressed it that the fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard were the most basic/standard representation of the warrior, rogue, priest, and mage categories, with the other classes being other representatives of those categories.



> The same is not true of the Warlord, which has always been a full class, and which does a great many things the fighter has never been able to, and has never had the uber-DPR of the 2e figther that is the template for the 5e fighter.
> 
> The 'coherence' of 5e is a non-issue, balance was never a goal, and they DM imposes as much balance or coherence as he feels his campaign needs.
> 
> ...




I'll try to explain what I mean about 5e design space, design philosophy, rules coherence, etc.

The 5e designers have a philosophy and some general principles they are following involving everything they have done with 5e design. It has evolved over time. They have told us some of it in articles leading up to 5e. They have given us other juicy tidbits in UA, such as the concept of "ribbons" in the Waternborne article, or the various design assumptions mentioned in the one on designing your own classes and subclasses.

Other bits have to be extracted from what they have and have not done with the game, the choices they have made, and the things they have hinted at without saying.

If a satisfying warlord requires:
a) Actual hit point regaining healing
b) Being substantially less skilled in personal combat than the "pure" fighters (Champion, Battle Master)
c) A broad selection of special abilities
d) A level of distinction from current 5e offerings similar to the level of distinction between 4e fighter and 5e fighter

It isn't going to fit in 5e's design philosophy, principles, and space, without a major revision, on par with the 3.5e Tome of Battle. I can go into more detail on the why if someone really is interested. (Healing is actually the easiest one for them to do.)

So is that what people are asking for? A Tome of Battle level of expansion to accommodate a warlord?

I mean, I'm not going to argue against that. I'd even take a look at it and consider using it if it were only a couple tweaks away from usable for me.

But what I am saying is that it really would require that level of expansion to give all those elements to the warlord. So people asking for the warlord, conceptualized in that manner, are asking for something as expansive as a psionics handbook.

That's probably going to be a hard sell for WotC.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, I guess my point is, if reaching zero is always a big deal, do you have a similar issue with warlord healing?




Something like that.

During the first half of hit points, it is mostly alertness, energy, and maneuverability that is exhausting. Attacks make contact, but they are glancing and grazing shots. Certainly, a coach can help here. Calling out tips, inspiring confidence, warning about incoming shots, and so on.

During the second half of hit points, there is notable wear-and-tear. Deep bruises, black-eyes, flesh wounds, and so on. Here the coach is inspiring the ally to reach deep within for strength, fight-or-flight response and adrenaline are a main factor.

But if reaching zero, when there is critical injury and system shock, I am less inclined to see how a coach can help. Maybe the coach can help during a short rest, nursing the ally back from near death. But an impassioned speech for six seconds isnt enough, during the pitch of battle.

For me, the main flavor of the coach is to keep the troops effective with high morale - and to help them *avoid* critical injuries.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Are you saying that you (and others) consider actual non-temporary healing to be an essential part of the warlord?....So if actual healing is considered an essential part of why people want a warlord (rather than simply healing-like functions in addition to their other roles), then I don't really have anything to say about the issue. I assumed that was not the case, and it was feel and general function rather than a level of detail like "must be actual regaining of hit points."



Ummmm...  As much so, at least, as a Fighter's Second Wind can. If people want to get shirty about specifics, that's fine, but yes, some degree of real healing - hopefully including an ability to get downed allies back into the fight - would be, if not _critical_, at least important. I'd have to see how the class as a whole would operate.

Something similar, like an ability to actually prevent allies from going down in the first place, would probably fill that requirement while avoiding the 'getting guys back from unconsciousness' bugaboo.

As Hussar said, 5e already has Hit Dice. In-combat hit die use is a fairly wide-open field and a niche the Warlord could fill.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 3, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It sounds like something you'd hear in genre, and it can be taken many ways.  For an American listener, 'Marshal' just gets you Matt Dillon or some other guy in a western, it misses the mark completely.  Ranks, including 'Marshal' to the European ear, just get you officers in a formal military hierarchy, too narrow in concept.  Marshal is the worst of 'em, but all military ranks are right out.  It would be like calling the Fighter a Grenadier.
> 
> Are there evil warlords?  /Sure/.  No alignment restriction on the class.
> 
> I've yet to hear any suggestion that's near as good, that way.




Sergent is probably the closest to what the "Warlord" is supposed to do.  If we want a short snappy one word description then "Bossy" could work.

PC: I want to play a character that tells everyone else what to do.
DM: You should be a Bossy.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Maybe call the 4e Warlord a 5e ‘Knight’. Part of the chivalry is to inspire troops, and they were formally educated in combat, including medical training. Charisma and Intelligence are useful abilities for a Knight to have.

Tier 1: Page (Apprentice)
Tier 2: Squire (Journeyer)
Tier 3: Knight (Master)
Tier 4: Noble (Grandmaster)


----------



## Wik (Jul 3, 2015)

You know, I love all the talk about a warlord being back in the game.  I loved the 4e Bravura warlord, it was so much fun to play.  And I for one never had a problem with warlord healing, even when someone was at 0.  I mean, it's pretty easy to fluff that sort of stuff out.  (Guy is down, barely conscious, and the leader picks someone up, gets them moving, and they temporarily ignore all the pain as they're needed).  

But personally?  I've said it before and I'll say it again - I wish wotc would bring back the spellthief.  Not because it's a great class (it probably isn't), but because it's the most fun I've ever had playing D&D, and the current "spellthief" (a 17th level power for an arcane trickster) isn't something I'm ever gonna be able to actually see.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Wik said:


> And I for one never had a problem with warlord healing, even when someone was at 0.  I mean, it's pretty easy to fluff that sort of stuff out.




In 5e, unlike 4e, the ‘fluff’ is very much part of the Rules As Written. The fluff determines the more important but less mechanical narrative consequences.

 It is too difficult for me to override baked in ‘fluff’. Not worth the effort. The fluff itself must be something appealing and consistent, that I can enjoy, in the first place. Preferably the fluff has as light a touch as possible, so different players have much latitude in how to implement the fluff, while remaining true to the Rules As Written.

If zero hit points means ‘dying’, then it means near death - with all of the in-story implications in force.

Being knocked unconscious (the Unconscious condition, or even the Stunned or Incapacitated condition) is different from dying.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 3, 2015)

Obryn said:


> 5e already has Hit Dice. In-combat hit die use is a fairly wide-open field and a niche the Warlord could fill.




Another idea is to give it a version of Song of Rest which worse like the Durable feat. Essentially, a Warlord will give you the most out of HD. Essentially maxxing out the HD rolls for the party.


_____________________

Could Dragonfire Adepts work as a Warlock Variant?  Pact of the Dragon by combining them with Dragon Shaman?

Or would it be it's own class as a second invocation user except with no spellcasting?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> In 5e, unlike 4e, the ‘fluff’ is very much part of the Rules As Written.



 And the RAW are putty in the DM's hands.



Sword of Spirit said:


> The main problem I had with the name is that implies (in addition to the things you already mentioned) a certain degree of achievement or rank. In 5e where 1st level doesn't imply that level of experience, it just seems odd to call you a "warLord". I mean, you're more of a warStudent for a few levels at least.



 In 1e, 'Wizard' was an 11th level magic user, Warlock an 8th level one, and Sorcerer 9th.   Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger all, either currently or in the past, denoted accomplishment, too.  'Druid' was a celtic high-priest who trained for something like 21 years to get on the first step to the title.  A Paladin was a Knight who served Charlemagne personally.  Today, an army Ranger is an elite special forces soldier.

Implied achievement is absolutely a spurious objection. 



> I started a topic about it over on the WotC forum before, or soon after, the first playtest came out, and the alternative name that seemed to have the most support was "captain."



 Military rank, connotes command of a vessel.  Fatally narrow.  Also, just as much trouble with the bogus achievement rubric. ( Shouldn't your first level "Captain" be a middie?) 



> Are you saying that you (and others) consider actual non-temporary healing to be an essential part of the warlord?



I'll call it "hp restoration," but yes.  You've got to be able to stand the fallen (heck, there was a Warlord power called that).  The Warlord had something like 40 or 60 or so powers that restored hps.  It was a big part of the 4e implementation, too big to ignore, and it's a critically important function within the party.  A non-magical way of addressing that function also expands the range of campaigns and party types that the game can handle without extensive re-balancing, which is a very good thing, as well, and a nice bonus, really.

Personally, I like the idea of the Warlord's in-combat hp-restoration triggering HD.  It's an established mechanic, and means he's not a 'band-aid,' like the Cleric, that extends the day with additional healing, just a facilitator who helps allies recover hps in combat, to get them back in the fight.



> Because that changes the issue somewhat. I haven't been addressing that topic, because it usually turns into nothing but an argument, and it's really just a matter of playstyle preference that people try to argue for logically. I'm not interested in participating in that.



 The core, 'Standard' game is out. Those who wanted their anti-martial-whatever prejudices validated have that.  The Warlord should just be designed for fans of the class, who, by definition, are not going to have such reservations.



> That's a fair point. If warlord has to be able to do those things all the time, then you can't get that with a Battle Master fighter.
> I just don't see those hundreds of other maneuvers doing a lot of substantially different effects from one another.



 There's quite a variety.  But it always depends on how you look at it.   You could look at all the blasting spells the wizard has and figure, well, gee, they all just do damage, and damage scales with slot, so let's just use Magic Missle, everything else can be cut to save space. 



> Unless they made some sort of Maneuvers for 5e, there is no way to represent that many discrete effects, without condensing them down. While I'm sure there are probably a couple more maneuvers they could make, I don't think there is a lot more room within 5e design to expand beyond that.



There aren't a lot more battlemaster maneuvers you could create, because they have to be workable with a class that layers them on top of high DPR, and can choose any of them at 3rd level.  Imagine if the Warlock's spell list didn't include level, and he could just take any spell - could you put 9th or even 3rd level spells in that list when he could pick on at 1st level? No.  The battlemaster is profoundly limited, that way - the Warlord should be a more open design.




> As far as taking away things from the fighter, is that something people consider an essential part of the warlord? They _can't_ be almost as good at personal combat as (the other) fighters?



One of the conundrums of re-designing the fighter or rogue or any non-magical class that might be compared with them is that they have both been traditionally under-powered or under-versatile or both, throughout the game's history.  Sure, you could probably take the 5e fighter, give it everything the 5e Rogue has, and everything the 4e Warlord had, and still have a class that wouldn't overshadow the Tier 1 casters.  But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Balance isn't important in 5e, and classic feel is, so the Warlord is going to have to be comparable to the Fighter & Rogue, and strictly inferior to casters like the Cleric. That's non-negotiable, obviously.

Thus, yes, the Fighter's massive DPR has to go, to open up 'room' for the Warlord's abilities, conceptually.  Not because doing otherwise would break the game or make the Warlord wildly OP, but because doing it would obviate the Fighter.




> The name is just aesthetics. If the class was enjoyable for me I'd change the name. I don't consider actual healing an essential part of the warlord. I may have underestimated how big of deal that was for warlord supporters. I'm not a warlord-hater, so edition preferences aren't relevant to my argument.



"Actual healing" is the wrong word for it.  Restoring hps would be the in-game way to put it, inspiration, possibly the in-world-fiction way of expressing it.  But, yes, if you're down for the count, the warlord should be able to shout you awake.



> Didn't 1e assassin's have what amounted to martial weapon proficiency? (I might be misremembering that.) That would be a pretty big distinction. I do disagree that it was probably the least distinctive of the "subclasses" in 1e. The 3e version expanded it in interesting ways, and I never got to see the actual specifics of the 4e version, but it seemed interesting.



 3e Assassin, I thought, were all PrCs, no?  The 1e assassin had a slightly expanded weapon list, could use shields, could disguise himself, and make death attacks, but had fewer/lower 'Thief Special Abilities' - and a level limit. The 4e version went off the reservation and became a magic-wielding "Shadow" source striker.  It gloamed 'shrowds' onto the target to set up extra damage.  Pretty weird.


> So is that what people are asking for? A Tome of Battle level of expansion to accommodate a warlord?



 I think a class with three or so sub-classes might be sufficient.

As far as 5e having some kind of h4ter agenda that makes that impossible, I prefer not to speculate.



> That's probably going to be a hard sell for WotC.



 Everything seems a pretty hard sell at this point.  They're putting out very little product, have almost no in-house development. 

The 5e design paradigm, though, does not set a high bar to creating a new class, technically.  Classes can vary wildly from eachother, introduce new subsystems, and the like, so there's really very little in the way - again, except, perhaps, fear of edition-war-level h4ter nerdrage.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jul 3, 2015)

I think Captain works really well. It was a general term long before it was an official military ranking.

See Tolkien's use of it, calling Aragorn a great captain of men. It simply means a leader.

From Middle english, Capitain if I recall correctly.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> And the RAW are putty in the DM's hands.




Yes, maybe precisely.

In 5e, the fluff is Rules As Written. It is material that the DM can shape, but the DM cannot make it go away.

The only way too remove baked in fluff, is too literally rewrite the rules, and use the new rules instead of the official rules. Often this requires more effort than it is worth.

Fluff is sometimes insurmountably problematic when the fluff is less appealing.

I agree with the idea ‘restoration’ of hit points needs to include a variety of flavors. Physical ‘healing’ is one of several ways to restore hit points.

At the same time, half-max hit points is a yellow line for physical damage, and zero hit points is a red line for physical damage.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 3, 2015)

Patrick McGill said:


> I think Captain works really well. It was a general term long before it was an official military ranking.
> 
> See Tolkien's use of it, calling Aragorn a great captain of men. It simply means a leader.
> 
> From Middle english, Capitain if I recall correctly.




Let's call the warlord a "Leader"!


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Heh. If not for ENWord, I would never know what is going on at WotC.[/QUOTE  [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], there's your irregular article title: *EN Word*, or *The EN Word, by Morrus*.
> 
> --something along those lines.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2015)

I suppose if people are really opposed to warlords standing up people who have dropped below 0 HP, attaching the rider, "the target can see and hear you" would probably work.  

And then add in a line about how a warlord's powers can always work on an adjacent ally.  IOW, he's not shouting you awake from across the room, but actually taking the time to patch you up, which lets you roll whatever HD worth of healing his healing powers can do.  Which does keep it nicely in line with a cleric who generally can't heal at range at all.  Warlords would be able to heal at range any conscious ally, or adjacent to any fallen ally.

Would that not be a workable compromise?

Then maybe the warlord could spend his own HD as well for group healing during short rests.  Just spitballing ideas.  In combat, you have stuff like a sort of "second wind" mechanic that lets the warlord grant an ally the ability to spend a HD in combat, and then out of combat, the warlord could give a bit more ooomph to short rest healing, at the cost of his own HD pool.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I suppose if people are really opposed to warlords standing up people who have dropped below 0 HP, attaching the rider, "the target can see and hear you" would probably work.
> 
> And then add in a line about how a warlord's powers can always work on an adjacent ally.  IOW, he's not shouting you awake from across the room, but actually taking the time to patch you up, which lets you roll whatever HD worth of healing his healing powers can do.  Which does keep it nicely in line with a cleric who generally can't heal at range at all.  Warlords would be able to heal at range any conscious ally, or adjacent to any fallen ally.
> 
> ...




That might work as a compromise. As long as zero hit points means real physical injuries that normally require hospitalization in an intensive care unit. Dying cannot be handwaived away.

If the Warlord must resort to medically treating fallen allies who reached zero hp, that would help maintain narrative consistency.

In this case the combat medic is stitching up a grievous wound before it becomes irreversible. There will be scars.

Moreover, the ‘see [or] hear’ requirement seems to cover most of the difficult situations, including both unconscious and dying.

If the Warlord has one set of features to inspire hit points in conscious allies, but a different set of features to medically treat fallen allies - it would help alot to maintain narrative consistency.



Meanwhile, where the Warlord is especially good at restoring hit points is as follows:

The 5e PH defines ‘hit points’ as follows.

"
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. 

"

Hit points include four different factors: bodily wholeness, mental alertness, mental will to live, and magical luck.

Thus there are four different ways to restore hit points: physical healing (by magic or mundane recuperation), assisting combat awareness, inspiring confidence, and bestowing the protection of destiny.

The Warlord can convincingly restore hit points by means of combat awareness and inspiration.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Because hit points include the ‘will’ to live, it seems reasonable for some options to substitute Wisdom for Constitution when determining max hit points while leveling.


----------



## Leif (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Because hit points include the ‘will’ to live, it seems reasonable for some options to substitute Wisdom for Constitution when determining max hit points while leveling.




I can see that.  Dwarves are too tough to die, and clerics are too stubborn to die.


----------



## Leif (Jul 3, 2015)

Going back to a much  earlier discussion in this thread, I see the 5E books as renewing the generic DM-created setting.  Those DMs who want elements like certain setting-specific varieties of classes are certainly welcome to formulate them.  And it really wouldn't be all that difficult to add a few bonuses to attacks and saves, along with corresponding penalties for the inevitable weaknesses.

I really don't miss the ready-to-play settings.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> That might work as a compromise. As long as zero hit points means real physical injuries that normally require hospitalization in an intensive care unit. Dying cannot be handwaived away.




I'd point out that this isn't true in 5e at all.  No matter how grievous the wound, you can fully recover in a single long rest.  You're adding things to 5e that aren't in the books.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I'd point out that this isn't true in 5e at all.  No matter how grievous the wound, you can fully recover in a single long rest.  You're adding things to 5e that aren't in the books.




I agree, somethings that relate to nonmagical healing are really more a matter of how the setting decides to define hit points.

That said, the default descriptions of hit points in 5e are pretty good.

The first half of hit points are physically negligible. Second half have real impact and leave marks, but are only temporary in terms of damage. A person at full hit points might still have a black eye for a week or so.

Zero is serious business. Zero means dying.

Even so, if the Healer feat can nonmagically ‘mend wounds quickly and get allies back into a fight’, then so can the Warlord class. Regarding the Healer feat, ‘when you use a healers kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point.’ As a class feature, the Warlord should be able to be an even better ‘physician’ than the feat can be, similar to how a Wizard is a better caster than the Magic Initiate feat can be.

Nevertheless, treating ‘inspiring’ hit points differently from ‘mending’ hit points, means alot.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Effectively, the Martial Power Source was a magical power source, so that means there were effectively no strictly non-magical classes in 4e.




The various Exceptional abilities of 3e are also effectively magical abilities, with the description of exceptional abilities stating that they "may break the laws of physics."  The only thing that makes them non-magical is the book saying they aren't magical, which is no different that the 4e martial power source.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Good point.
> 
> Why NOT limit Second Wind uses per day, given all these other things have daily limits.




Second wind already has a daily limit.  In fact, it has several different daily limits.

It has a hard limit of 24, for the number of one hour rests that can be taken in a day.

It has a rational hard limit of 16, for the number of one hour rests that can be taken in a day between long rests.

It has a soft limit of the number of times the party is willing to stop for an entire hour and do nothing just so one character can use her second wind.

It also has a practical soft limit of 2-3, representing the average number of short rests one can expect to take during an adventuring day.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Going back to the practical aspects of adding a new Warlord class, there's a few big stumbling blocks.
> 
> 1.  Warlord healing isn't really needed in the form that it was in.  In 4e, because combat was generally so long, the group needed mechanisms to "unlock" healing surges during combat.  So, all the leader classes got lots of powers that let you heal in combat.  But 5e doesn't work that way.  Combats are generally only 3-4 rounds at most and you aren't really healing in combat all that much.  The fighters can self heal anyway, so, it's not like they need a second character stroking their HP every round to keep them on their feet.
> 
> ...




In 5e the characters do have a significant amount of their daily HPs locked up behind a rest gate: 50% to be precise.  If a warlord could allow PCs access to those HPs during combat, it would be beneficial to the character, it would reflect that you can only push/inspire someone so far, and it would release the pressure on other resources (namely potions and the slots used by healing spells).

Warlords could also be very good for condition mitigation.  A warlord could direct a blinded PC as to when to duck or where to swing, temporarily reducing or removing the penalties for blindness in combat.  A warlord could push/inspire a slowed character to temporarily relieve the slowed effect.  A warlord could try to slap a frightened PC to her senses to help her snap out of it (allowing another fear save, perhaps even with advantage).


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 3, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not sure if that would be 'helped' rather than 'complicated.'  I've played games that make that sort of distinction, and they can easily break down if you can find a way to target just one of those pools, typically the smaller, make'em dead, one.



We modified 1e about 33 years ago into a b.p.-f.p. system; as we're still using the same system today I'd have to say it's worked out OK.  An attacker usually* can't "target" one or the other; if you run out of f.p. you're into b.p..  B.p. are harder to cure (the major complication is that each cure spell does two different amounts depending on whether it's b.p. or f.p. being cured; we just live with it), but f.p. are always assumed to involve at least a little physical damage (nicks, scratches, etc.) mostly so poisoned weapons still work as intended.

* - the most common exception being a coup-de-grace type maneuver, where the damage goes straight to b.p. unless the attacker states the attack is to subdue rather than kill.



> Preach it, brother.



Every chance I get!   Quickest way to rein casters in is to bring back 1e-like interruption rules and casting times, and do away with any idea similar to "combat casting".



> You think the Cleric concept is so unappealing that it needs that level of niche-protection for it's healing function?



Me personally, no; but I see/read enough people complaining about it (except for its 3e/pf incarnation) that I suspect it needs what help it can get.



> That's a hard fail for every edition, then.



Ayup.   That said, the different editions have certainly required different *amounts* of looking-up during play.



> The 'defender' was /based/ on the fighter's Iconic role, from 2e, all the way back to Chaimail, as a front-line infantry figure who protected his back-line artillery support.



Protected the back-enders, yes; but while also whaling on the enemy front-liners as well.  Put in 'role' terms the Fighter (or any heavy class e.g. Paladin, Cavalier, etc.) should be both defender *and* striker, with things like Thief/Rogue and light Ranger put into more of an unwritten "sniper" role to go along with their sneaking and scouting (which Fighters generally don't do, or not well).  In 5e terms Rogues and Rangers do the exploration part, Fighters and other heavies do the combat part.

  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - would you by any chance be getting to GenCon this year?  It'd be fun to sit down over a beer and bash on things like this. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I suppose if people are really opposed to warlords standing up people who have dropped below 0 HP, attaching the rider, "the target can see and hear you" would probably work.
> 
> And then add in a line about how a warlord's powers can always work on an adjacent ally.  IOW, he's not shouting you awake from across the room, but actually taking the time to patch you up, which lets you roll whatever HD worth of healing his healing powers can do.  Which does keep it nicely in line with a cleric who generally can't heal at range at all.  Warlords would be able to heal at range any conscious ally, or adjacent to any fallen ally.
> 
> Would that not be a workable compromise?



Not bad at all; were I ever to have such abilities in the game they'd probably end up with very similar limits to these.


> I'd point out that this isn't true in 5e at all. No matter how grievous the wound, you can fully recover in a single long rest. You're adding things to 5e that aren't in the books.



Full recovery from anything in a single long rest is a complete non-starter in any game I'll ever run.  I'm not impressed with how 5e did this; but hey, the rules are there only as something for the DM to kitbash. 


			
				Yaarel said:
			
		

> In 5e, the fluff is Rules As Written. It is material that the DM can shape, but the DM cannot make it go away.



Oh yes she can!   Don't like the fluff/rule that says all h.p. are recovered after a single long rest?  Bam!  Gone, replaced with recovery of 10% of total h.p. on a long rest, or less if you've been at 0 h.p. recently.  Don't like h.p. stopping at 0?  Bam!  Negative h.p. values are right back in the game.  And so on.

Lan-"there would need, of course, to be a mechanism built in such that the warlord's restorative powers can - like a spell - be interrupted by an attack or whatever"-efan


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

My setting votes were for most of the settings that are not standard medieval fantasy: Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, and Eberron.

My PC race votes were for the goblinoid races and the pixie.  However, in the space provided at the bottom of the survey I indicated that above and beyond all of those races, what I most wanted to see were 1) Merfolk, and 2) a means of playing monstrous PCs (such as medusas and dragons).


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Because hit points include the ‘will’ to live, it seems reasonable for some options to substitute Wisdom for Constitution when determining max hit points while leveling.




I agree that your premise is sound, but one potential issue I see with substituting a different modifier when determining HPs is that the Con modifier seems like it's the only clearly defined health/physicality contribution to the HP pool.

Now the loss of that clearly defined physical health contribution will impact people differently (or not at all, depending on perspective), but I could see people taking issue with it even if their personal preference for HP interpretation includes non-physical factors.

Also, I'm sure that some would make the argument that it greatly reduces the inherent power of the Con score.  While I disagree with that argument based on the prevalence of Con saves in 5e, I can see someone making the argument.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jul 3, 2015)

RodneyThompson said:


> Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?




Heck yeah I did. But, the setting seems like a minefield for a corporation that wants to avoid major political/religious controversy. Do you really think it's possible for today's WotC to do AQ in a way that's true to the original boxed set?


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 3, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Have you ever seen a defender at work? That's.... Not even remotely how marking plays out. The DM is still making all the tactical decisions; the defender is there to capitalize on any opportunities.
> 
> 
> I'm just reading the rules and letting them tell me what's happening.  In D&D combat, there's no such thing as severe injury, so it looks like it'd only an actual deadly wound if you, you know, _die_. But seriously, a mod asked that the hp debate not take over this thread, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word!
> ...




Someone needs to reread the DMG optional rules... My home game does use the lasting injury rules for crits and for Deathsave-rolled-a-5-or-less....


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 3, 2015)

Really, did anyone write in Dragonfire Adept?
What if we bring back the Dragonfire Adept and Dragon Shaman and combine them.

The base class is the Dragonfire (name WIP) and it gets an at-will breath weapon and invocations.

The subclasses are the Dragonfire Adept who gets the Breath effects as invocations, Dragonfire Shaman who gets auras as Invocations, and the Dragonfire Disciple who gets claws ad fangs.



Dragonfire (Class)
Breath Weapon cantrip ("Linefire" and "Conefire" cantrips)
Invocations
Dragon Origin
Dragonfire Adept
Invocations alter "Linefire" and "Conefire"
Use 'Dragon God" breaths Invocations (Fivefold Breath of Tiamat, Discorporating Breath of Bathmut)

Dragonfire Shaman
Invocations after "Dragon Aura" cantirp
Gains Invocations that match Dragon Totem
Gain skills and minor feature based on Dragon Totem

Dragonfire Disciple
Gain claw and bite attacks
Extra Attack at level 6
Gains Invocations that match Dragon Heritage


Wings at high level


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 3, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Military rank, connotes command of a vessel.  Fatally narrow.  Also, just as much trouble with the bogus achievement rubric. ( Shouldn't your first level "Captain" be a middie?)




Actually, Captain was the first formal military rank still in modern use to acquire its modern name, but the role was to command a unit of 10 to 300 men... what would now be considered a US/UK platoon to company... It comes from the latin "caput" - "Head" - and the armies had basically 3 levels of organization: The army, the 3 battailles (vanguard, maingard, hearthguard), and the various companies - typically each company was a Lord's contribution - commanded by the lord if present, or an assigned caput miles or caput bellator. (Head soldier or head warrior), or from capitaneo (Cheiftain). (I've seen compelling arguments for both derivations, and caput is the root of capitaneo...)  It was, and still is, the first command rank of the army, and the army use is older. But note that the latin terms post-date the empire - the Roman equivalent to the dark ages and later captain is the Centurion. (The tribune was equivalent to a modern major, lieutenant colonel or colone, and the Princeps ("first") to a brigadier/brigadier general. The Legatus was equivalent to the modern lieutenant general, colonel-general, general, or marshal, depending upon specific assigned duties and legions under their authority.

A naval captain also commanded a company of between 10 and 300 men in military service with a commission from a nobleman... the difference being that he was granted permission to lease, purchase, or build a ship as well. 

Commissions as captains have been found dating back to before 1000 AD...

Thing is, a Naval captain, until roughly 1700, usually commanded the same number of men as an army captain... 10-300. But, the company regularized around the 100-200 man mark in the 1700's while the ship of the line ran 200-400 men... plus a company of naval-soldiers... the term Ship's Company is still a holdover in english from that period. (Note that, generally, until the 19th C, a civilian ship's commander was a Master, not a captain... unless he held a commission, in which case he was a captain...)  Even in the US, until the second quarter of the 19th C, a naval captain didn't actually outrank a ground captain, except positionally. (Until 1862, The USN had 4 officer ranks: Captain, Commander/Master-Commandant, Lieutenant-Commandant, Lieutenant. The RN had "Master & Commander" instead of Master-commandant. And Master was a warranted rank of officer granted by a RN flag officer or a US Captain to a passed midshipsman or to a petty officer... the passed midshipsman could later become a lieutenant. There were multiple grades of naval captain...)

Oh, and the term Marshal? it's got multiple derivations, too - Officer Martial was a court appointment for the noble overseeing the captains and captains-general. And then there is the french derivation, which comes from the french term for Farrier - the King's Farrier came to be the Marshal of Horse... (Marechal de Equites...)... 

Colonel dates to the 16th C. It's from Spanish  Coronel (royal officer) and Cabo de Colunelas (head of column)... due to the formal organization of multiple companies into a unit called a colunela (column). Noting that captains were commissioned by lesser nobles than the crown... while captains-general and coronels were commissioned by the crown. The French borrowed it, but changed the term to colonel, and the english grabbed the rank, the spelling, and the unit title from the French, but somehow used the Spanish pronunciation and then dropped a vowel...

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110111-034.pdf
http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-army/roman-army-ranks.htm


Also note: In the US, Captain is used not only for a ground or air forces officer of O3, but also for the officer commanding a police precinct (in large departments) or shift (in small departments) (either way, directly comparable to the commonwealth police rank Inspector), the positional title of a commissioned officer (of any grade) in command of a ship, a naval officer of O6, the elected head player of a sports team, as a synonym for the foreman in certain fields of labor (especially when elected; falling out of favor), as the term for the head mechanic of a given aircraft (properly plane-captain - usually an enlisted man, rarely a warrant officer), and as a derisive term for an officious ex-military person (especially an enlisted man) trying to pull rank on a civilian...

*if one wants a proper yet unique term, centurion would seem to be a good fit *- it's not used in colloquial english, it's a military leader term, it is roughly equal to captain in terms of historic use, and only BSG fans are likely to be upset about it...


----------



## Talmek (Jul 3, 2015)

I chose FR, Eberron, Greyhawk and Dark Sun for my preferred campaign settings. Artificers were my #1 choice in the way of additional classes for future UA. 

I like that WotC is providing surveys now instead of just throwing darts - that actually gives me a good amount of hope for the future of the game.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jul 3, 2015)

When 5th edition was first released, I remember a lot of praise given over to the fact that they were setting a hard limit on the number of classes, trying to keep it down to what is in the PHB and using those classes and new subclasses to support anything new they wanted to create.

So in this survey asking about these classes, does anyone actually want to see new classes, or just subclasses?

I'll admit I didn't vote for any of the classes listed because I like the hard limit of classes, though I did write in warlord.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2015)

Patrick McGill said:


> When 5th edition was first released, I remember a lot of praise given over to the fact that they were setting a hard limit on the number of classes, trying to keep it down to what is in the PHB and using those classes and new subclasses to support anything new they wanted to create.
> 
> So in this survey asking about these classes, does anyone actually want to see new classes, or just subclasses?
> 
> I'll admit I didn't vote for any of the classes listed because I like the hard limit of classes, though I did write in warlord.




I want to see a handful more classes, because I don't belive we have the right mix just yet, but I agree there needs to be a limit.

In my mind I see a warlord, one or two psionic classes, and maybe a new 5e class that is wholey new as a good rounding out... more then one or two past that might be much...

I would love to see martial adepts (Warblade, swordsage, crusaider) made into sub classes (fighter,monk, and paliden) I would love the shaman to become a druid sub class, and the warden to become a spell casting barbarian...


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Someone needs to reread the DMG optional rules... My home game does use the lasting injury rules for crits and for Deathsave-rolled-a-5-or-less....



It's all well and good that there's optional rules, but that doesn't mean the base game has, by default, any severe injuries. I could start using the crit tables from Arms Law, but that doesn't mean 5e has rules for slipping on invisible, dead turtles.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 3, 2015)

Obryn said:


> It's all well and good that there's optional rules, but that doesn't mean the base game has, by default, any severe injuries. I could start using the crit tables from Arms Law, but that doesn't mean 5e has rules for slipping on invisible, dead turtles.




It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)


----------



## CM (Jul 3, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Let's call the warlord a "Leader"!




_Life Coach_ IMO.


----------



## SigmaOne (Jul 3, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)




This is my biggest complaint about 5e.  I knew the designers were just being lazy when I saw there were no rules for slipping on turtles. How can they consider the game to be complete?   I mean, no rules for stubbing your toe on an aardvark I get --- that's just extraneous. But slipping on turtles is "core 3" content.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)



Okay. 

When I'm talking about the game, I'm talking about the core baseline. The default, if you will. While the modular things in the DMG are maybe a step above UA and houserules, they're not at the same level of table penetration as the PHB.

That's important, otherwise there is no such thing as a game to discuss.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 3, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Second wind already has a daily limit.  In fact, it has several different daily limits.
> 
> It has a hard limit of 24, for the number of one hour rests that can be taken in a day.
> 
> ...




Every single one of the things you just mentioned could apply to any of the other daily limited powers that were being discussed, in other words, they could all become short rest refresh, according to you, without any impact on the game. 

Maybe, just maybe, the designers made those other abilities have strict daily limits to prevent abuse? And then we get back to my original point, which is why prevent abuse for some powers but not others. Healing abuse prevention is easily as important to the proper functioning of the game as preventing any other kind. Probably more.

In short, your point isn't one.


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 3, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> The various Exceptional abilities of 3e are also effectively magical abilities, with the description of exceptional abilities stating that they "may break the laws of physics."  The only thing that makes them non-magical is the book saying they aren't magical, which is no different that the 4e martial power source.




3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention. 

More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.

All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 3, 2015)

Lets suppose there is a warlord class in the works that is supposed to fill the healer role, as in full cleric replacement. Right now, two classes can do this role easily: druid and bard. (BCD for short).  

How does a warlord...

... Restore Hit Points? (BCD get cure wounds, healing word, and mass versions. What would a warlord have to match that?)
... Cure status aliments like fear, blindness, poison, or lost limbs? (BCD get access to lesser and greater restoration, as well as Regenerate. CD get heal. How is the warlord healing these status conditions?)
... Return someone to life (BC get raise dead, D gets reincarnate. If my PC falls, how is the warlord bringing him back up?) 

Even the Paladin can do these things, a bet at a slower rate thanks to 1/2 spellcasting (but made up for some in lay on hands). If the warlord doesn't have a mechanic to do these things, he's a pretty poor healer class. (Enough that I wouldn't want a one instead of a BCD or even P).


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 3, 2015)

Obryn said:


> I'd leave out the misogyny and/or transphobia, though. It was a bit uncalled for.




My comment was:

"So D&D combat is a bunch of guys with makeup on whacking each other with nerf baseball bats and pillows, right?"

I used to play pillow fights as a boy, and use nerf bats as well. It was fun, non-lethal combat. We also used to disguise ourselves as orcs or the Hulk on halloween, using makeup. The fact that you choose to interpret my post as being misogynist or transphobic is more a reflection of how your own mind works, not mine. Save your personal attacks for someone who cares.

My point was, if you believe D&D combat to be non-lethal and never results in any injuries unless death occurred and you interpret it that way, you are free to do that, but I am free to think that that's totally stupid. Because it is. That's not how the game is narrated, and there are tons of examples in the books that not only describe damage as incurring wounds, but that not describing HP loss as such is completely bizarre and misses the entire point of the game. 

Combat is not a sport, it's life threatening. D&D combat is not a game of nerf bats, no matter how much you try and distort the definition of HP to make that the case. HP makes no sense if as they decrease, your character is more injured. Because of an accrual of injuries finally results in the character dying at the end. It's not only the last sword thrust that matters, it's every other one as well. That keeps the story consistent and make sense. Your definition of HP makes the game a jumble of contradictory and irrational absurdity. But to each his own, right? You're free to do whatever you want. Attacks that hit cause wounds and damage in every D&D game I've ever seen in 30+ years of playing. I don't know what game you're playing, but it's got to be an alien experience to me. Even when we played 4th edition we still thought of HP loss as damage, and the rules encouraged us to think that way by the inclusion of the "bloodied" condition which was visible to others. So HP loss was explicitly causing blood to come out, and by extension, what causes blood to come out of your body? Not exercise. Not fatigue. *Wounds*.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> We also used to disguise ourselves as orcs or the Hulk on halloween, using makeup. The fact that you choose to interpret my post as being misogynist or transphobic is more a reflection of how your own mind works, not mine. Save your personal attacks for someone who cares.



Riiiiiight.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> 3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention.
> 
> More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.
> 
> All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.




I played a warlord for twenty something levels, he was based on a mix of a character from star gate (no supernatural abilities) and a character from Babylon 5 (no supernatural abilities) and we never broke from things they could do... I never had a problem playing a warrior I would expect to see in Game of thrones in 4e either....

so YES I call it as POSSIBLE in popular fiction...if not real life itself.

edit: in fact in 4e I only saw 2 clerics played, both were ment to be devote deity worshipers... other then that we had druids, warlords, shaman, and Ardents... now in 5e over the course of 4 campaigns we have had 5 clerics, and none wanted to play a cleric so they were basicly healing spellcasters... funny how that feels like D&D


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> 3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention.
> 
> More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.




As far as having choice, I absolutely understand that.  You are the one that has failed to understand choice by demanding that a martial healing option not even exist as a condition of your continued patronage of D&D.  As choice relates to 4e fighters, simply don't take the powers you don't like.  You have issues with Come and Get It?  You were never required to take it.



spinozajack said:


> All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.




3e barbarians and rogues did have Ex abilities; where was all the complaining about magical rogues and barbarians?  Where was the complaining about dishonesty when the 3e PHB explicitly states that Ex abilities "may break the laws of physics" but "are not magical?"  The description of the martial power source in the 4e PHB parallels the 3e description of Ex abilities so much that no claim of dishonesty is tenable if you accepted the 3e description of Ex abilities.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 3, 2015)

spinozajack said:


> Every single one of the things you just mentioned could apply to any of the other daily limited powers that were being discussed, in other words, they could all become short rest refresh, according to you, without any impact on the game.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, the designers made those other abilities have strict daily limits to prevent abuse? And then we get back to my original point, which is why prevent abuse for some powers but not others. Healing abuse prevention is easily as important to the proper functioning of the game as preventing any other kind. Probably more.
> 
> In short, your point isn't one.




I do have a point.  I forgive you for not seeing it.

Could short rest abilities become daily abilities?  If you scaled them up properly, yes they could (by the same token, dailies could be scaled back to become short rest abilities.).  The short rest abilities have been scaled down so that a more frequent use is not abusive.

Also, "maybe, just maybe, the designers made. . ." short rest abilities so that every class didn't blandly follow the same resource schedule (which I recall being a criticism of 4e's unified AEDU structure).


----------



## spinozajack (Jul 3, 2015)

Lots of rude, patronizing, and personal attacks, yet no substance or anything worth reading, by forum posters who believe they are god's gift to game design, and probably don't even play 5th edition anyway.

Mod Note:  This is well past enough, and you've had more than sufficient warning.  Spinozajack will be taking a break from conversation.  ~Umbran


----------



## Leif (Jul 3, 2015)

Thank you, Umbran!


----------



## RotGrub (Jul 4, 2015)

Patrick McGill said:


> When 5th edition was first released, I remember a lot of praise given over to the fact that they were setting a hard limit on the number of classes, trying to keep it down to what is in the PHB and using those classes and new subclasses to support anything new they wanted to create.
> 
> So in this survey asking about these classes, does anyone actually want to see new classes, or just subclasses?
> 
> I'll admit I didn't vote for any of the classes listed because I like the hard limit of classes, though I did write in warlord.




I certainly don't want to see more classes.  More sub classes are fine however.   I'd also restrict new a sub classes to iconic concepts and not things that have strange and meaningless names.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 4, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> Put in 'role' terms the Fighter (or any heavy class e.g. Paladin, Cavalier, etc.) should be both defender *and* striker,



 That would, of course, render strikers obsolete.  The Thief wasn't a striker yet in AD&D, while the Fighter very much was, and, it didn't go great for the Thief.  3.0 was on the right track with SA.

But, really, virtually everyone does at least some damage, so the Striker role is always a matter of degree.  The fighter has been wholly a Striker,  a Defender 'secondary' Striker, and too customizeable to pin a label on.    He is, once again, solidly in the Striker box (except, perhaps for the EK, and with maybe a little optional defender with the right style or optional feat).



> [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - would you by any chance be getting to GenCon this year?  It'd be fun to sit down over a beer and bash on things like this.
> Lanefan



 nope.  DunDraCon, if you're ever on the Left Coast.



Remathilis said:


> Lets suppose there is a warlord class in the works that is supposed to fill the healer role, as in full cleric replacement.



 Seems vanishingly unlikely, but I'm always up for some baseless speculation.   So, for the purposes of this one post, I'll assume that.



> Right now, two classes can do this role easily: druid and bard. (BCD for short).



 OK, also assuming that, for right now.



> How does a warlord...
> 
> ... Restore Hit Points? (BCD get cure wounds, healing word, and mass versions. What would a warlord have to match that?)



 Mechanically?  Probably let's go with: triggering HD in combat.  It doesn't add to the party's endurance over the day, but replaces the function of standing a fallen ally.  

Inspiring Leader, OTOH, adds to endurance.  Maybe some mechanics like that, if the Warlord is to be brought up to full band-aid status.



> ... Cure status aliments like fear, blindness, poison, or lost limbs? (BCD get access to lesser and greater restoration, as well as Regenerate. CD get heal. How is the warlord healing these status conditions?)



 Anything temporary that you got or are still getting a save against, could probably be handled by inspiring an extra save.  Probably an alternate use of the same mechanic as restore hps. 

Anything permanent would require a much more limited, much higher level mechanic.  I suppose compensation training would be a reasonable concept.  The warlord can't Regenerate you lost limb, but he can drill you to fight every bit as effectively with that hook or peg-leg, or train you so well in blind-fighting that you take no penalties.  The mechanics for that would have to be limited in some way comparable to the kinds of rituals used to heal such extreme (and, typically, never actually happening in the course of the game - there aren't Rolemaster-style Crits in 5e's Standard game) injury.  Maybe using time moreso than exotic components?



> ... Return someone to life (BC get raise dead, D gets reincarnate. If my PC falls, how is the warlord bringing him back up?)



 Something like the 3.x Revivify might be reasonable.  Not from death, but from the brink of death, which is mechanically the same thing for a few moments, at least.   That could be done with the same mechanics as healing and granting saves, in-combat.  

Ironically, I suppose the Warlord could just recruit a replacement, fill it in on everything, and have it slip into the same role in the party.  It wouldn't /feel/ the same in RP, but it could serve the same end purpose:  the party is back to full strength.  The mechanic would have to as heavily-limited as Reincarnate, which the concept resembles more closely than it does resurrection.


OK, enough of that.


Of course, the big flaw in that bit of speculation is that 5e doesn't design classes to fill eachother's roles exactly or completely - or at all, really.  

Of course, the Warlord could do all the above in his original version, but that's only because all the out of combat restoration rituals were available via a feat.  Classes only contributed things like hp, restoration, save triggers, buffing & the like.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 4, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, the big flaw in that bit of speculation is that 5e doesn't design classes to fill eachother's roles exactly or completely - or at all, really.
> 
> Of course, the Warlord could do all the above in his original version, but that's only because all the out of combat restoration rituals were available via a feat.  Classes only contributed things like hp, restoration, save triggers, buffing & the like.




No, not exactly. Bards and druids (and somewhat paladins) can still fill the healer role though, so while there is no "official" roles, anyone with cure wounds/healing word, lesser/greater restoration, and one return to life spell can do that job. 

Which leads me to think a 5e warlord won't be a "martial healer" per se, since he can't really fill that role well. At best, he'd be a healer-of-last-resort rather than the "nonmagical cleric replacement" that some people want. Even if he can somehow restore hp, he's rubbish in the other areas healers are needed and would need magical backup anyway. Seems like one if its key design goals really doesn't work well with 5e...


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 4, 2015)

I see the Warlord as the healer (ie, restorer) of the first resort, who especially heals while allies have about half-max hit points.

Cleric and other ‘menders’ - after its too late - are the last resort.


----------



## RotGrub (Jul 5, 2015)

If I had to pick one thing from older editions that I'd like to see return to D&D, it's old healing rates coupled with the complete removal of non-magical healing.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 5, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> If I had to pick one thing from older editions that I'd like to see return to D&D, it's old healing rates coupled with the complete removal of non-magical healing.



They're already back.  They're an optional rule in the DMG as I think was pointed out upthread?


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Jul 5, 2015)

I picked the Cavalier as something I'd like to see more of.  Also more on the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## RotGrub (Jul 5, 2015)

Obryn said:


> They're already back.  They're an optional rule in the DMG as I think was pointed out upthread?




I've read them.  Those rules don't accomplish that without modifications.  They do not remove Hit Dice either.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 5, 2015)

I agree it is useful to distinguish ‘healing’ (physically mending wounds and refreshing physical stamina) and ‘inspiring’ (mentally improving alertness and galvanizing resolve). Both restore hit points but the flavors and narrative implications are different.

If there is a mechanical difference (such as inspiration requiring the target to ‘hear or see’), then it is easier for the ‘hp=meat’ players to modify the rules for a grizzlier setting.

Personally, the hp=meat setting is impossibly unrealistic, medically speaking. So I appreciate how hp are both mental and physical. If I ever did a hp=meat campaign, almost every battle would cause lasting disease-like mechanical conditions, including all kinds of penalties for broken bones and other injuries.

Explaining most of the loss of hp as mental depletion helps keep D&D narratives more realistic for me.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 5, 2015)

RotGrub said:


> I've read them.  Those rules don't accomplish that without modifications.  They do not remove Hit Dice either.




My house rule - No hit point restoration after a long rest, but full hit dice restoration. It is more generous than previous editions, but I feel it more accurately portrays hp as both stamina and physical damage. Their use of hit die in the morning to recover wounds reinforces the idea of recovery, and they start the day down a limited resource (hit die). This reminds the party of what they have been through. A complete reset to perfect would trivialize what they have endured.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 5, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> My house rule - No hit point restoration after a long rest, but full hit dice restoration. It is more generous than previous editions, but I feel it more accurately portrays hp as both stamina and physical damage. Their use of hit die in the morning to recover wounds reinforces the idea of recovery, and they start the day down a limited resource (hit die). This reminds the party of what they have been through. A complete reset to perfect would trivialize what they have endured.




Interesting.


----------



## Morlock (Jul 5, 2015)

> It's like being a liberal on Fox news, unable to get a single word in edgewise because being assaulted from all sides.



Yes, having one network that isn't leftist is a real downer. That it became America's most popular news channel (by far) using this unwanted innovation just added insult to injury.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 5, 2015)

I´d like to see a warlord in UA just that everyone is pleased.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2015)

I picked the artificer and the shaman. And I think that was about it. 
The artificer is kinda iconic to Eberron and fairly different than the wizard, so it really needs to be done well. The subclass approach was okay, but I don't think it hit all the notes. 
And the shaman/spirit shaman is pretty iconic as well, but that could be a druid archetype. 

Other than that we seem pretty well served. A fighter with the Mounted Combatant feat seems like a cavalier, and the warlock seems to touch on the hexblade nicely. Most of the other classes of 4e didn't really seem like anything special. 

For settings, I clicked on Dragonlance and Ravenloft out of loyalty. And Planescape cause it's nifty. I don't really expect to see those.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2015)

Morlock said:


> Yes, having one network that isn't leftist is a real downer. That it became America's most popular news channel (by far) using this unwanted innovation just added insult to injury.





Ladies and gentlemen,

While some talk on politics and religion are now allowed, they are *ONLY* allowed in the Off-topic forum, in threads clearly labelled as such.

Keep it out of the threads about gaming.  Thank you.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 5, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I agree it is useful to distinguish ‘healing’ (physically mending wounds and refreshing physical stamina) and ‘inspiring’ (mentally improving alertness and galvanizing resolve). Both restore hit points but the flavors and narrative implications are different.



"Inspiration" in combat has always meant mechanically, to me at least, something that results in some sort of to-hit and-or damage bonus - you're inspired to fight harder, rather than last longer.  Bardic morale singing is the obvious example here.

Another thing to keep in mind from an overall design perspective is anything that gives combatants more defenses and-or h.p. in combat (particularly if both sides have it) is going to inevitably make those combats longer.  Giving to-hit and damage bonuses will have the opposite effect, which to me is a win.

Lanefan


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 5, 2015)

I want the halfling art from prior editions of the game...while we're talking about what we want from prior editions of the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 5, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> How does a warlord...
> 
> ... Restore Hit Points? (BCD get cure wounds, healing word, and mass versions. What would a warlord have to match that?)




I'd imagine triggering HD in combat would be a useful way to represent that. It both mimics the 4e-style surge healing, and gives "nonmagical" healing a distinct difference from magical healing. It works with the "warlords use your abilities on their turns" vibe, and has a natural "cap" (you only have so many HD). 



> ... Cure status aliments like fear, blindness, poison, or lost limbs? (BCD get access to lesser and greater restoration, as well as Regenerate. CD get heal. How is the warlord healing these status conditions?)




I think the first resort would be "extra saving throws," which is useful enough for most abilities. I don't imagine warlords fixing lost limbs or regenerating gouged out eyes, but they could offer new saves against effects that required a save in the first place. This would still leave some gaps that only magic could heal, which is reasonable - I think we'd want warlords who could be more _pro-active_ in these situations (they might not cure the gorgon's petrification, but they can turn your failed save to avoid it into a successful one). 



> ... Return someone to life (BC get raise dead, D gets reincarnate. If my PC falls, how is the warlord bringing him back up?)




Linked mostly to healing HP. Death by other means (like disintegration) or places where you can't recover the body or situations where they've been dead for years...that's somewhere magic has to go. Again, warlords could be useful in a pro-active sense here - improved saves and AC and the like can stop the beholder's disintegrate from working in the first place.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd imagine triggering HD in combat would be a useful way to represent that. It both mimics the 4e-style surge healing, and gives "nonmagical" healing a distinct difference from magical healing. It works with the "warlords use your abilities on their turns" vibe, and has a natural "cap" (you only have so many HD).



Which doesn't work very well with the optional healing rules that change how often you can spend healing surges.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 5, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Which doesn't work very well with the optional healing rules that change how often you can spend healing surges.




Why not? The 5-minute rest rule works fine (that doesn't apply to what happens in a fight, and the HD are still capped since a long rest doesn't restore them all), and the healing surges rule still works fine (using a healing surge takes an action in combat, vs. the warlord's ability to trigger others' healing surges without using a full action), as far as I can see.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 5, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd imagine triggering HD in combat would be a useful way to represent that. It both mimics the 4e-style surge healing, and gives "nonmagical" healing a distinct difference from magical healing. It works with the "warlords use your abilities on their turns" vibe, and has a natural "cap" (you only have so many HD).
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Jester Canuck said:


> Which doesn't work very well with the optional healing rules that change how often you can spend healing surges.




Which is why the best solution is for warlords to not heal during combat and instead get a beefed up version of Song of Rest and increase the heals after rests. The warlord becomes a master of first aid and inspiration and heals HD and adds Temp HP when you spend HD.

You get a replacement cleric in a passive sense. Instead of cure wounds 4 times, the warlord lets every party member heal more on rests.

The party healer need not be a in-combat healer.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why not? The 5-minute rest rule works fine (that doesn't apply to what happens in a fight, and the HD are still capped since a long rest doesn't restore them all), and the healing surges rule still works fine (using a healing surge takes an action in combat, vs. the warlord's ability to trigger others' healing surges without using a full action), as far as I can see.




It doesn't work with the "gritty realism" rest with 8 hour short rests, it doesn't work with healer's kit dependency, and it seems redundant with the healing surge variant rule. 
Classes should work independent of the rules. They should add mechanics and seldom modify existing mechanics to allow easier modularity, which is a key tennant of 5e. 

And it also doesn't really allow any extra healing. The party has as much healing as without the warlord, and the adventuring day is not extended - which is the benefit of having a healer. In fact, the action being spent healing would have been better served dealing damage or ending the combat before more hit points were lost. As a turn was spent doing something that could have been done between combats, it's arguably detrimental to the success of the party.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 5, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd imagine triggering HD in combat would be a useful way to represent that. It both mimics the 4e-style surge healing, and gives "nonmagical" healing a distinct difference from magical healing. It works with the "warlords use your abilities on their turns" vibe, and has a natural "cap" (you only have so many HD).
> 
> I think the first resort would be "extra saving throws," which is useful enough for most abilities. I don't imagine warlords fixing lost limbs or regenerating gouged out eyes, but they could offer new saves against effects that required a save in the first place. This would still leave some gaps that only magic could heal, which is reasonable - I think we'd want warlords who could be more _pro-active_ in these situations (they might not cure the gorgon's petrification, but they can turn your failed save to avoid it into a successful one).
> 
> Linked mostly to healing HP. Death by other means (like disintegration) or places where you can't recover the body or situations where they've been dead for years...that's somewhere magic has to go. Again, warlords could be useful in a pro-active sense here - improved saves and AC and the like can stop the beholder's disintegrate from working in the first place.




Which, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't make them a really good healer, then. Usual caveat blahblahblah roles, but who would want this guy instead of a bard, druid, or cleric? These abilities don't even begin to match the raw ability of second level spells in most cases. 

The problem with this (and this is going to be shock coming from my keyboard) is that I can't see enough utility to make it stand as its own thing. For me, the warlord was good at granting extra actions, healing, stacking bonuses, and occasional melee attacks. Stacking bonuses are off the table (due to advantage being a 1/situation scenario), healing seems fairly weak (not good enough to compare with BCD or even P, maybe on par with a ranger*?) which leaves it as a class that gives other classes a chance to break the action economy (really, its kinda a class that grants other classes Legendary Actions and Resistances; ie extra out-of-turn actions and automatic saves.)

* Though this got me thinking... could a viable warlord be built out of the spell-less ranger chassis minus the obvious ranger stuff (like primeval awareness) and plus this healing surge healing and more superiority dice? Might be a good starting point...


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jul 5, 2015)

What about a spell less bard?


----------



## Jessica (Jul 5, 2015)

I voted for Eberron, Dark Sun, Birthright, and Ravenloft for campaign settings. Vryloka, Devas, Shadar-kai, and Revenants for races. And I voted for Shaman, Warden, and Seeker for classes. At the very end I added in a comment stating "bring back the vampire class". Seriously I want to play one of my favorite classes again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 5, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> "Inspiration" in combat has always meant mechanically, to me at least, something that results in some sort of to-hit and-or damage bonus - you're inspired to fight harder, rather than last longer.



 IRL, the point of morale was to stay on the field, fighting, longer.  Inspiration is obviously closely tied to that concept.  And, of course, in the context of the warlord, its Inspiring Word restored hps (often among other things, depending on player choices)...



> Another thing to keep in mind from an overall design perspective is anything that gives combatants more defenses and-or h.p. in combat (particularly if both sides have it) is going to inevitably make those combats longer.  Giving to-hit and damage bonuses will have the opposite effect



Too-short combats are anti-climactic, too-long ones eventually become boring.  Frankly, 5e has swung the 'fast combat' pendulum a little far, so having more than one in-combat 'healer'-psuedo-role PC in the party might not be a terrible idea.  But, it's an idea that's flexible to implement.  If you want really fast combat, no healers and lots of DPR is the party configuration for you.  



Minigiant said:


> Which is why the best solution is for warlords to not heal during combat and instead get a beefed up version of Song of Rest and increase the heals after rests.



That would completely fail to capture the Warlord.  



> You get a replacement cleric in a passive sense. Instead of cure wounds 4 times, the warlord lets every party member heal more on rests.



That doesn't replace the cleric.

The critical difference between a party with a cleric (or Bard or Druid) is not healing between combats, total healing per day, nor even high-level spells like Regenerate or Raise Dead.  It's in-combat healing that enables the D&D combat dynamic.



Jester Canuck said:


> Classes should work independent of the rules. They should add mechanics and seldom modify existing mechanics to allow easier modularity, which is a key tennant of 5e.



 It may be a tenet of D&D, but not of modularity.  For modules to pop in and out and work smoothly you need points of attachment.  A Variant like changing the time to heal fully or number of HD doesn't work so smoothly precisely because healing spells are independent of it.  When you have a single mechanic that most/all healing is linked to, you can adjust healing to fit your campaign's theme/tone/sub-genre/whatever without having to change many different rules.  



> And it also doesn't really allow any extra healing. The party has as much healing as without the warlord, and the adventuring day is not extended - which is the benefit of having a healer.



That's one way in which the Warlord might reasonably differ from the cleric.  Extending the adventuring day with a cleric means using a lot of its slots for healing, which reduces the participation of the cleric's player, and the contribution of the PC in other areas, including out of combat.  So a cleric might extend the adventuring day very little.

If you did want the Warlord to extend the adventuring day, up-front whole-party Temp hps from inspiration would be a way to do it.  It'd be separate from in-combat hp restoration, which, again, would differentiate it from the Cleric, while still filling the critical aspects of the role implied by it.



> In fact, the action being spent healing would have been better served dealing damage or ending the combat before more hit points were lost.



 Unless it's a bonus action like Healing Word.  Which, really, would make a lot of sense, especially for lead-from-the-front inspiration.



Remathilis said:


> Which, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't make them a really good healer, then. Usual caveat blahblahblah roles, but who would want this guy instead of a bard, druid, or cleric? These abilities don't even begin to match the raw ability of second level spells in most cases.



 Insisting that the Warlord not get his full abilities, then accusing him of being lacking is a pretty lame debating tactic.  

Let the Warlord do his thing as well as he did in 4e, and he'll keep a party going in combat just fine, thank you.  



> * Though this got me thinking... could a viable warlord be built out of the spell-less ranger chassis minus the obvious ranger stuff (like primeval awareness) and plus this healing surge healing and more superiority dice? Might be a good starting point...



It really needs to be its own class.  5e design philosophy is to make each class unique, and the close candidates, functionally, use magic, which makes them wholly unsuitable, while the close candidates conceptually, are locked inflexibly into a narrowly-focused single-target DPR role, also rendering them unsuitable.  5e tried very hard to evoke the classic D&D feel, and the Warlord concept (the archetypes it models) was something that classic D&D consistently failed to deliver.  The warlord was simply an innovation, and the only way to include it is to accept that it can't be hobbled by the classic-D&D design imperative, but must be presented as an an optioal alternative that Houdinis that particular straightjacket.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 5, 2015)

Minigiant said:
			
		

> The party healer need not be a in-combat healer.




I agree in principal, but I don't think that's going to hit what folks who want the warlord to replace the cleric would be looking for. 



Jester Canuck said:


> It doesn't work with the "gritty realism" rest with 8 hour short rests, it doesn't work with healer's kit dependency, and it seems redundant with the healing surge variant rule.




It's not redundant - if you're using both, you can still get use out of either.

It also works fine with the "gritty realism" rule (the HD cap still keeps you taking long rests when needed) and the healer's kit rule (that rule only applies during rests anyway).

I don't see any issues there.



> And it also doesn't really allow any extra healing. The party has as much healing as without the warlord, and the adventuring day is not extended - which is the benefit of having a healer. In fact, the action being spent healing would have been better served dealing damage or ending the combat before more hit points were lost. As a turn was spent doing something that could have been done between combats, it's arguably detrimental to the success of the party.




Right - there's no extra healing, it's just that a warlord can help you pull on your own reserves in the middle of a fight, where otherwise you might not have time to gather your wits. When it's a choice between going down and losing that character's actions and getting back into the fray, it's clearly useful. 

And I think one needs to be cautious about saying "because of optional rule X, optional rule Y can't exist." There's no requirement for the gritty realism rest variant to work seamlessly with the healing surges healing variant, for instance. Not all new options need to work with all existing options. 



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Which, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't make them a really good healer, then. Usual caveat blahblahblah roles, but who would want this guy instead of a bard, druid, or cleric? These abilities don't even begin to match the raw ability of second level spells in most cases.




Healing, as a role, isn't something 5e really needs anyway. If you want to replace the party healer, buy some healing potions - combat's fast and furious and the main function of healing is to stop action attrition from dying characters. Anything that restores HP will do that. So the "healer replacement threshold" is pretty low. If you can restore some HP in combat _congrats, you got it covered_. Someone with the Healer feat can do that nicely. Heck, arguably the Battlemaster can do that, though their effectiveness ends at 0 hp. 

So the "can replace a cleric" thing seems to me to be mostly about having something that can be used on a dying creature to give it some HP back and let it get back in the fight. There might be some support in there for throwing off conditions, too, which is where the save-buffing/save-granting comes in. 

It can't raise those who've been dead a week or scream your arm back on, but I don't think it needs to do that to replace the cleric. 

I'll let people who are bigger warlord fans correct me if I'm wrong on that.  



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> its kinda a class that grants other classes Legendary Actions and Resistances; ie extra out-of-turn actions and automatic saves.)




I think that idea's got legs, personally.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 5, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> That would completely fail to capture the Warlord.
> 
> That doesn't replace the cleric.
> 
> The critical difference between a party with a cleric (or Bard or Druid) is not healing between combats, total healing per day, nor even high-level spells like Regenerate or Raise Dead.  It's in-combat healing that enables the D&D combat dynamic.




Why doesn't it replace a cleric?

The party with the level 5 cleric casts 4 level 1 cure wounds for 4d8+12 hp healed and 1 level 2 cure wounds for 2d8+3.
The party with the level 5 warlord adds 1d12+ 3 to the HP gained during a short rest for 4d12+12 HP healed and everyone gets 10 THP after a long rest.

In 5th edition, in combat healing is usually for emergencies. You don't tend to need healing during combat unless some monster clobbers someone for tons of damage. Combat isn't long like 4th edition. There's no need to "Healing/Inspiring Word" or Second Wind every fight. 

And almost all the strengths of the 4th edition warlord are gone or minimized. Stacking bonuses are minimized. In combat healing is not assumed every combat. There is not inherent bonuses for positioning outside of certain classes. 

The warlord might need to change with the edition just how the sorcerer and bard did. Instead of healing in combat, a warlord could grant bonuses to keep allies form being hurt and keeps the party topped off in HP at the start of almost every battle. Essentially be a spell-less valor bard with beefed up Song of Rest.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 5, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Insisting that the Warlord not get his full abilities, then accusing him of being lacking is a pretty lame debating tactic.
> 
> Let the Warlord do his thing as well as he did in 4e, and he'll keep a party going in combat just fine, thank you.




Part of the problem is that in 4e, Remove Affliction and Raise Dead were rituals, which meant any spellcaster (or person willing to burn a feat) to could use them, but warlords naturally couldn't. So as long as you had at least one ritual user, you could be ok with a warlord who only healed hp as your healer. (Of course, if you had a no-ritual-user party, you were screwed). That is a very different design paradigm than 5e, which returned those abilities back to a limited number of classes (BCDP) in the form of spells. (And not even to ritual casters, which is a bit of a oversight imho). So even if we give the warlord back his full ability (and by that, I mean healing full hp in combat like 4e did) he's still whiffing on those other very key areas. In short, you'd still need a BCDP to shore up those two key areas, which makes him ill-suited for replacing a healer-caster. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It really needs to be its own class.  5e design philosophy is to make each class unique, and the close candidates, functionally, use magic, which makes them wholly unsuitable, while the close candidates conceptually, are locked inflexibly into a narrowly-focused single-target DPR role, also rendering them unsuitable.  5e tried very hard to evoke the classic D&D feel, and the Warlord concept (the archetypes it models) was something that classic D&D consistently failed to deliver.  The warlord was simply an innovation, and the only way to include it is to accept that it can't be hobbled by the classic-D&D design imperative, but must be presented as an an optioal alternative that Houdinis that particular straightjacket.




Which is why I'm guessing they opted to leave it out of the PHB. It sounds like it might need its own subsystem or augmented ruleset, much like psionics might, and would have to be an opt-in style system because of how it changes the assumptions of the core rules. Nothing against that, but like psionics I think it would be a polarizing element best suited for a supplement at some point down the road. 

Hmmm... the warlord might be a good candidate to put with the martial adepts (swordsage, crusade, etc) in some Martial Power supplement...


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It may be a tenet of D&D, but not of modularity.  For modules to pop in and out and work smoothly you need points of attachment.  A Variant like changing the time to heal fully or number of HD doesn't work so smoothly precisely because healing spells are independent of it.  When you have a single mechanic that most/all healing is linked to, you can adjust healing to fit your campaign's theme/tone/sub-genre/whatever without having to change many different rules.



If a rule is too embedded in a class it becomes hard to modify, because more and more unintended side effects result that shift the balance of classes. 
For example, if I change how critical hits work it affects the barbarian and the champion fighter, which have abilities tied to crits. The more points of connection the more you're encouraged to leave a mechanic the way it is. The more important a mechanic is as a modular element the more important it is not to tie class or race features to that mechanic or assume play.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not redundant - if you're using both, you can still get use out of either.



It's redundant in that everyone can heal on their own so the warlord triggering healing is less necessary and pretty much unneeded. If eveyone deals bonus damage when they have advantage it makes sneak attack less impressive.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It also works fine with the "gritty realism" rule (the HD cap still keeps you taking long rests when needed)



If you're using gritty realism in your game you probably really, really don't want someone healing via shouting. They're pretty antithetical concepts. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> and the healer's kit rule (that rule only applies during rests anyway).



And, again, if the tone of your campaign requires you to expend resources from a healer's kit to heal - applying bandages and poultices and the like - having the warlord able to do the same for free goes against the very tone of the campaign. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Right - there's no extra healing, it's just that a warlord can help you pull on your own reserves in the middle of a fight, where otherwise you might not have time to gather your wits. When it's a choice between going down and losing that character's actions and getting back into the fray, it's clearly useful.



And the exact same thing would happen if the warlord instead granted temporary hit points preventing the character going down in the first place. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And I think one needs to be cautious about saying "because of optional rule X, optional rule Y can't exist." There's no requirement for the gritty realism rest variant to work seamlessly with the healing surges healing variant, for instance. Not all new options need to work with all existing options.



Optional rules, yes. Classes are different. Classes should (mostly) be independent of the house rules. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> So the "can replace a cleric" thing seems to me to be mostly about having something that can be used on a dying creature to give it some HP back and let it get back in the fight. There might be some support in there for throwing off conditions, too, which is where the save-buffing/save-granting comes in.
> It can't raise those who've been dead a week or scream your arm back on, but I don't think it needs to do that to replace the cleric.



I disagree. By the definition of replacing "the cleric" it should the warlord also be able to bring someone back from the dead, turn someone back from stone, regrow an arm, or remove a disease? All vital elements of the cleric and the "healer" role. Even the bard and druid get those spells, and the paladin and ranger get most. 

As you say, it's easy to replace the combat healer role with potions and a feat or two, so if the warlord is to fill the role of replacing the cleric/bard/druid so you don't need anyone close to that class ever they need a way to deal with those conditions.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> It's redundant in that everyone can heal on their own so the warlord triggering healing is less necessary and pretty much unneeded. If eveyone deals bonus damage when they have advantage it makes sneak attack less impressive.
> 
> 
> If you're using gritty realism in your game you probably really, really don't want someone healing via shouting. They're pretty antithetical concepts.
> ...




Irrelevant. You can use the options together, or not, and since they're both opt-in, you can also choose one or the other. We can leave the decision of whether or not that's a good idea up to individual DMs, since both things are optional add-ons. A new optional add-on is under no requirement to compete with other optional add-ons - they're all optional add-ons. 



> And the exact same thing would happen if the warlord instead granted temporary hit points preventing the character going down in the first place.




There's a psychology element you're missing that is valuable to some of the warlord players - the ability to *get an ally back in after they go down*. Temp HP can't do that - they're preventative, not reactive. You could do that with some sort of convoluted boar-like endurance ability, I suppose, but it's just easier to do that with HP recovery since that's what big warlord fans will be used to anyway. 

There's nothing in 5e that prevents such a thing, though individual tables may or may not want to use it. 



> Optional rules, yes. Classes are different. Classes should (mostly) be independent of the house rules.




Every class is optional. And optional rules are also optional - they don't need to be problem-free for all potential classes. It's OK if a warlord feels a little like they're not exactly _necessary_ in a game with the Healing Surge variant. 



> I disagree. By the definition of replacing "the cleric" it should the warlord also be able to bring someone back from the dead, turn someone back from stone, regrow an arm, or remove a disease? All vital elements of the cleric and the "healer" role. Even the bard and druid get those spells, and the paladin and ranger get most.




It really depends on what you mean by "replacing the cleric."

I'm operating under the interpretation that warlord fans who want their class to "replace the cleric" don't care about raising from the dead or removing petrification or whatever (things the warlord couldn't do in 4e, either; ie "ritual stuff"), but rather want actual HP healing without magic, which is a distinction between the 4e warlord and the 5e archetypes that tread similar territory. It's not impossible in 5e, as an option, to have this. 



> As you say, it's easy to replace the combat healer role with potions and a feat or two, so if the warlord is to fill the role of replacing the cleric/bard/druid so you don't need anyone close to that class ever they need a way to deal with those conditions.




You don't need anyone of any class do to pretty much anything in 5e - niche protection is a thing of the past. But if you were a fan of the 4e warlord, you might _want_ a class that can restore HP without being magical. That's not an extreme desire, and it's something the mechanics of 5e would have no problem with.

I'm under the impression that there's other things that certain 4e warlord fans want out of a "warlord" that aren't quite available in 5e at the moment, too (including party-affecting abilities and at-will buffing). It's certainly possible to do all those things - and given the scope of those things, it could warrant a class.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But if you were a fan of the 4e warlord, you might _want_ a class that can restore HP without being magical. That's not an extreme desire, and it's something the mechanics of 5e would have no problem with.
> 
> I'm under the impression that there's other things that certain 4e warlord fans want out of a "warlord" that aren't quite available in 5e at the moment, too (including party-affecting abilities and at-will buffing). It's certainly possible to do all those things - and given the scope of those things, it could warrant a class.



If you were a fan of the warlord class in 4e you likely want a class that can allow allies to move, grant an attack, manipulate the battlefield, buff your friends, and the like. Healing is waaaaay down on the list. That's like saying you liked the 4e fighter for the ability to mark or the 4e ranger for the ability to deal extra damage. I'm sure someone out there was a huge fan of that extra 1d6 damage, but it's not exactly the main selling feature of the class.

But 5e classes get new abilities pretty sparsely. So healing would come at a cost to those actual warlordy things.

I'd rather have a warlord that was 110% warlord doing warlord things rather than tacking on healing because healing was expected in a previous edition. I'd rather it be different and unique rather than samey.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's a psychology element you're missing that is valuable to some of the warlord players - the ability to *get an ally back in after they go down*. Temp HP can't do that - they're preventative, not reactive. You could do that with some sort of convoluted boar-like endurance ability, I suppose, but it's just easier to do that with HP recovery since that's what big warlord fans will be used to anyway.




This is a total tangent, but that is one of the things that is great about the Healer feat, especially on a Fast-hands Thief who can do it with Cunning Action. The "get d6+4+HD HP back" is limited to once per short rest, but the "get your ally back up from 0 HP to 1 HP" has no limit of any kind on it.

I'm not a 4E expert in any way, shape or form, but from what I've heard about "warlords" I would tell a player who liked warlord flavor to play a Battlemaster fighter with Commander's Strike, and that at 6th level he gets to heal allies with a medkit as an action. I.e. he gets the Healer feat for his 6th level feature.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 6, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Part of the problem is that in 4e, Remove Affliction and Raise Dead were rituals, which meant any spellcaster (or person willing to burn a feat) to could use them



 That's not a problem.



> In short, you'd still need a BCDP to shore up those two key areas



 They are not key areas, they are specific high-level, non-combat spells.  



> Hmmm... the warlord might be a good candidate to put with the martial adepts (swordsage, crusade, etc) in some Martial Power supplement...



 The martial adepts were around for what, a year?


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Every class is optional. And optional rules are also optional - they don't need to be problem-free for all potential classes. It's OK if a warlord feels a little like they're not exactly _necessary_ in a game with the Healing Surge variant.



This didn't sit right with me but it took me a while to realize what irked with the statement.

Yes, all classes are optional. If I want a world without monks (being too Eastern or non-European middle ages in theme) then that's fine. But the baseline should be the inclusion of classes. 
Optional rules don't take much work and balancing. A dash of fine tuning and playtesting to make sure they're working as intended is all that is required. 

House Rule: When you make a weapon attack and tie the AC you score a glancing blow and deal half damage. 
Bam. Easy. 

A class is bigger. Much bigger. It requires testing across multiple levels (ideally all levels) to not only make sure it's balanced against monsters but with other classes already in play, and that it works without being confusing. It's a LOT of work. For the space they take in a book they require a disproportionate amount of time to test and balance. 
That's not something you do for content that many people don't want. The assumption should be people will use it and only a few might omit it. If you're making a class that doesn't fit the baseline of people's games then it's a problem. It's a waste of time that could be spent doing a craptonne of other content.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> If you were a fan of the warlord class in 4e you likely want a class that can allow allies to move, grant an attack, manipulate the battlefield, buff your friends, and the like. Healing is waaaaay down on the list. That's like saying you liked the 4e fighter for the ability to mark or the 4e ranger for the ability to deal extra damage. I'm sure someone out there was a huge fan of that extra 1d6 damage, but it's not exactly the main selling feature of the class.




I'm not about to tell someone else why they liked a class. In my - many and extended - convos with folks who are big warlord fans, one of the recurring themes is that they like that warlords can pick somebody up who is down. Healing is the simplest way to do that. 



			
				Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a warlord that was 110% warlord doing warlord things rather than tacking on healing because healing was expected in a previous edition. I'd rather it be different and unique rather than samey.




This isn't an either-or choice. Yeah, it'll take ~3-5 levels for a 5e warlord to have most of the toys her 4e counterpart had. Healing can be part of that ability package. It's not like clerics can't do things besides heal - healing is part of their package. 




Jester Canuck said:


> Yes, all classes are optional. If I want a world without monks (being too Eastern or non-European middle ages in theme) then that's fine. But the baseline should be the inclusion of classes.




The baseline is the inclusion of four classes - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, each with one subclass. This is the Basic Ruleset that anyone can pick up and run tomorrow. Every class beyond that is not part of the baseline. 



> Optional rules don't take much work and balancing. A dash of fine tuning and playtesting to make sure they're working as intended is all that is required.
> 
> House Rule: When you make a weapon attack and tie the AC you score a glancing blow and deal half damage.
> Bam. Easy.
> ...




It sounds like your position is "not very many people want it, so it shouldn't be done, it'd just waste page count for most people."

But you could say the same thing about most of the classes in the PHB. 

I'd trust WotC to have better market research than I did, so if it ever was something they considered (and there's no current sign that it is - it wasn't even an option on the survey), I imagine it'd be something they thought was worth the page count and development dollars. That's not a decision I've got the information to make. 

But I do have, I think, enough information to say that I get why some fans of the 4e warlord are exactly enthusiastic about the 5e classes that try to fill that same space, and to say that I imagine it could be something done in 5e, and to say that it could even warrant a new class - huge as it is.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 6, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's not a problem.




in the 4e context, no it wasn't. More to the point, in 4e those parts of the healer role was disassociated from the leader role. So unless you lacked a ritual caster of any stripe, they were filled. They aren't in 5e.



Tony Vargas said:


> They are not key areas, they are specific high-level, non-combat spells.




They are part of the whole "healing" shtick. Healing isn't just about hit points. A warlord might be able to recover hp, but if your PC is poisoned, diseased, or blinded, you'll want a BCDP over a warlord. 



Tony Vargas said:


> The martial adepts were around for what, a year?




Their loins spawned the whole idea of 4e martials, so I'd argue at least a few in spirit. 

My point: if we want a full on warlord that can match a spellcaster point for point, perhaps something akin to the Martial Adepts might be a way to do it.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not about to tell someone else why they liked a class. In my - many and extended - convos with folks who are big warlord fans, one of the recurring themes is that they like that warlords can pick somebody up who is down. Healing is the simplest way to do that.



Conversely, a LOT of people found the warlords ability to heal problematic and not in fitting with the lore of the class. It's a mechanic that exists for mechanic reasons, not story. It's artificial. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This isn't an either-or choice. Yeah, it'll take ~3-5 levels for a 5e warlord to have most of the toys her 4e counterpart had. Healing can be part of that ability package. It's not like clerics can't do things besides heal - healing is part of their package.



As I said on the other parallel thread on the warlord, healing is an insignificant part of the cleric package. 7/8ths of the cleric domains don't have _cure wounds_ on their domain list and none have _healing word_. More clerics seem built around the idea of not healing and doing other things than healing.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It sounds like your position is "not very many people want it, so it shouldn't be done, it'd just waste page count for most people."
> 
> But you could say the same thing about most of the classes in the PHB.



Yes, I could. Most of those have been around for longer though, so they're mandated. There's a lot of classes that haven't been updated and might have as many fans as the warlord. Do all of them warrant inclusion?



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd trust WotC to have better market research than I did, so if it ever was something they considered (and there's no current sign that it is - it wasn't even an option on the survey), I imagine it'd be something they thought was worth the page count and development dollars. That's not a decision I've got the information to make.
> 
> But I do have, I think, enough information to say that I get why some fans of the 4e warlord are exactly enthusiastic about the 5e classes that try to fill that same space, and to say that I imagine it could be something done in 5e, and to say that it could even warrant a new class - huge as it is.



The problem is the audience is super divided. There are warlord fans who are happy with the battlemaster, warlord fans who are happy refluffing the valour bard, warlord fans who would want a class with no healing, warlord fans that would be okay with temporary hitpoints, and warlord fans that want actual healing. 
It's a lot of time and effort to piss off a group of people.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If you were a fan of the warlord class in 4e you likely want a class that can allow allies to move, grant an attack, manipulate the battlefield, buff your friends, and the like. Healing is waaaaay down on the list. That's like saying you liked the 4e fighter for the ability to mark or the 4e ranger for the ability to deal extra damage. I'm sure someone out there was a huge fan of that extra 1d6 damage, but it's not exactly the main selling feature of the class.




So you'd be cool with a 5e warlord with absolutely no healing ability?


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> So you'd be cool with a 5e warlord with absolutely no healing ability?



Yes. 
I'd be happy with just temporary hit points as they work better with my sense of verisimilitude. And they seem to match the flavour of the ability by allowing the warlord to inspire allies before a battle allowing his friends to fight longer and take more hits, to fight on despite their injuries and not remove them. 

Plus, that's what I did for my warlordy fighter subclass.


----------



## RotGrub (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Yes.
> I'd be happy with just temporary hit points as they work better with my sense of verisimilitude. And they seem to match the flavour of the ability by allowing the warlord to inspire allies before a battle allowing his friends to fight longer and take more hits, to fight on despite their injuries and not remove them.
> 
> Plus, that's what I did for my warlordy fighter subclass.




sounds like you'd also be happy with a magical warlord.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Yes.
> I'd be happy with just temporary hit points as they work better with my sense of verisimilitude. And they seem to match the flavour of the ability by allowing the warlord to inspire allies before a battle allowing his friends to fight longer and take more hits, to fight on despite their injuries and not remove them.
> 
> Plus, that's what I did for my warlordy fighter subclass.




Awesome. Seems like a solid subclass, with more emphasis on "makes others look cool" than than the battlemaster. 

The thing is if you ask people what was the selling point of the warlord, I think most would agree martial healing. It was a leader class. Its only "locked" class ability was inspiring word. In PHB 1, it was the only alternative to the cleric for said role. I think the class got very stuck in the "healer" paradigm for that reason. I'm not sure at this point you could separate it again. Which means WotC, if it ever does decide to try to take a stab at the warlord again, has to face this elephant in the room. I don't think they can avoid it again. Which means if they do opt to make a new warlord, its going to have to either go full martial healing haters be damned and find a way to explain it in game (via some form of supernatural power like magic, psionics, ki, or martial adepts) or do some sort of half-measure (like KM's HD method) which will make them inferior in said role. 

Neither is going to prove popular, and I doubt WotC will bother when it can claim "battlemaster" and be done.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Which means if they do opt to make a new warlord, its going to have to either go full martial healing haters be damned and find a way to explain it in game (*via some form of supernatural power like magic, psionics, ki, or martial adepts*) or do some sort of half-measure (like KM's HD method) which will make them inferior in said role.




This is already in the game. Eldritch Knight + Magic Initiate (Cure Light Wounds). Boom! Bob's your uncle, a magical healing fighter.

I think the Healer feat is far better but you asked for supernatural.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Yes.
> I'd be happy with just temporary hit points as they work better with my sense of verisimilitude. And they seem to match the flavour of the ability by allowing the warlord to inspire allies before a battle allowing his friends to fight longer and take more hits, to fight on despite their injuries and not remove them.
> 
> Plus, that's what I did for my warlordy fighter subclass.




I can't understand how pretend hit points are more sim-friendly than actual hit points.  What does a temp HP even look like if you're using an HP = meat paradigm, anyway? 

At any rate, temp HP and actual healing are significantly different, tactically speaking. Temp HP can't get you back up from zero, and are best used before combat even starts. This means they are also easily wasted if you give them to the wrong guy, unlike healing.

If you're dead set against healing 'real' () hit points, reactive damage mitigation serves a much closer purpose. Or, something like a party pool of temp hp that anyone can draw from.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

Obryn said:


> I can't understand how pretend hit points are more sim-friendly than actual hit points.  What does a temp HP even look like if you're using an HP = meat paradigm, anyway?




Extra binding energy.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> This is a total tangent, but that is one of the things that is great about the Healer feat, especially on a Fast-hands Thief who can do it with Cunning Action. The "get d6+4+HD HP back" is limited to once per short rest, but the "get your ally back up from 0 HP to 1 HP" has no limit of any kind on it.




Actually, when I saw the emphasis on "bring back a fallen foe," the Healer feat ability was the first thing that jumped into my head. It could be made into a class feature fairly easily, and could be tied to Inspiration/Superiority (or "Leadership") dice. Something like:

*Stand the Fallen.* On your turn, when you take an action to stabilize a dying creature, that creature regains 1d6 hit points plus a number of hit points equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). You must take a short rest before you are able to use this ability again.​
Or instead of waiting for a short rest, it's a CM ability and expends a Superiority Die, rolling that instead of the d6. If once per short rest isn't enough, maybe it's a number of times equal to your Cha mod, or maybe this is the 1st level version and you get more uses as your level goes up, etc.

-The Gneech 

PS: I just picked the feature name as a nod to the past, rather than being a direct correlation.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

The_Gneech said:


> Actually, when I saw the emphasis on "bring back a fallen foe," the Healer feat ability was the first thing that jumped into my head. It could be made into a class feature fairly easily, and could be tied to Inspiration/Superiority (or "Leadership") dice. Something like:
> 
> [strong]Stand the Fallen.[/strong] On your turn, when you take an action to stabilize a dying creature, that creature regains 1d6 hit points plus a number of hit points equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). *You must take a short rest before you are able to use this ability again.*




Why the rate-limiter? As written it's weaker than the Healer feat, except for not needing medical supplies. The way it's written, it wouldn't break anything for Stand the Fallen to be an at-will ability.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Why the rate-limiter? As written it's weaker than the Healer feat, except for not needing medical supplies. The way it's written, it wouldn't break anything for Stand the Fallen to be an at-will ability.




Because it was a first draft off the top of my head, and I prefer to err weak and buff things up when messing around with rules. 

With an ability like this, you need to compare it not only to the Healer feat, but also to Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and healing potions. 1d6+mod is a pretty hefty heal if you compare it to the other options!

Healer feat: A critter w/ 0 hp gains 1 hp, no limit (other than healer kits, which are fairly trivial), OR you grant 1d6+4 hp to anyone with an action but that's all they get for that use.

Cure Wounds: Grant 1d8+mod hp to anyone with an action and use up a spell slot.

Healing Word: Grant 1d4+mod hp to anyone within 60' with an action and use up a spell slot.

Healing potion: Grant 2d4+2 hp to anyone with an action, costs 50 gp.

Given that the ability only comes into use when you're stabilizing a fallen ally, however, I can see an argument for either beefing it up or allowing more uses. The point is to make it a meaningful ability without making it the "obviously always superior" choice.

-The Gneech


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Extra binding energy.



Yeah, I still have no idea what that means.  I'm going to guess you're making a joke, but really I have no idea.

I mean, if your paradigm is that, if you lose hit points to a sword, the sword has cut into you and you're hurt, what does it look like when a sword hits you and it's temp HPs? Do you worry about poison effects? Ghoul paralysis? What's being hit, anyway? Is it still your flesh? Did it actually _miss _you? Should your AC actually have been adjusted instead of your hit points, in the first place? What's happening that's somehow _more_ sensible than recovery of 'real' (still ) hit points?

As for me, I'm totally fine with the "hit points are hit points, and they model hit points" philosophy, so I'm all for looking at them as just different game mechanics. But there's nothing particularly ... verisimilitudinous? ... about temp HPs that I can see. The opposite, really.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

Obryn said:


> Yeah, I still have no idea what that means.  I'm going to guess you're making a joke, but really I have no idea.
> 
> I mean, if your paradigm is that, if you lose hit points to a sword, the sword has cut into you and you're hurt, what does it look like when a sword hits you and it's temp HPs? Do you worry about poison effects? Ghoul paralysis? What's being hit, anyway? Is it still your flesh? Did it actually _miss _you? Should your AC actually have been adjusted instead of your hit points, in the first place? What's happening that's somehow _more_ sensible than recovery of 'real' (still ) hit points?




Nope, I'm completely serious. At my table, HP represent the extra binding energy of lifeforce, over and above the mechanical durability inherent in your flesh and bone. A 20th level fighter with 200 HP is literally more durable than the corpse of a 20th level fighter. He has a higher tensile strength, higher shearing strength, is harder to rip/tear/cut, etc. A 168-joule bullet that would penetrate 6 inches into the corpse's chest might only penetrate half an inch into the fighter's chest, but in the process it would ablate some of that energy until eventually he becomes a corpse.

This "life force" is the same stuff that prevents enemy wizards from burning all your clothes off with fireballs, and also makes objects immune to certain spells as long as they are being worn by a creature.

Therefore, poison affects you normally ("the ghoul's claw penetrated your flesh, so the poison is in your blood stream").

In short, HP is HP, and temp HP is also HP but it's temporary and non-additive. Nothing complicated, it's just what it says on the tin.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

The_Gneech said:


> Because it was a first draft off the top of my head, and I prefer to err weak and buff things up when messing around with rules.
> 
> With an ability like this, you need to compare it not only to the Healer feat, but also to Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and healing potions. 1d6+mod is a pretty hefty heal if you compare it to the other options!




But it's got a major restriction: it's not additive. Cure Wounds can be stacked all day to bring you from zero to full Health; the Healer feat and Stand the Dying can bring you up from zero to one-hit-kill territory. Healer and Stand the Dying (as proposed) are hardly distinguishable from each other except that Healer can _also_ heal you for up to 1d6+24 HP per short rest, and Healer costs 5 sp per usage for medical supplies.


----------



## Leif (Jul 6, 2015)

Morlock said:


> Yes, having one network that isn't leftist is a real downer. That it became America's most popular news channel (by far) using this unwanted innovation just added insult to injury.




I can't wait for the unveiling of the new Hilly-Nan channel -- All Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, 24/7/365.  Sign my a$$ UP!


*Ouch!*  I'm going to need a medical procedure to remove my tongue from my cheek now.  Hmm, have to check into a combo deal for removing my head from my rectum.

As Umbran already addressed - politics and gaming don't mix in this forum. Take it to off-topic. Anyone who re-visits this unfortunate little digression will not have their post preserved. - KM


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> But it's got a major restriction: it's not additive. Cure Wounds can be stacked all day to bring you from zero to full Health; the Healer feat and Stand the Dying can bring you up from zero to one-hit-kill territory. Healer and Stand the Dying (as proposed) are hardly distinguishable from each other except that Healer can _also_ heal you for up to 1d6+24 HP per short rest, and Healer costs 5 sp per usage for medical supplies.




Cure wounds is limited by spell slots available (which is probably in the single digits), and Healer is limited by either the number of kits you have (and dependent on the DM allowing feats). We're talking about a class feature here. If you make it spammable, a party with a warlord never has to be worried about being defeated in combat again, because the WL will just keep propping fallen fighters back up.

Furthermore, having this as a class feature means that you don't _need_ to burn a feat on Healer, thus leaving that slot for something else. Or you can stack it with Healer and do ALL the in-combat rezzing!

-TG


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

The_Gneech said:


> Cure wounds is limited by spell slots available (which is probably in the single digits), and Healer is limited by either the number of kits you have (and dependent on the DM allowing feats). We're talking about a class feature here. *If you make it spammable, a party with a warlord never has to be worried about being defeated in combat again, because the WL will just keep propping fallen fighters back up.*




I haven't found this to be true. Anyone who goes down in melee combat usually (60%?) gets shredded and dies that same turn, typically because they did something insane like charging a cluster of umber hulks[1]. When death saves happen in my game they are more likely to happen at range, because going down at range imposes disadvantage on further attacks (cancelled by being unconscious, but at least it's not advantage) and because hits at range are not auto-crits.

Furthermore, someone can just hold an action to take the PC down again the instant the healer pops him back up (prone).

Apparently I run an unusually-deadly game, judging by polls, but if popup healing is a concern then you have that exact same problem already with Healing Word and the Healer feat. 5 sp per usage for healing kits isn't much of a constraint.

In short, I don't think Stand the Dying (as written) would be overpowered as a class ability. And Healer already _is_ a class ability, fighters can get it as their 6th level ability with the extra feat. I'd expect STD to be roughly comparable.

[1] I could tell you an amusing story about a player whose main PC for a long time was a necromancer. Recently he switched to playing his anti-undead paladin. He told me he wanted to introduce her in the middle of a pitched battle with all of the necromancer's skeletons. (Sibling rivalry--he's pro-undead, she's anti-.) I was like, okay... So next session, she's a guard on the spelljamming ship where the necromancer has left all of his skeletons in an unfriendly self-defense formation, and she tells her fellow guardsmen that she is going to destroy all of those abominations and wants them to help her. The other guards react like she's going to set off a bomb, diving for cover and stuff, but she wades into melee anyway. A two and a half rounds later, she's killed two skeletons and she's dead. The player doesn't even have the excuse of not knowing what he was getting into--these are the EXACT SAME SKELETONS he'd used to slaughter a dozen umber hulks the session before! He should know perfectly well what kind of damage output he was looking at.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Conversely, a LOT of people found the warlords ability to heal problematic and not in fitting with the lore of the class. It's a mechanic that exists for mechanic reasons, not story. It's artificial.




Right. Those folks have valor bards and battlemaster fighters and war clerics and the Healer feat and....

And also I haven't heard many people voice a problem with the "spend Hit Dice" idea in 5e from a meat perspective. I'm pretty much as meaty as they come, and I'd probably be kind of OK with it - it's explicitly a more internal reserve of energy than magical healing, and it is something you can do during a short rest anyway. 



> As I said on the other parallel thread on the warlord, healing is an insignificant part of the cleric package. 7/8ths of the cleric domains don't have _cure wounds_ on their domain list and none have _healing word_. More clerics seem built around the idea of not healing and doing other things than healing.




I'm just saying that a 5e warlord that is meant to satisfy the warlord fans who are not already satisfied will want some healing. It's fine if that's only part of what they can do. But it should be a part of what they do - if it's not, that's not going to satisfy those fans. 

It doesn't really matter how much _logic_ goes into that desire. The audience handed you a design goal on a silver platter, either it's worth meeting or it's not. 



> The problem is the audience is super divided. There are warlord fans who are happy with the battlemaster, warlord fans who are happy refluffing the valour bard, warlord fans who would want a class with no healing, warlord fans that would be okay with temporary hitpoints, and warlord fans that want actual healing.
> 
> It's a lot of time and effort to piss off a group of people.




Again, this is why WotC presumably does market research - they have a better idea of how many people really want it and how many people would be "pissed off" by it. They know better than lil' ol' me if it ever would maybe actually make sense to publish something like that.

I don't think the people who aren't happy with your proposed solutions are being unreasonable or that 5e is somehow incapable of meeting their requests. If allowing an optional class that allows someone to spend HD in combat as a class option is a _gamebreaker_ for someone, I think that person probably needs to not be such a frickin' princess snowflake about their game and should let other folks have fun how they want to. 

Really, anyone telling 4e warlord fans they can't have their non-magical healing warlord because _someone somewhere might get angry that the game allows their table to do something different_ is shining up your Fun Police badge so that you can arrest all the people who don't have fun the way you want everyone to have fun. A modular game like 5e don't need that mess.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Obryn said:


> I can't understand how pretend hit points are more sim-friendly than actual hit points.  What does a temp HP even look like if you're using an HP = meat paradigm, anyway?
> 
> At any rate, temp HP and actual healing are significantly different, tactically speaking. Temp HP can't get you back up from zero, and are best used before combat even starts. This means they are also easily wasted if you give them to the wrong guy, unlike healing.
> 
> If you're dead set against healing 'real' () hit points, reactive damage mitigation serves a much closer purpose. Or, something like a party pool of temp hp that anyone can draw from.



Temp hit points allow you to call hp meat while adding them as "energy" or the like. It's screwy but less screwy than someone shouting across the battlefield at the rogue who just fell unconscious from a fall into a pit of acid and removing their injuries.

As I say elsewhere, temporary hit points have a number of advantages beyond healing. You don't need to worry about wasting healing by overhealing. You can prevent someone from falling down in the first place, thus negating the need for them to stand up or potentially miss a turn. You can stack temp hp on a character likely to be hit and they can take far more punishment than they could otherwise. You can use the power proactively if you roll a high initiative, rather than having to ready or choose a different action since no one is hurt. 
There are differences, but both are strong choices. It's disingenuous to imply a warlord granting temp hp would be less useful than one that heals


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And also I haven't heard many people voice a problem with the "spend Hit Dice" idea in 5e from a meat perspective. I'm pretty much as meaty as they come, and I'd probably be kind of OK with it - it's explicitly a more internal reserve of energy than magical healing, and it is something you can do during a short rest anyway.



If you haven't seen people complain then you haven't looked. At launch there was a LOT of people derisively referring to them as 'healing surges redux". 
They're odd. They're really odd. But they're there because the majority of people wanted some self healing in the game. So the majority wins and the DM can choose how much a role they play. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Again, this is why WotC presumably does market research - they have a better idea of how many people really want it and how many people would be "pissed off" by it. They know better than lil' ol' me if it ever would maybe actually make sense to publish something like that.



The surveys are the market research. That's it. I don't recall seeing any checkbox of pro/con martial healing. 
Secondary feedback would be forums and playtesters, and I doubt very much the opinions here are representative of the general audience. A lot of the warlord stuff here is an evolution of the edition wars. A war by proxy. The average player likely doesn't have an opinion. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think the people who aren't happy with your proposed solutions are being unreasonable or that 5e is somehow incapable of meeting their requests. If allowing an optional class that allows someone to spend HD in combat as a class option is a _gamebreaker_ for someone, I think that person probably needs to not be such a frickin' princess snowflake about their game and should let other folks have fun how they want to.



Except it won't be that optional. Again, the resources required mean they're giving up four or five subclasses in pages and twice that number in okay testing time. Anything that takes that much effort means they want people to actually use it, not turf it because of a flavour problem.
It's a lot if work to satisfy a minority of people, piss off another minority, and generate something the majority of prayers won't look twice at. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Really, anyone telling 4e warlord fans they can't have their non-magical healing warlord because _someone somewhere might get angry that the game allows their table to do something different_ is shining up your Fun Police badge so that you can arrest all the people who don't have fun the way you want everyone to have fun. A modular game like 5e don't need that mess.



Is that any different than saying something isn't a good enough warlord because it can't restore hitpoints?

And it's not just about the fun police, it's about table stability. These arguments we're having here? The one that's derailed two threads this week and derails every thread that begins on the warlord, or hitpoints as meat, or the like. These could happen real time at a game table. These DO happen. That is anti-fun, Mechanics that cause fights and disagreements should be minimized. That includes stuff like wound points, damage on a miss, complicated grappling, and yes, martial healing. There will always be table fights, but WotC doesn't need to arm both sides.

There's lots of 3rd party and homebrew warlords. I'm sure if you looked you could find an awesome one. That might also be a good topic for an En5ider article. But WotC should probably draw the line at the battle master.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2015)

I though we already fixed the "across the room " issue. Warlord healing requires line of sight and hearing. If the ally is unconscious, then the warlord needs to be adjacent and only grants 1 hp, same as the feat. 

Why isn't this acceptable?

As far as the minority majority thing, well, umm, that cuts a lot of ways. Do you really think the majority of gamers want a full psionics class instead of a Sorcerer subclass?  Are you willing to bet money on it?  Just how many actual people don't like the Artificer?  And how many is good enough? 

51% means that almost every table is pissed off given 6 people at the table. How do we avoid the "gnome effect" where even though 90% like the idea, half of the tables out there have a pissed off player?

I would think that like the Psion, presenting multiple options is the way to go.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 6, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I want the halfling art from prior editions of the game...while we're talking about what we want from prior editions of the game.




I second this motion. This might be the most important issue facing the game. Bobble-headed halflings need to be discarded into the dustbin of history. Please make this happen.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 6, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Hmmm... the warlord might be a good candidate to put with the martial adepts (swordsage, crusade, etc) in some Martial Power supplement...




You and I both know we are not getting one of those.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I second this motion. This might be the most important issue facing the game. Bobble-headed halflings need to be discarded into the dustbin of history. Please make this happen.




+1.

To me, halflings will always look like Dark Sun halflings: perfectly-proportioned miniature barbarians.

View attachment 69125


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 6, 2015)

Are we talking about the Warlord because it is an option people want to play or like someone said earlier, is it simply a proxy for a rehash of the edition war between 4e and 5e? I think the lack of a true gish character with arcane strike and magical abilities that focus on personal abjuration, personal buffs, and elemental damage focused through martial weapons is the class really missing. The eldritch knight is lacking in my mind.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 6, 2015)

So which do you think would be better dragonfire adept subclasses

Chromatic, Metallic, and Dragon Disciple 
Or
Classic Dragon Adept, Dragon Shaman, Dragon Disciple


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 6, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> You and I both know we are not getting one of those.




Eh, they were on the survey list. You never know what may happen...



Hemlock said:


> This is already in the game. Eldritch Knight + Magic Initiate (Cure Light Wounds). Boom! Bob's your uncle, a magical healing fighter.
> 
> I think the Healer feat is far better but you asked for supernatural.




My point is if you want a warlord to mimic abilities like Inspiring Word or Stand the Fallen, you're either going to break the assumptions laid out in the core game (a fine area for a targeted supplement) or instill some supernatural force around it ("magic") to explain how it works.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Temp hit points allow you to call hp meat while adding them as "energy" or the like. It's screwy but less screwy than someone shouting across the battlefield at the rogue who just fell unconscious from a fall into a pit of acid and removing their injuries.
> 
> As I say elsewhere, temporary hit points have a number of advantages beyond healing.



Who narrates inspirational healing as "removing their injuries"? When a fighter uses Second Wind does that get narrated as "removing their injuries"? How does a fighter "second wind his/her arm back on"?

Inspirational healing involves pushing on despite injuries. Overcoming them, not eliminating them.

That is also why the fiction of inspirational healing is not well-matched by a temp hp mechanic, which is a pale shadow at best.



Jester Canuck said:


> A lot of the warlord stuff here is an evolution of the edition wars. A war by proxy. The average player likely doesn't have an opinion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it's not just about the fun police, it's about table stability. These arguments we're having here? The one that's derailed two threads this week and derails every thread that begins on the warlord, or hitpoints as meat, or the like. These could happen real time at a game table. These DO happen. That is anti-fun, Mechanics that cause fights and disagreements should be minimized.



Just to be clear - the objection to the design of a proper warlord class, or even to _discussion_ of the design of a proper warlord class, is that some people who don't like it won't be able to control their fury?

Together with a conjecture that people who say they like the warlord, and inspirational healing, really don't, and are just making it up to prolong an "edition war"?

The next step seems to be to posit that the only reason people bought and played 4e at all was to unleash an edition war!


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Just to be clear - the objection to the design of a proper warlord class, or even to _discussion_ of the design of a proper warlord class, is that some people who don't like it won't be able to control their fury?




That's a pretty unhelpful re-framing of the issue.

If WotC came out with a "collectible" D&D variant wherein extra feats and spells were only available to those who had paid WotC for randomized "booster packs", would the inability of DMs to restrain their fury really be the only problem? Externalities and system effects can't matter?

The fact that externalities _can _matter doesn't mean they _do_ matter, and it's possible that 5E/CCG would be easily ignored and not a real problem for most DMs. Same thing holds for warlords: maybe it wouldn't actually be a problem. But you haven't proved that or even argued that, you've just dismissed and belittled it. Since you won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you using that tone, it's really just another way of wasting your breath.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 6, 2015)

What?!

This game is supposed to be modular, yes?

With the idea that DM fiat decides which module gets included in her game and which doesn't, yes?

Then a module that includes the warlord should be no problem for any group of even semi-adults.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 6, 2015)

Eric V said:


> What?!
> 
> This game is supposed to be modular, yes?
> 
> ...



Then you're up for a rude awakening. 

There are some very vocal voices whose "fun" apparently depends on us others *not* getting what we want.

It's not enough that these people can choose not to buy the supplements we want (4e Warlords, 3e magic item prices, etc etc) but they demand these supplements do not exist at all.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> That's a pretty unhelpful re-framing of the issue.




Just for the record, there is no helpful nor any unhelpful framing or re-framing of this issue.  This _issue _is a myopic, petulant, never-ending battle over the narrative of "what is D&D (?)" and thusly what gate-keeping, rabble-rousing, othering, and grave-dancing needs to be done in order to keep some perceived "not D&D" virus out of the purified bloodstream and collective conscience of D&D.  It has been going on since I entered the hobby in the early 80s.

It is D&D Groundhog Day and we are all locked in this endless circle of triteness and insanity and we are never, ever, ever escaping.  Not as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow.

_Then put your little hand in mine
There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb

Babe

I got you babe
I got you babe_


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jul 6, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Just for the record, there is no helpful nor any unhelpful framing or re-framing of this issue.  This _issue _is a myopic, petulant, never-ending battle




Heh. Good point.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> That's a pretty unhelpful re-framing of the issue.
> 
> If WotC came out with a "collectible" D&D variant wherein extra feats and spells were only available to those who had paid WotC for randomized "booster packs", would the inability of DMs to restrain their fury really be the only problem? Externalities and system effects can't matter?
> 
> The fact that externalities _can _matter doesn't mean they _do_ matter, and it's possible that 5E/CCG would be easily ignored and not a real problem for most DMs. Same thing holds for warlords: maybe it wouldn't actually be a problem. But you haven't proved that or even argued that, you've just dismissed and belittled it. Since you won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you using that tone, it's really just another way of wasting your breath.



Those fortune cards they came out with for 4e came and went like a fart in a monsoon. Nearly every table, including mine, shook our heads and ignored them. I hear some tables liked them though, so more power to them, and no skin off my nose. So if that counts as a test case or evidence... There you have it. 

In a more direct sense, if people don't like and don't use a supplement or an Unearthed Arcana or whatever, it's cool. If they go off in a rage and quit because an optional thing they don't like exists? Frankly, screw those people. There's such a thing as a toxic fanbase, and catering to them is crazy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If you haven't seen people complain then you haven't looked. At launch there was a LOT of people derisively referring to them as 'healing surges redux".




That's not a complaint in my mind, it's just _accurate_.  There's no real indication this is anything more than aesthetics - even "grittier" healing still uses HD, and plenty of folks who don't like 'em dropped 'em.

What I'm referring to, though, is the hypothetical ability of this proposed 5e healer to use HD to heal - I haven't heard much complaining about that. And, again, I'm a pretty dang meat-heavy person. No short rest in my games will ever be 5 minutes.  I think it'd probably be fine. 



> The surveys are the market research. That's it. I don't recall seeing any checkbox of pro/con martial healing.
> Secondary feedback would be forums and playtesters, and I doubt very much the opinions here are representative of the general audience. A lot of the warlord stuff here is an evolution of the edition wars. A war by proxy. The average player likely doesn't have an opinion.




I don't imagine for a second that the surveys on their website are the only market research they're doing. That'd just be shooting themselves in the foot - I've every confidence that they're aware that their surveys are getting the most well-informed fans' opinions and that if they want a true representation of the diversity of D&D's wheelhouse they'll need to do more than online polls. 



> Except it won't be that optional. Again, the resources required mean they're giving up four or five subclasses in pages and twice that number in okay testing time. Anything that takes that much effort means they want people to actually use it, not turf it because of a flavour problem.
> 
> It's a lot if work to satisfy a minority of people, piss off another minority, and generate something the majority of prayers won't look twice at.




My point is that how minor this minority is is something WotC would have an idea of and that none of us would. I certainly never made any claims of popularity, merely of reasonableness - I think can see the logic of the "warlord malcontents" and I think their complaints are reasonable and able to be addressed mechanically. 



> Is that any different than saying something isn't a good enough warlord because it can't restore hitpoints?




Yep, it is. I'm not telling people what they need to accept _at their tables_, I'm just telling people that - shocker - there's going to be ways of playing this game that they're not into that are still part of this game. 



> And it's not just about the fun police, it's about table stability. These arguments we're having here? The one that's derailed two threads this week and derails every thread that begins on the warlord, or hitpoints as meat, or the like. These could happen real time at a game table. These DO happen. That is anti-fun, Mechanics that cause fights and disagreements should be minimized. That includes stuff like wound points, damage on a miss, complicated grappling, and yes, martial healing. There will always be table fights, but WotC doesn't need to arm both sides.




If you don't like an option, you don't use it. If you want an option, you use it. Either way, there's not a _fight_ about it. Even at an individual table - the DM determines what's going on ultimately, and either that's cool, or it's not. There isn't One True Way, here. That was absurd when 4e tried it, and it'd be even MORE absurd for Big-Tent-5e to try it. 



> There's lots of 3rd party and homebrew warlords. I'm sure if you looked you could find an awesome one. That might also be a good topic for an En5ider article. But WotC should probably draw the line at the battle master.




I am not convinced that it should. In fact, if the reason it would draw that line is to appease people who want to _exclude a certain playstyle from the game_, I think it should erase that line completely and sing the praises of morale-based narrative HP from the rooftops, as much as I'm not a fan of it, because we should always push back against this purity test for "real D&D" that pretends that WotC's approval is like a gold star of approval for hating on someone else's playstyle. 

That's some toxic purity test weapons-grade _bolognium_.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 6, 2015)

The problem with bloat is that you put the DM in a hard position. I've heard plenty of people say if don't want something at your table, just say no. The problem with five hundred supplements becomes the DM saying no to 60 to 70 percent of the official printed material. You end up looking like a killjoy when an excited player comes to you with a psionic infused pixie vampire. You want to create a story around classical fantasy tropes ... your players want to play with these new "toys" thrown at them by the game developers. In the long run bloat hurts the game. It ends up breaking the game because there always ends up being unintended combos. The more moving parts you add, the more likely something is going to break. When additions to the game are added in setting expansions, though, it becomes easier for a DM to say no to something. I find it easier to disallow the current minotaur, because the minotaur presented was one for Dragonlance. Since my campaign is not set in Dragonlance, no becomes a legitimate answer that my players readily accept. On the same token if I like the minotaur presented it becomes something that I can easily adapt and allow. This segregation of new rules makes for a better and more vibrant game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 6, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Nope, I'm completely serious. At my table, HP represent the extra binding energy of lifeforce, over and above the mechanical durability inherent in your flesh and bone. A 20th level fighter with 200 HP is literally more durable than the corpse of a 20th level fighter. He has a higher tensile strength, higher shearing strength, is harder to rip/tear/cut, etc. A 168-joule bullet that would penetrate 6 inches into the corpse's chest might only penetrate half an inch into the fighter's chest, but in the process it would ablate some of that energy until eventually he becomes a corpse.
> 
> This "life force" is the same stuff that prevents enemy wizards from burning all your clothes off with fireballs, and also makes objects immune to certain spells as long as they are being worn by a creature.
> 
> Therefore, poison affects you normally ("the ghoul's claw penetrated your flesh, so the poison is in your blood stream").



I have to say, this is one of the better - maybe the best - in-game explanation for h.p. that grow with level that I've ever seen.  And - bonus! - it still allows poison to work.  And - further bonus! - ...



> In short, HP is HP, and temp HP is also HP but it's temporary and non-additive. Nothing complicated, it's just what it says on the tin.



...it allows temporary h.p. to work just fine as well.  Brilliant stuff!  I might just have to swipe this. 

The only hole I can see in it is explaining h.p. for lesser undead e.g. zombies and skeletons that have no life force at all.  For constructs, robots, golems etc. the h.p. are of course explained by the hardness of the material they're made of.

As for the warlord-y stuff, in my view an inspiring-word-like ability that gives temporary h.p. before combat is FAR better (and better suits the genre trope as well; look how many movies have the inspiring-speech-before-battle scene in 'em) than having it affect those already too badly hurt to stay awake. 

Lan-"Get up and fight, you lazy swine!  Pain is for wusses, and who needs two legs anyway?!"-efan


----------



## angrylinuxgeek (Jul 6, 2015)

"Table stability" is a personal problem WotC should not be concerned with. They should present options in setting material or Unearthed Arcana for DM's and players to include in their games. There's no real reason to claim what goes on at someone else's table ruins what goes on at your own. It's almost like a real life issue just decided by the supreme court.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 6, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> I have to say, this is one of the better - maybe the best - in-game explanation for h.p. that grow with level that I've ever seen.  And - bonus! - it still allows poison to work.  And - further bonus! - ...



 Really?  You haven't heard the "Marvel Asgardian" theory of hps before?  The arrow that transfixes the 1st level fighter bounces off the 10th level one?  No?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 6, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really?  You haven't heard the "Marvel Asgardian" theory of hps before?  The arrow that transfixes the 1st level fighter bounces off the 10th level one?  No?



I have, but never with the life-energy tie-in; and it's that which makes it so elegant.

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 6, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> I have, but never with the life-energy tie-in; and it's that which makes it so elegant.



 OK, so a little less Asgardian, a little more Highlander?  

Weird.  I'd've thought you'd object to something that made every living thing innately magical, that way.  Blows the doors off any nod to realism or verisimilitude, I mean.  Every high level character is just this life-energy battery.  Makes sense to the 4e Artificers, I guess (just let me get out my adapter and we'll put some of your life energy in this capacitor - I mean, _infusion...._)


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jul 7, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> The problem with bloat is that you put the DM in a hard position. I've heard plenty of people say if don't want something at your table, just say no. The problem with five hundred supplements becomes the DM saying no to 60 to 70 percent of the official printed material. You end up looking like a killjoy when an excited player comes to you with a psionic infused pixie vampire. You want to create a story around classical fantasy tropes ... your players want to play with these new "toys" thrown at them by the game developers. In the long run bloat hurts the game. It ends up breaking the game because there always ends up being unintended combos. The more moving parts you add, the more likely something is going to break. When additions to the game are added in setting expansions, though, it becomes easier for a DM to say no to something. I find it easier to disallow the current minotaur, because the minotaur presented was one for Dragonlance. Since my campaign is not set in Dragonlance, no becomes a legitimate answer that my players readily accept. On the same token if I like the minotaur presented it becomes something that I can easily adapt and allow. This segregation of new rules makes for a better and more vibrant game.




I would like to take a stab at this. 

Let's break things down a bit into a more realistic process. 

1: Why are you creating a character before you know the type of game and why are you assuming it will be allowed? 

2: Most DM's will let you know in advance what kind of game it will be and what is allowed. If they don't then it's assumed the DM has no problem with the options from supplements. 

I personally don't believe the ability to not be able to say no is not an overall problem. Does it happen? Sure it does, but I don't think it happens to the point where the structure of the release schedule needs to be changed. If I am running a game that is only dwarves then why would you bring in a non dwarf? If someone wants to do something that is obviously outrageous during the game and can lead to a problem, are you going to allow it or are you going to say no? 

Being a DM comes with a responsibility and part of that is to structure your game and make sure you clearly explain the rules of your game whenever you present it to your players?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 7, 2015)

If WotC has worked out that the optimal point on their profit curve can be reached by excluding inspirational healing beyond what's already in the game (HD and second wind, plus the fig leaf of "healers' kits"), then of course that's their prerogative. They can only work with the fan base that they have, and perhaps it really is true that introducing the warlord will cost them more sales and players then it would gain them.

But in discussions _among _the fans, it seems to me that the situation is a bit different. For WotC, the preferences of the fan base are more-or-less fixed. But when Fan A is telling Fan B that A will quite the game if the option that B wants is introduced, is A entitled to take his/her preferences as a fixed point? Or is it reasonable for B to expect A to be a little more flexible in ignoring published options that don't appeal to him/her?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 7, 2015)

pemerton said:


> If WotC has worked out that the optimal point on their profit curve can be reached by excluding inspirational healing beyond what's already in the game (HD and second wind, plus the fig leaf of "healers' kits"), then of course that's their prerogative. They can only work with the fan base that they have, and perhaps it really is true that introducing the warlord will cost them more sales and players then it would gain them.



I wouldn't jump to this conclusion.  I think hyper-slow release of anything has a lot more to do with it.



> But in discussions _among _the fans, it seems to me that the situation is a bit different. For WotC, the preferences of the fan base are more-or-less fixed. But when Fan A is telling Fan B that A will quite the game if the option that B wants is introduced, is A entitled to take his/her preferences as a fixed point? Or is it reasonable for B to expect A to be a little more flexible in ignoring published options that don't appeal to him/her?




Amen


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 7, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Are we talking about the Warlord because it is an option people want to play or like someone said earlier, is it simply a proxy for a rehash of the edition war between 4e and 5e? I think the lack of a true gish character with arcane strike and magical abilities that focus on personal abjuration, personal buffs, and elemental damage focused through martial weapons is the class really missing. The eldritch knight is lacking in my mind.




I think people genuinely want to play a Warlord.  It was a very popular class for 4e.  There is appeal to it.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 7, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> OK, so a little less Asgardian, a little more Highlander?
> 
> Weird.  I'd've thought you'd object to something that made every living thing innately magical, that way.



Except I don't see it as necessarily magical, as I define magic in the game; and this is also where elegance comes in.  Some explanation is probably required...

In the real world we have the four forces of physics (of which I currently only remember 3: gravity, weak electromagnetic, strong electromagnetic, and ???); I just have magic as a 5th force of physics which, unlike the other 4, can be directly manipulated by some lifeforms in various ways.  Now, if I take this latest idea and simply stick "life energy" in as a 6th force, away we go. 

This also lets me explain the existence of fantastic creatures (kind of) - in very short form they need the magic force to sustain their lives.  Yes, this means in my game a really really powerful Dispel Magic can kill an Elf* outright; and an Elf who finds itself in a null-magic zone (or on a magic-less world such as real Earth) won't last long at all.  And yes, this means a great many things living in the game world are by definition innately magical; though real-Earth creatures such as humans and rabbits and ordinary fish are not.  That said, I've no problem with this idea of a "life energy" force for all and giving exceptional humans access to a bit more of it so they can gain some hit points while adventuring. 

The reason I had to think all this through was that the basis of my first big campaign was that world had a glitch in the magic force caused by a meteor strike some centuries back introducing a new element (uranium) which in tiny quantities corrupts magic and in normal earth-like quantities nulls it entirely (thus Earth is a non-magic world).  So, I did all the required heavy thinking back then and have just kept the same system since, because for me it works.  For what it matters, I see non-magical worlds like our Earth as being the exception in the game universe rather than the norm.

* - or any other fantastic creature e.g. Dragon, Pixie, Goblin, etc.; the Giant-Dwarf class creatures are more resilient vs. lack of magic but even they will eventually succumb.



> Blows the doors off any nod to realism or verisimilitude, I mean.



Well, the h.p. system as written already does that.  This idea reels it back in a bit, to at least tie it in with -well, let's call it a unified theory of in-game physics.

Lan-"if this doesn't make sense, don't worry - it won't make sense tomorrow either"-efan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 7, 2015)

Lanefan said:


> Except I don't see it as necessarily magical, as I define magic in the game; and this is also where elegance comes in.  Some explanation is probably required...



 To put it mildly.  



> In the real world we have the four forces of physics (of which I currently only remember 3: gravity, weak electromagnetic, strong electromagnetic, and ???);



 Strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism, gravity.  At extreme states found shortly after the Big Bang, the weak and electromagnetic forces unify. (No, I'm not that into physics, I just coincidentally looked that up last week, for a joke, of all things.)



> I just have magic as a 5th force of physics which, unlike the other 4, can be directly manipulated by some lifeforms in various ways.  Now, if I take this latest idea and simply stick "life energy" in as a 6th force, away we go.



 So, not 'magic' the way psionics is not magic - still supernatural.



> Well, the h.p. system as written already does that.



Not so much: it's at least remotely plausible, the supernatural elements like magical protection or divine grace can be done without (for an atheist fighter with no magic items, for instance) you still have physical durability, skill, luck, endurance, &c.  His survival is often improbable in the extreme, but not supernatural in nature in any demonstrable way.   



> This idea reels it back in a bit, to at least tie it in with -well, let's call it a unified theory of in-game physics.



 It makes hit points into pools of life-force.  Any high-level character becomes like a movie zombie that you can blow holes in without killing, no matter how many vital organs end up splatted against the wall.  How 'realistic' is that 'verisimilitude?'


----------



## Saplatt (Jul 7, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I think people genuinely want to play a Warlord.  It was a very popular class for 4e.  There is appeal to it.




I suspect it wasn't on the list of options for the same reason we didn't get a psionics option: it's a no-brainer and they already plan to address it at some point.

It may be taking longer than many would like, simply because, on one hand, it tends to step on the toes of other classes and multiclass combinations, and on the other, an underpowered Warlord would probably cause as much distress as none at all.


----------



## Eric V (Jul 7, 2015)

Saplatt said:


> I suspect it wasn't on the list of options for the same reason we didn't get a psionics option: it's a no-brainer and they already plan to address it at some point.
> 
> It may be taking longer than many would like, simply because, on one hand, it tends to step on the toes of other classes and multiclass combinations, and on the other, an underpowered Warlord would probably cause as much distress as none at all.




I hope you're right!


----------



## Curmudjinn (Jul 8, 2015)

Kits. And PlaneScape. Kits and PlaneScape.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 8, 2015)

I never use ‘kits’. What exactly are they? Are they just swapping class features, like 4e did pretty well? Are they more like a 3e ‘template’, an overlay of additional powers? Or maybe, something like a prestige class? Or are they moreorless the same thing as a 5e class ‘archetype’, what other editions might call a ‘subclass’?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I never use ‘kits’. What exactly are they? Are they just swapping class features, like 4e did pretty well? Are they more like a 3e ‘template’, an overlay of additional powers? Or maybe, something like a prestige class? Or are they moreorless the same thing as a 5e class ‘archetype’, what other editions might call a ‘subclass’?



It depends.  Largely, they're minor subclasses. 

Most kits - the baseline - required you to use some weapon proficiency slots in certain ways, and provided a few nonweapon proficiencies and other benefits in exchange. As 2e got older, kits got crazier, culminating in The Complete Book of Elves. 

Like, a swashbuckler fighter needed Int/Dex of 13 each. They need to learn classical swashbuckler weapons - rapier, main gauche, etc - and must learn them first. They could learn Rogue nonweapon proficiencies, got an AC bonus in light armor, and the ladies/mens loved them. But trouble seeks them out - rival swashbucklers, etc.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 8, 2015)

Ok, so a ‘kit’ is more like the 4e ‘theme’ and like the beefed-up 5e ‘feat’, to significantly customize the way the class feels?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Ok, so a ‘kit’ is more like the 4e ‘theme’ and like the beefed-up 5e ‘feat’, to significantly customize the way the class feels?



Yep, but generally less impactful than themes, except for some OP ones. They are also closely tied to class.


----------



## Parmandur (Jul 8, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Ok, so a ‘kit’ is more like the 4e ‘theme’ and like the beefed-up 5e ‘feat’, to significantly customize the way the class feels?





From what I have read, not so much like Feats (3E feats designed Feats as super-proficiencies, in 2E terms), but Background plus Archetype in 5E terms: Themes are similar, too.  Maybe, Theme and Feats together would fit the bill; but like Archetypes, kits involve rotating out class specific features, potentially: Druids were a kit for Clerics, IIRC.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 8, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Ok, so a ‘kit’ is more like the 4e ‘theme’ and like the beefed-up 5e ‘feat’, to significantly customize the way the class feels?



 Some were more like Backgrounds, they gave you a little something (or just some flavor) up-front, based on your character's origin or past, and that was it.  Others were like Themes, adding things as you advanced in levels. They really ranged wildly.  There were Thief Kits that were two sentences, and Wizard Kits that took up several pages.


----------



## tom.zunder (Jul 8, 2015)

Mystara, Spelljammer.
Loads of non human races.
No classes.


----------

