A Humble Request: A Non-Vancian "Leader" in the PHB

Since wizards and (to a lesser degree) clerics seem likely to be very old-school in 5e, it looks like those who favor other spellcasting systems will look to other core classes. With psions, sorcerers, and warlocks all candidates for PHB classes, I'm confident there will be some interesting arcane options. But I officially hope that there will be at least one class that can fill the cleric/druid divine caster/healer/"leader" role without relying on Vancian spells.

The trick is, I don't see any strong candidates in previous editions. Clerics are clearly Vancian, and it would seem odd to me if druids had a completely different mechanic than clerics.

That leaves, from previous editions, the warlord and the 4e version of the bard as potential non-Vancian healers. But I'd be very surprised if the bard wasn't an old-school "jack of all trades" rather than a 4e-style "arcane leader," and Mearls mentioned the warlord being relegated to a theme rather than a class.

Now, I know 5e isn't 4e and there are no more official "leader classes." But if the party needs someone to keep them from dying and I don't want to keep track of a bunch of spell slots, I hope there's at least one good option in core.

I'll open this up as a poll to see what people think (if I can figure out how).

EDIT: Crap, I got the poll set up but forgot an option for "None is needed." If you think non-Vancian healers/leaders are unnecessary, please yell at me in the thread. ;-)

FWIW, I picked bard and warlord. I think themes will or should be powerful enough to make bards effective primary healers, and I hope that warlords make the cut as a class. (I think "warlord archer" and "warlord defender" are more promising/interesting combos than, say, "ranger warlord" or "rogue warlord.")

I'm not really a fan of this "leader" concept. Nor do I think that healing should be an assumed resource, or that nonmagical characters should be able to do it instantaneously.

I do, however, support a broader variety of non-Vancian classes.

A bard could very well have non-Vancian music abilities that powerfully enhanced the party. There's also a chance for a shaman or warlock or psychic/psion or other magic-y class that could exist without spell slots. I also think there should be a knight/champion class with no magic that is Charisma-based and probably can grant some bonuses to allies. The archivist also suggested the potential for knowledge-based buffs that I think could be expanded upon (probably in a theme rather than a class).

I also wish they'd kill off Vancian magic or at least get clerics off of it and make a new and better magic system, but that seems unlikely.

If you can't make an effective party that lacks any particular combination of classes, it's not D&D. All party makeups should produce a good game.

Well... Ideally, I want to be able to play any class as a non-vancian class, so, last option was the most appealing to me, and that's what I voted. But I don't know that themes have anything to do with it.

I wouldn't mind seeing a non-Vancian Bard, and the warlord certainly needs to return. New classes are also good. Of course, the poll is forgetting the very interesting Shaman, so I'm also using my "else" vote to support that one.

ZombieRoboNinja said:

if the party needs someone to keep them from dying

Click to expand...

The idea is this won't be the case.

I picked Warlord and Bard, but I could live with a Fighter Theme that turns the Fighter into a Warlord. I'd imagine his healing could be more focused on temporary hit points.

ALso, the 4E LEader class was not just about healing - it was also about buffing, and the leading nature came often from how these buffs worked - they were related to specific targets, meaning that the Leader directed his allies to attack certain targets - what a Leader would do. Anyway. In 3E, all spellcasters had the buffing component of leaders, but the buffs were usually focused on a targeted ally, so not much real leading people to do certain things, just making them better at whatever they decide to do. And also lots of math.

Every character should have some means to provide out-of-combat healing, whether that's from a Heal skill, some sort of regeneration ritual, directed meditiation, or whatever.

Ideally, in-combat healing would then be treated as the abomination that it is, and thrown out of the game. However, if we simply must have it, then I would argue that the best place for it is in a Healer theme that can be taken by any class (but may be best suited for the Cleric), allowing any character to specialise in this area if desired.

Whether such a theme should be Vancian or not... I don't really care too much either way. Probably best to provide both options.

Ideally to my 5e, the warlord will be a Theme to be added to any class...but, obviously, most likely would be chosen by Fighters. It's kinda like they just took the "leadership" traits that a Fighter should (though never mechanically had) have and ripped them out of the Fighter and then people continued to say "but the fighter doesn't have anything to do! I need dailies/maneuvers/exploits/whatever to make me feel important!

It seems to me, in pretty much every fantasy bit of literature the leader of a group, calling the shots and making most decisions, coming up with plans, etc...is the guy in front with the sword...a.k.a. [traditionally] the Fighter!

Give them some "inspirational/bolstering" attributes (temp HP? Bonuses to saves against fear or confusion, etc.), some "field medic"/Heal skill kinda mundane healing (you train in combat, you see wounds in combat, you pick up what kinds of wounds need what kinds of treatment. It seems obvious and flavorful-logic to me.)

I'd go with a ranger also...give them some mundane herbalist healing and whatever "favored enemy/quarry" stuff they get should be allowed to give their allies some advantage (telling them where to hit/what an enemies weaknesses are, etc.), at least in certain circumstances. And for those that say a ranger is/should be a "sniper/striker" there's absolutely no reason one can't "lead from behind", as it were.

Clerics (and Druids and maybe Bards to a lesser extent) would be the magical healers, so they could heal in-combat or out-of-combat...and have a Heal skill for non-magical healing as well. But I think many other classes ought to have non-magical healing available for them, either as a class feature (as above) or as a choose-able theme/background/skill (which it seems they have covered already). But these are really "support" characters. That's what they are...why they were ever labeled as "leaders" just because they could heal never made any sense to me.

Ideally, if they worked Necromancers as I see/fluff them, dealing in life/nega-life energies, then they could magically heal as well. Also explains why they always seem to have scads of minions -living and undead0 to command...more through fear and control than respect or inspriation...but they're "leading" nonetheless...but that's getting into Vancian "leader/healers" and that's not what this thread is about.

So, yes...I say put the "leadership" back in the hands it belongs...the Fighter...normal Fighter with nothing special needed! Just part of their gained class abilities. And then if you want to be "extra good" at it, specialize in commanding troops, etc. go for the Warlord Theme (or/as an "Advanced"/secondary theme, maybe).

Just my coppers. Take 'em for what they're worth (.01 cent each on the dollar .
--SD

There should be methods to buff and heal without using Vancian spell slots.

I could see the Warlord being a High Buff High Temporary Hit Points granting class.

I'd also love to see the bard use something other than Vancian spell slots.

I would say the same for the ranger but it is more a self preservation than buff and heal others with their knowledge.

I'd also like to see paladins not be Vancian but I doubt it.