D&D 5E (2014) Warlording the fighter

[tuxgeo]

. . . and, after such personal notes, I'm taking a few days off from this thread.

Don't expect me back here before Saturday, if then.

#MoreHeatThanLight #OneTrueWayism #SeeYouAfterAFewDays

 

[pemerton]

There are only two pools of hit points, those that have been lost and those that remain. All hit points are just hit points, equal and identical. There is no way to identify which hit point or points are removed from the pool when damage is taken, or returned when recovery takes place.

Any and every hit point is exactly like any and every other hit point. None may be described as anything other than a hit point, whether lost, remaining, or restored.

The reason that this is true of hit points is because hit points are just a marker. They are not any sort of physical or metaphysical substance or quantity.

In the fiction, events occur which impede the ability of a character to go on. Mechanically, the game notes and responds to such events by mandating the subtraction of hit points from the character's hit point pool. In the fiction, events occur which restore to the character the capacity to go on. Mechanically, the game notes and responds to such events by mandating the addition of hit points from the character's hit point pool.

When the hit point pool is full, we can say of the character that his/her ability to go on is maximally replenished. When the hit point pool is empty, we can say of the character that s/he has lost the ability to go on; hence, s/he is unconscious and/or dying.

The hit points themselves do not correspond to anything, however. They are just a number, a marker, which goes up or down as events in one or the other of those two categories occurs, and which have a maximum (which corresponds to maximum capacity to go on) and a minimum (which correspond to unconsciousness, dying and/or death).

In the mechanics of the game, the way that we represent this ability to keep going despite being physically worn down is to pour fresh hit points into the depleted pool.

I think that the way that ability is best represented is by giving the subject temporary hit points. It is, as you describe, an extra pool of endurance and determination "despite being physically worn down." Your injuries (in the form of lost hit points) remain, but you persevere despite them.

Mechanically, this does not work for two reasons.

First, temporary hit points are not a pool of endurance and determination that allows someone to go on despite being physically worn down. (1) A character need not be physically worn down in order to receive temp hp. (2) Temp hp can exceed the cap of "maximal replenishment of reserves" - hence they are not about reserves at all. (3) Temp hp don't help when a character is unconscious and/or dying, yet this is one crucial moment when, in heroic adventure fiction if not often in real life, words of encouragement enable someone to rally, and to go on, despite being physically worn down.

Second, the phrase "your injuries (in the form of lost hit points)" seems confused. Being injured can cause the loss of hit points; but lost hit points don't correlate to particular injuries. D&D doesn't even use the notion of particular injuries - as Gygax set out in his original DMG, the notion of "injuries" or "hit location" isn't apposite where hit points are concerned, because the loss of hit points is about the wearing down of someone's ability to go on. That's not to say that, in some particular context, a GM shouldn't say "The orc scimitar slashes your forearm - lose 8 hp". But there is no mechanical correlation between subsequently healing 8 hit points, and healing that cut. For instance, a character could use some non-magical ability to let another character heal some hit points (say, using a "healing kit"), and could narrate that as (say) providing the character with a cup of strong brandy while stitching up the wound, and then some hit points could be replenished although the character's arm is still cut. (Stitching a wound can facilitate its healing; it doesn't, in and of itself, heal it.)

As well as the mechanical objections, there is a purely ad hominem objection to the notion of "your injuries (in the form of lost hit points)". You have asserted, in the earlier post that I have also quoted, that hit points are undifferentiated. Yet you also want to say that hit points are differentiated, in the sense that particular bundles of lost hit points correlate to particular injuries. That seems contradictory to me.

Considering that temporary hit points generally last until you take a long rest, there is very little benefit to being "healed" over getting THP, but the difference in theme and "fluff" is important. Using THP allows to the Warlord to be every bit as effective without raising the issue of "martial healing" which is viewed with such skepticism.

As someone who has played a lot of D&D, including but by no means limited to a lot of 4e, I can say that from the point of view of practical game play granting temporary hit points is nothing like healing. The former is about prophylaxis. The latter is about recovery. In the fiction, the former is about a rousing speech or blessing in anticipation of action and struggle; the latter is about encouraging a friend an ally to overcome the burdens that action and struggle have inflicted.

 

[Bluenose]

Unless someone develops a hit point system where there is a direct ratio of damage = decreased output, mental capacity, etc. then hit point interpretation is wide open and there is no universal viewpoint when a character is above zero. In my opinion hit points above zero are fluid and adapt to the given situation. That also means there will be inconsistencies if you want a universal application, whether that is all meat or all fatigue.

Star Wars Saga had a system something like that in the Wound Track. For that matter, 4e had the disease system which did some of those things. And there are other D20 games which included something along those lines, such as Traveller T20.

 

[epithet]

The reason that this is true of hit points is because hit points are just a marker. They are not any sort of physical or metaphysical substance or quantity.
...

That is entirely correct. A hit point is not so much a thing as it is a unit of measure. You and I agree on this.

...

Mechanically, this does not work for two reasons.

First, temporary hit points are not a pool of endurance and determination that allows someone to go on despite being physically worn down. (1) A character need not be physically worn down in order to receive temp hp. (2) Temp hp can exceed the cap of "maximal replenishment of reserves" - hence they are not about reserves at all. (3) Temp hp don't help when a character is unconscious and/or dying, yet this is one crucial moment when, in heroic adventure fiction if not often in real life, words of encouragement enable someone to rally, and to go on, despite being physically worn down.

Second, the phrase "your injuries (in the form of lost hit points)" seems confused. Being injured can cause the loss of hit points; but lost hit points don't correlate to particular injuries. D&D doesn't even use the notion of particular injuries - as Gygax set out in his original DMG, the notion of "injuries" or "hit location" isn't apposite where hit points are concerned, because the loss of hit points is about the wearing down of someone's ability to go on. That's not to say that, in some particular context, a GM shouldn't say "The orc scimitar slashes your forearm - lose 8 hp". But there is no mechanical correlation between subsequently healing 8 hit points, and healing that cut. For instance, a character could use some non-magical ability to let another character heal some hit points (say, using a "healing kit"), and could narrate that as (say) providing the character with a cup of strong brandy while stitching up the wound, and then some hit points could be replenished although the character's arm is still cut. (Stitching a wound can facilitate its healing; it doesn't, in and of itself, heal it.)

As well as the mechanical objections, there is a purely ad hominem objection to the notion of "your injuries (in the form of lost hit points)". You have asserted, in the earlier post that I have also quoted, that hit points are undifferentiated. Yet you also want to say that hit points are differentiated, in the sense that particular bundles of lost hit points correlate to particular injuries. That seems contradictory to me.

As someone who has played a lot of D&D, including but by no means limited to a lot of 4e, I can say that from the point of view of practical game play granting temporary hit points is nothing like healing. The former is about prophylaxis. The latter is about recovery. In the fiction, the former is about a rousing speech or blessing in anticipation of action and struggle; the latter is about encouraging a friend an ally to overcome the burdens that action and struggle have inflicted.

So, taking your points a little bit out of order, I think suggesting lost hit points are a representation of injury might be disagreeable to you because you have a more narrow definition of injury than I do. I consider any harm you sustain to be an injury, whether it is physical, mental, emotional, or even financial. From my perspective (as an attorney) anything you can sue over is an injury. If you think of an injury as the lingering effect of physical trauma, then I can see your point - but I don't think we disagree here on anything more than semantics. I am by no means suggesting that "particular bundles of lost hit points correlate to particular injuries," I think the exact opposite is true.

I will point out, though, that even semantically D&D has always characterised hit point loss in that kind of language. When you lose hit points, you "take damage." When you record that damage on your character sheet, it has often been in a category called "wounds" or something similar. If losing hit points is "damage" and lost hit points are "wounds," than "injury" is not an incongruous term, is it?

Anyway, regarding mechanics: I agree with your points, but I draw a different conclusion from them. I especially agree with your statement that "[healing] is about recovery." That's an important distinction, because in the fiction that inspires the class feature we're talking about a character doesn't recover from being damaged, rather the character goes on despite being damaged. The character is still on death's door, but is possessed of a grim determination to fight and win anyway. There's no recovery in that scenario, and in fact those scenes are so compelling because there is no recovery. The character may be up and fighting, but he's still seriously damaged and the viewer or reader should remain concerned that he might not make it or, at the very least, be impressed with the character's 'grit.' After the fight is over, that damage still needs to be mended.

Yeah, temporary hit points can be front loaded, but we're trying to represent a sort of leadership action, so that's appropriate. It makes sense to me that the same sort of action could both fortify your resolve before a fight and motivate you to carry on after being seriously damaged. Your last statement was that "[healing] is about encouraging a friend to overcome the burdens that action and struggle have inflicted." To me, that's what temporary hit points can achieve. Healing, by contrast, removes the burden entirely. Put another way, if you are carrying a heavy bucket of damage, healing empties the bucket whereas temporary hit points let you run with the weight as if it were empty.

I also agree with you that temporary hit points are inadequate to handle an ally unconscious at zero. That's why I've previously suggested an entirely separate ability or abilities to handle that specific scenario, something that would operate mechanically similar to the Barbarian's Relentless Rage (perhaps as part of a command aura) or the half-orc's Relentless Endurance (perhaps triggered by the Warlord as a reaction.) As I've said several times in this thread, I think the Warlord should have the ability to restore hit points - "heal" - comparable to the Healer feat, or the Second Wind feature of the Fighter, both in terms of the amount of hit points restored and the limitations regarding the frequency of use on a particular ally.

 

[El Mahdi]

Wrong in the first sentence!

The "Fallacy of Division" does not depend on specific evidence; rather, it is a matter of the presence or the lack of validity of the argument itself.

In the philosophy of logic, validity of an argument is independent of the truth of any of the constituent statements within the argument. If you want to see any examples, consult any textbook on Introductory Logic, which I must assume you either did not study in college, or else forgot. (I mean, if you missed that most elementary point, what else might you have missed?)

Wow! Okay...

Not saying that I agree with Kamikaze - I don't - but if one is going to attempt to highlight somebody else's faulty logic, it's probably best to not utilize logical fallacies while doing so.

Specifically:

I must assume you either did not study in college, or else forgot. - assumption based on self-declaration of an either/or fallacy

...if you missed that most elementary point, what else might you have missed? - slippery slope fallacy


Not to mention that you used these together as an ad hominem argument meant to attack the ethos of Kamikaze's argument, rather than the logos.

Frankly, if one has to resort to attacking the credibility of a debater in order to prove one's own argument - which ultimately, an argument of emotion cannot do - then whether you're right or wrong you've already lost. When those reading your argument understand what you're attempting to do - whether on their own or after having it pointed out - the blatancy of attempting to attack somebody else's ethos usually just ends up damaging your own.

In actual logic, the fact that the category of Hit Points includes the description "physical" does both of the following things:
(1) FAILS to impute the description of "physical" to any quantity of healed Hit Points; and
(2) FAILS to impute the description of "non-physical" to any quantity of healed Hit Points.

The points (1) and (2) above mean that gaming group A can say that any healed hit points at the table of gaming group A must include the "physical" descriptor -- because (2) FAILS, above; and
gaming group B can say that any healed hit points at the table of gaming group B might or might not include the "physical" descriptor, because (1) FAILS, above;
and they would be equally right!

Now we're talking. A 100% unassailable argument of logic. I agree completely.

 

[El Mahdi]

Anyway, regarding mechanics: I agree with your points, but I draw a different conclusion from them. I especially agree with your statement that "[healing] is about recovery." That's an important distinction, because in the fiction that inspires the class feature we're talking about a character doesn't recover from being damaged, rather the character goes on despite being damaged.

For the most part, I believe you and I are on the same side of this debate, but I disagree with the perception you express here.

I've touched on this before, but I think it keeps getting lost in the mix.

I agree completely that "healing is about recovery", but I disagree that Warlords don't stimulate recovery from damage, or that the fiction that the Warlord is based on doesn't support this.

First, there is no one source of fiction that a Warlord draws on. Some are consistent with your statement, some are not. For instance, the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is one such fictional source that is contrary to your statement. Reese does far more than just soldier on despite being wounded. His energy level returns to almost normal. His ability to fight returns to almost normal. He is no longer in danger of succumbing to his wounds. That is most certainly recovery from damage - from a fictional and real-life perspective.

This highlights the second part, as you've said, damage is not just wounds. Wounds themselves don't kill. Wounds themselves don't cause death. What causes death is the loss of homeostasis.

Homeostasis is the ability of an organism to regulate its functions; things like maintain blood pressure, blood volume, heart rate, circulation, neurological activity, waste processing, resist toxins and agents, etc.

For example, a vicious sword cut doesn't kill. The body can still structurally/mechanically continue to operate. What fails is the bodies ability to maintain blood pressure and volume. When homeostasis is sufficiently lost, the organism ceases to function (usually heart failure and/or brain death).

Even a heart attack itself doesn't kill. A heart attack leads to the inability of the heart to maintain blood flow. Homeostasis is lost as a result, and the organism dies.

Inability to maintain homeostasis is also damage, and is not necessarily precipitated by injury.

In the case of Reese, he is suffering from an accumulation of damage: exhaustion, blood loss, circulatory shock from extreme pain and intense prolonged fear, actual structural damage/wounds, etc. He passes out because his body is losing homeostasis.

When Sarah yells at him using mental triggers he's conditioned to respond to, his brain responds by stimulating the production of epinephrine (adrenaline), serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and others.

The epinephrine immediately raises his heart rate and blood pressure. It was low before, the primary reason why he passed out, and is now back at normal levels.

The dopamine motivates Reese - in this specific circumstance, motivated to fight and survive.

The norepinephrine focuses Reese - allowing him to focus on the threat at hand and respond accordingly - allows him to access and utilize his training and knowledge to fight.

The serotonin floods his system to aid in blood clotting, vasoconstriction for purposes of homeostasis, and generates a sense of optimism.

As these hormones/neurotransmitters flood Reese's body, he revives - recovers - and gets back in the fight.

Homeostasis, though being supported by a surge of chemicals, has been restored.

And here's the kicker, just because homeostasis is being directly stimulated, doesn't mean that homeostasis won't remain after the surge is over.

If, while the surge is taking place, the body is able to clot enough to stop or limit blood loss, and thus allow for functional blood pressure without adrenaline stimulation, then homeostasis will be maintained.

The body has recovered from damage.

Now granted, in real life, there is a significant if involved. Such as, if sufficient clotting hasn't taken place, homeostasis won't persist after the adrenaline has worn off, etc., etc.

But D&D doesn't differentiate damage this way. It doesn't get this granular (and doesn't use persistent wounds or their effects - so we have to ignore this for the official rules - though I think it's inclusion would solve a lot of the disconnect being experienced).

We use an abstract quantification that encompasses all of that so we don't have to get that time-consumingly involved. As long as one understands Hit Points to be an abstract quantification, it supports any level of granular examination or interpretation one wants; including recovery from damage because somebody exhorted another to do so. Anyone who says there is only one interpretation of Hit Points - only one thing they represent and only one way to think about them (not you, epithet; I'm referring to a certain height-challenged divine-wind) - they simply couldn't be more wrong.

So, in conclusion, Warlord action can stimulate recovery from damage. It's present in both fiction and real-life.


However, I will stipulate that just because recovery from damage can occur, it's not guaranteed.

With that in mind, I propose this for both proponents and opponents of Warlord healing:

Would it be acceptable - a tolerable compromise - assuming the use of real Hit Points rather than Temporary Hit Points - for Warlord healing to require a saving throw after a certain amount of time or following combat, or risk reverting to the previous Hit Point level unless one has received magical healing or use of a healer's kit?

(A saving throw that reflects the uncertainty - the lack of a guarantee - that homeostasis can be maintained.)

[video=youtube;N71d7BF1fZ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71d7BF1fZ4[/video]

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would it be acceptable - a tolerable compromise -

As an aside, the idea that there is a need or way to 'compromise' with the position that the Warlord shouldn't exist at all, is wrong-headed. At this point, the Warlord could only enter the game in an opt-in way, it's not part of the Standard game, that's already /complete victory/ for the guys who don't want to play Warlords. No false "compromise" is called for.

If that sort of thing were valid, I would assert that all spellcasters must be removed from the game, and offer to 'compromise' that they merely be nerfed if the Warlord is let in. That would be be nonsense.

assuming the use of real Hit Points rather than Temporary Hit Points - for Warlord healing to require a saving throw after a certain amount of time or following combat, or risk reverting to the previous Hit Point level unless one has received magical healing or use of a healer's kit?

One fantasy trope that D&D has always lacked is the convalescent hero who 're-opens his wounds' when he goes off and does something heroic, possibly even dying as a result. It would be great to finally have such a mechanic. But, it would be meaningless if any 1st-level spell or dirt-common medieval band-aid removed the possibility.

Maybe characters reduced to 0 hps could gain a "Wounded" condition that remained with them - whether inspired, rested overnight, HD'd, Healing Worded, Cure Wounds'd, or Healer's Kitted back to full hps - until some much longer natural healing (weeks) or much more powerful magic (like Regenerating a lost limb) was completed.

 

[epithet]

Tony, who is arguing that the Warlord shouldn't exist?

El Mahdi, you clearly know a lot more about biomechanics that I do. I've never suggested that the Warlord shouldn't have any ability to restore hit points to an ally, I think you and I differ only in how much restoration we think is reasonable.

With regard to the Terminator clip, I can imagine that sort of inspiration being represented in several ways using D&D 5e mechanics. You can say Sarah "healed" Kyle, sure. You can also say that Kyle had the "stunned" condition which Sarah removed. You can even say, I suppose, that Sarah removed a level of exhaustion from Kyle, from level 2 or 3 down to 1 or 2 (which would restore part of his hit point pool.) Even after "get up, soldier!" Kyle is still badly wounded, though. He's limping, and leaning on Sarah, and definitely "bloodied." Would you consider the effect Sarah had to be greater than a "Second Wind" would be?

It's interesting to me that you have such apparent disdain for temporary hit points. Your proposed compromise is hit points that are temporary, which appeals to you more than temporary hit points? Is it your position that the Warlord must be, fundamentally, "a healer" in the same way that divine casters are "healers" in D&D?

 

[Tony Vargas]

who is arguing that the Warlord shouldn't exist?

Jester Canuk, Kamakatze Midget, and, you - you are, everytime you draw some edition-war-era line in the sand (and then claim not to know what you just did). This objection to martial healing that you're pushing, now is a perfect example.
Feel free to stop at any time.

EI've never suggested that the Warlord shouldn't have any ability to restore hit points to an ally, I think you and I differ only in how much restoration we think is reasonable.

How much restoration should be a matter of player resource allocation (hp restoration can't be an unlimited resource, afterall).
How much healing does a cleric, for instance, provide? Well, if he preps no healing spells, /none/, if he not only preps them, but devotes all his slots to casting them, /tons/.

It's not the kind of thing that needs to be hard-coded into the class design.

It's interesting to me that you have such apparent disdain for temporary hit points.

Temp hps are a very useful, appropriate, mechanic: I'd be as adamant about the Warlord needing to be able to grant temps if you were suggesting he only be able to 'heal.' Any attempt at the Warlord needs the option of both if it's to be a worthy successor. Having the option to do both, either, or neither (especially on a day-to-day or rest-to-rest, rather than chargen, archetype-choice, or level-up basis) would be a nice, if minor, enhancement.

Is it your position that the Warlord must be, fundamentally, "a healer" in the same way that divine casters are "healers" in D&D?

Consider that most divine casters who chose never to prep healing spells cease to be healers, at all. Yet, those classes are able to step into that role. The Warlord should be able to adequately fill the sort of 'healer' (hp resource management) role which was a subset of the formal 'leader' role it filled so well, originally. With the looser class design philosophy of 5e, individual Warlord PCs should also be able to eschew that role in favor of others - but the option to take it up should always be there.

 

[epithet]

You are. Feel free to stop at any time.
...

Please believe me when I tell you that I ask the following question in all sincerity and without malice or animosity: What the hell are you talking about?

I have, across several pages and at least a dozen posts, been talking about how the Warlord could be created as a class I'd like to play and to have in my group. I have actually used that exact terminology. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster in this forum?