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: 6734072" data-attributes="member: 37579">Low levels is a very different game. And not knowing the details or your game - which seems to form your opinion on healing - I cannot really comment. My game tends to be deadly as well, but the DM likes to go for hard challenges in every fight, likely pushing 2-3 deadly encounters in a row with little to no time for a short rest. I'm not willing to make a judgement call on healing in that regard. Which seems like a rule problem more than a reason for a brand new class. A sage advice answer. Because adding another class won't solve the problem of a table where no one wanted to play the healer, because no one will still want to play the healer. And it still doesn't help matters if the healer - cleric or warlord - is the one unconscious. Here's the thing: the warlord might arguably need some way to get fallen allies back into the fight. But does that need to restore health? And does it need to be the same ability as their potential moral boosting inspiration?Could warlords have a "bandage wounds" class feature that lets them restore 1d6 with a healers kit? Or a special feature that once per day a creature with temporary hit points granted by the warlord can act even if they're at 0 hp? One ability I've been proposing for a while is that a warlord, during a short rest, can grant out bonus Hit Dice to be spent like regular Hit Dice. Which could also help. That could be phrased to include just the warlord taking a short rest. IIRC, August 2013 was 2/3 through the playtest. Since they didn't finalize things until early 2014. Evidently he changed his mind. If you're taking 65 points of damage each round, no combat healing short of a 6th level heal spell is going to stop you going down. Combat healing is a trap as you need to spend two spells to keep up with a single round of damage. Cleric healing in no way keeps up with damage. A warlord inspiring people should be equivalent to a healing word spell healing 1d4 (+1d4 every odd level). That's nothing. But is still equivalent to a 1st level spell slot. Unless a warlord is healing that amount at 5 ft or is just healing their Int modifier it's not going to be significantly less potent than the cleric. Since temporary hp won't last outside of a fight (or two rapid fights), a warlord could theoretically do *more* than a cleric. A 1d10 or 2d6. Or they could reduce damage by a similar amount. If your table with 4 healers is finding it a meatgrinder, what could a balanced warlord do to change that? What could they do that any other healer could not? It'd *still* be a meatgrinder. If the warlord makes the game not a meatgrinder, then they're not balanced with the other leader/healer classes. (But low level 5e was designed to be a bit of a meatgrinder, so that sounds like it's working as intended. Old school feel and all. )Theoretically, if played correctly, a warlord with thp would be just as effective as healing.They didn't make that sacrifice. It was made for them. There was nothing voluntary about it. So it's a poor example of a compromise. And if the class is released in a splatbook, warlord fans will buy that book, and the sacrifice is largely negligible. Ditto the disclaimer argument, as people who want the warlord lose nothing by a line of text saying it's non-mandtaory. (Although, for reasons I'll get into later, I don't see that working.)Well... going above Challenge is discouraged by the DMG. So if you're not playing by the suggested encounter building guidelines, complaining about difficulty seems... curious. And, again, facing an encounter low in resources will kill you regardless of classes in the game. Going into a fight with a tapped out warlord is just as bad. If the warlord is in any way balanced with the bard, had your character been a warlord things would have happened exactly the same. It's a compromise because there's a choice. And it's already in the game. IF I wanted healing in my game to be inspirational, I can add the second wind rules module from the DMG and describe damage as more scratches and weariness. IF I want damage to be more meaty I can describe visceral hits and remove full healing overnight. The choice is in the hands of the DM and the rules modules. If the warlord is in the game, then the rules modules cease to matter. It doesn't mean anything if you only gain 1 HD every day and have no other way to regain hp if after every night the warlord can give a jolly good rousing speech after a sleep and everyone heals. The DM has no option but to ban the entire class, even if they otherwise like the idea of a warlord, a commander class, or more martial classes. And that is a problem. The thing is, in a low magic game, something Game of Thrones, you want more options. If you're limiting classes, so having an extra choice is good for variety. But if that additional class goes against the feeling & tone you're trying to add to the game, then it's a false choice. As a martial class, the warlord *really* needs to be designed to work with modularity, to complement it rather than work against it. Again, how hit points are defined should be the purview of the DM and rules modules and not a class. That's awkward if I'm running a module and, at the table, I need to replace a monster. I need to replace one of the appropriate challenge that fits the terrain and cannot be one the PCs have fought too recently. I might need to do it within minutes. So? Yes, the players are at their mercy. If you trust your DM is this a problem? If you and your DM have shared opinions of the nature of hit points this shouldn't be an issue. If your DM disagrees and doesn't want martial healing, then the class existing won't help. I'm not sure about your experience convincing a DM to go off book. I've never seen an experienced DM be afraid to add something or create a rule. But if that's a deal breaker, some conversion guides in a sidebar giving the exact math to swap temp hp to healing would make sense. The "optional class" argument is kinda BS. Every class is functionally optional. The *only* classes that are assumed are the cleric, fighter, wizard, and rogue. And one of the few settings where a D&D class is excluded omits the cleric. (Dark Sun)And all of those classes are optional and still manage not to mess with modularity. A new class is highly unlikely to be "optional" in the game, not any more than any other class. A class takes longer to design and playtest than several playtests. Heck, the amount of testing required to see if all the content in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook worked is likely less than is required for a full class with 2-4 subclasses. With that amount of work and investment of time and resources you'd darn well better believe they're assuming it will be used and will be legal in the Adventurer's League.They're simply not going to do that if they suspect half of the tables are going to go "pass". That's simply NOT efficient use of their time and resources. Not when they could fill the same page count by with five or six subclasses in a quarter of the time.It's as official as a poll posted on a staff member's wordpress blog. As in not really that much at all. It has all the authority as a favourite class poll started by Morrus. If the best data you have is heavily biased and non-representative, you're really better off with no data. We know that of the 200,000 most stuck around through the entire process and the response rate for the surveys was high. And that the 200,000 would not include people who just played and didn't download, so the number of participants might be much higher. And we know that after looking at all their data, the D&D team still decided a warlord subclass was fine for the fighter. If the demand had been strong enough, they would have compromised and added the class. They did on the warlock and sorcerer, which were going to be a subclass of magic user.</blockquote>

Verification