D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[mellored]

The main downside of THP, is that it doesn't stack. Though, on the flip side, you don't have to worry about letting people do it at-will.

Otherwise, pre-healing is generally better. Particularly if you can do it out of combat.



False life, which warlocks can cast at-will at 2nd level, gives 1d4+4 THP.
Inspiring leader give 4 to everyone in the party at level 1, scaling to 25 max. Though limited to 1/short rests.

So... IMO:
Inspiring word: As an action 1 ally gets 1d4 (scaling to 3d12) THP, each die has a minimum of your Cha modifier.
You can take this maneuver more then once, each time you can affect 1 additional ally.

Quick Inspiration: Prerequisite inspiring word.
You can use inspiring word as a bonus action instead of an action.


It does obsolete the feat, but that's fine. Wizards class is better then magic initiate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can also wait until anybody is hit, heal that person to regain part of the damage taken; see that person get hit again, so heal that person part of the way up again; then see that person get hit a third time and realize you've run out of spells, and have to Spare the Dying to prevent a PC death.

Nod. Between that kind of scenario and the heal-from-0 rule, it makes a lot of meta-game sense to let allies drop first, especially early on when resources are scarce.

It's always possible to craft a potential scenario where things don't go the way people might want. That doesn't mean it's not a strong complaint, if using reactive healing is more likely to do the job well than THP beforehand. It's partly a matter of how many times can you heal during a specific time period, and how many times you can give THP in the same time period, and how many members are in the party to choose among for giving THP to, and how hard the prospective foes hit (i.e. level of damage taken), and even of how many maximum HP the members of the party have. There are a lot of moving parts in the calculations.

Yep, which makes flexibility an important attribute of support classes.

Though the simple fact of "a meaningful number of THP granted would make the Inspiring Leader feat a notably subpar choice" (thank you, censorship chat filter...) certainly doesn't help.

Who/what are you quoting there?

As long as the THP do in fact stick around, sure. Though I gotta say, simply shouting "THP are the answer!" leaves me a little cold for a big, big reason (which I still have yet to see a response to): How is it gonna be balanced, especially at the lowest levels?

Balancing hp mitigation vs restoration options isn't that hard, they both have their pluses and minuses, so a choice between the two can be balanced. It's the lack any choice that's problematic.

And if you do hand out enough THP to make the difference, what's keeping this thing from being ridiculously, game-warpingly OP? That's the dark side of your arguments about their power, after all. If they're just as good as HP, as you claim, yet they can be handed out frequently and to all party members (which they'd need to be, to prevent the aformentioned "1d4 hours unconscious after most every fight" problem), it's starting to sound like your THP-based Warlord would make the first few levels a cakewalk...and then risks becoming obsolete thereafter when damage out-scales it.

They're simply not equivalent, so, yes, enough damage mitigation to obviate the need for healing would simply be too much damage mitigation.

 

[Jester David]

As long as the THP do in fact stick around, sure.

It's pretty easy to ensure they do by just not adding a time limit.

Though I gotta say, simply shouting "THP are the answer!" leaves me a little cold for a big, big reason (which I still have yet to see a response to): How is it gonna be balanced, especially at the lowest levels? You've made it abundantly clear that you think an HP-based ability would irrevocably destroy a 5e-Warlord's access to Warlord-y features.

Well, one way would be a smaller choice, like a fighting style, that lets a warlord opt into damage mitigation.

In Zard's warlord thread I suggested his Rallying Cry power could have options. One could be temporary hit points, while other options could be more commanding.
It's not ideal as it still leaves the warlord more complex than the other martial classes, with two big decision points instead of one. One potential advantage of a warlord class is that it's a "simple healer" in contrast to the resource management heavy spellcasters.

Shifting the Rallying Cry/temp hp power to second level would also likely be necessary, if not higher. There's only so much you can do with 1st level characters. If the warlord is getting any kind of superiority dice, there's not much room for anything else.
But don't take my word for it, look at the classes. Battlemasters get a tool proficiency and superiority dice while eldritch knights get spells and the ability to summon their sword. One level of superiority dice is equivalent to a level of spellcasting. Clerics get a level of spellcasting at first level and their domain. But first level domain powers are rather weak. Thus, if a warlord gets maneuvers like the battlemaster then there's really room for a small power, equivalent to a domain power. Possibly a little less since the warlord should have heavier armour and better weapons.

As I've said elsewhere, if we're actually going to avert the "one-or-more people unconscious for 1d4 hours" problem, we're gonna need some serious THP--serious enough to (at least) double a first-level PC's pool of hit points, possibly even triple for the squishiest classes (who can, quite easily, go from full to 0 in a single hit--a Con 12 Wizard has only 7 HP). Simply throwing out 1d6 THP to a single target ain't gonna cut it. A lucky damage roll from many CR 1/2, and even some CR 1/4, creatures can do it--a Crocodile can even take down a Fighter with a +2 Con mod on a max-damage roll (which should, in theory, happen 10% of the time...)

The "unconscious for 1d4 hours" problem cannot be solved by the warlord. Should not. That is a rules problem and needs to be patched by rules, not a class. The warlord doesn't need to solve that problem any more than the fighter or wizard needs to be able to solve the issue when someone is unconscious and the healer is out of spells or it's the healer that's unconscious.
That issue is going to exist whether the warlord hands out thp or healing or resistance. It's irrelevant to the discussion. A distraction.

And if you do hand out enough THP to make the difference, what's keeping this thing from being ridiculously, game-warpingly OP?

The same thing as every other single class: playtesting and balancing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The "unconscious for 1d4 hours" problem cannot be solved by the warlord. Should not. That is a rules problem and needs to be patched by rules, not a class.

It's a problem that is solved by any form of hp restoration - which is something support classes do. The Warlord definitely should be able to do that. Not every warlord need pick whatever maneuvers might do that, but it should be an option open to every warlord from 1st level.

In Zard's warlord thread I suggested his Rallying Cry power could have options. One could be temporary hit points, while other options could be more commanding.
It's not ideal as it still leaves the warlord more complex than the other martial classes, with two big decision points instead of one

Actually that /is/ ideal, because lack of choice and flexibility is a major problem when you go to build a martial character, it's one of the ways the Warlord would open back up previously-supported playstyles that 5e hasn't gotten to yet.

 

[Zardnaar]

I might steal the PDKs healing idea for my warlord and tweak it as my warlord doesn't get the PDKs combat ability.

 

[Jester David]

It's a problem that is solved by any form of hp restoration - which is something support classes do. The Warlord definitely should be able to do that. Not every warlord need pick whatever maneuvers might do that, but it should be an option open to every warlord from 1st level.

The problem comes in when someone is down and you have no healing to bring them back, so you need to rest for an hour so they're awake enough to rest for another hour.
That's unrelated to warlord healing as it could just as easily happen to a party with a theoretical healing warlord of they were the one dropped by a lucky crit, or the warlord had used their healing for the day.

Actually that /is/ ideal, because lack of choice and flexibility is a major problem when you go to build a martial character, it's one of the ways the Warlord would open back up previously-supported playstyles that 5e hasn't gotten to yet.

Not really.
Right now healers come in one variety: complex. A low complexity healer would be good. That is a play style that is currently NOT supported at all.

A complex warlord would help add some complexity to martial classes, true, but there are plenty of complex classes in the game already. It's not filling an absent play style so much as filling an absent checkbox for high complexity martial.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem comes in when someone is down and you have no healing to bring them back, so you need to rest for an hour so they're awake enough to rest for another hour.

Which, currently, if you're depending on, say, a Battlemaster's Rally maneuver, is /every time someone drops/.

That's unrelated to warlord healing as it could just as easily happen to a party with a theoretical healing warlord of they were the one dropped by a lucky crit, or the warlord had used their healing for the day.

No, it could not 'just as easily happen.' 'Every time someone drops' is not the same as 'if someone drops when you have no way to restore hps left,' the former is clearly going to occur more often.

Not really.

Yes. Really. Because lack of choice and flexibility is a major problem when you go to build a martial character, it's one of the ways the Warlord would open back up previously-supported playstyles that 5e hasn't gotten to yet.

Right now healers come in one variety: complex. A low complexity healer would be good. That is a play style that is currently NOT supported at all.

Support is reactive contribution, it requires flexibility to provide, and you pay a price for flexibility in complexity. You could add a simplistic healer class to the game, but it wouldn't even be an adequate sole support class if that's all it did. Heck, it'd be the worst case scenario of the stereotypical 'band aid' role that D&D spent the last 3 editions trying to free the Cleric from.

A complex warlord would help add some complexity to martial classes, true, but there are plenty of complex classes in the game already. It's not filling an absent play style

It absolutely would be. Low-/no- magic campaigns and all-martial parties, remember? It not only enables those styles by keeping the game playable by providing support, it opens up more complex options as well where they're sorely needed.

 

[Jester David]

It absolutely would be. Low-/no- magic campaigns and all-martial parties, remember? It not only enables those styles by keeping the game playable by providing support, it opens up more complex options as well where they're sorely needed.

A low/no magic game and an all-martial party doesn't require a complicated martial healer, just a martial healer. A simple healer would work just as well.

However, for a player wanting a simple, low-complexity class but a healer is needed by the party there is currently no options for that. Adding a complex healer does nothing for that player.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A low/no magic game and an all-martial party doesn't require a complicated martial healer, just a martial healer. A simple healer would work just as well.

The all-martial party does require some less simple options, as well as requiring support (which is more than just restoring hps, critical as that is, and requires flexibility, which carries a cost in higher complexity). Currently it has neither, the Warlord would add both.

However, for a player wanting a simple, low-complexity class but a healer is needed by the party there is currently no options for that. Adding a complex healer does nothing for that player.

A party that needs support needs a complex class because support contributions are much more than just healing and require flexibility, especially if coming from only one character. A 'simple healer' might supplement a party that already has an adequate support character, but it couldn't handle being sole support for a party, so it would be a luxury class for an otherwise 'complete,' party - someone would have to want to play a simple healer, not want to play a simple character and /need/ to play a healer, for such a class to be needed. I doubt very much there's many players with that particular kind of concept in mind - that's prettymuch the much-derided 'band-aid role.' You might find some interest in a pacifist cleric or something like that, but not with 'simple' at the top of the list.

There are also currently no particularly simple caster classes - the warlock might come the closest, but it's far more complex than any martial class, the Warlord might not even manage to be much more than on par with it.

So, if we're going to add a 'simple healer,' it could pull double-duty, giving an equally-needed simple caster option. Indeed, you could have some sort of simple magic class with several other sub-classes besides healer...

For instance, an Elementalist class, one sub-class for each element, each kept simple and focused, the Fire Elementalist blows stuff up (DPR), the Water Elementalist Heals, etc...

 

[Jester David]

The all-martial party does require some less simple options, as well as requiring support (which is more than just restoring hps, critical as that is, and requires flexibility, which carries a cost in higher complexity). Currently it has neither, the Warlord would add both.

I don't see why a party of a couple fighters, a rogue, and warlord *needs* to have higher complexity.

A party that needs support needs a complex class because support contributions are much more than just healing and require flexibility, especially if coming from only one character.

Why?
The cleric is a complex class. But if you focus it on healing/support and remove the now superflous spell selections, it becomes significantly less complex. It still has 100% of the support of a support cleric but is not a complex class. It may not be as simple as a fighter or rogue, but is still one of the simpler classes in the game.
I don't get how you equate complexity with support.

A 'simple healer' might supplement a party that already has an adequate support character, but it couldn't handle being sole support for a party, so it would be a luxury class for an otherwise 'complete,' party - someone would have to want to play a simple healer, not want to play a simple character and /need/ to play a healer, for such a class to be needed. I doubt very much there's many players with that particular kind of concept in mind - that's prettymuch the much-derided 'band-aid role.' You might find some interest in a pacifist cleric or something like that, but not with 'simple' at the top of the list.

Again, why? Why is a simple support character less useful than a complex support one? The numerical bonuses would be the same, the benefit to the party would be the same. Why are more choices of build or options per round needed? Other than a personal desire for a more complex class that is.

There are also currently no particularly simple caster classes - the warlock might come the closest, but it's far more complex than any martial class, the Warlord might not even manage to be much more than on par with it.

The sorcerer is less complex than the wizard and the warlock is less complex than the sorcerer. And a sorcerer is arguably less complex than an eldritch knight or even battlemaster. There's a range.

Why not a support warlord?