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

[pemerton]

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.

I think this is an excellent point.

4e's assumption was that every combat was a slog-fest to the death

<snip>

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.

of activatable, intra-combat healing <snip> 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.

Is it possible to discuss things without pejorative labels like "slog fest", "scream heals" etc? No one who enjoys 4e and its warlords and incombat healing reaches for those particular labels to describe why they like it.

Anyway, Manbearcat here captures what is different for me in 4e combat compared to traditional D&D. (I don't know 3E well enough to compare it, but have got the impression from reading others' posts over the years that incombat healing, especially Heal spells, becomes important at least at mid-to-high levels). Namely, 4e combat has rallies that turn on something other than the swing of the dice, namely, skillful play that unlocks healing surges. (It's also worth noting that this function of healing surges is largely independent of their role in rationing out healing over the course of an adventuring day.)

No doubt D&Dnext permits tough combats that require "nova-ing" (per Manbearcat) or "giving it your all" (per KM), but that is not something that 4e can't do. I assume 3E can do that too. But can D&Dnext do the rally? (You don't need incombat healing for that, of course - as Manbearcat noted other forms of death mitigation could do the job, and so could some form of escalation mechanic.)

 

[Garthanos]

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.

This...

I really want some big time sense of the heroic turn around... not sure it needs to be constant or every fight but as a significant element of big battles it may actually be a must.

 

[Manbearcat]

"slog fest"

rally

I've never had a slog fest in any of my 4e combats to date. I've seen rallies repeatedly. One wonders if one man's "slog fest" is another man's "rally"...or if other things are going on which create a "slog fest" vs those things that might go on which create a "rally."

These things could be:

1) Too many participants (PC and NPC).
2) Too much PC-side mitigation or action denial focus or synergy within either of the two.
3) Poor/limited usage of terrain, hazards and other elements that create a dynamic and mobile fight (by GM or PCs).
4) Poor encounter setup by the GM; too many Soldiers, poor/no NPC group synergy, incoherent thematically.
5) Tactically deficient GMing.
6) Mathematically inefficient or slow GM (or PCs).

I wonder how much 1 comes into play here. In my estimation, 4 PCs is probably the sweet spot for 4e. 5 is the upper limit threshold. Anything beyond 5 PCs and I could easily see "slog-fest". If you have 6-8 PCs with 2 Defenders and 2 Leaders...kill me now.

 

[Jester David]

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

It's always easier to add options than subtract.
Having the default being hp as an abstraction means taking away related powers when swapping to the module. It's easier not to have powers related to one option or the other and add them later in supplements.

I'd love to see lasting wounds and injuries in the game. But stuff like that is so much better as a module for the same reason. Because modules should always add non-standard content and keep the baseline as generic as possible for the widest possible audience.

 

[Jester David]

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.

The rally is fun, but it shouldn't be a design baseline. It should not be what you design combats, classes, or combat roles around.
What makes epic fights interesting is that they are special and rare. If you turn every fight up to 11 then you need to keep escalating for the extra-epic fights.

 

[n00bdragon]

Haven't we had this same "Should healing be magical only" topic about ten times now? Why is it still here? People, for the most part, roughly fall into one of two camps:
- You shouldn't be able to do anything that resembles putting meat back together by shouting because that's unrealistic. Ergo, only magic can heal because realism doesn't apply to magic.
- Everyone should be able to heal all injuries instantly because the game is more fun that way! Who cares what makes sense? It's just a game!

Both sides can give you a long list of examples of how D&D has always historically catered to either side except for 3e which catered to the former and 4e which catered to the latter. Then they'll list off all the fantasy literature, and movies, video games, etc they can think of which support whichever point of view they support. It doesn't really matter though. 5e has already made it's choice. It's going to be a game that honors the former. If you don't like that well that's a shame. You probably already understood you weren't in the target audience for this game anyhow.

Just as a note: I'm not trying to say either point is right or wrong. I myself fall into the latter group. I'm just stating what is in fact the case. Can we all please stop arguing about what 5e should be when it's clearly been decided what it will be already or is that just no fun?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because modules should always add non-standard content and keep the baseline as generic as possible for the widest possible audience.

Partially for this reason, I think it's smarter to have HP be "90% narrative, but we also don't have inspirational healing" as the "basic" option (assuming the Warlord gets into the "standard-" level game). That way, you can narrate them as wounds or luck if you want, and it provides room for the warlord healing to work and room for grittier HP to work, right up front, without any special modules re-writing the underlying rules of the game. Want inspirational healing? Grab the warlord class with the Inspiring Word ability. Don't? Ignore Inspiring Word and take Battle Speech (or whatever).

Is it possible to discuss things without pejorative labels like "slog fest", "scream heals" etc? No one who enjoys 4e and its warlords and incombat healing reaches for those particular labels to describe why they like it.

I'll do what I can, but it might be worth examining why you would prefer to ask others to maintain political correctness around your favorite way of pretending to be a magical elf. If certain flippant descriptions trigger a hyper-emotional response, it may be possible that you are perhaps a little more deeply staked in the conversation than it may warrant. We are just dorks talking on the internet about a very obscure point of a tremendously nerdy hobby, and it probably isn't worth getting worked up over the fact that someone isn't taking your preferred method of make-believe seriously enough.

FWIW, I used "slog fest" as a way to describe the nature of 4e's combat as being intensive from both sides, a conflict each side throws everything they have (or nearly so) into, each time.

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.

The solution to this is simple: if you have a dedicated healer in your party, you will have the rally (at least in the big combats).

If you do not, you will not (and it is not necessary for the big combats).

And either way, the game will work.

 

[Obryn]

It's always easier to add options than subtract.
Having the default being hp as an abstraction means taking away related powers when swapping to the module. It's easier not to have powers related to one option or the other and add them later in supplements.

It's a Warlord healing actual HPs. That's what we're discussing. That's independent of any other options in the game. Right now, HPs are specifically NOT "meat-points" in Next.

Adding/subtracting has no relevance here, either. It's no harder for you to do so than it is for me.

-O

 

[Jester David]

It's a Warlord healing actual HPs. That's what we're discussing. That's independent of any other options in the game. Right now, HPs are specifically NOT "meat-points" in Next.

No. As a default they're 50/50.
So, by that default warlord healing would be possible, but only so long as you're above half hp. And it wouldn't bring back anyone unconscious.

Adding/subtracting has no relevance here, either. It's no harder for you to do so than it is for me.

No, it isn't harder for me to add. It is harder for me to subtract. Telling players they're not allowed a core option is awkward. It's always easier to give them more options and powers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Telling players they're not allowed a core option is awkward. It's always easier to give them more options and powers.

While this is true, I think you may be over-estimating what "core" may be in NEXT.

I would not be surprised if the only thing they assume your using for most products is the Basic game (and even that might not be a "tight" assumption): everything else will be explicitly opt-in. I imagine this includes monks as much as it includes inspirational healing.