The Warlord, about it's past present and future, pitfalls and solutions. (Please calling all warlord players)

[Libramarian]

I would generally fit it under "skill in combat and similar life and death situations," but that reflects my preferring Int-based to Cha-based Warlords. Morale was a separate set of rules in AD&D.

The important thing is that HP do not equal physical resilience.

I don't think anybody actually thinks that though. I have never seen anyone narrate 3 points of damage from a dagger to a 56hp character in the same way that they would narrate the same damage to a 2hp character.

I don't like morale to be mixed in with HP because I prefer to use a separate system for it.

 

[Iosue]

That doesn't have to mean healing, but balancing a non-healing Support role is exceedingly difficult

Honest question. I've seen this statement before, but I'm not exactly sure if or why it's true. What is the difference between, say, a Cleric using a spell, either on their turn or between encounters, that heals, say, 1d8 of damage and a Warlord using a reaction to mitigate 1d8 of damage?

 

[Obryn]

Honest question. I've seen this statement before, but I'm not exactly sure if or why it's true. What is the difference between, say, a Cleric using a spell, either on their turn or between encounters, that heals, say, 1d8 of damage and a Warlord using a reaction to mitigate 1d8 of damage?

Generally, damage mitigation needs to be much more potent than healing for it to keep up. There are a few factors to this... Healing (1) Can bring someone back from unconsciousness and stabilize the dying, (2) is precise; you're unlikely to waste extra points, (3) Can be done after the damage is taken, and (4) stacks with other regained hit points if one heal is not enough. Oh, and (5) it can be used in downtime.

Mitigation can have perks, too, but its best use is as an accessory to healing instead of an outright replacement.

In your warlord example above, (1) You may waste points, (2) You need to be in range when the damage is dealt, and (3) You may have action economy limitations. On the upside, though, it could stop someone from going unconscious and may save an action on your turn, depending on how it's implemented.

-O

 

[Garthanos]

I have never seen anyone narrate 3 points of damage from a dagger to a 56hp character in the same way that they would narrate the same damage to a 2hp character.

And that is because people naturally think in terms of proportionate damage its why that heal light wounds that brings my low level character from dying to near full health but barely touches the higher level characters status and so on - seems weird.

Proportionate healing another coolness from 4e thrown in the dust-bin.

 

[Obryn]

Well, I have to think that preventing a player from going unconscious/dying is at least as valuable as standing them back up, particularly since going down and getting stood up is going to take a character out of the action for at least a little bit, while preventing that from happening can allow the player to stay in the game, do some damage, or find a more advantageous spot. As for stacking it seems to me that healing 8 hp and healing 12 hp is pretty much the same effect as healing 8 hp and mitigating 12 hp. It still adds up to 20 hp worth damage mitigated. But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?

The last part was addressed above - when you mitigate, you're wasting points more often because in effect you can heal, at maximum, the damage from a single attack.

As for not dropping.... The circumstances where it's better to mitigate are rather more rare. You need (1) to have someone go from good to really bad where healing beforehand was not possible, and (2) mitigate enough to make a difference and cause them not to drop. If those work out and you're in range, it's good... Still not as good as being healed reactively, though.

As I've said - it's an advantage, but it's situational and tricky to arrange. Whereas healing is much more of a sure thing.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Of course, I would guess you could balance that out, mathemagically.

Yep, which is why I'm saying it would need to be better in some way to keep pace. Like usable more often, or adding extra thp or something like that.

It's tricky though.

-O

 

[MarkB]

The advantage of having healing surges in the game was that you could characterise hit point damage as 'meat' damage and still allow inspirational healing, because surge-healing a person up to full hit points no longer meant restoring them to full health.

Healing surges became another axis of character health, with hit point loss representing wounds that were of immediate concern, and surge loss representing those wounds being treated via (mundane or magical) first aid so that they could be dealt with properly later.

I've grown to like the healing surge system a lot over the course of playing 4e, both game-mechanically and narratively, and I'll be sad to see it go.

 

[Iosue]

Generally, damage mitigation needs to be much more potent than healing for it to keep up. There are a few factors to this... Healing (1) Can bring someone back from unconsciousness and stabilize the dying, (2) is precise; you're unlikely to waste extra points, (3) Can be done after the damage is taken, and (4) stacks with other regained hit points if one heal is not enough. Oh, and (5) it can be used in downtime.

Mitigation can have perks, too, but its best use is as an accessory to healing instead of an outright replacement.

In your warlord example above, (1) You may waste points, (2) You need to be in range when the damage is dealt, and (3) You may have action economy limitations. On the upside, though, it could stop someone from going unconscious and may save an action on your turn, depending on how it's implemented.

-O

Well, I have to think that preventing a player from going unconscious/dying is at least as valuable as standing them back up, particularly since going down and getting stood up is going to take a character out of the action for at least a little bit, while preventing that from happening can allow the player to stay in the game, do some damage, or find a more advantageous spot. As for stacking it seems to me that healing 8 hp and healing 12 hp is pretty much the same effect as healing 8 hp and mitigating 12 hp. It still adds up to 20 hp worth damage mitigated. But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?

 

[Ratskinner]

But one point I still don't understand is how heals are more precise and don't waste points, while mitigation does?

Because if you're down 30hp, I can hit you with Cure Serious, and know for sure that I won't "lose" any by going past your Max HP. Since you are just as good either way, I don't have to actually push your HP to the max. However, if you're about to take some damage, and I need to keep you up...its much better for me to err on the side of caution and use an ability that will prevent more damage than you will take. So I might use a 2d8 +2 prevention ability to stop a hit that I expect to cause 7 points. (Maybe even a bigger ability, if I really need you up.)

Of course, I would guess you could balance that out, mathemagically.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yep, which is why I'm saying it would need to be better in some way to keep pace. Like usable more often, or adding extra thp or something like that.

It's tricky though.

-O

Tricky indeed, many variables, some ill-defined. AFAICT, the best way would be to playtest the rules repeatedly...oh wait.