Essentials nostalgia - the death of martial healing

[Klaus]

Two things:

First, as others have mentioned the warlord is still a perfectly legit character class. Remember, Essentials adds to the game. It doesn't replace anything (save for rules updates we've made and a few tweaks here and there).

Second, I think the real knock on the warlord isn't that it's a martial healer. The thing, to me, is that the class heals in exactly the same way as the cleric and other classes. I think that sells the flavor of a martial healer a little short. It's an interesting design challenge, and I like interesting challenges.

An interesting exercise, indeed. Unfortunately, it's limited to the warlord, when I'd actually love to see the other healer classes modified in other directions as well.

For instance, since the warlord's healing is intended to be "inspirational," I'd love for many/most of his healing abilities to be of the "You hit the enemy, and also heal one nearby ally" sort. But then I'd want to see the cleric lose such powers, and focus on more overtly magical effects like the traditional healing word.

Obviously not an option at this stage of the game. But it's certainly difficult to make a Leader A's healing feel different than Leader B's, when Leader B has half a dozen different varieties of healing powers.

You know what might be interesting for a martial/inspirational healer, though? Powers that are dependent on the actions of the recipient of the healing. For instance:

INSPIRING WORD
You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and determination, allowing him to draw additional confidence and vigor from his own victories.
Encounter (Special) * Martial, Healing
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: You or one ally in burst.
Effect: The next time the target successfully hits an enemy with an attack, the target may also spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points.

Obviously, that's just a wild idea off the top of my head. And heck, you could have powers that do all sorts of things like that: Heal next time you use an encounter or daily power. Gain a saving throw next time you use a daily power. Spend a healing surge next time an ally in line of sight is hit. (And sure, the downside is that the person doesn't get the healing right now, which could be bad in some situations, so there would have to be advantages to balance it out. But like I said, this is just a wild hair idea.)

Point is, if its meant to be inspirational, and to feel different than everyone else's healing, then having effects that kick in based on the actions/circumstances of the recipient, or of the other allies around might be an intriguing way to go.

(Silly not-even-remotely-legal disclaimer: Anyone at WotC, or any freelancer, is welcome to use this general idea if by any chance you decide you like it, and if I don't do something with it first. Just give me a special thanks or something. )

I think what I'd want is no bonusses to the surge based healing from the Warlord. Instead he allows the recipient to spend a surge - and provides a bonus. (+2 to all defences as for Second Wind (or possibly your next attack) rather than +1d6 hp/5 levels). When the Warlord's your leader, fights should be nasty and brutal - and even more so for the bad guys.

Some interesting design ideas there. I'm not sure about the "heal next time you hit" aspect because that prevents the warlord from healing an unconscious (or dying) character, but that could be solved with "spend a healing surge next time you hit with an attack or roll a saving throw".

That way the warlord can yell at an unconscious ally "Don't you DARE die on me, soldier!" and the ally gets up.

 

[MrMyth]

I think the Artificer, Shaman and Runepriest "did it right" when it comes to adding some of that extra flavor into the healing feature. Bard was a valiant attempt. Ardent falls somewhat short of the mark.

The Warlord for instance could have an optional Inspiring Word (sort of like the way Artificers have two, one of which has an alternative). The second one could be in the form of a standard action instead of minor action. Target makes a basic attack and may spend a healing surge to gain temporary hit points equal to his healing surge value. If the attack hits, the target also regains 1d6 hit points (scale to 2d6/3d6/etc). Tweak as needed with bonuses to either the attack or the healing.

This would make the warlord a bit more unique in their healing with that second option, since they can now handle situations where they are dazed or otherwise limited in actions, a little bit better as they have the option of healing with a minor, or pseudo-healing with a standard that also happens to include an attack.

There are so many things that can be done if you don't mind deviating from the standard template of minor action, spend surge, get some bonus healing.

I was actually thinking something along these lines. The key is, you want to still have some form of minor action healing so the character doesn't feel like healing is a job that prevents them from doing cool stuff on their own.

I think a Warlord could have worked well with the ability to give out temporary hitpoints via his minor action healing, while offering real healing via a standard action in which he or an ally also attacked.

 

[KarinsDad]

An interesting exercise, indeed. Unfortunately, it's limited to the warlord, when I'd actually love to see the other healer classes modified in other directions as well.

For instance, since the warlord's healing is intended to be "inspirational," I'd love for many/most of his healing abilities to be of the "You hit the enemy, and also heal one nearby ally" sort. But then I'd want to see the cleric lose such powers, and focus on more overtly magical effects like the traditional healing word.

...

(Silly not-even-remotely-legal disclaimer: Anyone at WotC, or any freelancer, is welcome to use this general idea if by any chance you decide you like it, and if I don't do something with it first. Just give me a special thanks or something. )

I prefer Martial Inspirational Healing to be temporary hit points instead of real hit points.

That way, PCs could "fight on", but still be seriously hurt. And there is no "inspiration" that wakes up and cures an unconsious dying PC.

I don't think that martial healing should actually "heal".

 

[Mengu]

I was actually thinking something along these lines. The key is, you want to still have some form of minor action healing so the character doesn't feel like healing is a job that prevents them from doing cool stuff on their own.

I think a Warlord could have worked well with the ability to give out temporary hitpoints via his minor action healing, while offering real healing via a standard action in which he or an ally also attacked.

Oh I wasn't implying that the current minor action Inspiring Word should be taken away. Just add a new one so they can use one or the other, like the two healing infusions artificers get. A minor action heal is needed for sure. I just though a second alternate standard action might be interesting. And most warlords don't mind giving up an action to give someone else an attack, they consider that to be doing something cool.

 

[renau1g]

Personally, the Essentials seemed like it was a throwback to the classes of yore (Hence Mage, not wizard, although Magic User would've been better ) so Warlord wouldn't make sense. Besides the Warlord has far more support than the Cleric (yes, the iconic class), the bard, the shaman, the artificer, and the ardent, so they're fine. Heck they have 11 at-wills, almost 20 level 1 encounters, and a whole whack of awesome daily powers. Plus they're tactical presences are amazing. There's no "death" here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally, the Essentials seemed like it was a throwback to the classes of yore (Hence Mage, not wizard, although Magic User would've been better ) so Warlord wouldn't make sense. Besides the Warlord has far more support than the Cleric (yes, the iconic class), the bard, the shaman, the artificer, and the ardent, so they're fine. Heck they have 11 at-wills, almost 20 level 1 encounters, and a whole whack of awesome daily powers. Plus they're tactical presences are amazing. There's no "death" here.

I agree they (and the other martial classes) don't require any MORE support, but honestly I found the warlord to be the strongest of all the new 4e classes. Losing it from Essentials is a genuine loss. Especially when pretty much every other leader got the axe at the same time. The whole broadened leader concept of 4e was a definite advance. Its a real shame to see it essentially rolled back to its 1975 state of advancement.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I agree they (and the other martial classes) don't require any MORE support, but honestly I found the warlord to be the strongest of all the new 4e classes. Losing it from Essentials is a genuine loss. Especially when pretty much every other leader got the axe at the same time. The whole broadened leader concept of 4e was a definite advance. Its a real shame to see it essentially rolled back to its 1975 state of advancement.

Its still there, you can still play it. Essentials are alternate builds I really do not see the problem.
Its not like you will now only be allowed to play Essentials classes.
Even if new powers come out there is nothing stopping characters using the PHB classes retooling with the new powers and remaining competitive.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its still there, you can still play it. Essentials are alternate builds I really do not see the problem.
Its not like you will now only be allowed to play Essentials classes.
Even if new powers come out there is nothing stopping characters using the PHB classes retooling with the new powers and remaining competitive.

We all understand that, but you miss the point. Anyone picking up the game from now on will be picking up Essentials. Its rather unlikely that the PHB etc will show up again. Unless players go out of their way to acquire older material it DOES become unavailable. You can I can play, but it will become 'that old PHB stuff' over time. Something that you could theoretically use, IF you can find the book(s).

I know, the "Its all in DDI" argument comes next, but really do many people go look up obsolescent material in DDI to use? Sure once in a while someone will, but if something is out of print it isn't really a first class part of the game anymore.

Its not going to affect MY game anytime soon, but that's different from its effect on the future of the game itself. Of course there could well be a 'Player Options: Lost Heroes' next year that refreshes warlord and other so far non-Essentialized classes. I personally would welcome that a lot and hope it happens. Warlord was one of the very few really significant solid classes that has been added to the game basically since the Barbarian 20 years ago.

 

[Aegeri]

I agree they (and the other martial classes) don't require any MORE support, but honestly I found the warlord to be the strongest of all the new 4e classes. Losing it from Essentials is a genuine loss. Especially when pretty much every other leader got the axe at the same time. The whole broadened leader concept of 4e was a definite advance. Its a real shame to see it essentially rolled back to its 1975 state of advancement.

This would be valid if leaders pre-Essentials were somehow made irrelevant, when it's not the case. Warlords are one of the best supported leaders in 4th edition, having 2 supplement books (MP, MP2) and the strongest overall PHB builds. If anyone tells me a taclord is unplayable, I am going to say they have no idea what they are talking about and they shouldn't be allowed another opinion ever. Warlords are the best leader in 4th edition.

They are the strongest of all enablers, because they ensure numerous things happen:

1) Your party reliably and consistently wins initiative - with "Penalty box" formation this means you can get out of every burst. Ever seen what happens to a party in penalty box formation that rolls poorly on initiative? You should try a non-warlord party in LFR and find out.
2) Your party gains the biggest and strongest bonuses to hit and damage.
3) They relentlessly generate free attacks and allow use of stronger damaging at-wills than their own: For example they can allow more uses every turn of twin strike. Twin strike is one of the best damaging at-wills in 4E at high levels. You can work out the rest from there.
4) They have the best general class features, bonuses to damage, free attacks and similar on action points are essential for setting up high damaging rounds.
5) Lead the Attack, even with the errata, is one of the strongest powers in the entire game for killing something.

How about we compare them to Strength Clerics - arguably what is being genuinely replaced in Essentials.

1) Can't make use of many of their best powers, which are Wisdom based unless you're a balanced strength/wisdom cleric.
2) Has a secondary stat on healing instead of their primary (Wisdom), so can't heal as effectively as the wisdom cleric.
3) No really strong "enabling" powers anywhere in their build.
4) Doesn't help you win initiative.
5) Doesn't help you hit enemies anywhere near a warlord.
6) Doesn't boost action points.
7) Has a terrible at-will healing power, which due to the nerfs to surgeless healing is laughably bad (requires you to hit an enemy, then your ally to hit it).

I could go on. But if you asked someone would they prefer a Warlord at epic tier (with say, Intuitive Strike) or a Strength Cleric, tell me honestly: What do you think you'd rather in the party? Because to me, the answer is 100% obvious here. I'm comparing one of the worst overall leaders in 4E to one of the best here, one of them NEEDED essentials treatment. The other didn't.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah, the Warlord, to me anyway, signifies everything that makes 4e simply better constructed than older editions. It was the first 4e class I played and still probably my favorite. I can understand keeping it out of Essentials to begin with, but I have to agree with Aegeri; no other leader can compete on party-enabling.