It's been discussed in the thread several times prior.
My concerns are this:
1) Only one class has baseline healing. The paladin. And that's only passable healing. Even the cleric doesn't have baseline healing, having to choose to prepare that spell. And another former leader class, the bard, can choose not to even know cure wounds.
I think warlord fans agree. There seems to be a decent consensus here that we want to see healing be an option for any warlord to pick rather than for it to be mandantory.
2) Only one cleric subclass gives you healing as a default option. All the others focus on other things, strongly implying the cleric isn't always assumed to be the healer. A War domain cleric or Tempest cleric or Trickster cleric might never heal.
We are fine with healing being an option. Just don't try to gate it behind a specific subclass.
3) More D&D players haven't played 4e than have played 5e. A warlord class should do things that a lay person would expect a smart tactical warrior to do. Healing isn't at the top of that list. This creates a disconnect between the description of the class and the execution that can be a trap for new players.
1. Granting an ally the will to keep on fighting is a common movie trope. That is something they are going to expect some warlords to be able to do.
2. Not all warlords are smart tactical warriors. some are inspiring warriors that suck at tactics, possibly a kind hearted and gullible but always there for you type of warrior.
4) Not everyone likes hp not being wounds. Or likes hp restoration being entirely done via morale. While restoring a little hp can be ignored (Healer feat, Second Wind), moral healing that's the equivalent of a full healer irks some people. The designers know this, which is why there's so many healing variants in the DMG. So DMs can choose to speed-up/ slow-down healing overnight.
I get that but,
#1. Warlord class isn't in the main book and unless we are talking Adventures league then all supplemental content is considered optional.
#2 If warlord abilities are just options and they don't like the healing ability then they can choose to ban just the healing ability instead of the whole class at their table.
We are bending over backwards at this point trying to make warlord healing something easy to remove if desired and to still have the class function. But it's too iconic of an ability (we've all seen it in the movies) to just up and not have it on a class that's supposed to at least have the option of inspiring allies.
5) There's a finite number of class features a warlord can have at low levels. Healing (a generic power) means fewer warlord powers (non-generic powers unique to the class). A healing warlord is a less warlordy warlord.
Only if you view healing as not something warlordy to begin with. Healing is very warlordy (we see the will to continue fighting trope in many movies). But beyond that, having healing be an option instead of a mandantory feature further resolves this complaint. If healing is just an option it doesn't have to be picked or even if picked ever used. You can have healing be a part of the class without it being mandantory so that every warlord gets it.
The thing is, in 5e, your party role is not determined by your class. Class = role is 4e design. And early 4e design at that, as they moved slightly away from that with Essentials. A 5e warlord that is designed like the other 5e classes shouldn't always be the "healer". Being the "healer" should be optional and something the player chooses to opt into because it fits their character.
Thanks for finally catching up with the rest of us.
A table with a warlord and a cleric, shouldn't have a redundant character. Both should be able to do different things. You should be able to have a healing warlord paired with a War cleric and a non-healing warlord paired with a Life cleric with both combinations playing very differently and no redundant powers.
The non-healer warlord shouldn't feel like they have wasted class features that aren't being used because there's a Life cleric. And the non-healer warlord also shouldn't feel pressured to spend their action healing in place of the abilities the actions they want to take.
Thanks again for finally getting to the same place the rest of us are at.
There's always a compromise.
Many have been suggested over the years. They just require moving the discussion forward. If no one ever stops to discuss and think of the alternatives, instead focusing on a fallacious either/or argument, then it just seems like there's no compromise.
Damage mitigation (preventing damage) is effectively the same as healing.
Sadly restoring an allies will to fight is more iconic for a warlord than being able to reduce damage. I do think we can do something with damage reduction but it's less fitting than healing.
As is granting temporary hit points
Prememtive temp hp going into battle is quite warlordy. BUT it's not a replacement for an ability where the warlord is watching his ally get beat up and yells something at him and the ally gains the will to fight again.
The warlord could also semi-heal through granting bonus Hit Dice that can be spent with regular Hit Dice.
I'm not opposed to hit dice manipulation with him. Perhaps that's how his healing inspiration ability works. Ally an ally to spend a hit dice to restore hp maybe with a bonus from the warlord. It still needs gated behind some long rest or short rest warlord ability, but I can see that as a possible implementation.
All those have the same effect of prolonging the adventuring day.
Sure, but many are far different abilities in fiction than the one where a character is giving an ally extra will to fight
(I like the idea of restoring fallen allies back up to 1 hp with additional temporary hit points, as it has the fun visual of the guy who still looks hurt and beaten to hell, but is refusing to go down. Rather than the wounds actually being healed.)
I like that too and there are a lot of variations for such an ability, some even involving healing or temp hp after the PC is at 1 Hp. It definietely ticks off the will to fight ability i'm talking about.
Preferably I guess I'd like to see both healing and something like this as an option.
Another compromise is just making the healing warlord a subclass. Which matches the rest of 5e design, as the healing sorcerer, warlock, druid, and even cleric are all subclasses.
Most of 5e design is about making healing abilities optional and not gating such abilities through subclasses. Xanathers did give some classes healing abilities through their subclasses but it's because healing abilities didn't fit on the general class for sorcerer or warlock at all. So subclasses enabled them. The conceptual piece pushed the design in that direction. With warlords its different. There's no conceptual reasons warlords, even the most tactically cunning warlords can't also do a few inspiring things.
And this means people who like the warlord as a concept but don't like healing can just dump that subclass.
I agree there. And I had considered that. But if warlord healing is just an option kind of like the cure wounds spell is an option, then you are able to remove the cure wounds spell or the warlord healing ability option without really impacting the class as a whole. Why doesn't that work for compromise?