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

[AbdulAlhazred]

This struck me as odd.
Yes, people should be able to play their character concept as soon as possible. You shouldn't have to wait until halfway through the game to be adequate at something. But some concepts are just too big for first level. There are too many moving parts and the scope is too large. This is as true in 4e as in 3e, and I've seen a few characters (typically hybrids or multiclassed) that took a few levels to build up enough feats to really do what they wanted.

Prestige Classes (and to a lesser extent Paragon Paths) are a great way of having a character be specialized in something esoteric, focusing on very world-specific lore or training tied to organizations or elite forces. You're not just a fighter, you're a Knight of Solamnia or of the Round Table.

Now, PrC in 3e were iffy at best. Good idea, poor execution. The feat and skill taxes required for entry were silly. And sometimes the requirements were too high. But that's an incentive to try harder and make the mechanic work, not abandon it wholesale.

Yeah, I don't have any real disagreement with you on that, it was just that a lot of 3e and even some AD&D classes (thief!) really didn't get to DO much that made sense for a good while. The AD&D thief just didn't have high enough skill checks to dare to do much at lower levels, it was weird. Paladins had to hoof it around on foot for 4 levels, etc. It DOES happen some in 4e as well, there are builds that don't really work before level 11, but every class does at least work right off.

Really I think 30 levels is too much, and we should consider 20 levels as the better model, which is one thing DDN seems to maybe be getting right (unless they consider level 21+ 'epic', which I don't know). That would mean having a PrC/PP at level 6 or 7, which seems pretty good to me. Picking up an 'epic destiny' around level 15 or so feels about right too, that's about where AD&D characters were pretty much super powerful.

I think the PP concept DOES work. There are SOME requirements for some PPs but they are usually sensible and minimal ones that most characters can plan to meet. Many paths don't have any real requirements at all beyond "will this gel with my character". As for what they're called, personally I like the 'path' nomenclature, 'Prestige' never made sense to me as a term, and they aren't classes. 'Prestige Class' sounds like something you got for having shiny teeth and a blocky chin, lol. Still, names aren't that big a deal. Maybe call it "Heroic Calling" or something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As you point out, the ability to repeatedly fight in a short period of time is not a built-in assumption in D&D. Needing to rest a significant period of time can be seen as a positive; it's part of the old school playstyle, among others. The game is not broken because you have to stop and rest to get from almost dead to feeling fine; it's arguably better.

In terms of DDN I think it doesn't matter much, it is an easy dial to turn. I'd consider it this way, it is better to have that dial as a rule (set of options) than have it as a bunch of healing items and spells that change it and have to be added/removed from the game. Its MUCH simpler to just say "you have several choices of healing rate, 3 good possibilities are, slow, medium, and fast..." This of course might imply that healing spells/powers would be optional.

Then again, it's not like you need a cleric to heal you. You need a cleric or a druid or a bard or a paladin or a ranger (since we're talking high level here), and there are numerous other ways of getting faster healing. Healing without a cleric is even easier in 3e. So even to the extent that healing matters and clerics are generally the best at it, there are plenty of other options.

To the point I was making, it's entirely possible to play without a cleric. Without the cleric, you might have an all thief/rogue party that specialized in stealth, avoids direct combat, and doesn't need healing. Or a mage group that just casts a couple of spells and flies away if that doesn't work. Or a fighter group that just covers for each other. It works fine. IME more parties don't have a cleric than do, and even the secondary healers are more a convenience than a necessity (and many people play clerics that don't heal much).

Even so I've seen few parties that lacked a cleric in AD&D play. No other class packs anything like the amount of healing. Druids are close, but paladins and rangers have very small amounts compared to a cleric, and at levels below 7th you're pretty much limited to cleric and his leafy twin. There's a reason "never leave town without a cleric" is a trope.

Sure, you can 'avoid direct combat' but the point is you have to play very differently to play without divine healers. Whereas in 4e you can just make your 'sneaky party' (which btw could easily have a cleric in it) and go on about your business. You will still use different tactics but you aren't forced to adventure in a completely different environment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not what I said. What may seem clear to you is not what Gary himself said. You are mis-stating what I posted. Gary said that Vance's Dying Earth was the inspiration for the magic in D&D. He did not say that he came up with the mechanic first, and then shaped Vance's narrative to it. You are entitled to your opinion...your interpretation of events and inspirations; however, Gary's words directly refute your view of things.

I believe that Gary's statements on this are more accurate than your interpretation or recollections. I also doubt you'd find many people willing to say that Gary was wrong and you are right...

Refute away then! Quotes are free... Personally I don't have access to my copies of those (yup, predictably I own them too) so I am not going to sit here and debate you about the exact meaning of something that I haven't read in at least 25 or maybe 30 years. I can look at my Chainmail rules and it is quite plain that the magic there was used as the model for the D&D magic, ALL of the spells have the same names and 'complexity' maps almost exactly to spell levels. Note how the "level" of the magic user (names are used here not numbers, but the names are all used in OD&D as level names and even the numbers of spells usable are similar). It looks like a pretty straight translation to me. The main things that OD&D added was an actual spells/level table (Chainmail lets you TRY to cast spells of any complexity, but there is a sort of spell failure check). Thus a Chainmail 'Seer', the weakest type caster, can cast one spell per day, can counterspell on an 11, etc. He has no chance to cast a might complexity 6 spell, needing an 8 for complexity one and 9, 10, 11, 12 for the 2-5 level spells on 2d6. Honestly this system is almost closer to Vance than the OD&D 'Vancian' system, though all magic users do get invisibility and either fireball or lightning bolt for free (again it is unclear if they can cast these ever turn or once per battle, but in practice every turn casting makes them rather stupendously powerful for their point cost). Again it is quite clear that the mechanics for D&D casting largely derive from the fantasy supplement. It has the concepts of harder and easier to cast spells, higher and lower level casters, limited amounts of spells available, and limited casting of them. I don't see any indication one way or another that Vance was being emulated here, but you could certainly make a case that this system is 'Vancian'. It is certainly gamist, Chainmail is overall fairly abstract and the spells available seem oriented towards making mass combat interesting but not being completely overpowered.

 

[timASW]

You missed "warlords should not exist at all and are a black mark on any edition"

 

[FireLance]

You missed "warlords should not exist at all and are a black mark on any edition"

While there are, of course, no wrong opinions, it might be worthwhile to divorce the 4e implementation of the warlord from its basic concept of a tactician and inspiring combat leader. Unless, of course, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's perfectly fine if you want to do that, you know. Who am I to judge?

 

[Lwaxy]

But one you say he's a "cleric" he exists both mechanically and narratively.

Not so. I call village priests in my campaign clerics all the time, just to keep with the example. Each group has their own methods to hint to the players if someone might be an important NPC or not.

It would indeed be simpler to dump classes, but then it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

Please be aware you come across as somewhat condescending, which can quickly upset people. It would be helpful to the thread not to do that. Thanks

 

[Ahnehnois]

It would indeed be simpler to dump classes, but then it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

Wouldn't it? Seems like just another sacred cow to me.

 

[Lwaxy]

Of course. I would probably not care, as for me it matters more that it is fun to play, but imagine classes being done away with... how many people would get mad just because "every D&D has had classes?"

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of course. I would probably not care, as for me it matters more that it is fun to play, but imagine classes being done away with... how many people would get mad just because "every D&D has had classes?"

Lots. That's what happens when you kill a sacred cow. But would it still play well? Would new people buy it? Would the naysayers eventually die out? I say yes.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Originally Posted by Lwaxy
It would indeed be simpler to dump classes, but then it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

Wouldn't it? Seems like just another sacred cow to me.

I think that even if you were to create a classless system, perhaps similar to what was done for d20 Cthulhu, you'd still have class archetypes pre-made for those who want to grab a class and go. While there is merit to having a classless system for greater free form character creation, there are drawbacks which may contradict the general public (dnd players) ideas of what, and how dnd, in general is played and viewed.

To create such a system would be easier by planning it from the get go, where all abilities are completely modular.
I can see 4ed being distilled down to such a system since it's a/e/u/d powers system could be consolidated quite a bit into such a system. Current class abilities would have to modularized in some fashion.

I'm not sure yet if DNDNext will have an easier time of crafting such a system.
Although perhaps, using the base four classes only, with customized specialities and backgrounds one could approach this style of character creation. Toss in a form of multi-classing where you get that classes abilities at that level only, and perhaps you'd get something playable, or just a gigantic mess....

edit: attempting to get quote within quote to show correctly..