warlord healing

[Neonchameleon]

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.

No. He isn't impeded. There is absolutely no mechanical representation at all saying that he's impeded. All he is is down hit points. He's only limping as cosmetic damage. He's not slowed, his vision is not impeded, he's no clumsier, nothing is actually wrong with him. His wounds do not matter except as cosmetic damage until the last hit.

Nonchameleon, when you are ready to have a good faith discussion, we can make headway. But of you are going to insiste my preferences make no sense because I don't accept your assumptions about HP and what style they achieve we will get no where.

I am actually making a good faith effort to engage with you. If I wasn't then it would not make the blindest bit of difference to me that your arguments did not match your preferences. However when I'm confronted by someone who says the equivalent of "I don't like bell peppers because I don't like hot food" and then casually flavours food with scotch bonnet peppers, if I want to engage with them at all I need to work out what they mean. There might be something interesting going on.

What i object to is you sayingi have to be in either the cinematic or gritty reaism camp, and according to you, if I like HP I cannot then reject the warlord giving temp HP on the grounds it is too cinematic.

You say you do not want a cinematic game I have demonstrated how cinematic traditional hit points are - a healed fighter above about second level literally can not be taken down by a full force hit from an orc with an axe. He will always survive literally the best attack an orc can make. (Hell, in AD&D he could always survive fighting an orc for an entire minute mano-a-mano). Your game embraces incredibly cinematic rules.

This seems like way too binary an approach. It can also be a matter of degree. If you are going to insist Hp are cinematic, and I by no means accept this,

The very intent of hit points was to be cinematic and allow long swashbuckling duels. You literally have fighters who can be hit as hard as possible by an orc or human with an axe and not even be impeded. (If you're an AD&D player, there is no physical way for an orc with an axe to kill an alert fighter in a minute).

Not trying to go on a tangent here. I have really made an effort to assume good faith. But at this point the pattern is so clear. It is the same rhetorical tactic over and over again.

I've made an effort to figure out coherence and how that maps to what you are saying. But like you I see no need to continue.

 

[Guest 85555]

Nonchameleon: i have been very consistent on this for some time. Repeatedly on threads I have said I am not interested in cinematic D&D. So there is nothing inconsistent about me saying temp Hp from the warlord strike me as too cinematic (but should note I supplied several other reasons for my dislike as well). Our argument turns on your claim that you "proved" hp are cinematic. While I can see how you reach that conclusion I dont consider them cinematic and never have. I do see them as gamey and very simplified. I see them as a hallmark of classic D&D that gives high level characters an edge. But i just don't see them as cinematic. But I even conceded if they are cinematic, then it is simpy a matter of how much cinematic i am willing to put up with. One could be fine with HP as a cinematic element (perhaps through familiarity or just accepting it in that part of the game) but strongly dislike the cinematic "move it soldier!" stuff the warlord temp HP brings to the table. But I am not going to be convinced by a semantic argument that my preferences are not what I believe them to be.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like it. Temporary hit points for a morale boost has a D&D precedent, the barbarian.

 

[Zireael]

I think temporary hp are good, but it'd be better if the warlord healed afflictions/states and left hp to the cleric.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No. He isn't impeded. There is absolutely no mechanical representation at all saying that he's impeded. All he is is down hit points. He's only limping as cosmetic damage. He's not slowed, his vision is not impeded, he's no clumsier, nothing is actually wrong with him. His wounds do not matter except as cosmetic damage until the last hit.

Apparently, you watched a different game than I did.

 

[fenriswolf456]

I'm curious as to why temporary hit points are perfectly acceptible to the mind-set of some, while the concept of hit points being more than just physical is not. If all damage was just physical damage done to physical HP, how to morale-inspired hit points work?

Reading some of the threads and replies, it strikes me that there's a perception of how non-magical healing works that I don't believe was intended, but that the rules did not help in envisioning. The Physical HP camp assumes that at full HP, one is completely healed of all cuts and wounds and perfectly healthy. The rules certainly don't discourage this viewpoint. But there is no mechanical difference between 1 HP and full HP (other than statuses like being Bloodied). A character is perfectly functional at 1 HP, even if in the preceding fighting the character has taken devestating hits. HP are really just a representation of a character's willigness to push on, whether mentally or physically. But I realize this debate has gone on for years, and minds certainly won't be swayed one way or another on the subject.

While something like the topic suggestion could be worked into the mechanics of 5E, it could end up reworking a lot of other concepts as well. Presumably the Bard's healing effects would follow the same route as the Warlord (unless one considers that healing to be more magical than inspirational). But if damage and HP are to become merely physical, that would seem to suggest to me that all psychic damage should be 'temporary damage'. If all intangible hit points are going to be classified as temporary hit points, then all intangible damage needs to be likewise classified.

If we're going to have classes that rely on giving out temp HPs over real healing, then temp HPs themselves are going to need to be re-worked, which could lead to balance issues. If temp HP continue to not stack, then the non-magical healers will be severely hampered in their effectiveness in a healing role. If they do become stackable, then it has to be decided whether you can have more current HP and temp HP than your maximum. If so, you could end up with ridiculous amounts of HP. If not, then it seems little is gained by separating the concepts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm curious as to why temporary hit points are perfectly acceptible to the mind-set of some, while the concept of hit points being more than just physical is not. If all damage was just physical damage done to physical HP, how to morale-inspired hit points work?

Mechanically, the big difference is that temp HP go away at the end of the encounter.

This reflects the nature of inspiration and exhilaration to fade over time, leaving one feeling more winded than one was when first recovered. This is the whole "he inspires you to go past your limits!" idea. He doesn't, however, heal your wounds. Those don't "go away."

 

[nightwyrm]

Warlord becomes a second-class "healer" (it should be reclassified as a buffer class rather than a healer class). You still need a cleric or some other magic healer to heal your real hps. In fact, the entire warlord class becomes superfluous. Why include a class in a party that "heals" with temp hps when you can have a class that heals real hp.

 

[Dausuul]

Warlord becomes a second-class "healer" (it should be reclassified as a buffer class rather than a healer class). You still need a cleric or some other magic healer to heal your real hps. In fact, the entire warlord class becomes superfluous. Why include a class in a party that "heals" with temp hps when you can have a class that heals real hp.

Your argument applies to 4E, too: 4E clerics are better at healing than 4E warlords, so why play a warlord? The answer is that warlords are good at stuff besides healing. For a well-built taclord, healing is something of an afterthought.

Beyond that, the warlord can be brought up to par with the cleric by allowing the warlord to grant temporary hit points before combat begins (the amount is increased by 2d6 if you mention Crispin's Day). By "pre-healing" the front-line fighter types, the warlord performs the same damage mitigation function as the cleric, while still drawing a clear distinction between the warlord's abilities and the cleric's.

 

[nightwyrm]

Your argument applies to 4E, too: 4E clerics are better at healing than 4E warlords, so why play a warlord? The answer is that warlords are good at stuff besides healing. For a well-built taclord, healing is something of an afterthought.

The healing may be smaller in comparison, but it's still there in a pinch. You always have your 2 or 3 "word" ability healing real hps when things go south. Also, a big part of why taclords (even under the proposal that they only heal with temps) may be viable in 4e is that 4e allows PCs to top off their own hp, in and between combats. A taclord doesn't need to focus on healing the party because if he can get the party thru the combat fast enough thru his bonuses, the party can heal itself back to full. Are we gonna make the warlord only heal temps due to versimilitude but allow PCs to heal their own real hps in 5e?

Beyond that, the warlord can be brought up to par with the cleric by allowing the warlord to grant temporary hit points before combat begins (the amount is increased by 2d6 if you mention Crispin's Day). By "pre-healing" the front-line fighter types, the warlord performs the same damage mitigation function as the cleric, while still drawing a clear distinction between the warlord's abilities and the cleric's.

I agree there's a place for proactive and reactive abilities and in some situations one is more useful than the other. But unless you know someone is gonna get hit (a defender etc.) or the ability activates as an interrupt, "temp-hp buffering" is most likely not gonna be as versatile as real healing. If the unbuffered wizard got hit by a hidden lurker, the cleric is going to be more useful than the warlord. Of course, this depends on a lot of factors, such as the relative amounts of hps granted but at the end of the day, the warlord is still trading limited (daily ability, healing surges, whatever) resources for non-permanent resources while the cleric is trading limited resources for permanent resources.