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

[Ahnehnois]

But skill and stamina AREN'T independent from physical(or mental) damage. More grevious injuries reduce combat effectiveness.

That might be an argument for having wound damage reduce other statistics, including vitality. Perhaps instead of independent, a better word would be "discrete". The point is that a lot of problems are solved by knowing what is and is not physical damage. Nonmagical healing is a lot easier to do well in that context, which is the topic here.

Aside to vitality/wound tracks, I'm curious why people aren't picking up on adventure design as at least a partial solution towards the healing dependency.

Probably because that's individualized. Everyone playing D&D uses the same basic rules (per edition anyway), albeit with houserules. However, everyone is running different content.

That being said, it is a good point. The idea that nonmagical healing is necessary (or that nonmagical characters aren't worthwhile, for that matter) is something that is only likely to be reinforced under a fairly narrow set of circumstances. Changing the circumstances makes more sense than rewriting the rules to solve small-niche problems while causing large ones.

 

[Starfox]

So, the conceit of the item is that it is balanced with other items and retains something effectively identical to the cleric's magical healing ability.

The problem as I see it is that the conceit just doesn't work out. I hope I can explain how my reasoning goes, even if you may not agree.

Trying to break up a cleric's powers and evaluating them against each other might work out something like this (Using the 3E cleric here as I am more familiar with that one than NEXT).

3 Spells (non-healing)
3 Spells (healing)
1 Fighting ability
1 Channel energy
1 Feats

Spells make up about 2/3 of the cleric's contribution to a party, and half of that is healing. So 1/3 of the cleric's worth is in healing. Conversely, the sum of all feats gained is about 1/9 of the total contribution. Lets assume the same is true for other classes - feats (excluding bonus feats) is about 1/9 of each class' total contribution. If you sacrifice all feats to gain a non-class healing ability, it should be about 1/3 as effective as a cleric at healing. About as good as a bard I guess. Not a team "leader" on only it's healing merit.

These numbers are taken out of thin air. Not all clerics spend half their spells on healing, and you might slightly change the evaluation of the different abilities in other ways. I didn't even touch skills. But the basic premise remains; feats are but a small part of what a character is. Even spending all on them to get a certain ability won't be very impressive. And I doubt this is going to change a lot in Next, even if there has been talk of making feats fewer and more significant.

The same goes for items. An item that mimics the portion of his spellcasting arsenal a cleric puts into healing would cost much more than the expected equipment budget of that cleric. If it didn't, what would be the use of spellcasting classes - you could just get the equivalent "security" item, "fireball" item, and "healing" item and replace both the rogue, cleric, and wizard. Everyone could have the solid base of the fighter with the versatility of a an additional class.

Now, if there was no healing class at all this might work. Let me try to think about this too. If there is no healing cleric to use as a yardstick, if healing is a completely optional element anyone can have, your idea might work. Say it costs 1/4 of your feats to be able to act as the party healer, about as good at this as you'd expect a cleric to be. But then, why don't everyone make that investment... If they do, you suddenly end up with a 4 person party that gets the toolkit of 4 normal characters AND 4 healers*. Choosing this cheap option is just too good, unless there are other options of equal worth to compete with it. And if there is, we get back to my above example where you replace the wizard with the "fireball" kit and so on. Ops, seems this doesn't work either.

Now, I would not mind if this was possible. I have nothing in principle against your idea - I just don't think it is workable. I'd like more customization options, that more of a characters omph was in feats and other customizable elements. But it is not the direction I see Next going - quite the opposite in fact. Next seems to focus more on the core abilities of each class and push the customizables into certain niches (such as skills). And most people seem to like this.

I think this is the point Neonchameleon has been trying to make - that only a class ability can pull the weight he wants the warlord to carry. No optional character option will be enough - except possibly one available to all, like second wind was.

* (note from above) Barring action economy - they don't have the actions of 8 people, they just have the toolkit of 8 people. Or actually, since healing makes up about 1/3 of the toolkit of the cleric, they end up with the toolkit of 5.22 people [they get 1/3 of a class (healing) by spending 1/36 of a class (1/4 of all feats). Net gain 11/36 of a class each or just under 1/3 extra]. Still a very attractive option.

 

[Obryn]

Aside to vitality/wound tracks, I'm curious why people aren't picking up on adventure design as at least a partial solution towards the healing dependency.

As a DM, I'm always leery when adventure design starts getting more and more restrictions and requirements in order to work around problems with bad rules. We're already falling back on it for daily/non-daily class balance, and that's awkward and restrictive enough. (And, IMO, pretty terrible; the 15 MWD is more a problem with the DM's ability to run and create adventures than it is with overly-cautious players.)

Stuff like expected wealth by level, treasure parcels, etc. is already more than I want to worry about, so I'm not thrilled about throwing yet more junk into the mix. I just want to put together an awesome adventure without being chained to a checklist.

-O

 

[urLordy]

As a DM, I'm always leery when adventure design starts getting more and more restrictions and requirements in order to work around problems with bad rules.

So when you have 5 PCs in the party, and a published adventure is designed for 6 players, then I guess you really start to sweat?

I'm not sure what you mean by more and more restrictions and bad rules and chained to a checklist

 

[Obryn]

So when you have 5 PCs in the party, and a published adventure is designed for 6 players, then I guess you really start to sweat?

I'm not sure what you mean by more and more restrictions and bad rules and chained to a checklist

Sigh. No, that's pretty easy (in 4e at least, and hopefully in Next as well).

When you have classes with powerful and versatile Daily abilities - spells in Next, for example - and classes without, in order for the classes without to be helpful you need to have a longer "adventuring day." Otherwise, you have the daily abilities nuke every encounter and situation. This isn't a mystery; Mearls has talked about it a few times in L&L columns. To me, that's an issue with the system in the way it restricts certain kinds of adventures, like long-distance travel, city adventures with long timelines, etc. (And incidentally creates the 15 MWD effect.) That's not good design to me.

Likewise, in both 3e and 4e (without inherent bonuses), you need to closely stick to wealth-by-level rules or else the entire system starts to disintegrate. For example, if you are stingy with magic items in 3.x, you're going to have even more severe issues with caster/non-caster disparity. Again, problematic design.

-O

 

[urLordy]

I still like the adventure design idea regardless of its detractors.

I do have one more idea though

* * *
OPTIONAL MODULE - INSPIRATION SURGE

For low magic/healing campaigns, each PC may receive +x Inspirational Surges (x is TBD)

For each Inspirational Surge, choose one trigger:

The Sheep
You are a great hero, you have slain monsters and saved maidens, but you still have major self-esteem issues. You cannot spend an inspirational surge because you still don't believe in yourself. Choose one ally as your leader or saviour or DOM. Whenever your leader shouts encouragement (or whips your butt), you always hear and understand no matter what even if you're in the thick of battle and wearing ear plugs, and you receive a boost of badly needed confidence and you may spend a surge. The next round, you revert to your original state of self-doubt. This trigger is permanent, unless you a year of psychiatry sessions or self-help seminars, after which you may change to a new trigger.

The Cock
You are overly confident. Spend an inspiration surge at the very first opportunity, even if it's being hasty. This trigger is permanent until you die, after which you may choose a new trigger if you are sufficiently self-aware.

The Lone Wolf
You are a loner and don't give a sh*t about anyone else and you know you can only count on yourself. You may spend an Inspirational Surge whenever you wish. Pick one ally that you dislike; one surge is unavailable for 1d4 rounds whenever your hated ally shouts encouragement at you. This trigger is permanent. If you befriend your hated ally, the effect is only temporary: eventually they will disappoint you.

The Pragmatist
Life is just a game and there's no real reason why or when you can spend a surge. Choose any one character goal to justify spending a surge, but it's just lip service. Consult the latest edition and rules addendum for a list of official balanced trigger conditions. Once you choose a trigger, it is permanent until power creep mandates that you choose a new more powerful trigger.

 

[pemerton]

His power may not be the same, it may even be a subset of the wizard's, but his status as a PC is equal. That's why he deserves narrative control as much as the Hogwarts alumnus does. Fortunately, that's not really difficult to accomplish and he doesn't need reality-warping abilities to do it. He just needs a DM who responds to him as if he's a protagonist.

I don't think any game system is going to be able to successfully wed all resource management with play styles, paces, and encounter types - not without severely restricting what it can do. At some point, you have to rely on the GM and table preferences to set the guidelines.

While there is some truth to what you say, I think it has to be said with caution - that is, it shouldn't be allowed to be an excuse for not putting effort into design.

For instance, it's easier for a GM to treat the fighter PC as a protagonist if the PC build and action resolution rules support rather than push against this. And conversely, if treating the fighter PC as a protagonist requires suspending or overriding the action resolution rules (eg fudging), this can be a problem - because now the GM has a conflict of interest between putting pressure on the players (via their PCs) and fudging things to let the players experience protagonism.

Finding effective ways to manage these various pressures, and to manage or eliminate conflicts of interest (both on GM and player sides), is an important element in design.

Fate/Plot points are one well-known mechanical technique for dealing with these issues. But D&D arguably doesn't need these, because it already has them, in the form of hit points. Hence the reason why non-magic means of healing and damage mitigation become focal points for discussion, I think.

 

[pemerton]

There's every reason why a character could be more inspiring. That's not the issue.

<snip>

The issue is twofold. One, why make a new class for it? Two, what does that have to do with healing?

Repeating my answers from upthread:

(1) The reason for making it part of class build (rather than feat, background etc) is as I and [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] have already indicated - only class features carry the mechanical heft required;

(2) The reason for linking it to healing is as I and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] have already indicated - D&D relies upon healing, including spike healing, as the single most important contribution to PC effectiveness and staying power.

Here is Neonchameleon's explanation of (2), which I fully endorse:

I want non-magical spike healing if the Cleric's main healing is going to follow that approach.

<snip>

If spike healing exists other than as a consequence of seriously high level magic <snippage> then it is by far the most tactically important kind of healing, and for many reasons much more effective per hit point than pre-emptive damage mitigation.

My entire point in the OP was that the warlord must be able to trample on the cleric's ability to keep the party on thier feet and contributing usefully to combat - they must be able to take on a measure of this aspect of the cleric in games both with divine magic and without. This means (amongst other things) keeping them on their feet, and this means spike healing.

<snip>

So if spike combat healing is the assumed baseline (as defined by the way the Cleric does things) then yes I do want it, period.

<snip>

If we were playing a game in which the PCs tracked morale points as well as hit points and were more likely to break and run than actually die, things would be different.

<snip>

And inspiring needn't be the same as healing if you have a richer hit point model, but needs to restore hp. In 4e they were mechanically distinct (although clerics could do both) because inspiring involved allowing someone to spend their own resources (the healing surge). Only rare magic healed with no healing surge.

And in response to this:

your case seems to be "D&D must include non-magical spike healing as a class feature or else fail to meet my needs as a gaming system."

It's not that D&D must. It's that D&D does - but if it's all loaded in magic-using classes (as it is currently) that is a limitation on playable styles/genres.

And this:

let us, for the sake of argument, and because this appears to be what 5e is actually doing, instead allow for non-magical spike healing (hell, the exact mechanics of Inspiring Word) and examine the claim that such a mechanic must sit inside a unique class feature.

Does there need to be a class with a class feature by which you can forgo clerical healing without reduced efficiency via non-magical spike healing? Or can there simply be an option by which you can accomplish that?

Or is a class a requirement for you that you are unable/unwilling to question?

As I said above, you need to be looking at elements of class build to get sufficient mechanical heft.

What is your view of my ideas in post 89 upthread?

Classes shouldn't be optional to the same extent as other rules modules.

I don't agree with this at all! Classes are one of the easiest ways to inject optional content (eg ever since 2nd ed AD&D psionics as an optional module have been introduced via classes).

Unfamiliar with the abbreviations "R:T" and "R:T".

Range: touch. Range of in-combat healing is one important balancing factor.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
So, bottom line, you think that healing (specifically in-combat healing) is Really Important. I don't think that it is in any version of D&D (except perhaps in 4e, where healing surges are deeply ingrained), and I definitely don't think it should be.

Moreover, even if it were, that just takes us to where a couple of other posters whose names I don't feel like looking up got us several pages ago: a class is not a metagame tool to fill in a hole in the rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem as I see it is that the conceit just doesn't work out.

It's not an intended solution, it's intended as a thought experiment to determine what changing the decision point might create, to hope to get closer to what NC's central thesis actually is. It isn't there to work, it's there to fail in a way that will show me more about how other people think.

The same goes for items. An item that mimics the portion of his spellcasting arsenal a cleric puts into healing would cost much more than the expected equipment budget of that cleric. If it didn't, what would be the use of spellcasting classes - you could just get the equivalent "security" item, "fireball" item, and "healing" item and replace both the rogue, cleric, and wizard. Everyone could have the solid base of the fighter with the versatility of a an additional class.

So the conciet is that this fits within the budget -- that this is a viable thing for a character to purchase.

And it's true that by not tying this mechanic to class, you make it available to anyone who happens to equip the item, whatever their class. Is the idea of non-magical spike healing exclusive and unable to be combined with a Fighter or a Cleric or a Ranger or a Paladin?

Say it costs 1/4 of your feats to be able to act as the party healer, about as good at this as you'd expect a cleric to be. But then, why don't everyone make that investment... If they do, you suddenly end up with a 4 person party that gets the toolkit of 4 normal characters AND 4 healers*. Choosing this cheap option is just too good, unless there are other options of equal worth to compete with it. And if there is, we get back to my above example where you replace the wizard with the "fireball" kit and so on. Ops, seems this doesn't work either.

Since the item is balanced with other items, presumably to bear the battle standard means that they'd have to give up wielding an equivalent item, that gave equivalent power. You might imagine them carrying other role mechanics. The assumption is that it is balanced -- the question is, if such a thing exists, does it meet the needs of a warlord fan? It meets NC's criteria as he stated them upthread, so we have one of two possible outcomes: either it meets his criteria because those are his actual criteria, or it doesn't, and I adjust my understanding of his criteria to be more accurate to what he actually wants.

Now, I would not mind if this was possible. I have nothing in principle against your idea - I just don't think it is workable. I'd like more customization options, that more of a characters omph was in feats and other customizable elements. But it is not the direction I see Next going - quite the opposite in fact. Next seems to focus more on the core abilities of each class and push the customizables into certain niches (such as skills). And most people seem to like this.

So if we presume that it is made workable, you've got no real conceptual problems with it, as someone who presumably agrees with NC's thesis as he posted it.

Which is good. Because if you're OK with it conceptually as an item, then how do you feel about maybe putting a tag on that item, something like "[Inspiration]", that is keyed to a description somewhere: "[Inspiration] features restore hit points by increasing morale and grit. If you use such an ability, HP in your game represents these aspects of fighting spirit, too?"

Because if you're OK with that, then you've fundamentally agreed with me that you don't need a warlord class to get the kind of play experience you want as a warlord fan: that an HP module would work fine to accomplish that.

As I said above, you need to be looking at elements of class build to get sufficient mechanical heft.

We've moved on a bit from the posts you're quoting there, but I wanted to tease this out because I think it feeds into what we're talking about.

"Mechanical heft" is awfully vague, and it is remarkably changable. There is not one "mechanical heft" that a class mechanic must sit at, and a rule of some hypothetical "mechanical heft rating" could sit at multiple decision points in the process of campaign creation.

It's my personal view that actually defining what HP means is of too much "mechanical heft" to be trusted well in the hands of one class mechanic.