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

[FireLance]

IMO, warlords should have the option to be able to restore hit points or, if we want to allow for hit points to be defined as "meat", provide an alternate pool of vigor points or inspiration points that allow a PC to avoid death in the same way as hit points.

Similarly, warlords should have the option to eschew hit point restoration and focus on granting combat bonuses.

In short, warlords should be able to choose to heal, but they should not be required to be able to heal.

 

[Gorgoroth]

With regards to Aragorn laying on hands and so forth, he used more like herbalism skill (at least in the movie) to tend to Frodo's wounds, which was very mundane in nature (as least his application of semi-mystical elven herbs which might have had magic in them...which is fine too). Of course, he acknowledged the wound was "beyond his skill" and would "require the elves", which to me, sounds a lot like : this is some bad magic here, and needs some good magic to counter it. So, in essense, exactly what I was saying, you want some true healing, right away, you should "take it to the elves" i.e. who have proper clerics amongst them. It is known.

 

[Sunseeker]

In short, warlords should be able to choose to heal, but they should not be required to be able to heal.

Indeed no class should, not even the cleric or druid. The holy-inquisitor-who-isn't-quite-a-paladin or the warrior for nature's savagery are just as legitimate tropes as the serene healer priest or the "power of life" druid.

Handing out a small bit of "temp HP" along with DR or increased defenses would be a great "healing" warlord build, as much as the guy who shouts you back to life.

Maybe the Warlord should get "shouts". "Fus Ro LIVE!!" anyone?

 

[Gorgoroth]

It occurs to me, there's another very story-wise reason why clerics are not typically "battlefield" leaders, i.e. on the front line, except perhaps war priests. You don't want your cleric taking the first big hit from the cave troll, that's the fighter's job. The cleric should be more in the back, as a support role, not because "We're being mean to the poor old cleric class again"(tm), but because it simply makes tactical sense to do so. You protect the cleric, even more than you protect the wizard. Because if the cleric goes down, that's it folks, it's game over. Try keep going deeper into the dungeon now. You'll think twice, won't you? But that presupposes a more traditional "deadly" D&D which I prefer.

In a game where a simple 20 minute rest can allow anyone to go from being knocked out to full with 0 magic or even assistance (you could be solo, wake up in 20 minutes with no aid from anyone else in 4e, and be fully healed, without even a single skill or magic aid), I don't see how clerics or warlords or even any leader are needed at all to keep going, contrary to what you all said. But that's not a design flaw in the 4e cleric, it's a deliberate decision to make all healing non-magical, and "magic" is simply a fluff keyword. That is so wrong. I'd even still play 4e for fun if I can't find a decent PF group, but I don't see it as D&D. I see it as a tactics game. To make a healer -- whoever that is -- required to adventure deep into treacherous paths when all light has failed, which IMO I think it should be by default in D&D Next, you need to dial down the healing by default. On top of this, your party survivability chances should be at least 2x better, or at least no party member dead, per combat, with a cleric around.

I agree clerics historically never healed during combat, but this is D&D. It's supposed to be better than Tolkien or the Bible or Beowulf or all of them at modelling a workable set of adventuring classes, while still maintaining believability and risk of death. If there's no risk of death, why have a cleric? Why even play D&D at all? play a videogame.

 

[lutecius]

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?

easy one. temporary hps are that extra endurance, adrenaline rush, morale boost or whatever the 4e warlord is supposed to hand out except you know it beforehand so you don't describe a blow as damaging until you lose actual hps (ie meat). so you don't have to wait for the next healing surge to figure out what happened in a fight. It also means shouting at already injured characters may help them keep fighting but the wounds are still there in the end.

of course it's not perfect and I'm still not sold on the warlord as a d&d class concept but temp hps at least make it a bit more believable.

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.

this too.

it reminds me of many games that heavily relied on potions because no one wanted to be the cleric, or that player couldn't make it. the potion binge was a bit goofy but imo preferable to forcing a role on a character.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
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

Do what? "SPAM" is hardly temporary -- the shelf-life of that stuff is nigh-onto permanent.

 

[Obryn]

easy one. temporary hps are that extra endurance, adrenaline rush, morale boost or whatever the 4e warlord is supposed to hand out except you know it beforehand so you don't describe a blow as damaging until you lose actual hps (ie meat). so you don't have to wait for the next healing surge to figure out what happened in a fight. It also means shouting at already injured characters may help them keep fighting but the wounds are still there in the end.

If you're allowing the extra endurance/rush/boost whatever to give temp HPs, I don't see why allowing it to give back actual HPs is any kind of a bridge too far. You're still going to run into the classic "issues" with HPs as Morale - poison, rider effects, etc. As to how you narrate it? Like you always do; if it's an injury you can rest away in a day or two, it's an injury a Warlord can "grit" you through just as well. If you have peoples' spleens falling out in combat, you're either playing Rolemaster or doing it wrong.

I'm firmly in the "HPs are nothing but an abstract number that says how close you are to death" camp, myself, so I'm a lot more interested in the game side of things than in any kind of a medieval bloodsport simulator. The questions I want to ask are about the role of healing, the importance of healers, and flexible game design in general.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

Do what? "SPAM" is hardly temporary -- the shelf-life of that stuff is nigh-onto permanent.

True enough! There are enough preservatives and likely other oddities in it that its basically "armored". And Obryn's question was premised upon "HPs as meat." Temp HPs are kind of like "HP armor" as you lose them first. I was envisioning a brave knight adorned in Spammail to protect his meat. A terror to behold.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Jester David]

The warlord has an adequate story hook as the strategist and tactitian mixed with the square-centric leader. And it has a solid mechanical hook as someone that can grant attacks, movement, bonus damage, and the like.
Healing applies to none of that. It doesn't fit the story and is superfluous to the mechanics. Healing is a vestigial part of the class. You don't expect the quarterback of captain of the guard to heal you.

Plus, from a design perspective, 5e classes don't get many options. If we do get a warlord that heals, it will come at the cost of other class features, options that would be unique to the warlord. You cannot just have a really cool warlord and add healing as well without taking something away. Healing means the warlord becomes less warlordy and might only have a single warlordy thing they can do.