|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 7:21PM
#181
|
|
|
@Admiral - just because one of several semi-official definitions of 5e hp we've seen says they're not meat until zero hp doesn't mean that definition is satisfactory to everyone. Saying "this is RAW, get used to it" doesn't help. The dispute isn't just that some people don't want nonmagical wound healing - they also want to define hp loss as wounds (at least partially).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 11:36PM
#182
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
So as far as mitigation goes, apart from working with the positioning of allies so they cover each other or warning shouts I'm not sure what else one could do. Some kind of shield other move. What else can they do? Some kind of frightful presence would be interesting. I like the image of this imposing dude that demoralises the enemy. Shock and awe stuff would be fun too.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 11:37PM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
is anyone else losing posts in this? I just posted something and I can't see it. hrm. edit: ahh there it is. weird!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 11:49PM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I kind of like the can't revive unconcious allies bit. It works really well with how combat leaders work in fiction, they aren't medics, they don't patch people up, they just keep the stupid sods moving so they don't need to be patched up or revived.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 11:50PM
#185
|
|
|
@Admiral - just because one of several semi-official definitions of 5e hp we've seen says they're not meat until zero hp doesn't mean that definition is satisfactory to everyone. Saying "this is RAW, get used to it" doesn't help. The dispute isn't just that some people don't want nonmagical wound healing - they also want to define hp loss as wounds (at least partially).
It's not "one of several semi-official definitions" it's the ONLY definition and it's been in place since the first packet!
Given it's not ever been metioned and never changed you are stretching to suggest it's going to change.
Especially as it matches the definition that EVERY edition of the game has used.
I'm sorry, but you DO have to deal with the fact that anyone who has ever wanted to "define hp loss as wounds" has had to houserule the game. And that is likely to be true again in Next, the edition of tradition (which is non-physical HP).
AND on top of that if the ONLY issue is the Warlord and their Hit Point restoration without magic the class it'self is absolutely modular.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:18AM
#186
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I'm sorry, but you DO have to deal with the fact that anyone who has ever wanted to "define hp loss as wounds" has had to houserule the game. And that is likely to be true again in Next, the edition of tradition (which is non-physical HP).
I dislike lingering on this topic, but you should at least admit that the wording is (and always has been) ambiguous, and that there's more than one way to read it.
To get back on topic:
What else can they do? Some kind of frightful presence would be interesting. I like the image of this imposing dude that demoralises the enemy. Shock and awe stuff would be fun too.
I think that frightful presence makes a lot of sense for the warlord, and I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't been mentioned before. If anyone can weaponize the psychology of battle, then the warlord is the one you want!
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:25AM
#187
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but you DO have to deal with the fact that anyone who has ever wanted to "define hp loss as wounds" has had to houserule the game. And that is likely to be true again in Next, the edition of tradition (which is non-physical HP).
I dislike lingering on this topic, but you should at least admit that the wording is (and always has been) ambiguous, and that there's more than one way to read it.
Exactly.
Why is why "all HP are physical wounds" is outright wrong.
And claiming it is only demonstrates ignorance, or blatant misrepresentation.
Or (more likely) house rules.
To get back on topic: What else can they do? Some kind of frightful presence would be interesting. I like the image of this imposing dude that demoralises the enemy. Shock and awe stuff would be fun too.
I think that frightful presence makes a lot of sense for the warlord, and I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't been mentioned before. If anyone can weaponize the psychology of battle, then the warlord is the one you want!
It's not a bad idea.
It'd make for some interesting powers.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:30AM
#188
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2013
|
There is mad room for a Marshall/Warlord class in 5th Ed: granting actions/reactions to other characters, using reactions to mitigate damage, all sorts of juiciness.
I'm going to write one up right now, and no one can stop me! *throws rolled up tissue on floor*
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:43AM
#189
|
|
|
Well, right now frightful presence is a rogue thing. Which kind of makes sense - rogues are big on psychological warfare (outwitting and hoodwinking the enemy), while I tend to think of warlords as more about motivating and directing allies.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 1:51AM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Well, right now frightful presence is a rogue thing. Which kind of makes sense - rogues are big on psychological warfare (outwitting and hoodwinking the enemy), while I tend to think of warlords as more about motivating and directing allies.
I don't mind the warlord having some overlap with the rogue. The manner in which a warlord would demoralise the enemy would be totally different from how a rogue would do it. The warlord would be a beacon visible to all as a symbol of strength. The rogue doesn't want anywhere near that kind of attention on them.
|
|
|
