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

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder...In another thread I posted this version of a warlord-as-a-bard:
[sblock]
So, here's how I'd see the same mechanics in a Bard (now with annotations!):

Creating a Bard
[sblock=BARD?!]
The podcast mentioned that the "inspiring guy" is the Bard. Your particular vision of the Warlord focuses on the inspiration side of things, so I figured Bard might be a better fit than Fighter.
[/sblock]
Ability Adjustments: +1 to your Intelligence, Dexterity, or Charisma score. You use Charisma to inspire your allies, Intelligence to decipher lore, and Dexterity to stay agile and flexible.
Starting Hit Points: 8 + Constitution modifier
Armor Proficiencies: Light armor and shields. Your bardic tradition might grant you additional armor proficiencies.
Weapon Proficiencies: All simple weapons. Your bardic tradition might grand you additional weapon proficiencies
Hit Dice: 1d8 per bard level
Hit Points: 1d8 (or 5) + your Constitution modifier per bard level gained

[sblock= Proficiencies don't look like a warrior!]
Mostly this is a "flexible baseline" kind of design choice -- it allows you to make the nancypants magic-centric bards of 3e/4e. However, the bardic tradition, like the cleric's choice of deity, might affect how this looks -- clerics have few proficiencies as a base class, and their deity adds more. Bards can work the same way. I think fighters could work the same way, too, but they don't right now, so whatev.
[/sblock]

Level	Weapon Attack	Words of Inspiration	Class Features (* See below*)
1	+1	1/day	Voice of Inspiration, Bardic Tradition
2	+1	2/day	(etc.)
3	+1	2/day	(etc.)
4	+2	2/day	(etc.)
5	+2	3/day	(etc.)
6	+2	3/day	(etc.)
7	+2	3/day	(etc.)
8	+2	4/day	(etc.)
9	+3	4/day	(etc.)
10	+3	4/day	(etc.)

Level 1: Bardic Tradition
Different bardic colleges teach different styles of barding. Whether taught at a formal college, or simply tutored by an elder, or perhaps even just naturally picking up on what you're good at, you've learned a particular blend of music, magic, and martial prowess. Choose a tradition from the list below:

• Tradition of Trickery: (this is like the 3.5e illusionist-gnome-bard, with thief skills)
• Tradition of Lore: (this one focuses on spellcasting)
• Tradition of War: (this one is our Warlord)
• Tradition of the Wanderer: (this one gets a bit from each camp)

Tradition of War
As a student of the bardic tradition of war, you have mastered the rhythm and flow of the battlefield. The sounds of clashing blades, the clash of metal and metal, the screams of the victors and the moans of the defeated are yours to orchestrate and conduct as you see fit.
Girded for Battle: You are additionally proficient in medium armor and martial weapons.
War Lore: You are trained in Knowledge (warfare), Heraldry, and Persuade
Voice of Inspiration: You can spend your Voice of Inspiration to cause any of your maneuvers to affect all allies or enemies within earshot of you. Each die you spend has its effect on any target you desire, as long as that target can hear you.
Martial Damage Dice: You gain 1d6 Martial Damage Dice for each maneuver you possess.
Maneuvers: Directed Strike (LV 1), Threaten (LV 3), Warning (LV 5)/Encouragement (LV 5), Distraction (LV 7), Burst of Speed (LV 9)

• Directed Strike: As an action, you can spend one martial damage dice to allow an ally that can hear you to make an attack with a bonus equal to the roll of your die. You can spend additional martial damage die on this maneuver, and if you do, the ally gains a bonus to damage equal to the roll of all the additional dice you spend.
• Threaten: As a reaction, when an enemy in your weapon range makes an opportunity attack, you can spend martial damage dice deal damage to that enemy equal to the total roll of each die you spend.
• Warning: As a reaction, when an ally who can hear you takes damage, you can spend your martial damage die to reduce the damage that ally takes by the total roll of each die you spend.
• Distraction: As a reaction, when an is attacked by an enemy who can hear you, you can spend one martial damage die to reduce the enemy's attack roll by an amount equal to the roll of your die. You can spend additional martial damage die on this maneuver, and if you do, the enemy receives a penalty to damage equal to the roll of all the additional dice you spend.
• Encouragement: As a free action, you can spend one martial damage die on one ally who can hear you. They gain temporary HP equal to the roll of your die. You can spend extra dice on this maneuver, and if you do, you can affect one additional ally for each die you spend.
• Burst of Speed: As an action, you can spend martial damage dice to allow an ally who can hear you to move. For each martial damage die you spend, the ally can move 5 feet.

[sblock=MDD and Manuevers]
Just to show how comfortably the warlord's stereotypical abilities fit into the Maneuver rubrick, really. The numbers might need some massaging, but I think this covers all the bases of things that warlords do. The MDD = # of manuevers thing is mostly just a simplification -- you'll notice the Fighter's list of manuevers is currently a little staggered. This also allows the bard to potentially swap out a maneuver for a spellcasting level, or a skill trick, if you're not using pregenerated traditions.

Of course, this implies heavily that you could use these features on a Fighter, too, and you certainly could. Or a monk, I suppose? But the tradition is effectively a ready-made fighter fighting style, too. We'd need I think to twist some of the base abilities of a fighter (folks who like playing warlords generally seem to dislike the heavy armor, want fewer HPs, and would prefer Int/Cha over Str/Con), but I personally think that's well within the scope. PERSONALLY, I'd like to see a baseline fighter whose armor and weapon proficiencies depend, in part, on their fighting style. Something really dissonant about a duelist in heavy gear, man....and I really have no objection to a fighter who gets +1 to any ability score they want, but that's not kosher for others.
[/sblock]

[sblock=Voice of Inspiration]
I kept it simple here, but it'd be easy to complicate this into all sorts of daily abilities. There's nothing explicitly magical about this bard, so it's effectively a "martial daily," but it can also be fluffed as magic for those who like that style. Depending o the tradition, this could meta-magic up some stuff, expand the use of skill tricks, or do other awesome-sauce things. I could honestly even see it doing healing, and it could ride that same ridge: people who don't like martial healing can pretend it's magical, and people who DO like martial healing can pretend it's inspiration.

Personally, I'm a little fond of the decision points and strategies it creates. One enemy pummeled by a giant? Only need the single-target version. Everyone caught in a dragon's breath? Better use your Outside Voice! One ally has a chance to get in a solid hit on an elusive enemy? Just need the single-target version. Want to start off the combat with a DEVESTATING ambush? Begin with a SCREAM!
[/sblock]

[sblock=This Bard Looks Anemic...]
I really only included the options that would make for a decent "warlord" build. You could imagine various other traits as the bard goes up in level, or even at low levels, that could apply equally to a warlord or the stereotypical troubadour. The first thing that leaps to my mind is a follower, but that's probably better off as an opt-in kind of thing. I could also imagine some abilities that take effect during a rest (making your rests more effective!), or things that give skill bonuses ("SNEAK THROUGH THAT ORC CAMP LIKE A FLY ON THE TOE OF A HALFLING, MAGGOT!"). Those are up for negotiation. I wanted to make sure the core of the thing did what warlords do.
[/sblock]

[sblock=Popular Warlordesque Backgrounds and Specialties]
Specialties

• Ambusher (for your pro-active strategists)
• Defender (for your lead-from-the-front types)
• Mystical Healer ("you could have served as a medic in a military company, aiding injured soldiers while battle raged around you")
• Polearm Master (hello, Reach Weapons!)
• Reaper (Warlord with a greataxe? YES.)
• Sharpshooter (For our bowlords)
• Skirmisher (Leads the charge, then defends the flanks!)
• Skulker (this one seems hilarious to me: "I'll command you from back here, behind this bush...")
• Swashbuckler (I believe we have our Errol Flynn...)
• Additional Possibilities: A specialty focused on getting some "martial training" would round out the character. A specialty focused on tactical maneuvers would be really interesting, too.

Backgrounds

• Knight (ah, nobility)
• Noble (er...as above)
• Sage ("I know every fight that's been faught, every kingdom that's fallen...")
• Soldier (duuuuh)
• Thug ("Do not piss off General Rage!")
• Additional Possibilities: A background that represents being a social butterfly would help the Cha-monkeys, while one perhaps more obviously focused on history and military matters than the sage would be cool.

[/sblock]

Booyah.
[/sblock]

Clearly mostly about temp HP and damage avoidance.

Yet, I could see a version of the Voice of Inspiration that actually heals HP, too.

With the Bard, it becomes interesting because the abilities aren't explicitly magical, but could be fluffed as magical if you want them to be. In one game, using the Voice to heal HP literally closes wounds, in another game, the HP is just morale.

 

[Starfox]

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Manbearcat again."

 

[tuxgeo]

Re: How important is it that Warlords be healers?

That varies from person to person, of course. We're not going to get actual agreement on this, as it's a matter of opinion; and some opinions about this are wildly different from others.

One consideration I haven't seen mentioned often enough in this thread yet is the matter of "continuity." For background, do you remember a couple of play-test packets ago when WotC included early versions of the Sorcerer and the Warlock as classes?
There was uproar; and part of that uproar included the complaint that people who were currently playing Sorcerers couldn't rebuild that same PC in the new version, because it was too different.

The complaints were heard, and WotC removed those classes from the very next play-test packet. I think the same thing might happen with the Warlord: if the 5E Warlord doesn't have enough continuity with the 4E version to allow current 4E players to convert their characters over smoothly, those PCs aren't going to be converted over to 5E. To the extent that those players like their current Warlords, they are going to be reluctant to switch editions; and if they are reluctant, their whole playing group might just hold off on switching at the same time--until that campaign ends, perhaps.

This is the "gnome lesson" all over again for WotC: if only 1-in-10 players plays a Warlord, but there are 5 players in each group, that might mean that as much as 1/2 of the active 4E groups will resist switching over.

This perspective leads to the following conclusion: It is essential (maybe even critical) that the 5E Warlord be able to have healing capability, though healing doesn't have to be a default feature of every Warlord build. All that is necessary is that current 4E players of Warlords be able to convert the same characters to 5E seamlessly.

 

[drothgery]

I think it's wrapped up in a lot of different things (I voted that they should heal, and I'll be upset if they can't).

1) How important are healers in 5e? If having a class with major healing abilities is extremely important (despite the existence of formal roles, the only edition of D&D where you can make a decent argument this isn't the case is 4e), then I think it's very important for there to be more than one viable option out of the box, and fighting the 'mundanes can't have nice things' argument means at least one of those options should not be a caster.

2) If you have a mundane healer at all, how important is it that said character be a warlord? It's possible you would not want a mundane healer class to be a melee combatant (yeah, I know archer builds for warlords were added later).

3) How important is it to have reasonable equivalents for 4e PH1 characters? I'd argue a warlord that cannot heal is not a reasonable replacement for most warlords (except possibly lazy warlords used to emulate something otherwise hard to do in 4e).

 

[Pour]

I voted for Warlords with healing, and that I'd be upset if they didn't have it. Droth has the right of that line of thinking.

As for solutions, the quickest and easiest solution is to just let Warlords heal HP, and people who dislike it don't use the class. Heh... yeah...

The second idea would be to allow Warlords to provide temporary hit points as suggested, but then right there you've reduced their effectiveness to the point it will always be better to have a cleric that heals REAL hp and can bring people back up from unconsciousness- unless the Warlord's other abilities provide a desirable and very different kind of support than Clerics (yes, even compared to war-priests and clerics of the war god), which in turn justifies the existence of the Warlord class in my mind right there, at least in a game which allows for such specific classes as Ranger and Barbarian. Maybe the Warlord can use temporary HP in combat, but the cleric must have time and calm to heal wounds out of combat, thereby providing different support- both with advantages/disadvantages.

A third option would be to consider dividing HP into physical wounds and morale/fatigue. I suggested a few months ago the idea that if HP were split down the middle, the first half would be the morale and predominantly the realm of the Warlord, while the second half would be physical and the purview of the Cleric. The dividing line would be what 4e called the 'bloodied' value but which could easily be renamed something more appropriate.

Or maybe we axe artificial healing. Would anyone miss it if it was designed out? Then, to encourage a bolder, riskier style of play and to eliminate the 5-minute work day (as it relates to health) maybe the game gives characters something juicy for pushing on with low health/resources. Combat length and pacing have always been concerns, what if we tied health/resources to risk/pacing and maybe even damage, defenses, or experience/level progression? I'm not entirely sure what that would look like, but it would be pretty cool to play around with it.

 

[Sage Genesis]

This is the "gnome lesson" all over again for WotC: if only 1-in-10 players plays a Warlord, but there are 5 players in each group, that might mean that as much as 1/2 of the active 4E groups will resist switching over.

Oh it's even worse than that. We knew from day 1 at least that the 4e gnome would be delayed, but still was on the way. But thus far it sounds like we might not get a 5e Warlord at all, ever. This will make the resistance to switch that much more entrenched.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Jester David]

However the inspirational leader (Marshal, Warlord) is most certainly an archetype of fiction. Within the abstract metagame mechanic of Hit Points in D&D, a Marshal or Warlord makes perfect sense. Sarah Connor yelling at Reese in The Terminator to "Get on your feet, Soldier!", when he's all but dead and ready to give up is a classic example; as is William Wallace (Mel Gibson) in Braveheart inspiring and leading the Scots to victory with inspiration (ally support), battle tactics (leader role), and personal skill at arms (Fighter/Warrior).

But is that healing? Kyle's wound's don't go away and he's still moments from death. The story and flavour is saying one thing but the mechanics are saying another. It's forcing the flavour to fit pre-determined mechanics than trying to design new mechanics that actually fit the story. In this case, a better mechanic might be allowing a PC to ignore penalties or keep fighting despite being at or below 0hp.

Inspiration-based healing might be part of the problem. The warlord is trying to do two mutually incompatible things.
You have the battlefield leader archetype, which is based around tactics and strategy and Intelligence. This is reflected in most of the powers and abilities unique to the warlord. Then there's the healing, which is associated with the inspirational builds and flavour, the coaching of the warlord. Which is more tied to Charisma.
This gets further muddied because inspiring allies is the purview of the bard. Inspiration is it's unique thing and the more inspiring and rallying the warlord does the less room there is for the bard.

So there's an odd catch-22 there.
The more you try and squish inspirational powers into the warlord the less unique the warlord is and the more it overlaps with the bard.

 

[Jester David]

Thus far IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THIS!


Nothing from the D&D Next team has said this, and plenty of things have directly refuted this.

They are currently experimenting...and that is the only conclusion anyone can reasonably make at this point.

Saying otherwise is inaccurate characterization and baseless speculation.

Y'know, other than the podcast where the design team said directly the warlord was going to be a fighter build.