D&D 5E Warlord Healing

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Having seen a warlord played in 4E, and a warlord-esque battlemaster in 5E, by the same player, I've come to the conclusion that there's just no room for a warlord class in 5E. Not without overshadowing the battlemaster.

Now, some additional battlemaster options--a few more "ally-moving" maneuvers and maybe even a maneuver that lets an ally spend a hit die or otherwise heal a bit--would be doable, and should make the battlemaster a better fit for those who want a warlord. But it really is 85% of the way there already.

I really don't get this. That's like saying there's no room for a wizard because there's the eldritch knight. A warlord could have fewer attacks, HP, ability increases etc than the battlemaster, but more maneuvers, and more importantly, higher level and better maneuvers that cost more dice to initiate. Let them break the action economy the same way that summons/animate dead already does.

 

[Saplatt]

At the moment, I have to vote "undecided." I was leaning towards inclusion, but Mouseferatu does make a good point.

 

[El Mahdi]

You can try to justify it, but its falling on deaf ears.

Good to know. Later.

 

[MG.0]

If they bring back the warlord to 5e, I demand that they bring back the Atari 2600 Version.

IIRC, it had a stronghold, a fireball, but no healing. And my warlord will END WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE those other three warlords.

That was an awesome game. I remember the 'ghosts' after a warlord has died.

 

[nomotog]

If you've ever been part of a sports team in a big game or at a rally of some sort, it actually makes total sense. There's only so much that one person can do to rouse people. At a certain point, you really do get numb to it. Sometimes, you can have a different coach step in and top things off, but one person runs out of words and vocal gymnastics.

In D&D, the mechanic works great for a single party, where the Warlord is trying to inspire the same "team" the whole time. If the character was running around a battlefield, working with different groups, it might be a bit more of a stretch. You could still chalk it up to the Warlord running out of steam and losing the ability the pump himself up as much.

None of that would really be based on a set number of times a day. I get my party is stick of hearing it, but why dose that mean I cant do it anymore, or I might be out of inspirational speeches, but sleep won't fix that as much as a inspirational speech book.

It just feels really fake to have it be regulated by the day. Now granted that could be true of almost every power that works that way. Spells per day would bother me if I wasn't all ready use to them working like that. (Also magic gets a pass most of the time.)

 

[SteveC]

Of course a warlord should heal. That's one of the cornerstones of the class.

Does it step on the toes of the Battlemaster? Probably yes, but so what? Someone who wants to play a warlord doesn't want to make basic attacks 90% of the time and fill out the rest of their actions with first level warlord powers.

Now any class, but particularly this one, should be optional. If you want it in your game, great. If not, no bother: it's optional.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I don't need the warlord to neccesarily heal HP.

I'd be okay if the "warlord" let you heal more during rests as he or she inspired you to fight on, raised morale, shared tactics, and corrected stances and swings. After a few days of this, followers would get more maximum HP.

I'm also fine with Temporary HP for the in battle usage as well as a bonus to help actions. The only issue is the "don't die on me, soldier" cliche. I kinda love it and would like a "get up. you're not allowed to die" feature in it that doesn't cop out with out and out magic.

The full thing would loo like a nonmagical valor bard with an "aura" and better nonmagical healing. It would not like like a 4e warlord not a 3e marshal but it would be different enough to be it's own class and even fit in a warlord-hater's game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd much rather just allow temp hitpoints to rouse people from unconsciousness and use the battlemaster with some extra maneuvers.

 

[Mercule]

It just feels really fake to have it be regulated by the day. Now granted that could be true of almost every power that works that way.

It is really fake. It's a game mechanic for game balance. Barbarian rage, bardic inspiration, and a Fighter's maneuvers all suffer the same way. The only reason magic gets a pass is because "it's magic."

You can put a thin veneer of excuse over it, by saying the barbarian is tired, the fighter has run out of opportunities, or the party had reached an emotional peek. Or not. It's not the warlord's fault, though.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'd much rather just allow temp hitpoints to rouse people from unconsciousness and use the battlemaster with some extra maneuvers.

It is really fake. It's a game mechanic for game balance. Barbarian rage, bardic inspiration, and a Fighter's maneuvers all suffer the same way. The only reason magic gets a pass is because "it's magic."

Not to mention, temp hit points cannot rouse a character from unconsciousness (0 HP), as per the rules. Making that exception for the Warlord would likely cause as much of an uproar as allowing the existence of the Warlord in the first place would.

PHB, pg. 198

If you have 0 hit points, receiving temporary hit points doesn't restore you to consciousness or stabilize you. They can still absorb damage directed at your while you're in that state, but only true healing can save you.

Which brings up another point (that Mercule touched on). I've given examples of how Warlord healing would work in real life; very detailed examples, backed up by real medical science and understandings of physiological functions.

I have yet to see an explanation of temporary hit points that can include a believable real-world analog - yet temporary hit points are accepted with nary a reaction by the majority of players, while Warlord healing is considered completely unbelievable by that same majority.

Is it just an inability to look beyond one's own paradigms?

Is it a failure of imagination?

I don't get it...