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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Sure, but they are nowhere near as capable. If you replaced one of that group with a cleric, or added a cleric, one with the herbalist background, the party would be 3-5x more durable.

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.

Really? I can make monster stat blocks for whatever I want in any edition. In fact the old Rogue's Gallery for 1e was all NPCs and you know what? While they were stated to be this or that class there was a whole slew of shortcuts and things that were left out, clearly because as NPCs they didn't need to have them. There are also a TON of non-classed unique 'NPC-like' things in 1e, like shamans, priests, and witch doctors for instance. It is trivial to make non-classed NPCs and many examples exist in different adventures. I agree, there's a basic assumption that you will make classed NPCs, but classes are never intended to be the whole world.

3.x/d20 is even far more this way in that there are extensive rules for building monsters, which allow for anything to be done without using PC classes. Even if you DO use classes 3.x has MCing to a degree that the whole concept means little. Again, of course, you CAN make classed NPCs.

So yes, 4e isn't exactly like other editions, but it is not that much different either. When I ran 2e I didn't make classed NPCs either, except now and then as a shortcut. Each NPC had just exactly what it needed, just like other 'monsters'. So, actually D&D is pretty consistent.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yes, an outlier in this respect; but far from an outlier in numbers of fans.

It's not an option to ignore this, unless one wants to exclude a large portion of D&D fans.

Other editions wrote classes with world implications in mind.

4e did not write classes with world implications in mind.

If 5e writes classes with world implications in mind: Both styles possible.

If 5e does not write classes with world implications in mind: Only one style possible.

 

[Pour]

Other editions wrote classes with world implications in mind.

4e did not write classes with world implications in mind.

If 5e writes classes with world implications in mind: Both styles possible.

If 5e does not write classes with world implications in mind: Only one style possible.

What do you mean by world implications? Classes born from the world/setting? Or classes meant to exist in and affect the worlds?

 

[GX.Sigma]

What do you mean by world implications? Classes born from the world/setting? Or classes meant to exist in and affect the worlds?

The idea that including a class doesn't just mean "players can choose this class," but "this world is a world where this class exists."

e.g., in the world of Greyhawk, there is a class of priests called the Druids. It's not just a character option--it's an entire class of people in the setting. If you're a druid, and you meet an NPC druid, you're both members of the same class. Anything he can do, you can do, and vice-versa.

Of course, you can get around this in any number of ways. The idea of rarities was thrown around a while ago: The Warlock is a rare class, meaning they're exceptional and unique. If you're running a game that's set in a non-standard setting, you might decide that Druids are a rare class; a PC can choose to play a Druid, but he'll be exceptional and unique.

My problem with Warlords is essentially that I don't want them to be a "common" class that NPCs can be expected to have. I'm not really stressed about it, because even if the game includes a Warlord class that I hate, I can redefine it to be a "rare" class in my world.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Other editions wrote classes with world implications in mind.

4e did not write classes with world implications in mind.

If 5e writes classes with world implications in mind: Both styles possible.

If 5e does not write classes with world implications in mind: Only one style possible.

Yeah, I'm with Pour, I have NO IDEA what you mean by this. I don't know what 'both styles' you refer to. In 4e, IF YOU WISH, you may of course make NPCs using PC classes, nothing can stop you from doing this. There is even a simplified method of doing it in the back of the DMG (in chapter 10 I believe, right after the monster design rules).

If you mean something about someone thought about the world-consequences of clerics with cure spells and such running around in the world, raise dead spells, etc or wizards with Charm Person as a simple level 1 spell, NO actually it is QUITE clear that nobody thought about the implications.

In fact D&D was invented as a game of dungeon exploration. No greater 'world' than "the town" where you could buy supplies ALA Diablo (the original game with the hard-coded town) was envisaged by those rules, and the game up to 4e didn't really change those assumptions much at all. No thought was ever given to how the world was supposed to work. The few parts of it the PCs were ever expected to interact with were just given as hard and fast rules, prices, hirelings, followers, castles, etc were all simply hard-coded in the DMG "this is how it works" with numbers of gold pieces and etc and NO explanation of how that could possibly be logical when you considered the implications of even level 1-3 spells.

 

[Jester David]

Why?!? There is absolutely no logic that supports this.

No, there really is logic that supports my statement.

Classes gets used a lot, being involved in almost every round of every single combat from levels 1-20. And have the most moving parts of any single game element. They require a tonn of work for balancing and fine-tuning.
They also take a lot of pages. The smallest class (the fighter) takes 4 pages and that's not counting maneuvers.
Making classes should not be entered lightly. Which means they shouldn't be completely optional in the same way as other rules modules. Too much work is required. You want them to get as much play as possible.

This is such an overexaggeration it's almost not worth responding to. Including the Warlord does not introduce "hundreds of extra classes for each potential optional rule."

It's real simple: if you don't like the Warlord class (or build), don't use it or allow it in your games. But there is no logical argument you can make or line of reasoning you can use that supports not including it.

Only if you lack imagination.
They're talking mass combat and gun modules. You can imagine a gunslinger class and an army general class. Pirate and sailor classes for an aquatic combat module.
For every major rules module you can imagine a class (or two) that takes advantage of the new rules.
Martial healing is a pretty small module compared to something like mass combat, firearms, different technology, etc. Giving it its own class really opens the door for others.

and other DM's and players will want other optional rules. Just because you don't see a need for them or want them, is not a reason for their exclusion from DDN. D&D Next is the edition for Everybody, not the edition for just Jester Canuck!

Wait... what? How did you get that?
I want lots of alternate rules, including ones I'll never, ever use. I want rules for everyone, and have been pushing for content I'll never use for ages. I want a DMG that's the largest book in the edition and is bursting with options. I want Dragon magazine to be filled with options too niche to make it into the books. I want options that make people want to try them out and play types of games they've never tried before.

I'm pushing hard for the edition that has something for as many people as possible.

But that works best when the Standard game is simple and you can add what you want, not when the Standard game is full of content you need to strip away before adding the options you do want.

You're absolutely right. And ALL classes are Additive options!

In order for a class to work with the game system, it has to be designed to work with the game system; and since ALL classes are optional, ALL classes can be present. Again, if you don't want or like the Warlord, don't use it or allow it in your games. Problem solved. Don't include the Warlord in the base game, and that's a problem created.

It's illogical to not include the Warlord.

As I said earlier, it's not a problem solved if the base game has a warlord that has martial healing.

You might have players that really want to play the warlord and get upset when the DM says "no". There's still a lot of player entitlement out there.
Also, what if I run published modules? Suddenly, I might have warlord NPCs or monsters in my game. WotC really wants to get back to publishing adventures.

And if the game is built around the concept that health is 90% fatigue to accommodate the warlord being able to heal someone from 0 to full by inspiration, then than concept will likely spread to specialities/ feats, backgrounds, monsters, and the like.
Plus, if one class can heal through inspiring speeches, why can't other classes? Why can't a bard? Or a high Charisma fighter? Or a battle-wizard? They might not be as effective as the warlord, but if it's possible to motivate someone to keep fighting, why can only one class do it?
It's a little like trying to get rid of magical healing, or certain skills. It's tricky.

And if the option is only available to one class... does it need to be part of the core? If the rogue was the only class to use skills and no other classes or characters had skills is that a worthwhile addition to the game?

 

[Obryn]

You might have players that really want to play the warlord and get upset when the DM says "no". There's still a lot of player entitlement out there.

I think that's a table problem, frankly. And you can say the same about anything. Gnomes if your setting has no gnomes. Or wizards if your setting has no wizards.

And if the option is only available to one class... does it need to be part of the core? If the rogue was the only class to use skills and no other classes or characters had skills is that a worthwhile addition to the game?

Arguably? Moreso. Putting general skills into a class-based system is problematic from the get-go, IMO. It's a square peg in a round hole with one exception - that being the Rogue.

-O

 

[Obryn]

The idea that including a class doesn't just mean "players can choose this class," but "this world is a world where this class exists."

That's how it is in 4e, too. It's just the class's specific mechanics that don't carry over between PCs and NPCs. If you have a PC who's a Psion, it says something about the setting. Ditto, Warlords. And Paladins. And so on... You can still have NPCs who are Invokers, Wizards, Scouts, etc. I've seen this first-hand, having run Dark Sun for over two years, with its lack of divine PCs.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yeah, I'm with Pour, I have NO IDEA what you mean by this. I don't know what 'both styles' you refer to. In 4e, IF YOU WISH, you may of course make NPCs using PC classes, nothing can stop you from doing this. There is even a simplified method of doing it in the back of the DMG (in chapter 10 I believe, right after the monster design rules).

That post was pretty much a direct rebuttal to something you posted. I had said I was uncomfortable with a world where leader-types were described by the Warlord class. Your argument was that, in 4e, classes aren't assumed to be a part of the world. The point I was trying to make in the post you quoted was that, if you designed the Warlord class such that they are assumed to be a part of the world, and all Warlords in the world work like this, then DMs could still use the 4e style "NPC as monster" method if they wanted to, and other DMs could use the old-school "NPC with class and level" method if that's what they want. You could do it both ways. That wasn't really my main point, though.

That's how it is in 4e, too. It's just the class's specific mechanics that don't carry over between PCs and NPCs. If you have a PC who's a Psion, it says something about the setting. Ditto, Warlords. And Paladins. And so on... You can still have NPCs who are Invokers, Wizards, Scouts, etc. I've seen this first-hand, having run Dark Sun for over two years, with its lack of divine PCs.

-O

Sorry if I implied that wasn't the case in 4e--the only reason I mentioned it was in response to AbdulAlhazred's above post. In fact, one of the first really important NPCs in my 4e game was actually a Warlord. My original point is more that it's weird for NPCs to have the powers that the 4e Warlord has, and it would be even weirder if every leader-type NPC were assumed to have warlord-like powers, in the same way that every mage-type NPC is assumed to have Wizard-like powers. Which may or may not be the case in 4e.

 

[pemerton]

it's weird for NPCs to have the powers that the 4e Warlord has

I agree but maybe for a different reason - in general the different playing role of players and GM means that playes need different sorts of resources - including warlord powers - from GMs. Hence it makes sense that PCs and NPCs be built differently.

But I don't see this is an argument against warlords in the game.