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

[AbdulAlhazred]

This, a dozen times over. I neither want nor need the "holy trinity" in DDN in order for my party to be successful. yes, I imagine a group of rogues would have the game tuned differently for them than a group of paladins or wizards, but that's the POINT. D&D must be able to adjust to each group, each group must not need to adjust to D&D. The goals, the methods, the adventures will be totally different for a group of thieving scoundrels than a group of heavily armored knights. That's the point. Without that kind of flexibility in gaming, D&D is no more than an TTMMO.

I guess I'm not sure how the existing game design in 4e fails to meet that. If you build a party full of rogues then you had better approach challenges in a different way than if you built a party full of heavily armored knights. You COULD work into either group a leader, and said leader will have some healing, but that isn't going to transform those groups into clones of each other by a long shot.

I think, as in all editions, there's generally a 'default' party because generally players don't get so focused on a specific type of game. They just come together to play 'some D&D', not to play a 'rogue campaign' or whatever. So typically you end up with one of each sort of PC and those sorts of parties in 4e are pretty interchangeable. They'll use slightly different tactics is all.

OTOH if you DO make an all-rogue party, its going to play a lot different, in every edition. Frankly such a party is probably going to be pretty non-viable in AD&D, except for a VERY niche type of investigative play. In 3.x such a party will do better at lower levels, but they'll still have problems with harder adventures. Again you would play a certain type of game, but not so extreme. In 4e you could make it through probably most normal adventures if you were really careful, but using unusual tactics. In ALL of them you'd be struggling to stay alive with insufficient healing.

 

[D'karr]

As you can see in the poll though, there's a pretty dramatic split, likely far larger than Vancian casting.
And if you don't like Vancan spellcasting you don't play a wizard. Simple. And it doesn't affect you if someone else at the table does it still doesn't affect you and certainly doesn't affect the DM.

However, if you have warlord healing it affects the game. It's a player choice that changes how the DM narrates the game. They're different animals.

If you don't like the warlord, and the DM doesn't like the "alternative healing" option he doesn't add them to his game. The argument still holds no water.

 

[Jester David]

So which is it, optional components to please as many fans of D&D as possible or not. Because your argument holds no water because of what you've already said.

Of course optional components. Modules. But classes shouldn't be optional.

If they are adding "alternative spellcasting" rules and the basic classes are going to be Vancian, then it makes sense that there will be "alternative spellcasting" classes that will use these "alternative spellcasting" options.

Nope, just swap out the spellcasting for something like the sorcerer's in the previous package.
This is why the sorcerer looked so different in the last package: the big difference between a sorcerer and wizard is their spellcasting. If you can just swap out spellcasting of the wizard for spontaneous casting casting, what's the point of the sorcerer? We might only see the sorcerer as a variant of the wizard.

If that is a way to do it, then what prevents "alternative healing" rules and the basic classes use the the "basic healing" and there are "alternative healing" classes that use the "alternative healing" options.

Alternate healing yes, but not classes. Classes are bigger. We don't need hundreds of extra classes for each potential optional rule.

The issue has nothing to do with any of that. The issue has to do with what you mentioned before, those that are so intransigent that even the mention of alternative healing in the game "negatively impacts" their "playstyle."

Either you are "big tent" reformer and actually cater to all the playstyles, or you simply say "big tent" to sound inclusive but all you really mean is only those that "agree with what I like."

The playstyles I want will require a few optional rules. That's plural as I'll do different things for different campaigns.

But it's always easier to be additive than subtractive. To add options to the rules than take away elements. As such, things need to be generic and middle-of-the road with options for specificity and niche opinions.
Martial healing and fatigue hitpoints are a good example. Because they're non-standard and not everyone wants them. There are already some variations on healing in the packages, which are great. I hope to see more and bigger variants. Such as martial healing with degrees from "everyone can inspire healing" to "only warlords".

 

[Jester David]

If you don't like the warlord, and the DM doesn't like the "alternative healing" option he doesn't add them to his game. The argument still holds no water.

If you like the warlord and as the DM like "alternative healing" options you can add them to your game. The argument still holds no water.

Adding is always, always easier than taking away.
Including a warlord means players will whine if their DM bans that class. It set-up awkward situations.
And if martial healing is core it won't end with one easily condensed and removable class. There'll be feats, specialities, magic items, monster powers, and the like. Core options are designed to be hard to remove.

Warlords are cool. They should be core. (And non-optional.) Martial healing shouldn't be.

 

[D'karr]

But it's always easier to be additive than subtractive. To add options to the rules than take away elements. As such, things need to be generic and middle-of-the road with options for specificity and niche opinions.

If the options exists there is no difference whether they are additive, subtractive, or replacing. If the options don't exist it's more difficult to do any of them.

I want all the variants to exist. But the core has to be built on a framework that will be able to support ALL variants. There are some that advocate not even having the options. Your "negatively impact" argument in the previous posts falls on the side of being "I don't like it so nobody should have it."

That is why I made that comment, in case it was not clear.

 

[Jester David]

If the options exists there is no difference whether they are additive, subtractive, or replacing. If the options don't exist it's more difficult to do any of them.

In theory it's just as easy to add as to subtract. In practice it's easier for a DM to add options and powers and bonuses than to take away.
Plus balancing is always easier when you knowing using a module will make the game easier.

Let's use hitpoints as an example. You can either have high starting hitpoints with low hp as an option for those who like it or low starting hp with high as an option. We should have both and they're functionally equal.

Except in play having the DM have starting hitpoints feels like a nerf, it feels like the DM is trying to make your characters mortal. But if they double starting hp it feels generous and a bonus.
So start with low hp and give DMs the tools for higher potency level 1 characters with more bonus Hit Dice.

I want all the variants to exist. But the core has to be built on a framework that will be able to support ALL variants. There are some that advocate not even having the options. Your "negatively impact" argument in the previous posts falls on the side of being "I don't like it so nobody should have it."

That is why I made that comment, in case it was not clear.

The "negatively impact" argument is based around the idea that some people don't like it, so including as a core assumption drives them away. And driving people away is bad. We want to bring people in.

So if one option is neutral and the other drives people away, go for the option that's neutral, knowing you can add options later.

Again, having hp being a mix of health and vigor and not having martial healing has the best chances of bringing in the largest number of players. And you can add martial healing on for those people who like it, giving them a game very simmilar to if it had been a core assumption.

But if the game says "martial healing is a core assumption if you don't like it you can just remove this class, these manuvers, these specialities, and this background" then many players will just say "orrrr I could just not play and find a game that doesn't do something is dislike."

 

[D'karr]

The "negatively impact" argument is based around the idea that some people don't like it, so including as a core assumption drives them away. And driving people away is bad. We want to bring people in.

That is a losing proposition. ALL rules are optional. I remember a time when rules where simply guidelines. When you have people that are so intransigent that even having something, whether in core or in variant, will drive them away, should you even attempt to cater to them?

There is not a tent "BIG" enough for those people. Honestly, I don't even want them in my zip code. That's not being inclusive at all. Either WotC decides that they are truly going to be inclusive or not. But making assumptions based on those that will find fault with the fact that something is even included is ridiculous.

 

[Starfox]

As you can see in the poll though, there's a pretty dramatic split, likely far larger than Vancian casting.
And if you don't like Vancan spellcasting you don't play a wizard. Simple. And it doesn't affect you if someone else at the table does it still doesn't affect you and certainly doesn't affect the DM.

However, if you have warlord healing it affects the game. It's a player choice that changes how the DM narrates the game. They're different animals.

IMO, the effect on the setting of having a healing warlord is nil. It is a combat-only ability, and most people never see combat in their lives. Remember that "healing "warlords still cannot cure the ills of people on the street, create food, cure diseases and such. For players, the effect is tactical, the story does not change at all (except to allow another hero role to be viable). The effect of a vancian wizard is huge, both on the setting and on the story. Vancian magic and its inherent flexibility turns wizards into general-purpose engineers where sorcerers are craftsmen with one specific purpose.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yes, warlords should be able to heal, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I'd be fine with damage mitigation too as i think it'd be great way to help it distinguish itself from other classes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Well, healing could just not exist, but that isn't going to reduce the party's NEED for a healer, it will just mean they won't get one. Obviously they'll have to make due. IMHO the most likely result is healing potions. Either that or some relaxation of the lethality of hit point loss, faster gaining, etc. Potions will definitely prevail though IMHO. Honestly, I like them less than clerics.

My D&DN group is a Fighter, a Monk, a Wizard, and a Rogue. They're doing just fine without a healer--they do quaff a potion every now and then, but they're usually all out of daily resources by the time that happens anyway.

SPECIFICALLY in 4e there are no such thing as NPCs with classes and levels AT ALL. Class is a meta-game construct used to allow players to choose how they're PC will work in the game and regulate how and when it gains features. It has NOTHING to do with the world at all...

CERTAINLY in 4e... there simply are no classed NPCs at all...

In 4e...NPCs rarely, if ever, have anything like all the capabilities that a PC has.

Yes, I know how 4e works. You must understand that 4e is an outlier in this respect. Other versions of D&D do not work like this.