D&D 5E Warlord Healing

[Mercule]

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.

For me, temporary hit points fall almost entirely into the "it's magic" category that doesn't have a real world analog. Things like false life that manipulates the spirit/soul of the target (in some vaguely defined way) are just flat-out unrealistic, but within verisimilitude for a magical setting.

One could argue that temp hit points bestowed by a Warlord would be like the adrenaline boost you get from your teammates, cheer squad, or folks in the stands when you take the field for a football game or enter the ring for sparring, both of which almost certainly involve the loss of hit points, in D&D terms. I wouldn't push it too far, but it's enough that I wouldn't fuss too much about a game mechanic for mundane temp hit points. "Don't look behind the curtain" works quite nicely -- until it doesn't; everyone has a different breaking point, and different questions push it further for each person.

Not that any of that is even a remote justification for bastardizing any rules already in place. Temporary hit points don't rouse the dying. If an effect does so, it's no longer temp hit points. Either come up with some new type of thing (ick) or just call it healing and be done.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Well, the Unconscious condition says that creatures are "unware of [their] surroundings", so even if a warlord could heal, they wouldn't be able to affect dying creatures from range.

Plus, temporary hit points are proactive not reactive. They'll prevent a character being knocked down in the first place. So the character won't end up prone, won't potentially drop anything they're holding, and might not miss a turn.

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...

It's rather insulting to suggest it's a failure on one party's part.

The problem many people have with martial/warlord healing is that not everyone views hit points exactly the same. They represent health, luck, skill, and fatigue all at the same time, but the exact ratio likely varies from person to person or even combat to combat.
Warlord healing works for some elements of hit point loss, but not others. Actual physical damage (acid, fire, falling) is harder to justify being permanently fixed by a rousing speech. Coaches can motivate their team and shrug off a hard hit, but they can't get someone to play on a twisted ankle. It's not that it cannot be pictured, it's that there's not enough suspension of disbelief to accept that inspiring words can heal burns. Not anymore than they should be able to remove blinded, poisoned, stunned or similar conditions (which a healer type character should be able to do).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, the Unconscious condition says that creatures are "unware of [their] surroundings", so even if a warlord could heal, they wouldn't be able to affect dying creatures from range.

Yeah, I think that's a failing of the 0hp rules - they give only one way to put someone out of a fight, and it's unconscious. That means no "last words while bleeding out", no "rousing speech to get you to fight through the pain" and no "lapsing in and out of consciousness".

Plus, temporary hit points are proactive not reactive. They'll prevent a character being knocked down in the first place. So the character won't end up prone, won't potentially drop anything they're holding, and might not miss a turn.

Temporary hitpoints are proactive and not reactive... because they are. In my opinion allowing temporary hitpoints to restore you to fighting fitness opens up interesting scenarios, while changing the game very little (it makes heroism a better spell because of pop-up healing but... meh).

Coaches can motivate their team and shrug off a hard hit, but they can't get someone to play on a twisted ankle.

I think you might want to upgrade that to a torn major muscle. A twisted ankle (heck, even a broken ankle) is just pain, and you can keep going on it. It's bad for you long term, which is why most professionals will stop, but it's entirely possible. There's only a small category of injuries that does not apply to.

That, to me, is why temporary hitpoints need to be able to get you back in the game. I want a mechanic that lets you get temporarily stood back up from an injury that has taken you out of the fight.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, the Unconscious condition says that creatures are "unware of [their] surroundings", so even if a warlord could heal, they wouldn't be able to affect dying creatures from range.

Yeah, I think that's a failing of the 0hp rules - they give only one way to put someone out of a fight, and it's unconscious. That means no "last words while bleeding out", no "rousing speech to get you to fight through the pain" and no "lapsing in and out of consciousness".

Plus, temporary hit points are proactive not reactive. They'll prevent a character being knocked down in the first place. So the character won't end up prone, won't potentially drop anything they're holding, and might not miss a turn.

Temporary hitpoints are proactive and not reactive... because they are. In my opinion allowing temporary hitpoints to restore you to fighting fitness opens up interesting scenarios, while changing the game very little (it makes heroism a better spell because of pop-up healing but... meh).

Coaches can motivate their team and shrug off a hard hit, but they can't get someone to play on a twisted ankle.

I think you might want to upgrade that to a torn major muscle. A twisted ankle (heck, even a broken ankle) is just pain, and you can keep going on it. It's bad for you long term, which is why most professionals will stop, but it's entirely possible. There's only a small category of injuries that does not apply to.

That, to me, is why temporary hitpoints need to be able to get you back in the game. I want a mechanic that lets you get temporarily stood back up from an injury that has taken you out of the fight.

Not anymore than they should be able to remove blinded, poisoned, stunned or similar conditions

Blinded and poisoned maybe should not be removed, but overcoming them is already possible (aid another). So if the battlemaster gets maneuvers that give an improved version of that, I have no issues. Stunned - what is stunned? The only parallel in my mind is the sort of thing that in fiction is overcome by having someone else shake you out of it either physically or through eliciting an emotional response. Seems perfectly fixable by talented inspiring words to me. In fact I would probably allow it as an application of the persuasion skill. Same applies to domination, charm and paralysis.

 

[Jester David]

Blinded and poisoned maybe should not be removed, but overcoming them is already possible (aid another). So if the battlemaster gets maneuvers that give an improved version of that, I have no issues. Stunned - what is stunned? The only parallel in my mind is the sort of thing that in fiction is overcome by having someone else shake you out of it either physically or through eliciting an emotional response. Seems perfectly fixable by talented inspiring words to me. In fact I would probably allow it as an application of the persuasion skill. Same applies to domination, charm and paralysis.

Conditions are a big one. A "healer" character doesn't just have to restore hit points like in 4e, as there are a lot more negative effects that need to be removed. Lesser restoration is a pretty needed spell, and five classes get it (bard, druid, cleric, ranger, and paladin), most of which can slightly fit into the "healer/leader" role.
A non-magical warlord can do a lot of things, but it cannot neutralize poison, cure disease, remove paralysis, restore a petrified creature, raise the dead. It really means having to have a second character as a back-up healer to do all that stuff.

 

[Saeviomagy]

A non-magical warlord can do a lot of things, but it cannot neutralize poison, cure disease, remove paralysis, restore a petrified creature, raise the dead. It really means having to have a second character as a back-up healer to do all that stuff.

Curing poison is a function of a healing kit. Same goes for curing disease and removing nonmagical forms of paralysis. The other forms of paralysis should be removable by spellcasting.

Allowing a character afflicted with these to function normally is something that a non magical warlord should be able to pull off.

I find it bizarre that in this edition, fixing petrification caused by anything other than the flesh to stone spell has become the bailiwick of clerics, druids and bards when in previous editions basically any spellcaster could reverse it. Additionally fixing the flesh to stone spell now appears to only require dispel magic, making it a lot easier to counter. Regardless: requiring one of three classes to fix petrification is a bad thing. I'd much rather make petrification something that any spellcaster of an appropriate level can fix, and to that end, I'd restore the ability to cast flesh to stone to reverse the effect.

Heck, most of this could be covered with a maneuver that allows a reroll of a save on an ongoing effect, which would thematically work for me.

Raise the dead days after expiration? Sure, not on a non-magical warlord. However a power with similar abilities to revivify would seem fine to me, after all it's something that we know is outright possible without magic.

 

[Jester David]

Curing poison is a function of a healing kit. Same goes for curing disease and removing nonmagical forms of paralysis.

Except the healer's kit doesn't say anything about any of those uses. Antitoxin is used for poison and there's no equivalent for disease or other non-magical conditions.

Allowing a character afflicted with these to function normally is something that a non magical warlord should be able to pull off.

A warlord should be able to make a blinded character see again? They should be able to make someone non-drugged. Talk someone into being sober. Heal ability damage? Remove parasites? Remove curses? Negate effects reducing maximum hit points (like energy drain)? Resurrect the dead?

The other forms of paralysis should be removable by spellcasting.

Which is the catch. If you have the warlord as the "leader" you might not have other spellcasting. They have to fill that role. This worked in 4e because there was only hp damage and far fewer long term effects and conditions to manage or deal with. And a single feat (Ritual Caster) could work around the one or two exceptions.
It doesn't work as well in 5e because the warlord can only (theoretically) heal. But so can a good night's rest or a potion. It's everything else that you need a cleric/druid/bard for. So the warlord fails at its basic design goal: make it so a cleric is not needed.

I find it bizarre that in this edition, fixing petrification caused by anything other than the flesh to stone spell has become the bailiwick of clerics, druids and bards when in previous editions basically any spellcaster could reverse it. Additionally fixing the flesh to stone spell now appears to only require dispel magic, making it a lot easier to counter. Regardless: requiring one of three classes to fix petrification is a bad thing. I'd much rather make petrification something that any spellcaster of an appropriate level can fix, and to that end, I'd restore the ability to cast flesh to stone to reverse the effect.

This is because everything was lumped under greater restoration so you didn't need to memorize five or six different spells for the various negative effects, and could just prepare than one and be ready for everything. Stone to flesh was kinda neat, but mostly for it's kinda icky utility uses (turning stone that wasn't from petrified creatures to flesh).
Stone to flesh basically let you maybe negate the condition the following day. But, unless you knew for a fact you were facing a medusa, you were unlikely to have it memorized. So it forced people to rest so they could swap spells, or had someone taken out of the game for a period.

Heck, most of this could be covered with a maneuver that allows a reroll of a save on an ongoing effect, which would thematically work for me.

Rerolling a save can happen and help. But there are still going to be times when you fail. And the warlord can't do anything after that. Time for a new character. Which is the catch.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Except the healer's kit doesn't say anything about any of those uses. Antitoxin is used for poison and there's no equivalent for disease or other non-magical conditions.

Which frankly is just laziness I think. It also seems to be an area where any reasonable DM will say "yes, you can treat disease with a healer's kit". Otherwise the way to totally screw your enemies is to infect them with a mundane disease, not to curse them (simply removed by any spellcaster).

A warlord should be able to make a blinded character see again? They should be able to make someone non-drugged. Talk someone into being sober.

Like I already pointed out - being blind or poisoned just applies disadvantage. You can ALREADY overcome it with aid another. Having someone give an improved aid another is not unreasonable, and the trope of the blind guy fighting while his buddy calls out "3 oclock! One oclock!" is fairly common.

Heal ability damage? Remove parasites? Remove curses? Negate effects reducing maximum hit points (like energy drain)? Resurrect the dead?

Mitigation of max hitpoint reduction is already partly achieved through temporary hitpoints, as long as you can get them regularly enough. I already pointed out that revivify is basically already possible in our world, let alone with a world where a man can face off with his pointy stick against a fire breathing flying elephant.
Same goes for ability damage - inspiration. Parasites are a mundane threat, treatable by a healers kit. Remove curse is another "basically any spellcaster can do this".

Which is the catch. If you have the warlord as the "leader" you might not have other spellcasting. They have to fill that role. This worked in 4e because there was only hp damage and far fewer long term effects and conditions to manage or deal with. And a single feat (Ritual Caster) could work around the one or two exceptions.

If you have an entire party with zero spellcasting, magic will be an issue. Like if you have any entire party in full plate, stealth (and deep water) will be an issue.

This is because everything was lumped under greater restoration so you didn't need to memorize five or six different spells for the various negative effects, and could just prepare than one and be ready for everything. Stone to flesh was kinda neat, but mostly for it's kinda icky utility uses (turning stone that wasn't from petrified creatures to flesh).
Stone to flesh basically let you maybe negate the condition the following day. But, unless you knew for a fact you were facing a medusa, you were unlikely to have it memorized. So it forced people to rest so they could swap spells, or had someone taken out of the game for a period.

Except that curing most of the condition list is now limited to clerics, druids and bards because someone just didn't think it through.

Rerolling a save can happen and help. But there are still going to be times when you fail. And the warlord can't do anything after that. Time for a new character. Which is the catch.

I don't mean "oh, I just failed my save, better get a reroll, oh, failed that too, guess I'm a rock", I mean "hey, bob failed his save and spent the rest of the fight petrified, lets give him another one. And another. And another", which seems a bit too good if anything. Eh, hard to come up with a great new mechanic in a few seconds.

 

[Uchawi]

The warlord brings forth the argument of what are hit points to front and center. It would be easy enough for those that prefer the majority of healing to be magical, to make the warlord healing source to be magic. That is where rituals for all classes could have come into play for all 5E classes, just like rituals where available for 4E classes. If a class dabbles with magic, even if it exclusive to rituals, then you create a bridge to possibly explain what other class abilities exist. Or at least leave the choice open ended if you want to have martial or magic based ability. That is one place 5E failed, when they went back to rituals being an exclusive feature of spell using classes.

They made the same mistake when giving the fighter class healing ability, without much thought on how it ties into overall healing. It was a disservice to the warlord class in general versus helping it.

 

[Jester David]

Which frankly is just laziness I think. It also seems to be an area where any reasonable DM will say "yes, you can treat disease with a healer's kit". Otherwise the way to totally screw your enemies is to infect them with a mundane disease, not to curse them (simply removed by any spellcaster).

Can you treat disease with a first aid kit? Bandages, gauze, pain killers, tape and the like? What in the kit works against disease? Okay, disinfectant prevents infection from a wound, but it's not going to do squat against something you've ingested or come into contact with through the air.
Looking at what the kit says in the Basic Rules:

Healer’s Kit. This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.​

It's stretching to say that would be able to treat disease or remove a physical condition. It had one use: stabilize the dying. Anything else is a house rule.

Like I already pointed out - being blind or poisoned just applies disadvantage. You can ALREADY overcome it with aid another. Having someone give an improved aid another is not unreasonable, and the trope of the blind guy fighting while his buddy calls out "3 oclock! One oclock!" is fairly common.

That's Hollywood realism. Not everyone wants their game to be a Schwarzenegger movie. (And even then, the blind guy in combat is usually played for laughs.) And it really only works for a melee character. Range characters would be ineffectual.
Still, that's only a way to negate the penalty at the cost of your entire action. There's still no way to actually remove it. The warlord has to spent their entire turn every turn keeping an allying fighting remotely normally. Oh, and the character still automatically fails any ability check related to sight. So that sucks.

Mitigation of max hitpoint reduction is already partly achieved through temporary hitpoints, as long as you can get them regularly enough. I already pointed out that revivify is basically already possible in our world, let alone with a world where a man can face off with his pointy stick against a fire breathing flying elephant.

Bringing people back from near death is more Hollywood realism that still doesn't translate well. Just because you have dragons doesn't mean all the rules of reality and physics go out the window. It's not a "get out of logic free" card. The magic is cool and interesting because it's the exception to reality.

A theoretical warlord might have an ability that let them bring someone back who was dead for a few rounds, but any longer and that steps on paladin toes (and creates a free version of a spell that costs 300gp).
But, really, if the warlord can get to the character that quickly, why weren't they healing them earlier? That's the problem. People die when you have a healer because they're out of healing, the healer was out of commission, or something like a coup de grace or massive damage happened.

Same goes for ability damage - inspiration. Parasites are a mundane threat, treatable by a healers kit. Remove curse is another "basically any spellcaster can do this".

If you have an entire party with zero spellcasting, magic will be an issue. Like if you have any entire party in full plate, stealth (and deep water) will be an issue.

Except that curing most of the condition list is now limited to clerics, druids and bards because someone just didn't think it through.

Let's see, in 3rd Edition remove paralysis and remove blindness/deafness were cleric/ paladin spells, remove disease was cleric/druid/ranger, remove fear was cleric/bard, and neutralize poison was bard/cleric/druid/ranger/paladin. Only remove curse had different classes, being bard/cleric/paladin/sorcerer/wizard. Oh, and stone to flesh was a wizard/sorcerer spell.
Really, the *only* class with everything was the cleric.
5e made it so the bard, druid, cleric, paladin, and ranger can all remove some of those effects, and the druid, bard, and cleric can all equally remove them all. It tripled the classes that can cure most of the condition list. And made it so the bard - who only knows a few spells - might be an effective healer through one spell selection rather than 5+. And it made removing petrification easier, by having that spell available to people who actually remove conditions rather than trying to foist it onto the wizard/sorcerer. (Has any sorcerer ever wanted to take stone to flesh?) But, since it's easy to add new spells, it'd be easy to have a wizard stone to flesh spell that focuses on the utility aspects but just coincidentally restores petrified creatures.

So big improvement for 5e over past editions by making three classes equally adept at filling the healer role, and allowing two others to do half the removal and be adequate back-up healers. I don't see it being necessary to include the restoration or cure wound spells on the wizard and sorcerer spell lists.

But, again, the catch is that any class designed to fill the roll of the bard/druid/cleric should have access to those spells or comparable abilities. Otherwise they cannot fully do their role. It's like making a tank with d6 hit points; yeah, you might have the high AC but you can't stand up to many attacks. Relying on other classes to use those spells doesn't work, since that means the class isn't filling its role. That's like the fighter relying on the rogue for some damage mitigation or the evoker wizard requiring the ranger to keep their damage high.
Especially since, half the classes in the game don't get the spells. If you're a party with a warlord and three other characters pulled from the list of barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, wizard, sorcerer, warlock (or even a bard that doesn't take those spells) and someone gets diseased or blinded then the warlord isn't going to be able to help. They have to stop adventuring and go find a temple or roll up a new character.

I don't mean "oh, I just failed my save, better get a reroll, oh, failed that too, guess I'm a rock", I mean "hey, bob failed his save and spent the rest of the fight petrified, lets give him another one. And another. And another", which seems a bit too good if anything. Eh, hard to come up with a great new mechanic in a few seconds.

A new save would be good. But it's super easy to fail a save even with advantage. And that'd be a great warlord power. But it's not going to

But if we're accepting a warlord that's not quite a full healer - if we have to accept one that is "close enough" but cannot do everything - that can also apply to things like not easily getting unconscious creatures back in the fight. Or using temporary hit points instead of restoring health. Because they're not replacements for a cleric/druid/bard but their own class entirely, in the same way a warlock can kinda replace a wizard but not in every way and a ranger or bard can kinda replace a rogue but not in every way. We can worry less about fitting some arbitrary "role" that doesn't *really* exist as a design space in the game and focus on making a warlord that is really good at doing warlordy things rather than a warlord that is really good at doing clerical things.