Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[pemerton]

I'm happy to see that my call for Warlord retention has gotten a lot of love from the 4e players, though I didn't intend for it to turn into another argument about what hit points actually are.

I think that's inevitable in talking about the warlord.

Even based on the fantasy archetypes, Fighters don't heal themselves.

heal is defined as restoring the abstract concept called hitpoints

It is very clear that, in 4e mechanics, "healing" means "restoring hit points", and it is equally clear that hit point gain and loss can correlate to any or all of (minor) physical injury, shaken morale, exhaustion, etc.

I think that is is also tolerably clear in AD&D (per the descritions in the PHB an DMG), but their are oddities like Cure Light Wounds, which can actually cure very serious wounds on any low hit point character. (I've played a lot of AD&D, and I don't remember any narration of the sorts of injuries that make non-magical hit point resoration problematic. But others seem to have played, and narrated, differently.)

In 3E it is not at all clear - 3E has the distinction, for example, between "real" and subdual damage. And in a game like RQ or Rolemaster hit points correspond entirely to physical injury (in Rolemaster, only minor injury and blood loss - serious injuries are represented by discrete wound penalties).

You can't talk about how to handle non-magical "healing" without talking about what "healing" means.

I think he meant that any class (and/or any high cha PC) should be able to say 'Get up damn you, get up and fight!' and being effective.

Why shouldn't the fighter be able to say "rub some dirt in it!" and have an effect that "heals?"

For much the same reason that a wizard doesn't start with heavy armour proficiency. Or for much the same reason that a fighter's prayers aren't generally as efficacious as a cleric's. Namely, distributing capabilities across the range of PCs.

Which raises another issue - how much metagame influence should there be on the distribution of class abilities?

HeroQuest revised has an interesting approach to this. In HQ, PC abilities consist of natural language descriptors that a player makes up him-/herself. Which creates a potential problem of broad vs narrow/specialised descriptors. The GM is advised to set the DC higher for more genral descriptors, where "more general" is determined by comparing the abilities of the PCs involved in the scene. So the utility of a given PC's "Mightily Thewed" descriptor varies depending on what sorts of descriptors of muscularity the other PCs have, and how general or narrow these are. So if another PC has a "Famous for lifting boulders" ability, than my "Mightily Thewed" ability will be less useful when it comes to moving rocks, than otherwise it would be.

Depending on how one approaches these sorts of issues of niche creation, niche protection, etc, and how overt the metagaming of the design is, there may or may not be a place for a martial "healer".

A further consideration is whether "healing" - ie hit point resotration - is an important element of play. In AD&D it is not (at least in my play experience). Recovering hit points is like replenishing rations - something that generally happens between the action, not as an element of it. In 4e, recovering hit points is one potentially key element of the action, as it is one facet of the mechanics that structure the pacing within combat.

If 5e is going to be modular with respect to 4e hit points vs "meat" hit points, and AD&D healing vs 4e healing (and I gather that 3E is closer to 4e in this respect), then it will almost certainly have to be modular with respect to a 4e-style warlord class.

I suspect the difference between those who hate Warlords and those who love them mirrors the split between those who play 1st person perspective vs those who play 3rd person/bird's eye perspective.

I don't know whether there is a tendency of the sort you describe, but I'm pretty confident the mirroring is not total. I could easily imagine play a warlord from the first person perspective, although at some points I might need the collaboration of my fellow players (eg when I use Inspiring Word on an unconscious friend, the player of that other PC would have to narrate that other PC's inner experience).

 

[Greg K]

Ok, what fantasy archetype does the warlord allow OTHER than non-magical healer, that a fighter or ranger could not? I can not think of any heros in any books or movies or TV shows, or legend of yore that can be made as a warlord, but not a fighter. The healing aspect (the part a lot of us don’t like) is tacked on for the game, and is not part of the archetype.

Off the top of my head: Hank in Dungeons and Dragons cartoon would have levels in it, Aragorn would have levels in it. Not fantasy, but Captain America and Cyclops. They give tactics that boost effectiveness of their teammates, they push others on when they are exhausted (inspiring word or some variant) and in the case of Captain America and Aragorn, their presence inspires others.

Now, I have no problem stealing this and giving into the fighter, but that takes away from the "lazy warlord" which, despite not being a 4e player, I think is cool

And for many of us, it is not so much the healing aspect itself that is the problem, it is that there is no differentiation between it and magical healing. It is the "healing" of someone unconcious and/or making dying rolls that is the issue.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Here's a question: It seems likely that 5E will offer at least some support for non-battlemat play, and if the warlord is to be a core class, it'll need to be able to function in that environment. The 4E warlord relies heavily on movement-based powers. What sort of abilities should the "taclord" have in the absence of exact positioning?

Like I said, a 'Lord' (I'm going to call it that from now on), should also abilities in courtly intrigue, leadership and more general strategic thought - which in the dungeon could amount to using a Tactical ability or somesuch in order to, say, influence the Initiative roll, or maybe an ability to work out combat patterns so that he can 'instruct' other characters to get a bonus in attack or damage rolls ("Aim for their knees! They are weak there!). In non-combat encounters, of course, they may be able to sense motives, tell if someone is lying, or maybe just act dipomatically. They also may be able to call on more resources than other characters, including servants and the like.

 

[Wormwood]

Come on, guys. This is the freakin' 5th Edition forum, and this little back-and-forth is your excuse for an edition war? Man, when 4E was coming out, we fought edition wars that made the skies bleed. Kids these days.

I believe the veterans of the Great Edition Wars have come together to hammer out a new Confederacy from the ashes of the old Successor Kingdoms.

Pax Unitas Quintus

 

[Greg K]

but you just included like 5 or 6 classes that never had healing, but kept 2 out. it seams almost like saying "no homers" in a vlub house.

While I agree that there is no reason for fighters or rogues not to have healing on their skill list, the above is wrong. He only included 2 (Sorcerer and Wizard (and there were some spells in pre-3e that that were introduced after the 1e PHB that allowed to wizards to "heal" back hp)

The 1e Barbarian did have healing (first aid) in the 1e Unearthed Arcana
"This skill allows the barbarian to bind wounds, set sprains or broken bones and concoct natural antibiotics and natural cures." It then discusses the effects of the barbarian's healing restoring hit points. They may have also had healing or herbalism non-weapon proficiencies in 2e (the class was introduced back into 2e with the Complete Barbarian Handbook)

The 1e ranger gained limited access to both wizard and druid spells. At 12th level they could cast Cure light wounds and Goodberry were both 2nd level druid spell. At 16th level, they gained access to 3rd level druid spells including Cure Disease and Neutralize Poison. I don't know if they got any healing non-weapon proficiencies with the introduction of the Wilderness and Dungeoneer survival guides since I don't have those books.

2e Rangers had access to the herbalism non-weapon proficiency. They could also start learning priests spells (I think it was still at 8th level). They lost cure light wounds, but they still had access to Goodberry.

 

[mlund]

Fighting the "hit points are physical injury, so restoring instantly requires magic" battle all over again is a waste of space. People have been dying on that hill since AD&D chided people for thinking higher level fighters could take more physical abuse than multiple war-horses. Hit points are abstracted survivability, not lost limbs and crushed organs. Nobody is suggesting Warlords regrow hands or replace spleens - they just help their comrades survive.

Frankly, since the Warlord doesn't double-dip or spotlight steal I don't see much point in complaining. If you don't like the character class you don't have to play it. He isn't going to come drink your milkshake like some character classes in some editions were notorious for doing.

He's a perfectly viable dramatic role in any fantasy sub-genre D&D represents, from low-magic on up. The only niche he doesn't fit into is some super-gritty damage variant where people's limbs come flying off until a magician reattaches them. Heck, I remember that variant. It was in an Armory book supporting the d30, and almost all those maiming injuries inflicted permanent ability score losses that could only be fixed by a regeneration spell - Cure Whatever Wounds couldn't do squat when your teeth were bashed in or your leg was chopped off.

- Marty Lund

 

[Greg K]

Fig
Heck, I remember that variant. It was in an Armory book supporting the d30, and almost all those maiming injuries inflicted permanent ability score losses that could only be fixed by a regeneration spell - Cure Whatever Wounds couldn't do squat when your teeth were bashed in or your leg was chopped off.

- Marty Lund

If you are going to look at something like that, I would start with the variant in the 2e: Combat and Tactics and, for 3e, Torn Asunder by Bastion Press (a company by a former TSR employee). For something in-between those and standard D&D, there is The Book of Iron Might written by Mike Mearls and published by Monte Cook's company, Malhavoc Press.

 

[Nivenus]

After reading most of this thread, I think the idea of battle leaders and commanders who mostly act from the back lines is a strong enough concept to justify a warlord class. True, fighters can take some skills to improve their social skills, but as they stand they don't have any powers that directly involved commanding others.

That said, I think people are largely uncomfortable with the healing aspect of warlords. Right or wrong, this is a large part of the class's role and in fact the entire reason it was designed in the first place. And, right or wrong, most people tend to think of hit points as representing a person's health. It is, after all, based on constitution (which represents a person's physical endurance) and when they're out you fall unconscious or die.

I think a reasonable solution would be what many have suggested: turn warlords into a class that, rather than healing, grant temporary hit points. The end result is the same, but it more easily lends itself to the idea that warlords are improving characters' morale rather than simply healing them through the power of friendship, leadership, etc.

While I'm sure not everyone would be satisfied by that, I think a lot of people would be. Either that or you're going to have to do something about hit points that doesn't make them so implicitly linked to injury and death.

 

[SensoryThought]

I like the warlord. I think a lot of the controversy and disagreement comes back to whether you as a player/DM like the 4e concept of roles- defender/striker/leader/controller which really was taken from the mmo tank/dps/heals/cc model.

I like having a group where people each have a role and a time to shine but I appreciate there are a LOT of people who (a) want their character to do everything or (b) not feel restricted to need to fill a group of 4 with one person of each role. I have had issues with (b) in my game but making healing potions very prevalent or reducing monster spike damage can deal with lack of a healer or tank.

The bigger problem I see for d&dn is that the greater you allow for everyone to play 'their way' via modules or whatever, the greater the intrinsic complexity of the game. If 'classic 4e' classes were too hard to bring in new players and required premade essentials templates, how do they expect to make an easy system that allows each group to choose a variety of class and multiclass options, vancian magic or not, and the idea of roles.

 

[LurkAway]

Frankly, since the Warlord doesn't double-dip or spotlight steal I don't see much point in complaining. If you don't like the character class you don't have to play it.

Well that's clearly not indicative of concerns beyond your personal sphere. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat and using a sling, then I don't see much point in complaining because if you don't like his character concept you don't have to play it. If 5E puts warlords in the core, and a warlord PC starts shouting at my PC from the back of the line, I might just roleplay "What?! I can't hear you!"