warlord healing
- Thread starter Shadeydm
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
Sadly, I think that is the wrong question.
I think the key issue is to come up some kind of rationale for how a warlord works, develop a mechanic to express that, and then tinker with it to maintain balance.
In my view, the right question (at least to start) is: how do you see a warlord functioning to either negate hit point loss or encourage his allies to press on?
Perhaps you see a warlord doing so by issuing a constant stream of encouragement and inspiration. On that basis, you might come up with an ability like:
Aura of Inspiration: Each ally who can see and hear the warlord at the start of his turn gains temporary hit points equal to the warlord's Charisma modifier.
Perhaps the warlord's tactical awareness translates into helping an ally to avoid being hit instead of negating damage after being hit:
Warning Shout: Once per round, the warlord may grant an ally who can see and hear him a +2 bonus to defenses against one attack.
Or perhaps the warlord can actually help an ally to tap some inner reserve of willpower:
Dogged Determination: A bloodied ally who can see and hear the warlord at the start of his turn may choose to gain temporary hit points equal to one-quarter his full normal hit points. Each ally may do so once per day.
IMO, once you can get everyone to visualize what is going on, half of the problems disappear.
I think the key issue is to come up some kind of rationale for how a warlord works, develop a mechanic to express that, and then tinker with it to maintain balance.
In my view, the right question (at least to start) is: how do you see a warlord functioning to either negate hit point loss or encourage his allies to press on?
Perhaps you see a warlord doing so by issuing a constant stream of encouragement and inspiration. On that basis, you might come up with an ability like:
Aura of Inspiration: Each ally who can see and hear the warlord at the start of his turn gains temporary hit points equal to the warlord's Charisma modifier.
Perhaps the warlord's tactical awareness translates into helping an ally to avoid being hit instead of negating damage after being hit:
Warning Shout: Once per round, the warlord may grant an ally who can see and hear him a +2 bonus to defenses against one attack.
Or perhaps the warlord can actually help an ally to tap some inner reserve of willpower:
Dogged Determination: A bloodied ally who can see and hear the warlord at the start of his turn may choose to gain temporary hit points equal to one-quarter his full normal hit points. Each ally may do so once per day.
IMO, once you can get everyone to visualize what is going on, half of the problems disappear.
G
Guest 85555
Guest
I really think a warlords words should do something like what abard's did: offer a bonus (maybe to damage, which could simulate him actually issuing orders on the field). I really dont want cinematic D&D, so would like to take the warlord down a notch.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Temporary hp is slightly less offensive to my sensibilities than actual healing, but still completely unnecessary.
There's no reason to have a nonmagical class that provides these kinds of benefits to other characters in the party. All characters should be self-sufficient and none should be based on their ability to affect allies, given that there is no assumed party size, composition, or interpersonal dynamic. The ability to provide minor morale bonuses to allies (not hit points) really doesn't need to be class-specific and should not be a major class feature even for magic classes (repeat after me: bards suck).
Also, there's really not much basis in reality or even in fiction for such profound effects from this kind of interpersonal interaction; battlefield command is important, but this completely misrepresents it.
Look to late 3.5 teamwork benefits for a much more appropriate mechanical representation of this concept.
There's no reason to have a nonmagical class that provides these kinds of benefits to other characters in the party. All characters should be self-sufficient and none should be based on their ability to affect allies, given that there is no assumed party size, composition, or interpersonal dynamic. The ability to provide minor morale bonuses to allies (not hit points) really doesn't need to be class-specific and should not be a major class feature even for magic classes (repeat after me: bards suck).
Also, there's really not much basis in reality or even in fiction for such profound effects from this kind of interpersonal interaction; battlefield command is important, but this completely misrepresents it.
Look to late 3.5 teamwork benefits for a much more appropriate mechanical representation of this concept.
herrozerro
First Post
FireLance
Legend
the cleric?
Fanaelialae
Legend
If healing is taken as a significant aspect of the game (as it has traditionally been), then non-magical healing should (IMO) exist.
A DM who decides that he's running a non-magical campaign (perhaps where the quest is to discover what happened to the magic, or even to restore it) shouldn't have to fight the system. He shouldn't have to bodge together workarounds for the fact that healing is required for a group to function as an effective party but only magical healing exists in the game (which was an issue that cropped up for me more than once prior to 4e).
On the other hand, if the designers find the "magic number" for healing, then there's a bit more leeway. In that instance, having a second rogue is just as good as an extra cleric, because the extra damage balances out the lack of healing. Having a healer in the party becomes an issue of play style, rather than necessity.
However, even in this case I think non-magical healing should exist (it's just less of a necessity). Some people enjoy playing the leader. Having a non-magical healer allows those players to play their preferred role even in a campaign where magical healing doesn't exist (perhaps because, as in early Dragonlance, the gods are absent).
I do think that for the sake of those who dislike non-magical healing, those rules are best confined within a bounded subset. That way someone who doesn't care for nMH can simply say "The Warlord class isn't available for this game" or even "You can be a Warlord but their nMH powers don't exist in this campaign", because those are the only places those rules exist.
A DM who decides that he's running a non-magical campaign (perhaps where the quest is to discover what happened to the magic, or even to restore it) shouldn't have to fight the system. He shouldn't have to bodge together workarounds for the fact that healing is required for a group to function as an effective party but only magical healing exists in the game (which was an issue that cropped up for me more than once prior to 4e).
On the other hand, if the designers find the "magic number" for healing, then there's a bit more leeway. In that instance, having a second rogue is just as good as an extra cleric, because the extra damage balances out the lack of healing. Having a healer in the party becomes an issue of play style, rather than necessity.
However, even in this case I think non-magical healing should exist (it's just less of a necessity). Some people enjoy playing the leader. Having a non-magical healer allows those players to play their preferred role even in a campaign where magical healing doesn't exist (perhaps because, as in early Dragonlance, the gods are absent).
I do think that for the sake of those who dislike non-magical healing, those rules are best confined within a bounded subset. That way someone who doesn't care for nMH can simply say "The Warlord class isn't available for this game" or even "You can be a Warlord but their nMH powers don't exist in this campaign", because those are the only places those rules exist.
Non-divine non-magical healing or simply magical non-divine healing?
Similar Threads
