warlord healing

[I'm A Banana]

Unless I missed something it looks like they intend to make the cleric the definitive healer and most likely they understand how much of an issue heaing surges and second wind were to folks. If anything it looks like a return to traditional healing with some options for 4e style healing (with the wild card being the warlord who seems to be in the core).

From here (via the 5e info page):

First, I don’t think that clerics being the sole healers is something I’d consider a common trait of D&D throughout the ages; the bard and the druid classes were both capable healers in previous editions. Though the cleric was arguably the best healer in certain editions, others could fill that role; 4E just went further and standardized healing mechanisms between all healing classes. As I mentioned in the first question above, we also think there should be some self-healing or non-magical healing.

That, plus the conversation about lessening the effect of combat roles, indicates to me that some baseline healing is relevant, even if it's not much more than "You can use Second Wind four times per day. Each use recovers 1/4 of your maximum hit points."

Warlords might, in 5e, trigger your second wind (or somesuch), which, without surges, kind of works, IMO .

I am of the opinion that 50% of the problem with the warlord was actually a problem with healing surges, though.

 

[Mallus]

No. It's not. It's Kirk Gibson limping up to the plate on two crippled legs and hitting a game winning homerun in spite of his wounds. He IS impeded, he just sucks it up and continues moving forward.

So a wounded PC is impeded, just not mechanically (in the the from of penalties that would logically occur in the case of serious physical injuries)?

Talk about dissociated mechanics...

 

[Guest 85555]

From here (via the 5e info page):
.

Thanks missed those. Can't say i want to see those things in 5e, but clearly they are on the table for inclusion.

 

[P1NBACK]

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.

My comment doesn't really have anything to do with Warlords, or temp. hit points, I just wanted to say I really hope they don't write powers and abilities in this sort of "passive" tone that this ability seems to have.

The power is called Warning Shout, and yet, does not require the Warlord to actually shout anything. It just requires that the ally be able to see or hear him... Ok? But, the Warlord doesn't have to do anything. That's whack. And, I feel like a lot of the 4E dissociation comes from that.

I'd rather see a power like this:

Warning Shout: Once per round, a warlord may shout a warning to an ally, granting that ally a +2 bonus to defenses against a single attack.

This requires the warlord to actually shout something of a warning. The former power doesn't. Being able to hear him is a requirement simply because the whole power revolves around the shouting. It's an active power that allows the player to actually do something and engage in the fiction.

I feel like a lot of the 4E powers (and hell, maybe even some pre-edition stuff) does the sort of "passive" thing. That's fine for some stuff, but I'd rather see powers that invoke the fiction and allow the player to engage with it.

Anyways, sorry for the side-rant, and I don't mean to specifically pick on you [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]. I just see this kind of stuff a lot.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anyways, sorry for the side-rant, and I don't mean to specifically pick on you [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] . I just see this kind of stuff a lot.

It's weird -- something like this came up in the Cleric thread, too, where a poster mostly wanted to make sure the mechanics were well anchored in the fiction.

I think when we're spitballing design ideas like this, some of us have a tendency to gloss over that anchor, because there's many correct anchors. It's sort of a minor point to us. Others invest much, much more importance in the anchor.

It's a curious bit of psychology here, is all.

 

[P1NBACK]

It's weird -- something like this came up in the Cleric thread, too, where a poster mostly wanted to make sure the mechanics were well anchored in the fiction.

I think when we're spitballing design ideas like this, some of us have a tendency to gloss over that anchor, because there's many correct anchors. It's sort of a minor point to us. Others invest much, much more importance in the anchor.

It's a curious bit of psychology here, is all.

I think the anchor, as you put it, is a subtle difference that has a huge impact on how the game works and feels. More for another thread though. Like I said, mine was a side-rant that has little to do with the topic at hand. Feel free to start a new thread and I'll chime in though.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Warlords bestowing temp HP is the perfect solution.

It perfectly straddles simulationist believability and the massive gamist void in D&D created by only clerics being able to heal HP.

Warlords should not close bleeding wounds with rousing speeches, but they should absolutely cause wounded characters to dig deep into their adrenaline reserves and fight on a little longer.

 

[Shadeydm]

non cleric healing

One class i got to playing alongside in 4E that I thought did a great job filling the leader role and providing loads of temp hp was the ardent. Wouldn't mind seeing some version of the ardent show up eventually in 5E.

 

[Dragoslav]

and yet, i consider the warlord to be one of the new classics. one of the best contributions of 4e.

I completely agree. The very first D&D character I rolled was a warlord -- I cracked open a friend's PHB, and when I got to the warlord page, I was immediately struck. It was novel, but conservative at the same time, which pulled me in.

Warlord healing as only THP confuses the meaning of THP, I think. THP works best as a temporary "barrier" that absorbs damage, not as an addition to the idea of HP as morale/fatigue. If warlords only grant THP because they only restore fighting spirit, then why shouldn't all HP represent physical damage and have THP represent non-physical resistance? There's also the problem that THP doesn't stack, so if a warlord inspires you with 10 THP and a cleric's divine magic gives you a shimmering shield worth 5 THP, then the cleric's spell apparently fizzles out because you are "too inspired already," I guess...

There's also the problem of THP dissipating after short rests. A warlord wouldn't actually be able to restore anyone's will to fight beyond a 2-minute encounter. Not much of a leader.

 

[Psychman]

It seems to me that the real issue behind healing, who can do it, and how, is what are Hit Points.

If hit points are actual physical damage then Warlords would not heal, and their ability to enable people to fight past injuries work well as temp hp. However, escalating hit points would need to be seriously looked at because it is unrealistic.

However, if Hit points are an abstract measure of one's ability to function in a fight, and include determination, drive, fatigue, as well as an unspecified amount of physical damage, then the Warlords ability to encourage and remotivate is restoration of actual Hit Points. hit point escalation with experience also makes sense in this as a reflection of confidence and actual battle experience.

To deal with actual physical damage in this second view, I believe Star Wars Saga edition had the condition mechanic offering increasing negatives to action tests as a consequence to various negative physical events. Maybe introducing this would help with an understanding of Hit Points.