D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[FrogReaver]

It really is similar to the psionics are magic/psionics are different thing. One side wants something, the other side doesn't just not want it - all they'd have to do is not use it - they can't accept letting anyone else have it (in the current edition, specifically, because, like, the old books are still there).

3.5 had psionics are magic/psionics are different, it was a choice. How, in a game as otherwise vague, malleable, and famously"just a starting point" as 5e, can a choice be anathema?

So, like, you could make Inpiring word and any other 5e Warlord option that restored hp, have the option to instead grant temp hp. Choice could be made when the option is chosen, so you don't have to worry about any athiests-in-foxholes backsliding when one is more useful than the other. DMs who felt strongly one way or the other could make a blanket call.

It’s weird watching you describe everything so brilliantly earlier and then moving back to this tired old argument.

High level. There are certain things 5e should not have in the game. Maybe 3pp but def not Wotc d&d. I don’t think 5e should have a 4e warlord. But I do think 5e should have a warlord - the only caveat is that it needs to be a 5e warlord and not a 4e warlord and most 4e warlord fans won’t accept anything other than the 4e warlord. All 10,000 powers - including at wills, all class features, healing, all utility powers, and it all needs to come online by level 3.

Essentially an impossible ask - and then because I push back on that impossible ask I get accused of not letting people have what they want…

The bottom line is - no possible 5e warlord interpretation is going to make 4e warlord fans happy.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is that all this back and forth was about?

You are fine with a Warlord that sometimes directly attacks and that also does a bunch of inspiring, positioning, granting ally attacks, save bolstering etc.

But you don't like the idea of a Warlord that never directly attacks but only does the inspiring, positioning, etc.?

Bingo!

 

[Zardnaar]

That’s def part of it. But I don’t particularly have a problem with martial healing personally. It’s just I recognize it is against enough peoples play style that it’s typically best avoided.

That said, I think temp hp is actually better conceptually for warlords than healing. Temp hp applies to fresh ally’s. Something a leader should be inspiring to fight better.

The get out of the bucket comments more for people who don't compromise in regards to diametrically opposed viewpoints. There xan be only one.

Eg dailies vs AEDU one or the other really. Getting wid of both would arguably be better (AE and U is folded into AE). Can't really do that though you know thatcwhole it's not D&D thing.

I think martial should be proficient all saves or 4 at least by level 10-14 for example. It's a big flaw in 5E using save or sucks in an environment you only get one good save.

A magical fighter is fair enough but the champion is tuned very low by comparison. The good fighters are basically magical or bartlemaster anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s weird watching you describe everything so brilliantly earlier and then moving back to this tired old argument.

High level. There are certain things 5e should not have in the game. Maybe 3pp but def not Wotc d&d. I don’t think 5e should have a 4e warlord. But I do think 5e should have a warlord - the only caveat is that it needs to be a 5e warlord and not a 4e warlord and most 4e warlord fans won’t accept anything other than the 4e warlord. All 10,000 powers - including at wills, all class features, healing, all utility powers, and it all needs to come online by level 3.

Essentially an impossible ask - and then because I push back on that impossible ask I get accused of not letting people have what they want…

The bottom line is - no possible 5e warlord interpretation is going to make 4e warlord fans happy.

So we don’t worry about that, and fill a niche that D&D hasn't even tried to fill meaningfully since fighting men got followers, in a way that people who actually like both 5e and the concept of the warlord would enjoy.

 

[Zardnaar]

So we don’t worry about that, and fill a niche that D&D hasn't even tried to fill meaningfully since fighting men got followers, in a way that people who actually like both 5e and the concept of the warlord would enjoy.

Frogreavers on the money a lot of said long ago one needs to compromise on the warlord but no one did.

Here we are no Warlord. Or Psion. Or decent artificer. Or a good encounter system or a......

 

[FrogReaver]

This exchange started with one poster asserting that an inspiring leader type is not a valid fantasy to be allowed to have representation in D&D. It has nothing to do with what WoTC is not doing.

Im assuming you are referring to me. But I never did that. The position you are arguing against is one I’ve not seen anyone take.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem with healing is endemic to D&D combat in general, and lots of different solutions have been floated. Frankly, in-combat healing is generally pretty bad for the game, simply because D&D combat isn't very long. The action cost of healing requires that it be incredibly powerful relative to incoming damage to be worth doing, hence the modern "only if not doing it would cost my team an action/round" and/or "only if it doesn't take an action." The problem is that healing that actually is worth the action cost is warping in its own way. How many enemy actions are you undoing with your action, and how efficient would it be to do more of that than anything else? There's a surprisingly narrow balance point before you end up with "oops all clerics" (but not in the classic CoDZilla sense) being the most viable option. And worse, you get a sequencing problem, where you don't want to deploy your incredibly powerful healing until it will have full effect, which means you the difference between "optimally injured for healing" and "dead" becomes vitally important, and often, a recipe for hit point bloat as the designer tries to pad the edges for user experience.

If I had my druthers, healing would be sharply limited in combat, and largely either self directed, (Second Wind is a very low skill floor buff to the Fighter's HP pool really) or reactive, allowing a sharply limited set of last minute saves. Out of combat healing is a totally different beast.

If the goal is to win an encounter with the least resources used then using an action to heal is detrimental to that goal unless doing so has a good chance of preventing an ally from losing their action. However, if the goal is to minimize the chances a PC dies then in-combat healing before 0 can make a huge difference. The main problem IMO is that people only ever evaluate healing under the first goal.

Another issue is trying to heal with first level spells - they don't keep up with monster damage and really shouldn't. An alternative approach is to use those lower level slots for Bless/Entangle/etc and use your higher level slots for healing - a level 3 cure wounds heals alot. 3d8+3 = 17.5. That's an effective action heal for a level 5 character - and it's an action that many battles won't even need to be taken.

This isn't just theory. I've played the Life Cleric Healer exactly as described and it played great. In the occasional situation i'd still use spirit guardians (Ex: Tight confines lots of enemies). But it was more of a deliberate choice based on a specific situation instead of my bread and butter as is typically recommended.

 

[Zardnaar]

If the goal is to win an encounter with the least resources used then using an action to heal is detrimental to that goal unless doing so has a good chance of preventing an ally from losing their action. However, if the goal is to minimize the chances a PC dies then in-combat healing before 0 can make a huge difference. The main problem IMO is that people only ever evaluate healing under the first goal.

Another issue is trying to heal with first level spells - they don't keep up with monster damage and really shouldn't. An alternative approach is to use those lower level slots for Bless/Entangle/etc and use your higher level slots for healing - a level 3 cure wounds heals alot. 3d8+3 = 17.5. That's an effective action heal for a level 5 character - and it's an action that many battles won't even need to be taken.

This isn't just theory. I've played the Life Cleric Healer exactly as described and it played great. In the occasional situation i'd still use spirit guardians (Ex: Tight confines lots of enemies). But it was more of a deliberate choice based on a specific situation instead of my bread and butter as is typically recommended.

That's a specific subclass eg life. Everyone else stinks even worse.

Generally you just deal more damage faster. 3d8+wisdom healing is kinda weak vs spirit guardian plus cantrip.

Or vs CR 5 critters leve 3 spell slot to offset an average ogre plus a few more HP isn't great.

Only healing spell my cleric knows is healing word. Casting that plus enabling an attack is way better called than life clerics offer.

Rogues my favorite weapon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Frogreavers on the money a lot of us Saud obe needs to compromise on the warlord but no one dud.

Here we are no Warlord. Or Psion. Or decent artificer. Or a good encounter system or a......

The artificer is about 10% from great but okay

 

[Zardnaar]

The artificer is about 10% from great but okay

Well one subclass outright sucks and none of them are really S tier.