D&D 5E How much healing, how much mitigation for a warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

And you know what else, not dropping to zero > healing from zero.

If you're not in the middle of beatdown, it certainly can be. It can save the movement cost of standing up, depending on the initiative, could even save a whole turn's actions.

Which further illustrates that the two are not equivalent.

Screw it. Done. Discount versatility all you want. I don't care anymore.

I'm emphasizing the importance of versatility. Being able to both restore hps, and mitigate damage - in different ways and different proportions - in response to the challenges your party faces is versatility. Doing only one or the other or having them available in only a fixed ratio is lacking versatility.

 

[Bawylie]

I'm emphasizing the importance of versatility. Being able to both restore hps, and mitigate damage - in different ways and different proportions - in response to the challenges your party faces is versatility. Doing only one or the other or having them available in only a fixed ratio is lacking versatility.

Would healing be a good pre-combat buff? Maybe; if party member hp < 100%. But mitigation, via temp HP, would ALWAYS be a good pre-combat buff. It would even help in case someone fell in a pit.

Which would be better? Healing 7 damage or preventing 7 damage? Tie, right? All things being equal, that's a tie.

Which is better? Healing someone from zero to 10 HP, or causing an attack to miss and not drop an ally? Depends on turn order, doesn't it? If the ally isn't going to lose an action due to unconsciousness, it's equal. But if the ally would miss a turn, the forced error ability would be better.

What would be better? Healing some damage after a failed save, or causing a successful save? Gosh, depends on the amount doesn't it? Might not take any damage at all if you save. But full damage from a failed save and then some healing? Eh, not as appealing as making that save.

Here's another. What's better? Making that save vs charm/compulsion or healing ... Uh... Uh-oh, charm and compulsion don't do damage. So mitigation wins that outright.

See, as long as all you consider is numbers up and numbers down, healing will seem to be the best option. And it IS A GREAT option. But mitigation is fundamentally the SAME level of awesome. You just use it differently.

So if your critique is that mitigation worse than healing because it doesn't work the same way, you're essentially complaining that your saw won't drill holes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But mitigation, via temp HP, would ALWAYS be a good pre-combat buff.
Depends on turn order, doesn't it?
Gosh, depends on the amount doesn't it?
So mitigation wins that outright.
But mitigation is fundamentally the SAME level of awesome. You just use it differently.

So if your critique is that mitigation worse than healing because it doesn't work the same way, you're essentially complaining that your saw won't drill holes.

You don't have to convince me they're both good. I think they're both /vital/ to providing a party with adequate support.
My critique was that they were not equivalent.
You've just proved that, again.

Seems like they're reasonably balanced, though.

 

[Bawylie]

You don't have to convince me they're both good. I think they're both /vital/ to providing a party with adequate support.
My critique was that they were not equivalent.
You've just proved that, again.

Seems like they're reasonably balanced, though.

They're functionally equivalent. Not identical. I never claimed they were identical.

I feel like you've got me chasing my tail splitting hairs here. Jaysus.

 

[Zardnaar]

THey shouldn't be as good at healing as a cleric espicially a life cleric but they can be better than say a Paladin.

 

[Zardnaar]

They shouldn't be as good at healing as a cleric especially a life cleric but they can be better than say a Paladin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They're functionally equivalent. Not identical. I never claimed they were identical.

I feel like you've got me chasing my tail splitting hairs here. Jaysus.

You spent your last post proving that they're functionally different in different situations. They're not equivalent. One can not always substitute for the other.

 

[Bawylie]

You spent your last post proving that they're functionally different in different situations. They're not equivalent. One can not always substitute for the other.

No. I did not do that. You seem to not understand what equivalent means. Or maybe just how I'm using it.

Equivalent means about equal in value. Functionally equivalent means that they do about the same things about as well as each other. Not that one can replace the other in every circumstance. The word for that is substitute.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Look I'm sorry to have you splitting hairs like this between equivalent and substitute and identical. I certainly don't want this to degenerate into posting dictionary definitions.

Look at it another way: Isn't it better to have both than only one or the other, and better still to have flexibility in how you assign resources to one or the other?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Look at it another way: Isn't it better to have both than only one or the other, and better still to have flexibility in how you assign resources to one or the other?

I agree. In fact I think warlords should just have everything possible. That way they are flexible enough to do everything you want them to. They should never be without the ideal, perfect option in any situation. When are we going to see this class already? I'm champing at the bit to get a gander at this monster.