D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter

[Jester David]

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).

I'm okay with "balance" (to a point) but I'm not a fan of symmetry.

The difference between "regains 8 hit points" and "gains 8 temporary hit points" or "parry to negate 8 damage" is functionally irrelevant. You still walk away from the fight with 8 more hit points than you would have otherwise. Healing gets characters back into a fight they had been removed from, but temp hp and damage mitigation prevent them from going down in the first place and potentially preventing lost turns.

The big difference is one of flavour. It makes sense for a warlord to parry or call out a warning allowing an ally to duck. Healing doesn't make sense, and so regaining hit points doesn't work with all definitions of "hit points". Mechanics have to be neutral in regards to stuff like that.

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.

Making it an option helps for the healer issue. So warlords can opt not to be "healers".

However, it does leave that option at the PC's disposal. Which means they're determining the definition of hit points for the campaign, not the DM. And that opens a can of worms. HP is problematic. So long as nothing draws attention to the wackiness of hit points, people who think they're meat and people who think they're fatigue can play together just fine. But once powers suggest one or the other it creates a narrative disconnect for some. Which causes problems. Having martial healing would be just as problematic as a spell or power firmly stating hp was health.

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.

That doesn't work as well in 5e, since there are no "surges" that would wear out. Characters will either always be able to benefit, or the healing would be limited some other way. Like superiority dice. And, really, there's no good narrative reason why someone can't benefit from repeated pep talks and encouragement. Rocky doesn't just stop listening to Mick because Mick talked to him once before that day. Someone having been beaten up in four or fights prior and being out of surges shouldn't affect the warlord's abilities; one class' limited powers shouldn't depend on another character's resources.

And the ability described above works just as well with temporary hit points. Better since the "healing" a pep talk provides necessitates the person being awake and won't last forever, as the weariness and injuries will quickly return. And the commander could also give everyone the inspiring talk before battle, rather than in the middle.

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.
...
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.

I've played in a LOT of organized play during 3e. And playing with healer was rare. And even when we had a cleric, most healing was handled by CLW wands between fights, so the cleric could save their resources for combats or stuff they wanted to do.
And the game did not implode.
Forgoing a healer for extra DPS or crowd control works find a lot of the time. I had a bard in 3e (Living Greyhawk) that was pretty much a cleric replacement. The healing wasn't as good in combat, but it kept people up. But the other buffing took enemies down faster, so less damage was taken overall. So it balanced out.
And since the game is run by a living, thinking, human being who can account for the group dynamic, healers aren't that essential. My Pathfinder home game prefers recruiting an NPC as a healer and having them tag along, rather than someone filling that role.

Instead of thinking of groups without a cleric as being disadvantaged, I prefer to think of groups with a healer cleric as having an advantage. It's a bonus. A perk. And the best way to work towards that is to not assume healing in the game and not assume healing is coming from other sources. 5e isn't perfect in that regard but it works well enough without constant healing.

because it finally, well and truly cut the shackles of "Who's gonna play the Cleric?"

Changing the question to "Who's going to play the leader?" isn't much better. It still mandates one person has to play a certain type of character. It's *slightly* less annoying because there's more choices than just one, but it still limits their choices to a smaller pool of 2-3 classes.

But, really, there's always been choices. The druid for one. And the bard since 3e. And now the paladin can work somewhat. There's no shortage of emergency healers in the game.
And, worst case scenario, the fighter/warlord can multiclass (into cleric or bard) and get a feat or two.

 

[pemerton]

Warlords didn't heal because that worked with the concept of the class

The essence of the warlord, for me at least, is the Tolkien-esque battle captain: Aragorn, Faramir, Imrahil are the standouts in my memory.

Beregond says of Faramir that he can master both beasts and men. Part of his "mastery" of men is that they keep fighting, and have their courage restored. In a hit point-based system, in which hit points represent capacity to stay on one's feet and fight, this is a healing ability.

Araragorn can also restore the heart to fight with gentle words of encouragement to his companions.

The D&D analogue of this is hit point restoration.

The difference between "regains 8 hit points" and "gains 8 temporary hit points" or "parry to negate 8 damage" is functionally irrelevant.

I don't agree. Temporary hit points are tanking; hit point restoration is recovery. This is a difference in the fiction, and a difference in the tactical dynamics of play. And damage negation is something else again.

 

[Zalabim]

I'm okay with "balance" (to a point) but I'm not a fan of symmetry.

The difference between "regains 8 hit points" and "gains 8 temporary hit points" or "parry to negate 8 damage" is functionally irrelevant. You still walk away from the fight with 8 more hit points than you would have otherwise. Healing gets characters back into a fight they had been removed from, but temp hp and damage mitigation prevent them from going down in the first place and potentially preventing lost turns.

The big difference is one of flavour. It makes sense for a warlord to parry or call out a warning allowing an ally to duck. Healing doesn't make sense, and so regaining hit points doesn't work with all definitions of "hit points". Mechanics have to be neutral in regards to stuff like that.

It's much more than flavor based differences. Healing can be done before, during, and after the fight. It targets whoever needs HP. Temporary HP has to be done beforehand. It can be wasted, so it requires prediction who will need HP. Parrying to reduce damage has to be done in the middle of taking damage. It's combat healing. Damage reduction and temp hp increase the total amount of punishment a character can take before going down beyond their max HP. They're mechanically distinct.

Making it an option helps for the healer issue. So warlords can opt not to be "healers".

However, it does leave that option at the PC's disposal. Which means they're determining the definition of hit points for the campaign, not the DM. And that opens a can of worms. HP is problematic. So long as nothing draws attention to the wackiness of hit points, people who think they're meat and people who think they're fatigue can play together just fine. But once powers suggest one or the other it creates a narrative disconnect for some. Which causes problems. Having martial healing would be just as problematic as a spell or power firmly stating hp was health.

Some players will use an optional rule like "Healing Kits required to use hit dice healing" is no argument for removing the option of actual healing from a class. The existence of optional and house rules has no bearing on what is allowed in the core rules, where HP are not meat. The inspiring Paladin and Bard have baked in healing features, while the wise Druid and Cleric have healing options. I'd expect an inspiring leader to be able to restore HP, and a canny tactician to be able to pick up some tricks to heal as well as hinder.

That doesn't work as well in 5e, since there are no "surges" that would wear out. Characters will either always be able to benefit, or the healing would be limited some other way. Like superiority dice. And, really, there's no good narrative reason why someone can't benefit from repeated pep talks and encouragement. Rocky doesn't just stop listening to Mick because Mick talked to him once before that day. Someone having been beaten up in four or fights prior and being out of surges shouldn't affect the warlord's abilities; one class' limited powers shouldn't depend on another character's resources.

Targets can benefit from Healer and Inspiring Leader once per short rest. The barbarian can shrug off lethal blows, but it gets harder each time between resting. The Bard has Song of Rest. This clearly works fine in 5e. There's room for healing that is limited in ways other than daily spell slots.

And the ability described above works just as well with temporary hit points. Better since the "healing" a pep talk provides necessitates the person being awake and won't last forever, as the weariness and injuries will quickly return. And the commander could also give everyone the inspiring talk before battle, rather than in the middle.

Neither of those make it better, thematically or mechanically. The commander can give a pep talk before battle, during battle, or after battle and return fighting spirit to beaten warriors. Remember that a PC knocked out of the fight (0 HP) only may die. If not further harmed, they have equal chances of stabilizing and recovering on their own. Pep talks to the unconscious is common enough in the fiction inspiring D&D that I shouldn't need to prove it works in real life to allow a PC to do the same.

My case for the warlord is simply that it is an existing and clear archetype in the fiction and has plenty of mechanical room as a supportive combatant whose abilities aren't based on learning, preparing, and casting spells on a daily cooldown. Giving Commander's Strike and Rally to a fighter doesn't make them primarily a supportive combatant. It feels like a personally badass master of battles, certainly an inspiring figure, but not a cunning strategist.

I've been thinking of a turn by turn dice pool that can be used to spike attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and ability checks to use as the primary ability. I'd call it Marshal Dice.

 

[Jester David]

It's much more than flavor based differences. Healing can be done before, during, and after the fight. It targets whoever needs HP. Temporary HP has to be done beforehand. It can be wasted, so it requires prediction who will need HP. Parrying to reduce damage has to be done in the middle of taking damage. It's combat healing. Damage reduction and temp hp increase the total amount of punishment a character can take before going down beyond their max HP. They're mechanically distinct.

Distinct but comparable, which was my point. They're not symmetrical or identical, but they don't *need* to be.
Healing has its disadvantages to. You can easily overheal someone, wasting healing. And if someone goes down they lose their turn and all the damage they would have done while the healer is getting to them.

Some players will use an optional rule like "Healing Kits required to use hit dice healing" is no argument for removing the option of actual healing from a class.

Sure it is. Options added to the game should not make modularity harder, not when it can be avoided. That's the whole point of designing a modular and customizable game.

The existence of optional and house rules has no bearing on what is allowed in the core rules, where HP are not meat.

You believe hp are not meat. Others would disagree. And that is the problem. The rules should NOT pick sides in that debate.

The inspiring Paladin and Bard have baked in healing features, while the wise Druid and Cleric have healing options. I'd expect an inspiring leader to be able to restore HP, and a canny tactician to be able to pick up some tricks to heal as well as hinder.

I don't see why this is relevant. Magic users have long been able to restore hit points. By that logic the wizard should also get cure wounds because the artificer was a leader in 4e and that's now a subclass.

Neither of those make it better, thematically or mechanically. The commander can give a pep talk before battle, during battle, or after battle and return fighting spirit to beaten warriors. Remember that a PC knocked out of the fight (0 HP) only may die. If not further harmed, they have equal chances of stabilizing and recovering on their own. Pep talks to the unconscious is common enough in the fiction inspiring D&D that I shouldn't need to prove it works in real life to allow a PC to do the same.

Examples please.

My case for the warlord is simply that it is an existing and clear archetype in the fiction and has plenty of mechanical room as a supportive combatant whose abilities aren't based on learning, preparing, and casting spells on a daily cooldown. Giving Commander's Strike and Rally to a fighter doesn't make them primarily a supportive combatant. It feels like a personally badass master of battles, certainly an inspiring figure, but not a cunning strategist.

I agree. But I don't think healing is necessary to the archetype. Not when we have so many other classes that heal already that can be multiclassed into, or feats that can allow healing spells or abilities, or between combat healing via short rests. I'd rather the warlord do anything else.

Most of the desire for healing warlords seems to come entirely from the desire to recreate the mechanics of 4e and not the commander/general archetypes. The source material is one thing: 4th Edition.
I'm not a fan of redesigning options using the mechanical assumptions and constraints of past editions. It'd be bad design to try and make a class that identically replicated a 3e class. Or to to design a class or race based on how they were in 2nd edition. When designing a new warlord-esque class equal weight should be given to the marshall and 2e kits as to the warlord. The goal should be about making the ultimate commander style class (or subclass) and less about reliving the past.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You believe hp are not meat. Others would disagree. And that is the problem. The rules should NOT pick sides in that debate.

Why not?

 

[Jester David]

Why not?

Because it's not possible to win. Either way a chunk of the fanbase walks away unhappy and pissed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not?

More importantly: how not? Relegating all actual healing to magic IS picking a side, that is, "HP are meat." Not doing so is also picking a side, that HP are not (just) meat. I don't think it's possible for a game to remain absolutely agnostic about it. Insisting that the Warlord must deal only in mitigation and THP is, essentially, insisting that healing must mean the actual closure of wounds or restoration of lost élan vital--so someone doing that is still taking a side, even if they don't see it that way.

 

[Jester David]

More importantly: how not? Relegating all actual healing to magic IS picking a side, that is, "HP are meat." Not doing so is also picking a side, that HP are not (just) meat. I don't think it's possible for a game to remain absolutely agnostic about it. Insisting that the Warlord must deal only in mitigation and THP is, essentially, insisting that healing must mean the actual closure of wounds or restoration of lost élan vital--so someone doing that is still taking a side, even if they don't see it that way.

I disagree. Only having magical healing leaves room for people to decide for themselves. They can add martial healing to their games, or not. There's a choice. Which is important. That's the whole damn point.

As there's still room to view hp as fatigue/energy if it's possible to add the warlord and have it work. The absence of evidence is not proof.
In contrast, insisting that the Warlord must deal only in actual healing and hit point recovery must mean the the restoration of energy and motivation to act. That's picking a side.

Right now it's easy to have the game use hp as pure energy or pure meat with simple changes to how healing is handled and hit dice are spent as covered in the DMG. There's the baseline and the options to allow the game to go either way. Adding a class that heals through pep talks invalidates one of those options.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Because it's not possible to win. Either way a chunk of the fanbase walks away unhappy and pissed.

It seems to me that you could make the same argument about every rule.

 

[Jester David]

It seems to me that you could make the same argument about every rule.

You could, but most other rulings don't regularly cause heated debates each and every single time they come up.
This debate goes back the OD&D. Gary wrote a little mini essay on the nature of hp back in the 1e DMG.