D&D 5E How Important is it that Warlords be Healers?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Not only does it not hold water do you sense the irony of the guy saying "well, play style exclusion, no can't have that, so instead we just have EXCLUDE ALL THE STUFF YOU LIKE FROM THE GAME." WTF???!!!! I think people need to understand that you aren't making it easier to play what I like and what other people like in the same game by inventing reasons for why stuff should be excluded. D'karr is EXACTLY right here.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, its a valid question, maybe healing really shouldn't happen in combat at all. I've always thought that magical instant healing in all its forms was a bit cheesy from the start. It both smacks of 'magi-tech' (in the sense of magic as a sort of technology, something that reliably works for you like electricity) and it thematically demeans the role of the hero, replacing heroic attributes with an infinite supply of magical juice that feels almost like an addiction.
The question is how do you do this replacement? I don't see viable and at all believable or satisfying mechanics that would do what you want. Wounded people don't perform BETTER than unwounded people, that's for sure. At best maybe a rare person gets a move on and gets desperate enough to pull something off once in a blue moon because of a wound, and that's very short-term, the same person will also probably shock up 5 minutes later as soon as the crisis passes. SO, there's little simulationist logic for such a rule. As for narrative control... Its not really a great mechanic there either. I mean you COULD allow players to "all in" and up the ante by putting all their cards on the table so to speak, but just arranging the ability to do an Alpha Strike already pretty well accomplishes that, and is more flexible. True narrative control in any case requires the ability to add to/influence the SCENE.
The best suggestion I've seen yet, ever, on the whole subject is to replace some hit points with some sort of "get out of jail free card". In other words have some sort of hero points that you spend to avoid damage, where the player gets to explain how that happens (and there could be class features or whatever involved, maybe you use skill check, so the player is encouraged to make it a narratively plausible story). That's the only incarnation of this sort of idea that really makes sense to me.
NOW, if you once had these hero points, then warlords replenishing them makes rather decent sense. They could really in effect be a sort of HS. You can of course also have clerics that heal hit points, but if every PC has basically only a fairly small number of physical hit points then by itself that sort of healing is of limited benefit.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Except of course there is no such "two general forces". There are many reasons to design games in different ways, the two agendas you mention are very far from being the whole story. What you call 'naturalism' (basically GNS simulationist agenda) is a rather narrow and limited thing by itself. You have to immediately acknowledge that in addition to portraying something with some relation to reality that D&D's mechanics are also designed to be GAMIST. That is they have the agenda to be a fun game, and a practical game which can actually be played. Gygax states this right up front, and in fact in no uncertain terms says that in his opinion D&D's primary agenda is gamist. He cites the highly abstract nature of the AD&D combat system as his example, and even talks about hit points starting from a gamist point of view (else his discussion would quickly conclude that hit points should remain much lower). The only agenda that Gary doesn't even acknowledge at all is the narrativist or story-telling agenda, which was I think not largely understood in the late 70's and has only crept into D&D with 4e.
Thus we can easily conclude that Martial Healing easily serves the gamist agenda. I don't understand your assertion that it dis-serves the simulationist agenda as it has been amply shown that this is not particularly the case. Clearly having more than one way to make a healer serves story telling, at least at a high level.
I'd just like to say about the 'traditionalist' agenda, meh. Games are not rituals, they are forms of entertainment. You wouldn't watch the same movie 1000's of times, nor play only one type of music. There's no reason to fix what ain't broke, surely, but if it ain't broke, then why are you planning on buying a new set of D&D rules? Any appeal to traditionalism can be met with "just keep doing what you're doing". Insisting that everyone ELSE has to keep doing it too isn't traditionalism, its being bossy! Likewise we can criticize change for its own sake of course.
Ahnehnois
First Post
What I call "naturalism" comprises the G, the N, and thew S, among other things. What I mean is designing the game that would be designed if D&D didn't exist. The game that a novice would expect when you explain to him what an rpg is. I'm postulating a distinction between rpg theory/development and traditionalism.
Indeed; I think you've addressed your own point. "Gamism" is more a legacy term than it is a thing that draws new people to the game or creates enjoyment in and of itself. I don't much care for it.
I tend to rewatch movies and TV shows, but okay on the big picture. Games aren't rituals. Moving on.
We can also criticize change that simply doesn't work (for any number of reasons). That's what I'm doing. I have little interest in holding on to traditions; that's for people an age bracket or two above me. I do have an interest in rules that make my game better.
Alternate health systems make my game better (in a variety of ways; not just in terms of simulation). Teamwork mechanics make my game better. Expanded nonmagical healing and inspiration makes my game better. Warlords and their martial healing healing don't.
Similar Threads
