D&D 5E How Important is it that Warlords be Healers?

[Nemesis Destiny]

The same way that Vancian magic is a problem of playstyle exclusion. For those that don't have a problem with Vancian Magic including it is not a problem. For those who favor a more freewheeling spellcasting model Vancian casting negatively impacts their playstyle.

Still having a spellcasting class, the Wizard, built on an optional component suggests that the class should be optional. But an entire optional class might not be the best use of space for the core books.

Do you see why that argument really holds no water.

I agree with you.

In before, "because Tradition!"

 

[Jester David]

The same way that Vancian magic is a problem of playstyle exclusion. For those that don't have a problem with Vancian Magic including it is not a problem. For those who favor a more freewheeling spellcasting model Vancian casting negatively impacts their playstyle.

Still having a spellcasting class, the Wizard, built on an optional component suggests that the class should be optional. But an entire optional class might not be the best use of space for the core books.

Do you see why that argument really holds no water.

Two problems with that argument.

One, they've already said they'll have alternate spellcasting systems.
Two, Vancian casting is a part of the game and has been since it's earliest origins. It's iconic to D&D. It's absence hurt 4th Edition.

They're trying to design a game to appeal to as any fans of D&D as possible. Which means including classic elements as core options.
Martial healing is not classic. It doesn't have the weight of legacy. Neither does the warlord.

 

[Jester David]

I agree with you.

In before, "because Tradition!"

Dumping tradition led to the shortest of editions. Not the wisest of moves to repeat.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Dumping tradition led to the shortest of editions. Not the wisest of moves to repeat.

There were more factors at play than that, let's not kid ourselves (some of which are/were external to the game).

Likewise, Daily spells (and all other Daily resources) are pretty Vancian-sounding to me, so nope, not buying it.

 

[Pour]

Right. It just seems like to me, after thinking about it, that the whole concept of healing, in the non-combat sense, should be divorced from clerics. I mean if someone is going to be casting CLW then it should be a 'healer' option, which can be attached to any class. You can be a DDN warlord, with all the general morale and tactical benefit stuff, and if you want the 4e aspect of it you can add on 'healer'. Likewise a cleric can bless, and do all that other jazz, and if he's going to be healing then he can be a healer too! There's no reason that EITHER archetype has to be lashed to that one function. wielding the powers of your deity is not tantamount to being a healer, and this would be the best way to both avoid that and allow for both cleric-free parties and other healer archetypes.

Good thought, but I wonder if you've just shifted the 'cleric requirement' over to the 'healer option requirement'? It does offer much more variety in your leader type, but I can't help thinking someone is going to be sacrificing a fun, thematic option for a healing ability.

Is in-combat healing even an enjoyable part of the game? Am I the only one who'd be happy just getting rid of it, or offering some rules incentive/reward for pressing on with low health and resources to balance the instinct to play it safe? Imagine a rules construct which allowed you to play with increasing risk but also increasing rewards, a sort of baked-in pacing dial that could be tied to damage, defenses, saves, experience, and treasure types.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In before, "because Tradition!"

If anything, it's the exact opposite. Unlike magic, health, damage, and healing are real concepts that everyone is familiar with and has some understanding of. Any break from tradition should logically move the game closer to those concepts. Things like martial healing that break away from reality (and most fiction) are more aversive to non-rpg players (i.e. potential players) than they are to people who are used to the idea of game vs metagame distinctions and come to places like ENW to discuss them.

In other words, there are two general forces pushing D&D design. One is traditionalism (making the game "feel like" D&D and honor its history), the other is naturalism (making the game what an rpg should be in general; more flexible, more balanced, more believable). Both have some validity. Vancian magic is strictly a matter of traditionalism. It's a confusing and hard-to-balance system that's hung around because it feels D&D-ish. If one were starting a fantasy rpg from scratch, nothing remotely resembling Vancian would appear in it. Hit points are a traditional D&D-ism that could be changed or rethought to become more naturalistic. Martial healing, among other things, serves neither of those ends; thus it's hard to justify its inclusion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As far as I can tell, the whole point of the Warlord in 4e was that you need a healer, so here's a non-magic class that is a healer. In 5e, I don't want to need a healer, so I really see no need for the Warlord to heal--or even to exist.

Well, healing could just not exist, but that isn't going to reduce the party's NEED for a healer, it will just mean they won't get one. Obviously they'll have to make due. IMHO the most likely result is healing potions. Either that or some relaxation of the lethality of hit point loss, faster gaining, etc. Potions will definitely prevail though IMHO. Honestly, I like them less than clerics.

My real problem is, if you have this morale-boosting inspiration modeled as hit point recovery, then every leader-type has to be modeled as a healer. The hobgoblin warlord has to restore hit points to his soldiers. Genghis Khan has to restore hit points to his archers. Cyclops has to restore hit points to Wolverine. William Wallace has to restore hit points to his warriors. When I think of characters in history and fiction I'd call "warlords," none of them match up with what the Warlord class wants to do.

I don't understand your objection. If hit points are partly morale and inspiration, then how is this an issue. Wallace yells at his men, bucks them up, they regain morale, they can go fight again. Works for me... It seems you're only hung up on this because you're not internalizing the full import of what hit points represent.

When you make something a class, you're not just saying "Players can play as this class." You're also saying "This is a world where this class exists." If you have a class that is defined as "leader guy," that implies that every leader guy has to be a member of that class. It just has weird implications for the world.

NO! In fact this is utterly not true at all. Why would you think that class is an in-game construct? Do you think that people go around in the Forgotten Realms saying "Hey, I'm a 5th level fighter with the Toughness feat!" Of course not. In fact SPECIFICALLY in 4e there are no such thing as NPCs with classes and levels AT ALL. Class is a meta-game construct used to allow players to choose how they're PC will work in the game and regulate how and when it gains features. It has NOTHING to do with the world at all, except inasmuch as PCs are characters in that world that can do things and there are narrative explanations of that, which are likely to be shaped somewhat by the options the players have. CERTAINLY in 4e (and potentially in any other edition of D&D) there simply are no classed NPCs at all and any sort of character is POSSIBLE by the rules. The GM decides which ones exist and what the narrative for them is.

So "William Wallace" could be an NPC in a game. He could have powers of inspiration that are modeled as gaining hit points. He probably will if he's portraying a great battle leader, but so what? He need not have any specific feature of the warlord class unless it makes sense to put that feature on that NPC to represent something you want to exist in the world. It is that simple.

Thus, it would only really work for me if the Warlord were defined as exceptional--not every sergeant or general is going to be a member of the Warlord class. To be so inspiring as to restore hit points requires an uncanny gift that very few have: not just being very charismatic, but having an almost supernatural talent that must be cultivated at the expense of all others. (See the Bard Warlord from that other thread.)

In the end, though, I could just do all that defining myself. So I guess I wouldn't be too upset if the standard game had a Warlord class who could heal. I'd just be grumpy about it.

Well, presumably PCs are pretty special and unusual. In 4e for instance NPCs rarely, if ever, have anything like all the capabilities that a PC has. If there WERE an NPC warlord in 4e its likely to be a leader stat block standard/elite monster with probably a power like Commander's Strike, a single use heal, and some sort of encounter power, probably similar or identical to some warlord encounter or daily. Even elites rarely have more than 4 powers total, and one is likely to be a vanilla melee attack.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, healing could just not exist, but that isn't going to reduce the party's NEED for a healer, it will just mean they won't get one.

Who needs a healer? IMO healing is pretty clearly in the category of wants, not needs.

 

[D'karr]

They're trying to design a game to appeal to as any fans of D&D as possible. Which means including classic elements as core options.

Martial healing is not classic. It doesn't have the weight of legacy. Neither does the warlord.

So which is it, optional components to please as many fans of D&D as possible or not. Because your argument holds no water because of what you've already said.

If they are adding "alternative spellcasting" rules and the basic classes are going to be Vancian, then it makes sense that there will be "alternative spellcasting" classes that will use these "alternative spellcasting" options.

If that is a way to do it, then what prevents "alternative healing" rules and the basic classes use the the "basic healing" and there are "alternative healing" classes that use the "alternative healing" options.

The issue has nothing to do with any of that. The issue has to do with what you mentioned before, those that are so intransigent that even the mention of alternative healing in the game "negatively impacts" their "playstyle."

Either you are "big tent" reformer and actually cater to all the playstyles, or you simply say "big tent" to sound inclusive but all you really mean is only those that "agree with what I like."

 

[Jester David]

There were more factors at play than that, let's not kid ourselves (some of which are/were external to the game).

Likewise, Daily spells (and all other Daily resources) are pretty Vancian-sounding to me, so nope, not buying it.

As you can see in the poll though, there's a pretty dramatic split, likely far larger than Vancian casting.
And if you don't like Vancan spellcasting you don't play a wizard. Simple. And it doesn't affect you if someone else at the table does it still doesn't affect you and certainly doesn't affect the DM.

However, if you have warlord healing it affects the game. It's a player choice that changes how the DM narrates the game. They're different animals.