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

[Neonchameleon]

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?"

If 5e turns out very differently from the playtest packets, and into a game that isn't Spellcasters Uber Alles and in which breaking open a heavy door or climbing a greased rope or breaking chains is possible for Asmodeus, and Legolas could reliably shield surf then I'd have some idea that it would work.

Hell, Tightrope walking in the current playtest packet is DC 25. I hate to think what the following youtube video in D&D Next would be. At least DC 30 and I think DC 35.

[video=youtube;WG_xEnboyWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_xEnboyWw[/video]

What skilled people in the real world can do without magic is much, much more awesome than anything in D&D Next's current playtest. DC25 for a simple walk across a tightrope? To take 10 (i.e. do it reliably), that means that every one of the above performers must be rolling at +15 (!). Meanwhile Fly is (as ever) a 3rd level spell.

While I'm at it, on a skim through. Drive. DC 15: Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent. DC 20. Make a tight turn or steer round an obstacle. Handle Animal DC 30: Tame a Wild Animal. So someone with an 18 wisdom and skilled at animal handling needs a natural 20 and a natural 6. Sense Motive DC 25: Recognise an outside influence such as a spell on someone. That might as well be put in there to make sure people can't use skill to notice mind control magic. Keeping from getting lost in the wilderness is an improvised (i.e. no skill ) DC 20.

And the fighter gains no new capabilities after 11th level.

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.

As I've pointed out, the designers are showing. And what they are showing is non-magical people, other than having hides tougher than orc axes, can't even come close to matching up to real world levels of competence.

But the playtest isn't a preview, right?

The playtest is PR as much as anything. And what it shows us is what the designers are thinking. Right now they seem to be thinking the opposite way to you.

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.

I'd hope so.

It's just a question about how likely la-la-land is to exist at that point. If the idea of a rules module in 5e that could include rules that remove the need for magical healing is fundamentally unbelievable to you, just come with me.

[video=youtube;RZ-uV72pQKI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RZ-uV72pQKI[/video]

I see pointers at such a module all over previous editions, and what they've said in the material for 5e, too (L&L columns, for one). Living there, you'll be free, if you truly wish to be.

And I see pointers away from people without magic being useful other than to hold pointy bits of metal. See above. I prefer to remain bound by the evidence of my senses and my ability to understand what's going on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I prefer to remain bound by the evidence of my senses

I don't take the current playtest packet as evidence of much. It's become pretty obvious to me that they're working miles ahead of the thing at the office. The Legend & Lore articles have been advertising things for months that haven't popped into the public packet. The thing has been full of copypasta from other editions. It's got little bits and pieces, but I don't think the release is going to look much like it. It's more of a way to gather feedback from a broad base on things they're tossing around -- one tool in the development arsenal. Not even a rough draft, more an assorted collection of notes.

They've stated explicitly that they're doing different HP modules. For me, that's enough to believe them about it, even if the packet doesn't currently have any, even if the packet never gets any.

 

[DonAdam]

I wouldn't mind seeing the following, given their current thinking on healing (heal up to half in wilderness, heal up to full in civilization):

A character is bloodied at 1/2 hp. Bloodied means you are wounded and the wound must be treated before you can return to full effectiveness.

After a night's rest a character heals to full if unbloodied or to 1/2 if bloodied.

Warlord healing has the same limitations as natural healing in the wilderness. It can bring you up to full if you're unbloodied, representing pushing past fatigue. It can bring you up to 1/2 hp if you are bloodied but cannot un-bloody you. That requires magic or longer term rest.

And yes, I'd be happy with poison etc. only affecting bloodied characters (including if the attack bloodies you) or working on a crit.

There might be room for changing the bloodied threshold to 1/3 or 1/4 of hit points depending on how cinematic the game is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't take the current playtest packet as evidence of much. It's become pretty obvious to me that they're working miles ahead of the thing at the office. The Legend & Lore articles have been advertising things for months that haven't popped into the public packet. The thing has been full of copypasta from other editions. It's got little bits and pieces, but I don't think the release is going to look much like it. It's more of a way to gather feedback from a broad base on things they're tossing around -- one tool in the development arsenal. Not even a rough draft, more an assorted collection of notes.

They've stated explicitly that they're doing different HP modules. For me, that's enough to believe them about it, even if the packet doesn't currently have any, even if the packet never gets any.

They may be working miles ahead of that thing. But I would be very surprised if they were working in the opposite direction.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They may be working miles ahead of that thing. But I would be very surprised if they were working in the opposite direction.

I guess I just don't see the statement "we're doing different HP modules for different styles of game, such as a module to get people up to full HP faster, and a module to play in a low or no-magic game, and some other HP modules, too" as the opposite direction of the playtest packet. I see it as an additional layer. I can see how they could change the rules to accommodate that, so I have every reason to believe the pros can see it, too. Creating anything new (even if it's just an iteration on what's come before) is a process that pretty much requires the ability to dream big, to imagine possibilities that haven't yet been realized, without taking the current state of affairs as determining what the outcome can be. The current state can change, and that's what those creators trying to do, after all. I don't have any reason to really doubt that they want to accomplish what they state they want to accomplish.

It's smart to be skeptical and to ask for some proof, but I imagine the possibilities that they see are bigger than what either of us can see by the nature of their position, and I don't find the idea that they're essentially going to slap something much like the playtest docs in between two covers and sell them to us to be all that believable.

I could be wrong, of course. And if so, then 5e will suck pretty hard. But I don't know why I would assume that the devs don't know what they're doing. They seem at least as competent as any of the rest of us, and if they're decent human beings, they're taking their charge to deliver a great D&D game seriously. And a great D&D game is going to include the capacity to operate without magical healing. Anything less, and it would fail to be even as great as the games that have come before.

 

[Gaming Tonic]

I could be wrong, of course. And if so, then 5e will suck pretty hard. But I don't know why I would assume that the devs don't know what they're doing. They seem at least as competent as any of the rest of us, and if they're decent human beings, they're taking their charge to deliver a great D&D game seriously. And a great D&D game is going to include the capacity to operate without magical healing. Anything less, and it would fail to be even as great as the games that have come before.

I have interviewed Mike Mearls several times, seen lots of public and not so playtest material at different stages, provided feedback at different points, and have no reason to believe from any of that different options will not be supported. WotC and the design team are well aware of what the warlord, and similar non cleric refresher characters meant to a group in 4E. They have provided a bit of knowledge here and there and I don't want to say too much about any of that for various reasons but the time of low fantasy, non healing D&D is going to arrive in a little bit because hard working people sought the feedback of game loving players and put it all together the best they could to make as many people happy as possible. If there is any concern it is that when you try to make everybody happy........

 

[I'm A Banana]

I...have no reason to believe from any of that different options will not be supported. WotC and the design team are well aware of what the warlord, and similar non cleric refresher characters meant to a group in 4E. They have provided a bit of knowledge here and there and I don't want to say too much about any of that for various reasons but the time of low fantasy, non healing D&D is going to arrive in a little bit because hard working people sought the feedback of game loving players and put it all together the best they could to make as many people happy as possible.

Good to hear. That works against the whole "if there's no warlord class, then WotC is abandoning non-magical healing / 4e fans / martial characters / etc." narrative, and so pretty much matches what I expect. It'd be nice to see the proof in the pudding, there, so that it's not just "trust us!", but that lines up with what I imagine.

So if this is right, the OP has little to fear. Even without a warlord class, WotC has no intention of removing the option of playing without magical healing. Which means that there's a lot of settings that D&D clerics don't fit into that 5e is going to be just fine at, even if there is not a warlord class.

What excites me is the possibility that this can be true whether or not you embrace HP-as-not-meat. But that's likely a topic for another thread.

 

[JasonZZ]

I don't get the idea that classes NEED to be balanced. This isn't Dragon Age or Skyrim, where you need to worry about beating the Boss Fight. If classes had to be balanced, no one would've played a Rogue in Second Edition.

The dynamic in D&D was that if you wanted healing have a cleric in the party, or access to potions and the game survived for a long time with that status quo. This idea that every class and character has to be equally "good" seems to have gotten way overblown.

Because nobody should be reduced to being the sidekick. And what you recommend (ignoring class balance) does exactly that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because nobody should be reduced to being the sidekick. And what you recommend (ignoring class balance) does exactly that.

Not in my experience. Not that my experience proves yours wrong, but I'm just throwing that out there.

As an aside, I'm in support of class balance, and sought it extensively when making my RPG (though it was more "ability" balance than class balance, as the game is point-based). As always, play what you like

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This assumption that seems to be part of the core of your argument -- that as long as spike healing exists spike healing must be required -- is false.

Spike healing is a particular kind of defense, but it is not an essential or necessary kind of defense, and where it exists, other types of defense could exist, and compete favorably, mechanically, mathematically. There is distinct psychology and flow at work with spike healing, but it is simply one kind of pace. It is not the only way for an inspirational leader to help their allies cling to life despite the cold pull of the grave sans magic. meat.

Is it really like any other? I think the rise in tension created by a system with panic healing is pretty important, and I am not sure other mechanics come close enough. It's bascially a tension build into every combat - hit points go away, and someone will be close to death - and a healing power reaching him in in time will avert death and put him back in the fight. The game is at a critical point - the character's death is a potential dramatic consequence, and will also make the remaining battle much harder, as the team will be down one team member, giving the enemy more ability to focus damage, and the team less damage to take down enemies. But if the healer just gets there in time, the team retains its strength.

How many other game mechanics shift between such extremes of outcomes?
Another one I could think of might be an offensive ability like a spell or powerful combat maneuver that could take out a fight. But to be really comparable, it must be an ability that cannot just be used at the start of combat. So we'd need some spells and maneuvers that must be prepared over the course of the battle. Also notable - the healing ability does not hinge on a dice roll. If you can reach the ally in time, it works. It's limit is mostly the range. This is in a way something that creates less tension, but it mean it's not luck based in general.


---

I would probably go with an inspiration bonus or advantage to actions. Benefits to overcoming fear effects. Things like that.

Hit points may represent an number of things, but they're pretty terrible and modeling the effects of fear, despair, hope, inspiration, or adrenaline. Primarily, this is because they have no effects until you hit 0 hit points.

Inspiration should actually help you perform better.

Theoretically, we could actually combine this. It's basically the concept of injury penalties like other games have them.

Say, your current hit point + your temporary hit points are compared to your normal max hit points:
151-200 %: Inspired. +1 to attacks, skill checks, saves and +5 to damage rolls.
100-150 %: Confident: +1 to skill checks and saves and +2 to damage rolls.
76-100 %: Normal.
25-75 %: Doubting. -1 to skill checks and saves.
1-25 %: Despairing: -1 to attacks, skill checks, saves and -2 to damage rolls.
0 % or less: Panicked / Defeated. Unable to fight.