Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Jester David]

Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse. Why is there such a resistance to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing? And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities? Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another. I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward. There isn't really a compromise position.

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. As is granting temporary hit points The warlord could also semi-heal through granting bonus Hit Dice that can be spent with regular Hit Dice.
All those have the same effect of prolonging the adventuring day.
(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.)

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.
And this means people who like the warlord as a concept but don't like healing can just dump that subclass.

 

[mellored]

The insistence upon actual healing, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.

It let you play a simple tacticain.

Throwing up damage prevention and bonus HP requires player skill, player planning, and player foresight. Giving THP to one character and then having the other get attacked, or using your reaction to prevent a weak hit on someone while the next attack deal max damage.

Throwing out after-the-fact healing, let's you play a tactical guinius without having to actually bring a calculator to determine the best time to use your reaction.

So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them. Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It let you play a simple tacticain.
Throwing up damage prevention and bonus HP requires player skill, player planning, and player foresight. Giving THP to one character and then having the other get attacked, or using your reaction to prevent a weak hit on someone while the next attack deal max damage.

Good point, it's like the difference in playing an old-school-Vancian caster, and a 5e neo-Vancian.

Throwing out after-the-fact healing, let's you play a tactical guinius without having to actually bring a calculator to determine the best time to use your reaction.

To be fair, the inspiring builds were best at healing, there was no 'Tactical Word,' a Taclord resorted to inspiration when his plans fell through, I guess...

So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them. Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.

Agreed, there was a lot of ground covered by the concept, already, and could be a lot more in 5e, and the very nature of the concept requires flexibility - "No battle-plan survives first contact ..." and all that...

 

[Jester David]

So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them. Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.

Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.

 

[FrogReaver]

Inspirational healing is easy to portray and for players that have never played 4e to envision. There's ton of movie examples for this. 1 character is getting beat to crap and about to go down. Another yells at them and their will to fight increases and they no longer are about to go down.

The only argument I've ever seen as potentially valid against inspirational healing is that it requires "forcing" another character to be inspired by you and leaving them out of the choice.

1. Non-magical fear effects do the same thing (battlemaster menacing attack, dragons fearful presence, etc). I've never heard any complaints about these abilities.

2. All that needs done is to allow the other character to opt in to the inspiring healing is to word it as "target one willing ally... that ally gains X hp"

Are you really trinking through inspirational healing or just tuning it out at first mention?

 

[mellored]

Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.

Just give warlords the same "spell" choices the casters have. Though, since many are likely to be at-will or short-rest, we could reduce the options by say... half or so.

i.e.
Spells Gambits known at 1st level or higher:
You know four 1st-level Spells two gambits of your choice from the bard spell arlord gambit list.
You learn an additional bard spell warlord gambit of your choice at each odd level except 12th, 16th, 19th, and 20th.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the bard Spells warlord gambits you know and replace it with another spell gambit from the bard spell warlord gabmit list"

Warlods can then choose between the healing word, armor of faith, bless, guiding bolt, or heroism equivalents. And, like you said, clerics/bards/druids/warlord won't need to take healing, but any cleric/bard/druid/warlord could take a healing if they want.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself. I'm fine with that. It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.

So you are fine with non-magical healing. It's inspirational healing "forced" upon other characters that's the problem. Good to know so we don't waste time arguing for non-magical healing when that isn't your issue.

Really the simple solution is to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit. Except that when I read these proposed Warlord mechanics the language tends to make it every explicit that it is non-magical, and the result of inspiration/leadership/orders/etc.

In terms of flavor, if you want an option to describe what the Warlord is doing as somehow magical without his knowledge then I'm not opposed. This reminds me a lot of bardic inspiration. Is it magical or is it non-magical? But I do require the option of claiming all the Warlord's abilities are non-magical.

Tony will jump in and say, "It has to be defined because of things like anti-magic fields and counterspell." And my response is to let the DM adjudicate those edge cases.

DM adjudication is fine here I think. I've yet to see a DM rule bardic inspiration could be dispelled or would stop working in an anti magic field. So while such rulings are possible, it's not like I really feel I'm conceding anything because I'll never see such a ruling IMO.

Because (for the gazillionth time) those other examples* are instances of physics & physiology, not thoughts. The very clear boundary for me is that I, and only I, decide what my character thinks and feels and even knows (or thinks he knows). If I don't get to decide that, it's not really my character.

*Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that. Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear? I would very much object if a DM had a monster make a contested Intimidation check and, if I failed, require me to have the Fear condition.

Dragon's fearful presence, Battlemaster's menacing maneuver. I would be perfectly fine with a DM ruling that a monster trying to intimidate me could give me the fear condition. If non-magical abilities can give me fear then surely a monster intimidating me could also give me fear.

Speaking of intimidation, how would you expect an enemy trying to intimidate a PC work? If you get to decide your characters thoughts and feelings to the exclusion of all other game mechanics, how does intimidation ever work on a PC?

 

[Jester David]

Just give warlords the same "spell" choices the casters have. Though, since many are likely to be at-will or short-rest, we could reduce the options by say... half or so.

So... we should give the warlord spells?!

If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can literally just use paladin or cleric or bard and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.

Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.

Not really. Caster's don't typically get their spells silo'ed off in subclasses. Though there are a few subclasses that get spells the primary class can't get and those spells are usually tied to flavor more than anything else.

Here's the thing. A tactical themed warlord should have the option of sometimes shouting at his allies and getting them to fight longer or of not doing that at all. An inspirational themed warlord should sometimes have the option of providing some tactical insight or none at all.

Siloing off these abilities into subclasses or making one the sole purpose of the main class really is an attempt at declaring that one type of warlord is okay, but that others are not and that's not really okay. It sounds like good design at first but it falls flat on it's face. It'd be a lot like only giving evocation wizards evocation spells.

Instead what we need is a primary warlord class that offers lots of options. Some inspiration themed, some tactical themed, some risk themed, etc. Subclasses should then be more like wizard subclasses that enhance particular flavors of a warlord.

In other word's. An inspirational themed warlord subclass shouldn't be the only warlord subclass that has the option of inspirational healing. A tactical themed warlord subclass shouldn't be the only warlord subclass that can enhance the party through tactical abilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

So... we should give the warlord spells?!

If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can literally just use paladin or cleric or bard and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.

Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.

Yes, that's a lazy way to do it. We could take a bard, give it medium armor and martial weapons at level 1 and rename all it's abilities and fluff it's spells all as something else. We would likely have to remove a ton of spells that don't fit but overall what you are suggesting would likely be doable.

But you are also right it's not the best way. I don't think mellored was serious in his suggestion but instead using it to point toward some kind of hypocrisy on your part. In fact I see that hypocrisy now. You aren't objecting to the non-magical spell slot themed warlord on any other level now than that his abilities shouldn't follow the same kinds of mechanics as spells. That's a far cry from the stances your other comments are taking.