D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[drothgery]

This I can sympathise with. As [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] on the other hand can't tell the difference between allowing someone to use a healing surge and the Cure Light Wounds spell, or the Cure Light Wounds spell and the Regrowth spell (or he wouldn't be making blatant edition warrior cracks about shouting hands back on) I'm not expecting much.

But there's a damn good reason the Warlord is treated as the standard bearer of 4e. It is the class that enables you to be able to do without the cleric.

I rather like warlords, but in 4e a Bard or Artificer or Shaman or Ardent or protector Druid will let you do without a cleric, too. If we can't effective non-magical substitutes for the cleric, it would be nice to at least get effective magical ones (which was only the case in 4e; in other editions non-clerics with some healing abilities were way too much less effective).

Sure, but if you want to solve the problem of needing divine vancian casting, why would you use a solution that still has a lot of the other problems of Clerics? Why not try to make something that has none of the problems of Clerics?

Because that requires a fundamental reworking of how hit points and healing work in D&D and a serious rethinking of the cleric's role, which is not something WotC is going to do any time soon.

 

[Starfox]

I rather like warlords, but in 4e a Bard or Artificer or Shaman or Ardent or protector Druid will let you do without a cleric, too. If we can't effective non-magical substitutes for the cleric, it would be nice to at least get effective magical ones (which was only the case in 4e; in other editions non-clerics with some healing abilities were way too much less effective).

I've played numerous campaigns in 3E/3.5. Pathfinder without a cleric, and there's never been a real problem. What other "leaders" lack in healing, they make up in control/buff/debuff. But then, I am pretty generous with options, so my game is a little less class-bound than most.

 

[Jester David]

Not really the same thing. One is fixing an actual bug and the other is adding options. There's nothing buggy about Inspiring Word, whereas 4e math is transparent enough, feat patches are obvious fixes.

But regardless, yes, 4e math is much better now, with the expertise and defense feats as part of the system.

How about the paladin, that got fixed as a tank with feats and powers in Divine Power? If something isn't working as intended, then feats are the fix, be it math or an under performing clas.

I really don't know where you're going with this. Are you saying that because Warlord healing is boring out of the box, anything that makes it less terrible is a problem

Regardless, even outside of feat support, let's not forget that warlords also have numerous impressive healing powers. Stand the Fallen and Rousing Words are both standouts all low level. X Word isn't the sum total of their capability.

Well, if the feat or power is balanced then another class could theoretically take an equivalent, which makes them neutral. If an option makes one class and only or class better, how is that not a broken feat?

 

[D'karr]

How about the paladin, that got fixed as a tank with feats and powers in Divine Power? If something isn't working as intended, then feats are the fix, be it math or an under performing clas.

Patching something after it's been created is a viable option, but it has to be created first. And more importantly why go that route if you could have implemented it from creation? No warlord currently exists so what is there to patch?

In addition, it is actually better to not have to patch at all, which is where the concept of feat taxes comes in. If a character must take feat A, B, and C to be effective at his stated roles then that is not really a feature, but a bug. A bug that might have been discovered and fixed from the get-go with more involved playtesting.

 

[Obryn]

How about the paladin, that got fixed as a tank with feats and powers in Divine Power? If something isn't working as intended, then feats are the fix, be it math or an under performing clas.

Well, if the feat or power is balanced then another class could theoretically take an equivalent, which makes them neutral. If an option makes one class and only or class better, how is that not a broken feat?

I am going to guess there's a communication issue here, because I'm still not seeing the relevance. Whether it's a fix or an option, the end result is the same. And between powers and feat support the 4e warlord is among the best healers in the game, though still below a cleric with similar investment, and the statement that they're bad healers is puzzling at best.

Otherwise, feats (in 3e and 4e) are supposed to make you better at certain things than you were before you took the feat. That's part of their job - letting you specialize.

-O

 

[steeldragons]

Magical Healing
The Cleric, obviously.
Alternately:
Druid, has access to healing spells. Not as fluent as Clerics, but they're there.
Bard, has access to healing spells. Minor, perhaps, in relation to Clerics or Druids. But they're there.
Paladin, laying on hands.
Rangers: optionally/possibly if you use spell-casting Rangers.

Mundane/Martial/whatever term for "Non-magical" isn't going to get panties in a bunch Healing
1: Healing/Medic/First Aid Skill
Any class can take this. Their effectiveness is strictly dependent on how "good" at the skill they are. A Wizard or Thief could provide superior non-magical first aid to a warlord or a bard or a non-healing oriented cleric, for that matter...if they have a superior skill bonus/use/rank/however they're gaging skills beyond "have it v. don't have it".

2: Mundane Inspirational/Determination/Self-Control/etc... "Healing." Which is, in reality, "healing" by Damage Reduction or "Temp HP", removal of conditions and/or something like that. Not "closing wounds", but keeping you getting "wounded fer reelz" in the first place and/or then allowing [or forcing] you to "push through it and keeping going."
Warlord: if it warrants it's own class or sub-class (I think a theme/specialty would completely suffice).
Bard can do it, along with everything else they can do...
"Barbarian"/Berserker: some ability related to their raging.
Monk: they must have some kind of "ignore damage/overcome/fix yourself" ability, don't they?

Any and every class has access to some form of healing. MOST classes have two. Making sure there's a "Warlord" cuz we need some other way for people to heal besides Clerics makes no sense. You haven't needed a cleric to heal since the introduction of the Druid, Paladin, and Ranger in 1e...and Bard, for that matter, if you used them in 1e...and/or Psionics had powers that could heal. Non-magical healing skill came in 2e...How "we need a warlord tied to D&D for non-clerical healing" is an actual position, I simply don't see.

How we need them for "non-magical healing"...it's marginally more understandable, I guess. Fewer options than with magic (as it should be). But this, still, does not say/warrant them, to me, as needing to be "tied to D&D worlds".

 

[urLordy]

What's the ingame reason why devout non-cleric PCs cannot pray and have the gods answer their prayers? What's the ingame reason that a fighter descended from a dragon cannot use the magic that a sorcerer can?

Wait, you really can't think of any plausible in-game reasons? None at all? For example, something involving magical bloodlines and nurturing of genetic talents?

I'm not sure where you were going with that. If you want me to admit that some class distinctions are metagame-y, I've already acknowledged it. For example, why can't a sorcerer express his/her innate magic talent without an opportunity cost against real-life training -- if sorcery is innate, then why is the sorcerer smoking weed all day and practicing fireballs instead of training alongside fighters? I admit it, it's for game balance; it's not fair for a sorcerer to be just as good as a fighter and also have sorcery skills (unless it was a campaign where everyone had a magical talent or knack). And classes like the sorcerer were designed years after the 1e classes which were based on hard training. But even in 1e, if classes are distinguished in-game by long hours of hard training, why aren't elves better than their human counterparts -- were they smoking weed all day? And so it goes.

I'll happily acknowledge all sorts of other awkwardly metagamey rules like how a thief can make a saving throw vs a fireball that fills a 10x10 room.

I admit all that, yet the warlord is different for me. It's class distinction is x degrees more metagamey than the others. Other metagamey character origins are there at creation and then forgotten, swept under a rug. Weird saving throws stay in their corners. But the warlord is like a walking plot device, it's always there, with its outcome-based effects and often no clearly implied cause and effect, and I dislike it for caring so little about its controversial status, and failing so badly to get people with my taste onboard. Sometimes, it's not very hard, you know, to come up with a good story to support an obvious metagame construct. But sometimes, it's just too obvious - and that's why I'd like to see a different implementation of non-magical healing, if I had any choice in the matter, which I don't, except by the decision of which gaming group to join.

I've admitted all that. So what would you like to admit to?

 

[Starfox]

Mundane/Martial/whatever term for "Non-magical" isn't going to get panties in a bunch Healing.

As has been said earlier in the thread, mundane healing that actually did something would solve many of DnD's problems. It would be like - healing surges. But really, it has nothing to do with the warlord. It has everything to do with the DnD attrition paradigm - a party of adventurers is like an armored battalion, they needs supplies and reinforcements or their power dwindles. In my opinion, this is a paradigm we could have left in the 80s.

We're back to my first reply in this thread - the most important factor about how we view warlords is how we view hit points.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I want non-magical spike healing if the Cleric's main healing is going to follow that approach.

To keep making sure I'm on the right track, as I'm digging into your posts, your case seems to be "D&D must include non-magical spike healing as a class feature or else fail to meet my needs as a gaming system."

Most of my posts thus far have been trying to demonstrate how your stated needs can be met without non-magical spike healing, but I think that tactic was inappropriate. It reminds me of my conversations in undergrad as a student of religion -- like trying to talk a religious fundamentalist out of believing that their particular religious rules are essential for peace and happiness. Clearly, no other rules are going to be appropriate, because you already have the correct ones, and all the game system needs to do is adhere to the correct rules, or be forever unacceptable in your eyes.

And if that's the case here -- if you're Manichean about your mechanics, and there is only one way for D&D to do the thing, and it is by this rule, and only by this rule -- this isn't a conversation as much as it is you shouting about how anyone who dares to dissent is wrong and likely also not very smart because they don't see what you do so clearly. There's probably a place for that here on a message board full of passionate nerds, but design isn't a mathematical science, so I don't see much benefit in that for me personally if that's the case. That's so far removed from my experience and worldview that all I can do is basically say, "You have your game, go have fun with it." If there's a right way to do it, and you've found it, please go enjoy it.

Non-magical spike healing as a class feature isn't the only way to have a competitive defensive mechanic in a game where magical spike healing as a class feature exists, though.

If that's not something you're prepared to accept the reality of, then you've made up your mind, and I wish you all the best. If that is something you might be able to believe or be convinced of, if you can entertain the idea that there is a diversity of potential solutions to the underlying problems you're experiencing, and that 5e may in fact include some or all of those potential solutions, maybe this can still be productive. But in order for that conversation to happen, you first have to be able to believe that non-magical spike healing as a class feature is not The Answer. If that can't happen, then I don't need to waste my time convincing you of it anymore.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which is, in reality, "healing" by Damage Reduction or "Temp HP", removal of conditions and/or something like that. Not "closing wounds", but keeping you getting "wounded fer reelz" in the first place and/or then allowing [or forcing] you to "push through it and keeping going."

I just do not understand this approach. Assuming you're going for a HP as Meat paradigm, Temp HP mean you are going to be kinda-sorta-hurt-but-not-for-real. The blow still hits. For the same damage. But it just doesn't have any impact. To me this is far more magical than hit point recovery. It's an invisible ablative force field. (As is DR).

How we need them for "non-magical healing"...it's marginally more understandable, I guess. Fewer options than with magic (as it should be). But this, still, does not say/warrant them, to me, as needing to be "tied to D&D worlds".

Fair enough. That's one answer