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

[Libramarian]

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.

I don't think of it fully proportionately. I don't narrate 56 points of damage to a 56hp character the same way as 2 points of damage to a 2hp character.

I think of high hp characters like good boxers. They're good at defense so you have to wear them down with some body shots before you have a chance at a haymaker. Low hp characters have no defense so they can go from fine to dead in one hit.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

I could do with some proportionate healing if it were simple. Anything that involves healing percentages I would rather not deal with, but something like the HD mechanic (provided it isn't a self heal system) I would be on board for. Maybe the first heal spell, you roll half the target's Hit Dice to see how much they heal. The second could be you roll their Hit Dice to see how much they heal. The third you roll double their HD (though the potential overflow might annoy some people). The fourth brings them back to full automatically. You could mix it up even more and key the die you roll to the spell instead. So heal one you roll 1d4 per HD of the target, heal two you roll 1d6 per HD of the target, etc.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think of it fully proportionately. I don't narrate 56 points of damage to a 56hp character the same way as 2 points of damage to a 2hp character.

I think of high hp characters like good boxers. They're good at defense so you have to wear them down with some body shots before you have a chance at a haymaker. Low hp characters have no defense so they can go from fine to dead in one hit.

I think the question becomes, why not? Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?

I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same? The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?

I agree that we have likely all done something similar, but, that doesn't really make it right. After all, I think we all agree that the 56 HP guy isn't actually physically different from the 2 HP guy. You can't look at either one and know that one is able to take more HP damage than the other. There's no little floating bar of HP above their heads.

So, why do we narrate them differently?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the question becomes, why not? Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?

I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same? The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?

I agree that we have likely all done something similar, but, that doesn't really make it right. After all, I think we all agree that the 56 HP guy isn't actually physically different from the 2 HP guy. You can't look at either one and know that one is able to take more HP damage than the other. There's no little floating bar of HP above their heads.

So, why do we narrate them differently?

I think maybe player pride? That is, the 56 damage attack will outright kill most commoners, animals, and low level PCs/NPCs, regardless of your take on what hit points represent. It's a very powerful attack, obviously. An attack that did 2 damage obviously has a "low" potential, so it's harder to call (it's probably not 1d20 or 1d100 being rolled, it's probably more like 1d4 or 1d6). With that in mind, a lot of those same commoners, animals, and low level PCs/NPCs can or almost certainly will survive the hit, it means the attack is less powerful.

So, when the PC survives (or barely falls to? I know 0 HP in older editions can be hazy) the very powerful attack, then you narrate them doing their best to avoid the damage, taking more than most could, or the like, as a sort of "narrative" reward for earning their "high level" status. Whereas, if they go down to that 2 HP damage attack, and you know it's an attack that many level 1s would shrug off, you describe it in the more "nicked and falls over" way (though maybe not that extreme).

I don't know. Just a thought on why it might be that way. It's an interesting question, though. As always, play what you like

 

[Libramarian]

I think the question becomes, why not? Why not narrate those two attacks, which have identical mechanical effects, the same way?

I mean, if immersion is the goal here, then why should one be different from the other when the end results are the same? The 56 HP guy takes 56 points of damage in this massive, punishing attack, while the 2hp guy is nicked and falls over?

I agree that we have likely all done something similar, but, that doesn't really make it right. After all, I think we all agree that the 56 HP guy isn't actually physically different from the 2 HP guy. You can't look at either one and know that one is able to take more HP damage than the other. There's no little floating bar of HP above their heads.

So, why do we narrate them differently?

To give objectivity to the damage roll.

Interestingly, Moldvay Basic assumes that the DM rolls damage for both the monsters and the players behind the screen, perhaps to make it easier for them to relativize their damage narration to the HP of the target, but I've never heard of any DMs actually doing that.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh you got a scratch and fell unconscious is not a cool at low level.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And here's the death knell for the hopes of fans of the 4e Warlord:

"Some people asked about the warlord - the class deserves an L&L of its own, along with an update on classes in general. Long and short of it is that there should be a tactical/commander guy in the game, but it might not have healing and might be a type of ftr. And when I say healing, think of it in terms of use X to give back hit points. There are other ways to mitigate damage or keep PCs going."

And this is pretty much, as others have stated, the canary in the coalmine for many of us. Next is a non-starter before it even launched.

 

[Hussar]

I really have to wonder why the warlord is getting thrown under the bus. Looking at 5e's mechanics, adding in a warlord seems pretty simple. Using the Fighter's Combat Superiority mechanics for granting other actions and a bit of healing seems a no-brainer to me. Hrm, spend a die, ally gains that many HP. Done. For those who don't want to use it, just don't use the class.

Not impressed with this.

 

[Blackwarder]

I really have to wonder why the warlord is getting thrown under the bus. Looking at 5e's mechanics, adding in a warlord seems pretty simple. Using the Fighter's Combat Superiority mechanics for granting other actions and a bit of healing seems a no-brainer to me. Hrm, spend a die, ally gains that many HP. Done. For those who don't want to use it, just don't use the class.

Not impressed with this.

What makes you think they are throwing the warlord under the bus?

Warder

 

[fendak]

I think making it a specialty fits nicely. although, I'm sure it would work as a class. I just don't feel like it embodies where D&D Next is going.