Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6733303" data-attributes="member: 37579">I don't see why it wouldn't work. If a character receives temporary hit points, that's damage they're not taking. That's healing they don't need. Ditto negating damage from a parry or a block. And, unlike healing, you're not knocked down. You won't have to burn half your movement standing up, and might not lose a turn to act before you're healed. Which means more damage to the enemies, faster combat, and potentially less damage inflicted to the rest of the party. That sounds pretty badass. There are certainly pros and cons to both, but the net result is the same as healing: more time adventuring. Also "impossible" is a curious choice of words, as it takes only a single example to disprove. That's an unrelated issue and more a rule problem, that there's no bring a fallen ally back into the fight without healing magic. Of course, the same could be said about 3e or 4e; if you used your second wind and the healer burned their two healing words then a PC was just out for the count. There's no hard rule that an unconscious character is taking a short rest. You're lucky everyone in your party can heal. My party only has the one healer (my bard) who often gets knocked down. When he goes down he's not getting back up again easily. Curious how you insist that I'm not allowed to say "a lot of people" without data to back it up, but you're allowed to say "every person I speak to" without data? And imply that WotC axed the warlord even if/despite lots of people liked the class and wanted one? (I would like to see that tweet BTW.)And it very much is at the expense of other options. Even if everyone wants it, there are only so many options a class has, especially at level one. The warlord will only get so many warlordy powers, and if they're a primary healer that's remotely comparable to the cleric, that means they lose a heck of a lot of options that are warlord-specific. Warlord can theoretically: grant attacks, grant movement, improve initiative, grant new saving throws, grant attack bonuses, and potentially heal. At first level they get two. If they heal that halves their unique warlord abilities, the stuff that they can do and no other class can, in favour of some generic healing mandated by the design conventions of an irrelevant edition. My argument is that everyone who likes the warlord is not some gestalt hive mind and there's some variability. And that one of the sticking points regarding the warlord is martial healing. Removing overt healing in combat in favour of damage mitigation and out of combat healing might diminish the warlord hate and bring people on the fence into the pro-warlord camp. Because it's better for the health of the community if compromises are sought and the most people possible are made happy?So the non-warlord fans non-martial healers have to suck it up and accept a healing warlord without any compromise. That's where I have the issue. To get anything done in the world there needs to be a compromise a back and forth. The warlord haters need to accept that there can be a warlord and they can ignore it if they want. But that works best if the warlord supporters budge on martial healing. The warlord fans get a warlord that works just fine with a couple strokes of a black pen in their book removing the word "temporary" and the warlord wary get a class that doesn't affect the rest if the game. Oh, and the people who accepting of the warlord as a concept or are willing to say "yes" if their playes want to play it but don't like martial healing (yo) will actually have a warlord they can use.That way everyone wins!(I'll ignore the tone)Do I not know that? Sure I do. If I hate the idea of martial healing, if I want hp in my game to not be entirely defined as energy, then the warlord and martial healing change that assumption for the entire game regardless of whether or not they're used. That becomes the new status quo, the defauly assumption for how healing work because an assumed class uses that. It sure did for 4e. They even changed clerical healing in Essentials to be more energy and vigor than wounds. If I ban the warlord for including martial healing I have no way of knowing where martial healing will pop up in the game next. In the same way a couple monsters use something akin to superiority dice and they've added it to the ranger. Mechanics get reused. And healing is much more prevalent than superiority dice. Except if you're making changes to the warlord class you know exactly where to look: the warlord class. When having to change other instances of martial healing you just don't know. Plus, it's also easier to add things than take away. If you houserule a warlord to heal instead of granting temp hp you seem like an awesome DM (even if temp hp are functionally equal). If you take away healing and replace with temp hp it seems mean (again, despite the rough equivalence). And it works with the design goals of 5e by being modular and customization. A healing warlord messes with modularity, of which the rate of non-magical natural healing is an important dial. It stands out like a proud nail of noncomformity. A non-healing warlord works with the modularity and adapts to DMs who want more healing and those who want slower healing. A poll on a blog that would likely only be seen by D&D on the seldom used WotC forums might not be the best example of market research, nor the most accuracy representation of the fanbase.Especially when it was responded to by 6,799 people (assuming they couldn't vote multiple times). The 5e playtests were downloaded by 200,000 people, which is still a fraction of the audience.</blockquote>

Verification