Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 6672380" data-attributes="member: 6796566">Tony, you've dismissed characterizations like "shouting wounds closed" and "persuading an ally to not be damaged any more" as invalid, and as relics of an "edition war" of which you apparently bear scars. I'm trying to be open minded, but while these characterizations might be slightly pejorative, they don't strike me as entirely inaccurate.You've also offered scenarios from popular movies like The Terminator of a character inspiring another character to soldier on after being seriously wounded. I think those scenarios depict characters who refuse to die, or who keep moving forward, despite the wounds that continue to threaten them. Those scenes do not show characters who recover in an instant, they show characters who keep going regardless of the injuries that they still have. How is this dynamic not captured by (1) remaining conscious at zero, (2) recovering a small number of hit points like a second wind, and (3) having temporary hit points to reflect the grit and determination to stay in the fight?You've also described "enough" healing in loose terms, but stressing the need to stand up a fallen ally. If that ally doesn't fall at zero, gets enough HP restoration to remain conscious and active, and has temporary hit points enough to reasonably stay in the fight another round or two, then what more is required for your satisfaction? How large is the gap between that and "enough?"You want a Warlord that is explicitly non-magical. OK. You want a Warlord that can keep allies in the fight. OK. You want a Warlord that can make allies more effective in combat. OK. I think we are all on board with these bullet points.You want an ally that can use an ability to restore a significant amount of hit points to an ally, even when that ally is unconscious, instantly and in combat, and that ability isn't magical. Help me understand why this should be a thing. Please don't just say "because it could do that the last time around." The more I look at discussions of 4e, the more I think these are two completely different games. I'm not bashing 4e, but that game clearly already has a Warlord class, so we should be focussed on working out a class that works with 5e and its quite different game systems.</blockquote>

Verification