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

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, dear sweet lord. I'm good with options. If Next doesn't include this option, it won't be a game I'll go and seek out. I'll wish WotC and fans of Next the best and play any number of other good games. My goodness.

If you notice the context of the thing you quoted, you might realize I was replying to [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] 's view that the people who don't like inspirational healing would be up in arms about any inclusion of it. I was saying that I don't think this should be a big concern, specifically because if someone isn't able to stomach the thought of other people playing their game differently than them, I don't think that's an audience that D&D needs to cater to.

I was also using the term "scream-heals" and "martial mind control" because they were used in the post I was responding to.

And, for what it's worth, in a game where grown adults pretend to be magical gumdrop elves, I'm pretty sure everything is ridiculous, pretty much by definition.

 

[DonAdam]

I just wanted to say that I love the warlord, but it wouldn't in principle bother me if it wasn't it's own class. All depends on the implementation.

Can the warlord be a fighter with maneuvers that bolster allies and appropriate specialties? Maybe.

I also have no problem with martial healing but would ideally like it to have some flavor difference from magical healing.

 

[pemerton]

Scream-heals break choice. I had a warlord in my 4e game. Suddenly, I had to change every single description I added to the combat.

The unavailability of martial healng also breaks choice - namely, the choice to play a game of romantic fantasy in which a well-timed word from a battle-captain can restore courage in a fight (eg Gandalf's speech to Pippin in the RotK movie).

I've said in pretty much every post here that I'm fine with warlord healing having a toggle switch.

That's been clear enough to me!

I was replying to FireLance's view that the people who don't like inspirational healing would be up in arms about any inclusion of it. I was saying that I don't think this should be a big concern

At least two posters in this thread are "up in arms" about inspiration healing being an option: Jester Canuck and GX.Sigma.

 

[Jester David]

The unavailability of martial healng also breaks choice - namely, the choice to play a game of romantic fantasy in which a well-timed word from a battle-captain can restore courage in a fight (eg Gandalf's speech to Pippin in the RotK movie).

Which is fine IF the DM wants that style of play. If morale-based non-magical healing is something they want. However, the choice should not be a player's.

A player picking one class over another should not change how the DM wants to narrative every single turn of every single combat for the entire campaign. It shouldn't push a DM to include one set of optional rules.

Here's an analogy. Would you allow a class that required encumbrance? A class wth a class feature - even if it was just one option of many - related to carrying capacity and only of use if the entire table started tracking weight.
Is that fair?
It's actually less of a stretch since it involves no optional rules, just rules seldom used. And doesn't involve anyone changing how they view a game element.


I can see warlord healing working in a couple ways. Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive.
However, there could be class features tied to certain rules modules, and there could easily be a small morale-based healing module, a sidebar in the section of optional healing and health rules. Anyone can stop and give an inspiring speech and heal, but warlords (and bards) are better at it. Just like Gandalf, a wizard, can apparently heal in your example.
Alternatively, it could be part of an optional expansion of the class, likely in an accessory or Dragon article. A straight warlord option where you can drop a maneuver or have reduced MDD in exchange for a daily heal. (I'm saying an accessory because fitting all the core options into the initial books will be hard enough as it is without squishing variants for every class. It makes more sense to have optional features in one place, like the 3e Unearthed Arcana.)

 

[Hussar]

I'm of the opinion that part of being an adult is to have the capacity to let other people have fun in their own way. I'm not so sure we'd get much of an ardent chorus against the inspirational healing, if it was something you could swap in or swap out as you desired.
/snip

Really? The past 4 or 5 years has seen a chorus of criticisms about Schroedinger's HP and the like. The only thing you have to do to change that in 4e is remove the Warlord. Done. Or, give the Warlord's healing powers a magical keyword. Either way.

A one sentence fix.

But that hasn't stopped the ardent chorus against inspirational healing. Has there been a month go by that hasn't seen someone weighing in to tell all and sundry how this breaks their immersion? One single game element that is entirely optional and is removed with a single sentence.

I think you're being far too optimistic here if you think slapping an "optional" label onto something will stop the "ardent chorus".

 

[Hussar]

Which is fine IF the DM wants that style of play. If morale-based non-magical healing is something they want. However, the choice should not be a player's.

Umm, how is it the player's choice? You are unable to say no, as the DM, to a given class? There is something in the rules which tells you that you must not say no? The player is holding your cat hostage and will sacrifice it to some unnamed demon if you say no? You are incapable of adding a single sentence of house rules which would make morale based healing different?
[MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]midget - I think this pretty much shows my point no? Here we have a perfect example of what, I believe, you termed the "ardent chorus".

 

[Hussar]

And, another thought about "in combat healing". Yes, I understand why this is something of an issue. But, the problem is, if healing only occurs out of combat (or mostly out of combat) then that means no combat is actually very dangerous. Or, conversely, you are either mostly healthy or all dead (as is the case in something like Basic/Expert D&D). There's no in between because, without in combat healing, there's no way to make the combat dangerous, without making it very lethal and seriously swingy.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but, I don't think it's a good baseline when the game is going to expect character generation to take more than 10 minutes. Not in a game which is so combat heavy as D&D typically is.

So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Really? The past 4 or 5 years has seen a chorus of criticisms about Schroedinger's HP and the like. The only thing you have to do to change that in 4e is remove the Warlord. Done. Or, give the Warlord's healing powers a magical keyword. Either way.

A one sentence fix.

I think you might be over-simplifying it a bit, here. Adding a keyword doesn't address the fluff of the Warlord class, or the nature of the magic it wields, and it's also clearly house-rule territory. As always with 4e, refluffing is crazy easy, but it's also just easy enough for someone who isn't a big fan of it not to play 4e (just as it'd be easy for [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] to not play 5e if they didn't support the kind of warlord he wants to play), and as we've seen over and over in this thread, getting the psychology right is more important than getting the mechanics right, in a lot of cases.

I think this pretty much shows my point no? Here we have a perfect example of what, I believe, you termed the "ardent chorus".

At least two posters in this thread are "up in arms" about inspiration healing being an option: Jester Canuck and GX.Sigma.

And I think I've made it pretty clear that this is something of an overreaction in my mind. I've already responded to GX.Sigma. But let me illustrate in some more detail to JC here:

Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive.

It can be inclusive, because it can give you, right in the Warlord class, several different variations on Inspiring Word to use. It can even do that without picking a default ("here's 3 options, choose one!").

So the idea is that the Warlord's healing might end up as optional as the Paladin's code or the Monk class or a Barbarian's alignment restrictions (or whatever): no one who dislikes the thing needs to include it, and those who like it can feel free to use it.

A DM who specifically dislikes that option just won't enable it. Monks are optional, paladins are optional, pretty sure the whole Standard game is going to be opt-in.

So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?

I think you're kind of looking at this the wrong way around.

4e's assumption was that every combat was a slog-fest to the death, more or less: it was designed to put most characters into at least bloodied in an encounter, so that they needed healing to continue. Healers would then "unlock" your extra HP for you.

5e's assumption tends to be that combats aren't necessarily crazy lethal, so you can see more attrition over the course of an adventuring day: imagine if all of your surges were converted to HP and then just added to your total.

You make a lethal combat in 5e by giving it the ability to drain the party's entire day of resources at once, making it a true "give it your all!" kind of moment. If they don't have in-combat healing, the only way to recover from that is to kill the other guys first, so that the party can then rest and recover naturally.

And if you DO have in-combat healing, you get that yo-yo effect: you've got a few HP's sitting out there in your teammates that they just need to unlock for you, whenever they get around to it.

 

[Manbearcat]

And, another thought about "in combat healing". Yes, I understand why this is something of an issue. But, the problem is, if healing only occurs out of combat (or mostly out of combat) then that means no combat is actually very dangerous. Or, conversely, you are either mostly healthy or all dead (as is the case in something like Basic/Expert D&D). There's no in between because, without in combat healing, there's no way to make the combat dangerous, without making it very lethal and seriously swingy.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but, I don't think it's a good baseline when the game is going to expect character generation to take more than 10 minutes. Not in a game which is so combat heavy as D&D typically is.

So, without in-combat healing, how do you mitigate lethality without making combat superfluous?

As important as that, lack of activatable, intra-combat healing (either a dedicated healer/lead or distributed to all PCs a la Second Wind and its various analogs), or an equally effective and elegant source of activatable "death mitigation", completely nullifies the genre trope of the "rally" and especially multiple "rallies" in a particularly epic fight. Under that scenario, going to the brink of death would mean that you either offensively nova (if such resources are available) or you are utterly at the mercy if the dice for the rest of the fight.

I suspect the loss of the "rally" from the brink of defeat/death trope and corresponding tactical angle (by way of activatable, defensive resources) would put a considerable number of folks out of the 5e big tent.

 

[Obryn]

I can see warlord healing working in a couple ways. Including it as a core option, a base class feature is problematic because it's basically telling anyone who prefers the meat damage model that this is not the game for them. It's not inclusive.
However, there could be class features tied to certain rules modules, and there could easily be a small morale-based healing module, a sidebar in the section of optional healing and health rules. Anyone can stop and give an inspiring speech and heal, but warlords (and bards) are better at it. Just like Gandalf, a wizard, can apparently heal in your example.
Alternatively, it could be part of an optional expansion of the class, likely in an accessory or Dragon article. A straight warlord option where you can drop a maneuver or have reduced MDD in exchange for a daily heal. (I'm saying an accessory because fitting all the core options into the initial books will be hard enough as it is without squishing variants for every class. It makes more sense to have optional features in one place, like the 3e Unearthed Arcana.)

That's funny - I was thinking the non-morale meat-points definition of healing is what should be in a sidebar or Dragon article. The Warlord heals now. It seems pretty silly to insist that its healing capabilities be jettisoned and thrown into a module.

-O