D&D 5E How Important is it that Warlords be Healers?

Clerics and religious figures healing people of various ailments is the oldest thing in the Book(tm). Warlords? Not so much. In fact, I'd say it's even anti-thetical to the literary and historical archetype. And since 4e is the only edition with a warlord that heals in it, it's far easier to adjust that than 40 years of D&D and 2000 years of historical mythology to accomodate bringing over a few more players (who, to be honest, are obviously not that thrilled with DDN anyway, for various other reasons. Read the threads. DDN is not close to 4e, at all)

We are taking about D&D though, and since there are no pre-defined "roles" for classes any more in DDN, such as leader->healer, it should be easier to disconnect the warlord from implying healing, than it is to kick the cleric to a 2nd-class role. Nobody wanted to play a cleric in 4e, in any group I was in. Warlords? yes. Very much yes. That's not balanced. They nerfed the cleric hard, so many times, and left the OP warlord in tact. For a game that prided itself on "balance", that's hardly a good testimonial to it. From what I read on this message board and others, 4e fans and DDN playstyle are not going to be reconciled. At least not very easily.

We'll see what Wizards does. Remember Aragorn? The hands of a king are the hands of a healer? Well, the dagger wound in Frodo was too much for his herbs, and he at least had to have down-time after the combat to tend to his wounds. Even in Star Trek, the medical bay wasn't automatic healing, it took time. The only way to bypass that and close the wounds should be magic. Let D&D magic reign supreme! There should be plenty of niche tactic areas left over for the warlord to fill. If you need healing in your group but don't have a cleric, take the healing specialty and some extra feats or potions with you. Or dial the rest mechanic down.

A warlord should NOT be a replacement for a cleric. There shouldn't be a way to bring someone back from the dead aside from divine intervention, or even from the cusp of death. Patching up a few wounds should speed up the healing process or prevent further damage, (like in Pathfinder, Bleed X), and that's fine to have mundane. But having a guy in the battlefield, for the cost of a minor action, restore 3/4 of an injured person's HP instantaneously and at range, that is beyond even Jesus or Star Trek. WAAAAAaaaaay OP.

Not remotely -- in my view the class concept doesn't require it despite it being part of the 4E mechanics. But there's nothing wrong with more non-cleric healing classes, so I'm not passionate about either position.

I made a Pathfinder variant Cavalier who is very much a Warlord. He can hand out temporary hit points - loads of them. No true healing tough.

http://hastur.net/wiki/Officer_(Apath)

What if Warlords could do things like grant temporary hit points rather than heal? Would that be an acceptable compromise for those that feel strongly on either side?

Gorgoroth said:

Clerics and religious figures healing people of various ailments is the oldest thing in the Book(tm).

Click to expand...

Sure, but not in combat. You specified battlefield healing.

Warlords? Not so much. In fact, I'd say it's even anti-thetical to the literary and historical archetype.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Aragorn.

Falling Icicle said:

What if Warlords could do things like grant temporary hit points rather than heal? Would that be an acceptable compromise for those that feel strongly on either side?

Click to expand...

It's incredibly difficult to balance.

Temp HPs are a lot weaker than actual healing - there's the "back from unconsciousness" angle. And the stacking issue. And out of combat use. And the proactive bit, where you know who needs healed, but not necessarily who will need healed.

Temp HPs can never replace a cleric, either. And imo that should be a design goal.

So it would need to have other perks to mitigate these downsides. And balancing it seems like a heck of a lot of effort and complexity when just using the alternative - actual healing - solves all these problems and is simpler, to boot.

I also don't see how temp hps, damage reduction, etc. make more "verisimilitude" sense than actual healing. Because if hit points are meat points, what in the world is a temporary hit point?

-O

MarkB said:

Tell that to Aragorn.

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder if there's a preexisting D&D class that represents Aragorn, has some healing ability, and raises none of the issues this thread is about.

If anything, Aragorn is the perfect example of why leadership/inspiration is best handled independently of class. Most members of his class are loners. He's a leader.

Obryn said:

Damage reduction, etc. make more "verisimilitude" sense than actual healing. Because if hit points are meat points, what in the world is a temporary hit point?

Click to expand...

Good point. Temp hp are weird, both mathematically and conceptually.

As far as I can tell, the whole point of the Warlord in 4e was that you need a healer, so here's a non-magic class that is a healer. In 5e, I don't want to need a healer, so I really see no need for the Warlord to heal--or even to exist.

My real problem is, if you have this morale-boosting inspiration modeled as hit point recovery, then every leader-type has to be modeled as a healer. The hobgoblin warlord has to restore hit points to his soldiers. Genghis Khan has to restore hit points to his archers. Cyclops has to restore hit points to Wolverine. William Wallace has to restore hit points to his warriors. When I think of characters in history and fiction I'd call "warlords," none of them match up with what the Warlord class wants to do.

When you make something a class, you're not just saying "Players can play as this class." You're also saying "This is a world where this class exists." If you have a class that is defined as "leader guy," that implies that every leader guy has to be a member of that class. It just has weird implications for the world.

Thus, it would only really work for me if the Warlord were defined as exceptional--not every sergeant or general is going to be a member of the Warlord class. To be so inspiring as to restore hit points requires an uncanny gift that very few have: not just being very charismatic, but having an almost supernatural talent that must be cultivated at the expense of all others. (See the Bard Warlord from that other thread.)

In the end, though, I could just do all that defining myself. So I guess I wouldn't be too upset if the standard game had a Warlord class who could heal. I'd just be grumpy about it.

Obryn said:

Because if hit points are meat points, what in the world is a temporary hit point?

Click to expand...

GX.Sigma said:

As far as I can tell, the whole point of the Warlord in 4e was that you need a healer, so here's a non-magic class that is a healer. In 5e, I don't want to need a healer, so I really see no need for the Warlord to heal--or even to exist.

Click to expand...

This, a dozen times over. I neither want nor need the "holy trinity" in DDN in order for my party to be successful. yes, I imagine a group of rogues would have the game tuned differently for them than a group of paladins or wizards, but that's the POINT. D&D must be able to adjust to each group, each group must not need to adjust to D&D. The goals, the methods, the adventures will be totally different for a group of thieving scoundrels than a group of heavily armored knights. That's the point. Without that kind of flexibility in gaming, D&D is no more than an TTMMO.