... isn't that what the Inspiring Leader feat is? To all appearances it's a pretty good feat, and while it doesn't heal the mechanical expression of damage prevention in it fits the trope quite well.
D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter
... isn't that what the Inspiring Leader feat is? To all appearances it's a pretty good feat, and while it doesn't heal the mechanical expression of damage prevention in it fits the trope quite well.
Mouseferatu
Hero
It really, really is. Speaking as a DM with a player who has it, it makes a huge difference, especially in the first fight or two following a short rest. Temporary hit points sound like an inferior option, but used well, they're game-changing.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
If I understand the people who love narrative/inspirational/fluffernutter HP, part of the issue is that temp HP does change the psychology of play, even if it doesn't change the actual numbers very much. For one, you don't get the same "yo-yo" effect of dropping low only to rise back up again that actual HP recovery gives you. For those who view HP as almost-or-entirely-not-meat, that's the kind of play experience you want out of an inspirational leader.
I'm much harder on the meat side, so that works for me, but I can understand that it won't do what some people who love martial healing want an inspirational leader to do.
Jester David
Hero
I'm not a fan of the warlord triggering them for a couple reasons.
First, because it doesn't work well with alternate hit dice rules. For DMs that want slower healing the warlord becomes problematic.
Second, and more importantly, it doesn't actually extend the adventuring day. It serves as some emergency healing, but the party can't adventure more than they could without the warlord, having the same healing per day.
Third, it does quirky things to the resource management of the game. It means one player can't use one of their class features if another character poorly managed their resources (i.e. hit dice). And it means players are less incentivised to take a short rest, since the warlord can heal otherwise, which might penalize character that recharge powers on a short rest, as fewer party members will benefit from the rest.
No other class feature touches hit dice. No feats affect hit dice. Most options related to that mechanic deliberately refer to the vaguer "regain hit points during a rest", because how hit dice function are left out of the assumptions of how other mechanics works. This is part of the modular design of the game.
Now, working based on a particular assumption of the rules is fine for your home game. But it's poor when designing something to be used at any other table. It'd be like designing a class that assumes the existence of magic item shops, or the use of the honour statistic, or point buy vs rolling for stats.
Personally, I'd love to design some monsters assuming the Sanity ability score was the norm. But that'd just limit their usefulness.
If we're working under the assumption you can talk someone into regain hp, I don't see why should that be limited to the warlord. It's not something that requires physical mastery or skill that the uninitiated cannot even attempt, like a sword move or acrobatic trick. What can the warlord possibly say that the bard or the paladin cannot? What if the warlord told the bard what to say? Would it work then? Is it really so impossible that the bard could not attempt it, roll a natural 20, and do just as well as the warlord?
I agree that martial abilities should be unique to those classes. But there's a big difference between the specialized action no one can attempt (action surge, sneak attack), the things martial characters should be better at but anyone can try (multiple attacks, shoving), and the stuff non-martials can do almost as well (making a melee attack).
Inspiring someone with a speech doesn't sound specific enough to be limited to one class. It's almost something anyone can attempt, be they wizard or rogue or even barbarian. Especially since inspiring speeches in fiction can be given by anyone given the opportunity. Yes, the warlord could arguably be better at it, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else should be denied the opportunity to try.
If you're going to say that you can heal through morale, go all in and give it to everyone. Especially the bard who literally has a class feature designed around inspiring people through talking. (Arguably, the bard was also healing through inspirational words in 4e. )
The warlord and the bard overlap a lot. Really, so much of what the warlord was in the 4e PHB1 worked solely because the bard wasn't out yet. It filled the niche of the charismatic leader. (And necessitated the bard being more magical.) But with a bard already in the game, and a bard able to smack people with a sword and rely on strength, the charismatic warlord seems less necessary. That archetype is filled. Having a Charisma focused warlord and the bard is like having a scout and ranger. The two classes need to be pushed farther apart and the unique elements of the warlord brought to the forefront. And what makes the warlord unique is not its healing. It's everything else.
The warlord seems better served focusing on the tactical leader. The strategist. The intelligent fighter. Charisma is nice, but seems less necessary. Being charming isn't what makes a warlord a good leader, and doesn't work as well with the tactical features that are unique to the class.
That's the difference between making a good interpretation of the strategist archetype and making a good update of the 4e warlord class. I'd rather see the former.
Jester David
Hero
That and the Rally maneuver cover it pretty well, IMHO.
But for those people who find those lacking and want actual hit point healing, a rules module offering an Inspirational Rally action that actually provides healing might be more satisfied.
I completely agree with this part. Like the Artificer subclass, that character still needs to be capable of providing some HP recovery. Like the Artificer, it doesn't have to be very good. This may just mean that they have a bonus feat, not specifically for healer but you know it's there if that's what you want to do.
Jester David
Hero
I'm okay with rally serving that role. Although, IIRC, for my warlord-esqupe commander subclass I buffed it slightly.
Personally, I rather like the idea of temp hp rather than healing. It feels more tactical, since you have to pick the appropriate character, which works with the strategist tone of the class. And you can use it at the very start of a battle, which emulates the speeches before battles you always see. And it makes characters better, rather than just restoring them, so they can take a bigger single hit and stay up.
But it's also pretty darn easy to just cross out the "temp" and make it healing for those who want that kind of thing.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
I finally just got around to reading the 5E PHB, so, yeah, late to the party. I was pretty happy with the battlemaster. I love the idea of the warlord. I'm a big fan of the Black Company series and there are several awesome characters in the books that could be well represented by warlords. But I hated 4E's implementation. The 5E battlemaster seems to me to be what the warlord should have been in the first place. Now I need to find an opportunity to play ones to see if it actually lives up to my impressions ...
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Out of curiosity, did you give the 4e version an opportunity to see whether it lived "down" to your expectations, so to speak? That is, the Warlord is usually praised (by 4e fans, at least) as both the best leader and one of the best classes of the edition. I am not, of course, trying to suggest that your opinion is wrong--just that if you're open to reconsidering your positive opinion of the 5e Battlemaster based on play experience, it seems reasonable to give Warlord a similar treatment (albeit in the opposite direction). If you already have that experience, feel free to ignore this.
aramis erak
Legend
The big difference with THP is that THP can take you above max HP, while regaining cannot, and parry to negate doesn't raise your total if you only took 7...
They are subtly but still substantially different. Especially since parry-to-negate implies repeatability.
