D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter

[Jester David]

Oh, and to plug my stuff, here's the 5e warlord-esque fighter subclass I wrote up.

 

[koga305]

And from one of the earlier times this exact same conversation popped up:

Oh goodness. That is fantastic.

 

[Jester David]

Oh goodness. That is fantastic.

Based on the original:
http://www.xkcd.com/1167/

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, and to plug my stuff, here's the 5e warlord-esque fighter subclass I wrote up.

That's not half bad. I'm still sad that there is no actual healing, but it's not bad. Do you think it would be possible for the Commander to expend her Second Wind to actually an ally, perhaps doing one of their dice + their level rather than 1d10+Fighter level? That would make more sense as a "getting someone to draw on internal resources" thing, while being limited use (only once per short rest, IIRC? I'm on a school comp). While I would of course prefer that it come early rather than late, it could be a mid-level thing (perhaps around the time you get +Prof to Rally?)

 

[Jester David]

That's not half bad. I'm still sad that there is no actual healing, but it's not bad. Do you think it would be possible for the Commander to expend her Second Wind to actually an ally, perhaps doing one of their dice + their level rather than 1d10+Fighter level? That would make more sense as a "getting someone to draw on internal resources" thing, while being limited use (only once per short rest, IIRC? I'm on a school comp). While I would of course prefer that it come early rather than late, it could be a mid-level thing (perhaps around the time you get +Prof to Rally?)

I considered allowing some sharing of the second wind. I brainstormed that it would take an action, and use the fighter's second wind, healing a comparable amount. But that really gets into problematic territory, as seen by this thread.

Including anything that allows martial healing really irks some people. Because that's not how they view hp. The rules should be somewhat neutral on the subject, allowing people to decide for themselves how healing is defined in their game, and not have it determined by a class or power.
Similarly, the class should work somewhat independent of the healing rule options found in the DMG. It should work even if the DM requires Hit Dice to be spent to recover hit points or if PCs are given the healing surge option.

In the end, I opted to make the warlord-style class as defined by what makes it unique and its flavour, not its role in 4e. Warlords didn't heal because that worked with the concept of the class, but because all leaders had to heal. It was checkbox design. Including healing would have necessitated taking out other powers, removing options unique to the subclass, and making it less warlordy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Warlords didn't heal because that worked with the concept of the class, but because all leaders had to heal. It was checkbox design. Including healing would have necessitated taking out other powers, removing options unique to the subclass, and making it less warlordy.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree on that, because I strongly believe that a Warlord isn't a Warlord if they can't be a full Cleric replacement, as far as baseline combat utility goes.

 

[Jester David]

Then we will just have to agree to disagree on that, because I strongly believe that a Warlord isn't a Warlord if they can't be a full Cleric replacement, as far as baseline combat utility goes.

Which is fine only when you *need* a cleric so much that an entire class has to function as a replacement. And I'm no longer sure that's the case.

The issue gets tricky a cleric isn't just combat healing, but removal of debuffs, returning people from the dead, and the like. To be a complete "replacement cleric" a warlord would also have to be able to cast lesser restoration and ressurection and regenerate.
And it gets funky because not every cleric needs to heal either. There are lots of cleric builds in 5e that don't assume healing, and it'd be very easy to play a cleric that never casts healing spells in combat. So it would be awkward to have the warlord assume more healing than the cleric, to be a better default healer...

Plus, that's not a requirement levied on other "leader" classes, like the bard. The bard is free to be its own class and not have to compromise between being a bard and being a pseudo cleric.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is fine only when you *need* a cleric so much that an entire class has to function as a replacement. And I'm no longer sure that's the case.

The issue gets tricky a cleric isn't just combat healing, but removal of debuffs, returning people from the dead, and the like. To be a complete "replacement cleric" a warlord would also have to be able to cast lesser restoration and ressurection and regenerate.

Those last three things I would consider substantially beyond "baseline combat utility," which is kind of why I said the things I said. I don't think you should be resurrecting comrades in the middle of a fight--but, by that same token, I don't think people should be out-and-out dying in the middle of a fight unless things have gone very, very badly (or the party has taken a risk and paid for it).

And it gets funky because not every cleric needs to heal either. There are lots of cleric builds in 5e that don't assume healing, and it'd be very easy to play a cleric that never casts healing spells in combat. So it would be awkward to have the warlord assume more healing than the cleric, to be a better default healer...

What? This doesn't make any sense. You aren't a "better default healer" if you use a highly-limited resource to produce a modest fraction of what another class can do if they deign to use a spell that's nearly exclusive to them. Yes, a Cleric can choose to do other things, but that's because Clerics have flexibility that non-casters simply don't have. Apples and oranges.

Plus, that's not a requirement levied on other "leader" classes, like the bard. The bard is free to be its own class and not have to compromise between being a bard and being a pseudo cleric.

Okay now you're just throwing out false dichotomies--and it's not like the Bard doesn't help people remove conditions, regain HP, and bolster their stats anyway, which is precisely the "pseudo cleric" you're deprecating. "Free to be its own class" is perfectly compatible with "meets minimum benchmarks."

 

[Jester David]

Those last three things I would consider substantially beyond "baseline combat utility," which is kind of why I said the things I said. I don't think you should be resurrecting comrades in the middle of a fight--but, by that same token, I don't think people should be out-and-out dying in the middle of a fight unless things have gone very, very badly (or the party has taken a risk and paid for it).

But there are lots of ways to prevent dying in combat other than healing. Damage resistance, temporary hit points, boosting defences, etc. All work equally well to prolong the adventuring day and maximize hit points without necessitating healing. Healing is just one tool in the leader toolbox.

What? This doesn't make any sense. You aren't a "better default healer" if you use a highly-limited resource to produce a modest fraction of what another class can do if they deign to use a spell that's nearly exclusive to them. Yes, a Cleric can choose to do other things, but that's because Clerics have flexibility that non-casters simply don't have. Apples and oranges.

The difference is that you're suggesting all warlords have some ability to heal. That it's an essential part of the class and the class doesn't feel like a warlord without healing. So the warlord is more defined by healing than the cleric, because the class cannot be defined without it.

This is ridiculous because the cleric is the classic the healbot of D&D. But even that class isn't solely defined as a healer in 5e. Of the 7 domains, only 1 gives the cure spells. 6/7ths of clerics are not assumed to be healers unless the player opts to play as the healer.

Removed from the assumptions of 4e, healing is not an essential part of the definition of what a warlord should do. You don't equate generals, guard commanders, and combat leaders with surgeons and doctors.
Yes, the "commander" type character should keep their allies fighting, but that doesn't equate with restoring hit points. As mentioned, there are lots of different ways to do the same thing in play without actually casting cure wounds.

With no set "leader" role that needs to be filled and assumed combat healing, the warlord is free to do other things. Things only the warlord can do and not a half-dozen other classes. Like granting attacks and moving allies and positioning. Healing is very literally the least unique and interesting thing about warlords.

Okay now you're just throwing out false dichotomies--and it's not like the Bard doesn't help people remove conditions, regain HP, and bolster their stats anyway, which is precisely the "pseudo cleric" you're deprecating. "Free to be its own class" is perfectly compatible with "meets minimum benchmarks."

Like the cleric, the bard can choose to heal. Or not. It's not mandated. And since bards know fewer spells it's very easy to build a bard that not only doesn't cast clerical spells but doesn't even know them. There's no mandated healing.
(The inclusion of those spells, like raise dead, is also something I'm not a fan of with the bard, as it doesn't fit the class really well. It just seems like filler spells because the class became a full 9-level spellcaster.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But there are lots of ways to prevent dying in combat other than healing. Damage resistance, temporary hit points, boosting defences, etc. All work equally well to prolong the adventuring day and maximize hit points without necessitating healing. Healing is just one tool in the leader toolbox.

Yeah...I have yet to see actually effective, balanced (or "at parity," if balanced is a four-letter-word to you) options that manage to make damage resistance, THP, or buffs equivalent to actual healing. The balance-point appears to be so narrow that almost every attempt overshoots or undershoots, and it's almost always the latter. People tend to call the former "cheesy," to boot. The only place I've seen even moderately effective "mitigation-based" death prevention is League of Legends, and even there it's substantially less effective than just outright healing (and higher HP pools).

The difference is that you're suggesting all warlords have some ability to heal. That it's an essential part of the class and the class doesn't feel like a warlord without healing. So the warlord is more defined by healing than the cleric, because the class cannot be defined without it.

This is ridiculous because the cleric is the classic the healbot of D&D. But even that class isn't solely defined as a healer in 5e. Of the 7 domains, only 1 gives the cure spells. 6/7ths of clerics are not assumed to be healers unless the player opts to play as the healer.

Ah, okay, so...I didn't at all get what you were trying to say there. I understand now. And all I can say is, I see "Has Cure Wounds, Regenerate, etc. on its spell list" as being dramatically more important for the Cleric's identity than "Has a hard-coded ability that gives HP." If the hard-coded-ness is the issue, would you be placated by making it an option? For example, a choice between getting that ~or~ getting an extra use of Improved Action Surge or the like? Since the 4e Warlord was, after all, more about the force-multiplication than the healing per se.

Removed from the assumptions of 4e, healing is not an essential part of the definition of what a warlord should do. You don't equate generals, guard commanders, and combat leaders with surgeons and doctors.

No, but I do equate actually-competent captains, sergeants, and other there-on-the-battlefield people with having the ability to push their comrades (whether subordinates or not!) to tap resources they didn't know existed, which is precisely how Warlord healing was fluffed--you're injured, but you draw on some of your inner reserves (Healing Surge) to keep going despite the pain. You can't do it forever (the Surges will run out), but you can do it now, and possibly again in the future.

With no set "leader" role that needs to be filled and assumed combat healing, the warlord is free to do other things. Things only the warlord can do and not a half-dozen other classes. Like granting attacks and moving allies and positioning. Healing is very literally the least unique and interesting thing about warlords.

I don't deny that those things are more interesting. The point is that groups that don't have Clerics suffer for it majorly, and I've never seen anyone successfully achieve a Cleric replacement that can't do even a little bit of actual, real, legitimate, non-temporary healing. I also truly believe that the Warlord should be at least able to have a little bit of actual healing, without having to give up (much) of the other stuff that, I completely agree, makes it an interesting class to play.

Like the cleric, the bard can choose to heal. Or not. It's not mandated. And since bards know fewer spells it's very easy to build a bard that not only doesn't cast clerical spells but doesn't even know them. There's no mandated healing.
(The inclusion of those spells, like raise dead, is also something I'm not a fan of with the bard, as it doesn't fit the class really well. It just seems like filler spells because the class became a full 9-level spellcaster.

In which case, I think I need to repeat what I said before: We should agree to disagree. I think healing is essential to what the Warlord represented, even if it is actively uninteresting (I don't think it is, but just for argument), because it finally, well and truly cut the shackles of "Who's gonna play the Cleric?" A 5e party is at a severe disadvantage if they don't have a caster that can heal, and I don't believe your Warlord can do enough to make the difference often enough. Surely it will help--no question. I just don't think it is enough, and (as I noted before) would have liked to see more. Your subclass is a huge improvement over the Battlemaster, no question--I just feel it doesn't (quite) go far enough.