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

[urLordy]

And in the Tolkienian/Arthurian model I'm interested in developing, the presence of a captain does inspire companions - look at how Aragorn inspires Gimli and Legolas, for instance; or how Eowyn inspires Merry, or Denethor and Beregond inspire Pippin.

And look at how Gandalf inspires everyone. Gandalf was the true leader I think for most of that tale. Aragorn never truly grew into his role as king until the end. Despite Gandalf's enormous inspirational contributions to the fellowship, you never focus on that.... Curious. Plus Gimli and Legolas inspiring each other to compete for orc kills. Sam inspiring Frodo in Mordor. Again, it's very curious that none of this registers. This is why none of your arguments about Tolkein inspiration click with me. I read the exact same tale and I see the complete opposite of a warlord class. I see moments of inspiration across various characters. That a warlord class as a mechanical expression is an almost cartoonish simplification of the fiction it supposedly emulates.

Why not? In the metagame, because the player of the barbarian didn't pay PC build resources to get this ability. In the fiction? Because the barbarian is brave but not inspiring - his/her allies shake their heads at his/her recklessness, for instance, rather than being moved to emulate.

This is somewhat similar to the fact that the gods regularly answer the prayers of cleric PCs, but rarely answer the prayers of non-cleric PCs, even though the latter may be just as devout as the former.

It's not similar enough to me to matter. The cleric is like the priest you summon to exorcise the demon. You don't hire your devout Catholic plumber to do that. One is chosen and trained to channel the divine. The other isn't. The in-game reason is so obvious to me; it is the complete opposite of the barbarian who is unable to inspire anyone just because the Warlord (The Walking Plot Device) excludes anyone else from being inspirational in a way matters. So if you chose Aragorn as a Warlord, then you've excluded Gandalf from inspiring others. There is no good in-game reason for that, because it's not a marriage of equals (fiction married to metagame). It's frankly, a dictatorship of metagame over fiction. Nothing to do with the plumber who can't call down the gods because he learned the plumbing trade instead of learning exorcism in The Vatican.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I assume that you are describing your own gameplay here. It doesn't particularly correlate to the sort of D&D game that I want to run or play.

Yes. I have a feeling you'd have blast in one of my games, but we'll likely never know.

However, it is fairly difficult to construct a scenario in which capable adventurers cannot rest in safety if they desire to, and it would generally be a poor decision for players not to exercise that option given the need. That's everyone's game. Can a DM create that scenario that prevents rest and recovery by restricting the players' choices? Sure. And it's up to him (i.e. not the game designers) to manage the consequences as he sees fit.

By "always" I assume you mean "in the period 2000-2008". Wands of CLW did not exist in AD&D or classic D&D. And they don't exist in 4e.

There were sticks that clerics (and nonclerics) used to heal us, at least in 2e days. What they were called I don't remember, but that's beside the point. The point, minutiae aside, is that out of combat healing can easily be had if the DM wants to allow it, outside of any class abilities.

Here's a radical idea: let's design a game, and its rules, that will give us (and other players like us) the game that we desire!

Yes! Let's.

First, who is talking about instantaneous healing of lethal wounds?

If it can kill you, it's lethal, meat or no. Are we talking about healing of subdual/nonlethal damage?

I want a game with inspirational recovery, resulting from the presence of a Tolkien-style battle captain.

Here's the problem. You can have one of those things, but not both. That's not how things work in Tolkien-style fiction. There are no warlords and no inspirational healing, and physical and psychological wounds are treated in a grounded way in his fiction. He was a combat veteran after all. Frankly, he'd probably be offended by this assertion. I can't tell you what your preference is, but I can identify a contradiction when I see it.

Within the context of D&D, that is pretty easily achieved, as 4e has shown

If 4e has shown is anything, it's that attempting to cram martial healing and a token class based on it into a game with D&D on the cover causes mass dissatisfaction, kills people's enjoyment and game sales, and causes innumerable threads like this one. It's quite ironic that the character class for "guy who inspires people" inspires so much discontent in the real world.

 

[Grydan]

If 4e has shown is anything, it's that attempting to cram martial healing and a token class based on it into a game with D&D on the cover causes mass dissatisfaction, kills people's enjoyment and game sales, and causes innumerable threads like this one. It's quite ironic that the character class for "guy who inspires people" inspires so much discontent in the real world.

Unless you can cite extensive market research that demonstrates that a significant percentage of those players who either tried and then abandoned, or simply refused to try in the first place, the 4E system, named martial healing and warlords as their sole (or even primary) reason for doing so, then this is stuff and nonsense.

There are plenty of things that people who dislike 4E dislike about it. You can have two people who dislike the system equally who dislike it for entirely different reasons.

Some people swear that you can attribute 4E's failure to replicate the sales of early 3E to the absence of Half-Orcs and Gnomes in the first PHB. There are others who'll swear it's 'saminess' that killed the system. Others that it's a dependency on miniatures. Some blame the simplified skill list. Some blame the early marketing ('Ze game remains ze same!', 'Grrr, I'm a monster!'). Others point to the lack of magical supremacy. Others blame the move away from the OGL. Others blame the delays and issues with the licence that WotC did eventually release. You'll find people who blame the magic items. You'll find people who think the pursuit of balance is misguided and harmful. A lack of a ranged archer build for the fighter. The lack of magic for the ranger. V shaped classes. Feat taxes. Too many feats. Bad adventure modules. Taking Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo. Turning Dungeon and Dragon into digital magazines. The apparently offensive presence of whitespace in the books. The formatting of the powers. The art style. The presence of too much reused art (or the presence of too little).

You'll also find people who'll point out that the market was in a very different place than it was when 3E launched. Or that the economy was in a different situation.

The relative lack of success of 4E can probably be attributed to all of these things and more … and some of it's relative success can be as well. Some of the things that turned some gamers off, turned others on. Anybody who claims to know for sure what particular thing could've been done differently that would've resulted in a significantly more successful system is blowing smoke. We may play a game of make-believe, but we don't live in a world of it: none of us can know for sure how things would've played out if the system had been different.

I think it's safe to say though that placing all of the blame on warlords and martial healing is patently absurd, given all of the various other aspects that people have complained about (amongst them including people who have no problem with martial healing and warlords).

The bottom line, for me, is that regardless of 4E's success or lack thereof, it was an edition of D&D. Many of the players who liked (and still like) and played (and still play) the system, like martial healing and like warlords. If, as WotC has repeatedly stated, Next is supposed to be the inclusive addition that appeals to all D&D fans, then leaving out martial healing and warlords entirely is a bizarre approach to take.

 

[Draffyr]

I'm surprised no one, especially [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] after the thought experiment inspiring banner item, has mentioned the Herbalism feat. It already is a non-magical way to provide spike healing, or at least to create a potion (that could easily be noted to be either magical or a mix of herbs in its description in the equipment pdf) that can spike heal without magic. It doesn't scale, and it isn't as powerful as a Cleric's healing ability, but it's accessible to everyone like KM's thought experiment banner. It could also be re-fluffed as being a healing ointment that stops bleeding and dulls pained for those that want HP-as-meat, or it can be a confidence-boosting elixir (I can't help but think of that as some kind of illegal drug, but that's not what I mean) for those that want HP-as-not-(just-)meat. It's not inspiration-based, but it's an existing game mechanic that serves as a basis for something other than a class ability that could support inspirational spike healing.

How about a feat like this:
Inspiring Word
Years of rousing the downhearted have taught you to know just what to say in the heat of battle.
Prerequisite: Cha 13 or higher
Benefit: Once (or twice, depending on balancing issues) per encounter, you can use an action to encourage one of your allies to keep fighting. The target recovers hit points equal to 2d4+2.

I took the amount healed straight from the Healing Potion description, so I don't expect it to be balanced in an overall sense--Herbalism has time and monetary investments, but a character can carry dozens, depending on their time, gold, and carrying capacity--but it's just a quick idea for people who know the math better to work with if they want. Personally, spike healing for that much seems overpowered to use often, so I would probably dial back the amount healed to 1d4+2 or some such once per encounter, but again, it's just a starting point for others to improve upon.

And for people that want HP-as-meat, the feat could be house-ruled (or renamed and fluffed to describe it as being either) to be a Bactine healer: The character has some bandages prepped with the D&D equivalent of a styptic chemical and an analgesic, and it takes an action to slap it on.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The in-combat healing that this thread is about is a different issue. That's a nice niche, but it's very easy and generally pretty advantageous to play the game without casting healing spells in combat.

Yes, I think in-combat healing is much more of a 4e thing. Certainly in 3e, clerics were better off self-buffing and then attacking. Prior to 3e, I can't really remember how much in-combat healing went on, but I'm pretty sure it was less common than in 4e.

That said, I think 4e's innovation is a good one. Fairly low hit points plus viable in-combat healing seems to pull off the psychological trick of making the players feel like a combat was hard without their PCs actually being in much danger.

 

[pemerton]

That said, I think 4e's innovation is a good one. Fairly low hit points plus viable in-combat healing seems to pull off the psychological trick of making the players feel like a combat was hard without their PCs actually being in much danger.

I'm glad someone else has noticed! What I'd add is this - the PCs are only not in much danger on the condition that the players a paying attention and deploying their resources (which includes various forms of incombat healing to unlock healing surges). So at the same time the players are being "tricked" into theinking their PCs are in danger, they are also getting drawn into an intricate situation in which their decisions matter and the stakes are fairly high.

For players who are able to be emotionally engaged by a situation framed in fairly technical mechancial terms - which describes my group (M:TG players, boardgamers etc) this is first rate RPG design. (Burning Wheel is another system I know that tries to pull off something like the same sort of design concept.)

 

[Cyberen]

Combat as Sport or Combat as War ?
None is badwrongfun, and claiming one is superior/truer to literary sources/... is a waste of time, and fuels an eternal flamewar
It's going to be hard for the core to embrace both. One is deemed to be enabled through modules.
My position : war in the core, sport in modules. YMMV.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That said, I think 4e's innovation is a good one. Fairly low hit points plus viable in-combat healing seems to pull off the psychological trick of making the players feel like a combat was hard without their PCs actually being in much danger.

I don't see that trying to "trick" the players is a particularly good thing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Unless you can cite extensive market research that demonstrates that a significant percentage of those players who either tried and then abandoned, or simply refused to try in the first place, the 4E system, named martial healing and warlords as their sole (or even primary) reason for doing so, then this is stuff and nonsense.

I get what you're saying, but I think you have it backwards. The claim was "Within the context of D&D, that is pretty easily achieved, as 4e has shown". I'm not the one who brought it up. To make that point convincing, someone would have to do similar sourcing to show that it worked. Saying "4e did it, ergo it works" is a pretty ludicrous statement.

There are plenty of things that people who dislike 4E dislike about it. You can have two people who dislike the system equally who dislike it for entirely different reasons.

This is true. The warlord is a nexus point of several controversial and radical shifts in direction, and it also is a somewhat bizarre island in the world of rpgs; there's really no precedent for it in fiction or in other games (i.e. no built-in fanbase). Who would miss it if was gone? A few posters in this thread, but is there anyone else? But I don't claim to know exactly how unpopular it is, merely that it is controversial, and that the claim that it worked (as above) or is essential (as in the OP) is thus dubious and requires some support.

If, as WotC has repeatedly stated, Next is supposed to be the inclusive addition that appeals to all D&D fans, then leaving out martial healing and warlords entirely is a bizarre approach to take.

By that logic, we need THAC0 and weapon vs armor tables and resurrection chances and every other mechanical element that has existed in D&D needs to be included. Rather than saying that everything needs to be in for it to be "inclusive" I think it's more appropriate to look at 5e as a "greatest hits" album. That is, you'd look at every edition and take the things that worked the best. I think that approach would exclude the warlord.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Indeed. We're in hypothetical land. A warlord in Fate doesn't require a non-magical version of healing, or any healing at all. The thing I've never got out of this thread is why we've wandered quite so far into hypothetical land in a D&D Next thread.

None at all. In fact I'd just go for a [Cinematic] tag and bring back my monks with wire-fu stunts that worked using short distance flight mechanics. I think it's more about cinematic vs "realistic" worlds than meat vs non-meat.

Awesome awesome. So, to tie it back around to what has been mentioned as happening in 5e: I think that one likely version of a "heroic rapid healing" module as mentioned in the article I linked to upthread could include a bunch of rules that would be tagged with that [Inspiration] tag.

As part of that module, they give you....lets keep it simple just say they give you "alternative class features" that include a non-magical cleric-equivalent spike heal, in exchange for some bit of your original class (maybe lower armor proficiency and/or HP? Probably too niche...but anyway). There's probably other HP-as-not-meat alternative class features here, too (an insult that works as a striker die? Sure! The ability to roll a skill check and heal HP? Why not!). Maybe the module brings back healing surges (a solid heroic fast-healing mechanic if I've ever met one) and then has the new class features tie back into those. I could imagine a heroic fast-healing module where you could effectively port over Inspiring Word wholesale, appropriately cost it (ie: you give up some other element of your class to do it, maybe you need a high CHA, an opportunity cost), and et viola!, there's your HP module that allows PC's to operate without magic nearly precisely as if they had a cleric with non-magical spike healing. I don't imagine it'll be quite so exact, but I absolutely see the potential for a heroic fast-healing module to include non-magical spike healing as something that characters (at least somewhat independent of class) can opt into.

Kind of awesomely, such a module would even allow for non-magical clerics who could swap out high-special-FX god-sparkles for low-special-FX soothing words and consoling and the like....which is actually kind of right up the ally of a kind of character I'd like to play...but anyway...

I get you might not think such a thing is within the scope of 5e, and you may very well be right in that, but if it was? If 5e includes something like that, that would meet your needs, yes? Because then our only real disagreement is the very understandable one of, "Is 5e capable of this?"

Spoiler alert: I wish I had your optimism.

I'd love this if it was true and well implemented. But I will only believe it when i see it.

Yeah, no, this makes sense. It's totally fair and even I think really useful during a playtest period to be skeptical and to challenge the designers to show and not just tell. This is part of why I'm annoyed at their most recent playtest release, honestly: incremental changes don't give me the things I want to test the most, they don't show me anything interesting about what 5e can do. I'd love to see them spit out the heroic healing module in the playtest.

But the playtest isn't a preview, right? Something strictly equivalent to cure spells with the magical fluff filed off probably doesn't need much testing: it should work exactly like magical healing, after all. That's part of the point, if I read you right: in your mind, to actually replace magical healing, it needs to work exactly the same, only not be magical.

At any rate, the need for a specific warlord class seems to be something we can move past, into maybe how non-magical spike healing should be presented in 5e, or what you'd like out of a fast-healing or non-magical module for the game. I think you'd get a whole lot of agreement across all edition loyalties, that there should be a way to turn 5e into a game that doesn't require magical healing.