Anyway, regarding mechanics: I agree with your points, but I draw a different conclusion from them. I especially agree with your statement that "[healing] is about recovery." That's an important distinction, because in the fiction that inspires the class feature we're talking about a character doesn't recover from being damaged, rather the character goes on despite being damaged. The character is still on death's door, but is possessed of a grim determination to fight and win anyway. There's no recovery in that scenario, and in fact those scenes are so compelling because there is no recovery. The character may be up and fighting, but he's still seriously damaged and the viewer or reader should remain concerned that he might not make it
It seems to me that someone who was on death's door, but then goes on, has recovered. S/he is no longer on death's door - as demonstrated by his/her
going on.
S/he may still be injured, in the sense that s/he may still have a wound of some sort. But his/her ability to go on has been restored. In D&D, this is modelled by hp recovery. (I'm bracketing, here, [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s interesting comments about bio-physical processes. I'm in the camp that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] described, of focusing on basic genre tropes plus some basic features of the real world that I've encountered and/or heard about.)
It's interesting to me that you have such apparent disdain for temporary hit points
My disdain for temp hp is pretty thoroughgoing. I first encountered them when Unearthed Arcana introduced the
Aid spell back in the mid-80s. I found them wonky and prone to create corner-cases then, and I still do (eg rules for stacking, rules for being at zero hp, etc). That's not to say I don't use them - I am currently GMing a 4e campaign and temp hp are part of that system. But just because I use them doesn't mean I have to like them!
I also agree with you that temporary hit points are inadequate to handle an ally unconscious at zero. That's why I've previously suggested an entirely separate ability or abilities to handle that specific scenario
I have, repeatedly and recently, suggested at least two mechanical means for dealing with unconsciousness at zero. One an aura, the other a reaction.
My own view is that bracketing off "restore from zero hp" from the rest of a healing character's healing abilities is a good way to significantly impact mechanical flexibility. The design really has no appeal for me. When it comes to details, a reaction is probably preferable to an aura - auras are very abstract and encourage a nebulous rather than detailed handle of the fiction, which I think makes them OK for monsters/NPCs but generally less appealing for PCs.
I also am curious how you rationalise the ability of an inspiration-based healer to restore hit points to someone who is unconscious, and not able to be inspired.
I think using the word "rationalise" is somewhat question-begging!
If you ask, what is happening in the fiction when a warlord rouses an unconscious ally by restoring his/her hit points, I can think of at least two answers. One is the process-sim answer already suggested by others - the unconscious ally hears the warlord and responds. (As per [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s example of the alarm clock.)
Another narration I have some fondness for is that, as the swooning PC drifts towards the beckoning light, s/he is struck by a memory of his/her ally, and that thought restores him/her to consciousness.
I propose this for both proponents and opponents of Warlord healing:
Would it be acceptable - a tolerable compromise - assuming the use of real Hit Points rather than Temporary Hit Points - for Warlord healing to require a saving throw after a certain amount of time or following combat, or risk reverting to the previous Hit Point level unless one has received magical healing or use of a healer's kit?
Speaking for my own part only - that appeal really has zero appeal. Especially the idea that a "healer's kit" should make the difference! For me, the 5e "healer's kit" is in the same category of game design as 3E's "natural armour" - it's a pseudo-simulationist label slapped on a mechanic that has no actual connection to the fiction. (
Natural armour: what the hell is the actual physical property that a dragon has which gives it +30 natural armour, when the best possible magical plate armour gives a bonus to AC of around only half that;
healing kit: what is a healer with an ostensibly non-magical "healing kit" actually
doing to a person who is ostensibly near-death that allows him/her to carry on as if no serious harm had been suffered at all?)
I have a problem with the Warlord standing in the middle of the battlefield throwing a lot of hit points at his allies and not calling it magic. It seems like what your talking about are magic heals, and the only thing that makes them not magic heals is your insistence that they are "martial" in nature and "restoration of hit points" isn't a "heal."
To me, this just seems to beg all the questions - why can Aragorn or King Arthur or Joan of Arc not stand in the middle of the battlefield, among his/her allies, and replenish their spirits? What is magical about being an inspiring battle captain?
Of course restoration of hit points is a "heal" in the technical (indeed, tautological) sense - but as I posted upthread, that doesn't meant that it is healing injuries. Rather, it is restoring the capacity to go on. The ally recovers, although his/her injury does not.
If the warlord can heal somone of hit point damage with their words, giving them the extra morale and confidence to keep fighting - as hit points do not equate with health in this situation - should there not also be an offensive use? Why can't the warlord demoralize the enemy, causing hit point damage and even killing foes with the power of their words?
To the best of my knowledge, the only published instance of this in 4e is in the module Cairn of the Winter King, although there is something close to it in the earlier Dungeon adventure Heathen.
I can't remember whether Cairn of the Winter King expressly calls it out as psychic damage, but that is how I have run it when it has come up in my 4e game.
while one can be inspired to recover, and there are even real life examples of this, I know of no examples of the opposite - at least not of an immediate and explicit nature, which is what it seems to me you're describing.
My thoughts on that is it smells too much of magic or mentalism - which is counter to the narrative theme of Warlords - and it steps on the toes of the Bard. As a demoralizing thing, to impart a penalty or disadvantage? Sure. It's getting inside the head of an opponent. As Hit Point damage? No.
I'm not so bothered by the lack of real life examples - I'm happy for my non-magical heroes to be capable of things that are impossible in real life, much as fighters in all editions of D&D are. I agree with you that there are issues of genre/niche-protection.