D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[epithet]

Side note: It's funny; I could have sworn you weren't a big fan of going by RAW.

I think even folks who throw RAW out the window would agree that RAW is important on the printed page, much less so at the table when the dice are rolling.

 

[epithet]

So, Tony & El Mahdi, I suppose the question comes down to how much direct restoration of hit points you believe a Warlord should be capable of. You've said that you don't necessarily think the WL should "heal like a Cleric," but then you also advocate for the WL to be able to take an ally from 0 to full HP. How do you reconcile those things, and how much healing do you conjure a Warlord should be able to provide to his allies?

 

[Jester David]

I know, I pointed that out, above. The Warlord doesn't exist yet, so it can't be part of the Standard Game. It's like any other potential opt-in module that way. Different opt-in modules don't really need to be compatible with eachother the way opt-in modules need to be compatible with (or at least change in a feasible way) elements of the Standard Game.

So if you're opting into more 'realistic' hps, you wouldn't also opt into the Warlord, at least, not without modding it. You'd probably also have to modify the Fighter's Second Wind to make it fit that vision of hps.

Worrying about how a Warlord might impact such a campaign is like worrying about how variations on the Cleric might impact a Dark Sun campaign.

It's a non-issue.

Conversely, designing the Warlord so that it worked specifically with pre-existing opt-in module, like the slow-healing modules or the 'tactical' module would also be a mistake. The only sensible way to prioritize how optional material works, is that it work smoothly when added to the standard game first and foremost. How well it works with antithetical modules (how well will spellpoints work in a no-magic campaign?) is the lowest possible priority. Lower even than class balance in 5e.

I'd disagree with that statement.
A class should work with the basic game and be balanced. That's a certainty. However, the modularity needs to be considered. This doesn't mean every rules module or variant rule needs to be considered, but there should be a light touch with the most common dials for game customization. Such as hit dice, the length of rests, and inspiration. Almost no class or race feature touches or modifies those.
A class whose primary abilities focuses on modifying those should probably be discouraged, as that is the purview of the Dungeon Master.

I just want something that's worthy and recognizeable as the Warlord and gives as similar a play experience as you can wring from 5e. 5e's design philosophy is to design around the class concept, not to design around a formal 'leader' or informal "like a Cleric" or 'healer' role. So, that doesn't mean 'healing' like a Cleric, but it does mean standing up fallen allies in the heat of battle, which requires a hp-restoration mechanic. And, yes, of course it means doing the few, vestigial, vaguely warlord-like things the Battlemaster can do far better than the Battlemaster could hope to do them (though not while multi-attacking for potentially broken DPR like a Battlemaster - quite possibly, instead of attacking, at all, really). Much like how a Wizard can expect to be a much, much better spellcaster than an Arcane Trickster.

5e classes seldom do exactly what they did in past editions. The bard doesn't inspire the entire party with song, the ranger isn't better fighting giants, the fighter doesn't specialize with a specific weapon, the druid cannot regularly summon woodland creatures to their aid, etc. Most elements of the class are distilled and re-imagined from the ground up, focusing on the core elements of the class.
Replicating how the class played in an earlier edition doesn't work, because the conventions of the game are no longer the same. The warlord shouldn't play exactly how they did in 4e anymore than the bard should play like they did in 4e or 3e or 2e.

Complaining that any ballpark Warlord ideas might be too powerful compared to the Cleric or Bard - Full Casters, FCOL - is really jumping the gun. I mean, how /could/ a Warlord be OP compared to a caster with loads of cool tricks like the Bard, let alone a traditionally Tier 1 class like the Cleric? Has anything even close to the breadth of Clerical spell casting even been remotely alluded to? No! It's a tad laughable, as a concern, really. And, it's the kind of thing that'd be hammered out in playtesting, anyway.

Cleric was only really "tier 1" in 3e. You're pretty much saying the warlord cannot be more powerful than a cleric because they were broken two editions ago.
And this is fan content. How much playtesting do you honestly think it will receive?

 

[El Mahdi]

You asked why it would be a problem. This is why it would be a problem.

Actually, I didn't ask that. I asked, specifically in response to epithet, why martial hit point restoration doesn't fit with the logic of the game; and neither he nor you have answered that.

What you've said is martial hit point restoration doesn't fit the logic of the game when you choose to ignore part of the logic of the game.

That doesn't answer the question, it changes the question; thus, moving the goal posts.

That's like saying the existence of a screwdriver doesn't make logical sense because I only use nuts and bolts, not screws; despite the fact that things you might need to work on are assumed to use both.




I however did show how a Warlords "healing" is consistent with the logic of the game; and nobody has provided a logical or factual refutation of that.

People are using hit points in a way that is 100% consistent with the RAW ("Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck" - note the very first thing in that combination), interpreting them in a way that means that a desperate scream even from your closest love, the person who influences you the most, is not enough to get you to soldier on.

Actually, they are not using hit points 100% consistent with RAW if they ignore the mental durability, will to live, and luck aspects in favor of viewing hit points as only physical durability. That's not 100% at all.

A Warlord's "healing" works by restoring that mental durability. Since D&D doesn't differentiate between types of damage, the net effect is a restoration of Hit Points. And frankly, if that's the source of the dissonance, then why is a spell like Cure Wounds not a source of dissonance either? It's name specifically designates wounds (physical durability) and not mental durability - yet nobody bats an eye at it healing hit points indiscriminately - including the unspoken mental ones.

Even in the real world a Warlord's abilities make sense. It's a fact that physiological shock (circulatory shock) can kill just as much as physical wounds; and maybe even more. Physiological shock can be caused by intense pain, and even extreme emotional shock, same as it can by traumatic wounds. Focusing the mind away from the mental aspect or away from the pain can reverse physiological shock. People can mentally hang on long enough for the body to regain homeostasis on its own; often only needing a short period of time in which to do so. More than likely it's the effect of epinephrine (adrenalin), but there's certainly an aspect of mind-over-matter that takes place. Once homeostasis is achieved, typically the body doesn't relapse unless something new occurs. That means it's generally permanent, and why temporary hit points are inconsistent with what a Warlord does.

Granted, the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is fictional, but it is grounded in reality. As someone who has actually been to war, who has seen such traumatic situations first hand, I can vouch for the veracity of this. Emergency personnel see this all the time. Even my wife, a hospice nurse, has seen this. She's lost count of the number of times she's seen a patient hang on long past what was believed possible, just in order to see a loved one before they pass.

I think the dissonance that many feel concerning this is more a failure of imagination and lack of experience, than it is one of illogic. A paradigm problem, not a logic problem.

Real world dying, represented by 0 hit points in D&D, is often a many-layered thing. Even dying of a gun-shot wound isn't completely black and white. Oft times an actual gun-shot wound isn't what kills, but is instead heart-attack or stroke, or even heart failure due to circulatory shock or hypovolemic shock.

But D&D hit points aren't that granular; and that's a good thing. The game would be far to complicated if it were. But just because the things that a Warlord "heals" aren't explicitly visible (though technically, no damage is explicitly visible), it doesn't mean they don't exist and don't have a profound effect.

My only point is to point out that this is why warlords actually healing HP without magic is a problem for some folks (and thus why it's probably overall a good thing that it was kept out of the PHB, even if we get it back through some means). You asked why, so that is why.

I disagree that this is a good thing. If design decisions are made based on some disregarding aspects of the game, that is a bad thing. If such considerations become a guiding element, then it's impossible for the game to ever improve. If such considerations had been made a guiding element during the design of 5E, there would be no 5E. There are always going to be aspects that don't jive with somebody; every D&D gamer has aspects of D&D that don't jive with them. Most simply ignore the parts that don't work for them. Excluding something because somebody might ignore it for this reason, is not a good thing.

 

[El Mahdi]

...but then you also advocate for the WL to be able to take an ally from 0 to full HP.

Please quote where I've advocated for this.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response...

 

[Eric V]

It's weird that people who would not allow warlords in their game (as is their purview as DMs of those games) keep trying to prevent those who would allow the warlord in their games to be as efficient as we remember them from 4e.

Bizarre, really.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah, I'd say that the RAW supports a reading that every hit point is all of those things at once.

The incorrect portion here is all of those things at once. The RAW simply says a combination. To be accurate, it supports both "all at once" and "individual occurrences of these things taken as a whole." You can personally interpret it any way you want in your games, but your interpretation is not necessarily RAW - or more specifically, the only RAW interpretation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, I didn't ask that. I asked, specifically in response to epithet, why martial hit point restoration doesn't fit with the logic of the game; and neither he nor you have answered that.

What you've said is martial hit point restoration doesn't fit the logic of the game when you choose to ignore part of the logic of the game.

Because it doesn't heal injuries - it doesn't restore physical durability, which is a part of hit points.

That's RAW. That's how the game itself defines hit points. They aren't devoid of meat. When you reduce or increase hit points, you reduce or increase physical durability along with those other elements. If hit points are - in part - physical durability, and a pep talk from your party's sexy elf heals hit points than that pep talk has - in part - restored your physical durability. You can choose to ignore that part of the game, but that's how the game is presented.

The incorrect portion here is all of those things at once. The RAW simply says a combination. To be accurate, it supports both "all at once" and "individual occurrences of these things taken as a whole." You can personally interpret it any way you want in your games, but your interpretation is not necessarily RAW - or more specifically, the only RAW interpretation.

An alternate interpretation doesn't mean it's incorrect. That's an incorrect use of the word incorrect. Correct it.

Following the PHB's model, you see that when an effect is not all of these things, it is not something that affects your hit point total. Things that just give you more durability (like false life) give you temp HPs. Things that give you more luck (like a diviner's foretelling) are usually d20's. Morale-based effects like Rally are also temp hp's. You change hit points from being all of these things, and they're no longer hit points, they're other things.

If that were to remain the case, then any use of hit points that did not include an element of physical durability would be incorrect.

Actually, they are not using hit points 100% consistent with RAW if they ignore the mental durability, will to live, and luck aspects in favor of viewing hit points as only physical durability. That's not 100% at all.

Actually, if you choose to remove physical durability from what hit points are, then you're the one going off-book. RAW HP's include physical durability. Everything that gains or takes off hit points should have an element of that. It should also have that other stuff, but it can't ignore physical durability and still be consistent with how the RAW defines hit points.

A Warlord's "healing" works by restoring that mental durability. Since D&D doesn't differentiate between types of damage, the net effect is a restoration of Hit Points.

Since it doesn't restore physical durability, it doesn't restore what 5e defines hit points to be.

I think the dissonance that many feel concerning this is more a failure of imagination and lack of experience, than it is one of illogic. A paradigm problem, not a logic problem.

I think the problem is that you don't want hit points to have a physical element and to pretend that the rules sanction your position and render alternatives "house rules", when the reality is that anyone who wants to ignore the physical element of hit points is actually changing the definition of the thing.

If design decisions are made based on some disregarding aspects of the game, that is a bad thing. If such considerations become a guiding element, then it's impossible for the game to ever improve. If such considerations had been made a guiding element during the design of 5E, there would be no 5E.

Definitely not. Constraints are essential for design. "Improve" is always a subjective term. Such decisions were made during 5e's development, as you can see with the fact that every instance of 5e healing can be said to also restore physical durability.

 

[epithet]

Actually, I didn't ask that. I asked, specifically in response to epithet, why martial hit point restoration doesn't fit with the logic of the game; and neither he nor you have answered that.

...

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave your question hanging.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on what exactly you mean by "martial" hit point restoration. If you mean the application of physical might in combat to heal rather than to hack, the only example of that is Second Wind, and that is entirely reflexive. There is no example in the game currently of a character being able to restore hit points to an ally through "martial" means; the closest thing you can find is the Rally maneuver, which grants temporary hit points.

If you mean restoring hit points through mundane (non-magical) means, there are more options to choose from. As I've mentioned earlier, the Healer feat is quite useful, and the "Spell-less Ranger" has poultices that duplicate the effect of healing potions. There are also, as we've discussed, hit dice. These mundane heals all consume a resource and are subject to certain limitations. In the case of the Healer feat, you're required to burn charges of a healer's kit, and it is one per customer per rest. The poultices are limited both in how many the Ranger can use, and in how often a given ally can benefit from their application. The hit dice are limited in number, of course, as well as by the fact that they require at least a short rest to use, and they (like Second Wind) are reflexive--you can't heal someone else with your hit dice. Of the mundane options, only the Healer feat is viable in combat, the others take a minute (for poultices) or an hour (for hit dice.) Even the most accelerated short rest rules require a 10 minute break in order to roll your hit dice.

So, if you're suggesting that it is possible to rationalise "martial" healing of equal efficacy to magical healing within the context of the loose fiction of D&D combat and hit points, well... by that standard you can justify almost anything. If, however, you're suggesting that "martial" healing of that magnitude fits within the existing framework of hit point restoration... let's just say you've not convinced me yet.

Your examples are, I think instructive. In the case of the battlefield injury, it is certainly true that determination and toughness can keep someone functional and alive. That soldier, however, is still injured, and still needs medical attention. In the case of the hospice patient, a similar determination might keep them alive for days or weeks, but their underlying condition remains. Similarly, a Warlord should, through application of "martial" skill, be able to prevent an ally from going unconscious at 0, perhaps even being able to (as a reaction) give the ally the Relentless Endurance of a half-orc so that the ally is left with 1 HP instead of 0. A Warlord should be able to fortify an ally with temporary hit points to represent the grit and determination to push beyond the ally's normal limits. The Warlord's ability to restore regular hit points to an ally, however, should be very limited and not on-par with magical healing, if you have any aspiration to make the class' abilities be consistent with the game content released to date.

 

[epithet]

Please quote where I've advocated for this.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response...

So, are you saying that a Warlord should not be able to heal an ally to full?

Please state, as simply as possible, how much healing ability you believe the Warlord class should provide.

Here's my thoughts on the matter: let the Warlord spend an action motivating an ally, at the end of which the ally could spend one of its total hit dice to restore hit points. If its total hit dice are 5 or greater, it can spend 2; 3 if 11 or greater; 4 if 17 or more. The ally can't regain hit points again from this feature until it completes a rest. Since this would require the ally to be conscious, it is important for the Warlord to be able to prevent an ally from being knocked out at zero. Perhaps a reaction to grant Relentless Endurance, or perhaps a command aura that lets allies remain conscious until the first death save failure. Or both. This would be like the Warlord giving an ally a "Second Wind."

Beyond that, the Warlord should be handing out temporary hit points. That's my current view.