D&DNext Q&A (3/14): Warlord style Martial Healing will (probably) be in the game

community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/...

 Warlord healing was based on the idea that hit points are abstract and don't always represent physical wounds; under that premise, could there be a module for warlord style "martial healing?"

It is absolutely true that healing doesn’t always represent physical wounds, but a big challenge is that while that is stated up front, every edition of D&D treats taking hit points damage in different ways. If, say, an orc damages you with an axe, that might not represent the physical impact of an axe with your flesh. On the other hand, if a drow’s poisoned crossbow bolt deals damage, you still have to make the saving throw against the poison—clearly indicating a physical impact. It would cause a far higher degree of complexity than we want if we try to distinguish between physical and nonphysical wounds with two separate pools of resources and monster abilities that work only when dealing damage to one of those two; the abstraction of hit points works for D&D and keeps the game moving quickly.


Abstractions are necessary in all games, especially in D&D and other roleplaying games. That said, abstractions must also be couched in the right language and must produce results that make sense to the narrative. This is extremely true and very important when considering new players and casual players; it’s easier for a player to learn the rules if the game’s abstractions produce a narrative that they can visualize and understand. Any time a game makes players stop and say, “Wait, what just happened there?” or something similar, it creates confusion and interrupts the flow of play and makes the game harder to learn and intuit.


With regards to warlords and martial healing, however, I don't know that we need a rules module just to to use the abstraction in different ways that accomplish that goal. We're definitely experimenting with many different forms of healing, including "inspiring" healing similar to the 4E warlord's healing. However, we want to make sure it works in the larger context of the D&D world. For example, an unconscious character (reduced to 0 hit points) probably wouldn’t be able to benefit from verbal inspiration to keep fighting; without the ability to hear, there’s not much impact from a commander’s inspiring speech (yes, I know, the Hulk can shout Iron Man back to consciousness, but I think that clearly works better as a one-time scene than something that happens every session, even multiple times). So, any kind of inspiration-based hit point recovery probably has the requirement on it that the character be able to hear the person doing the inspiring, which likewise requires the target to be conscious. We might also bring the Charisma of the person doing the inspiring into account—either a Charisma requirement to be inspiring, or (more likely, if I had my guess) a bonus to the amount of hit points recovered based on his or her Charisma modifier. At that point, we’ve used our abstract mechanics to clearly explain what’s happening in the world.


As with all of my answers, keep in mind that this is something that we are still working on, still testing, and still figuring out the right place to put it in the game. Likewise, we are absolutely going to playtest such mechanics extensively, both publicly and with our more limited playtesters. It may be a while before those mechanics enter the public packet, but it is something we’re working on.

Is the warlord fighter build a way to give the fighter some measure of out-of-combat utility that it currently seems to be lacking?

No. Through ongoing revisions, we’ve been working on some new class features that we hope will round out the fighter more and that will play well with many different types of fighter—including the potential warlordesque fighter. These features are separate and intended to supplement the fighter, not fold in the warlord. These new feature might not make it into the next open playtest packet, because we want to iterate on the design a bit first.




I find this VERY encouraging. A tactical fighter that DOESN'T cannibalize the Warlord sounds terrific--and I'm very encouraged they're onboard with Martial Healing. I think the proposed "target must be able to hear you" requirement is a reasonable restriction that makes sense.
I wonder if they are walking back on the Warlord is not a class thing.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Abstractions are necessary in all games, especially in D&D and other roleplaying games. That said, abstractions must also be couched in the right language and must produce results that make sense to the narrative. This is extremely true and very important when considering new players and casual players; it’s easier for a player to learn the rules if the game’s abstractions produce a narrative that they can visualize and understand. Any time a game makes players stop and say, “Wait, what just happened there?” or something similar, it creates confusion and interrupts the flow of play and makes the game harder to learn and intuit.

This is the part that is encouraging to me. Well, this, and the part where warlord healing was proposed as a module. (Although, I suppose the entire warlord class is a module, so that part is not giving unique information.)

The metagame is not the game.

This is a great Rule of Three!

Martial Healing?  Yes, please.
Warlordesque Fighter that doesn't replace the Warlord?  Awesome.
And that vision of how Favored Enemy would work is cool too.  It is less restrictive than forcing you to pick a single type of creature, but more flavorful than simply getting extra damage on all attacks.
One thing: I'm totally ok with the "inspiring word" that simulates a battle cry not really working on unconscious people. However, tt would be nice, if Warlords got some way to help an unconscious ally. Perhaps not shouting them back to their feet from 50 ft. away. But something like once per day, the Warlord can use a standard action to bring an unconscious or dying ally up to 1HP. Sort of a "don't die on me!" manuever (notice those scenes in fictions and movies always involve the person saying "don't die on me" being right next to the injured person, so a requirement that the Warlord be adjacent fits right in with the trope it would be emulating). The ability to help a dying ally would be more limited than the Cleric who can cast a healing spell from far away, but at least the functionality would exist for those inevitable moments when things go lopsided.
In the case of poison vs HP, I think the specific rule of "the poison" should be written to interact with the general rule of HP.

That is to say, I believe poison should be designed around HP rather than HP designed around poison.

"Corner cases," specifics, etc are easier to write and say "this is an exception that works this way" than it is to design an rule that accounts for every exception or corner case.
Hooray!  Pi for everyone!
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
As far as the fighter design goes, I'm very excited.

I'm also hoping they conclude that the warlord has earned his own space as a class.




and one more  for the ranger answer.

I wonder if they are walking back on the Warlord is not a class thing.

Given the overwhelming feedback in the past week.  They should.

Not that fighter's can't have a few tactical/leader maneuvers  or bards can't inspire.  Neither will kill the warlord.  Just like paladins getting cure light wounds would not kill the cleric.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

That is to say, I believe poison should be designed around HP rather than HP designed around poison.

Does that mean I have to coat all of my weapons with DC 5, 0 damage poison in order to guarantee that they hit on a hit? Because that would be tedious.

The metagame is not the game.

But... my precious and fragile Verisimilitude!
*reads answer 3*

Ha.

---

Anyway.

The easiest thing to me is to make an inspiration healing module and make Warlord and Fighters best at it. Then make it Charisma based so Charisma classes are better still.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!





and one more  for the ranger answer.

I wonder if they are walking back on the Warlord is not a class thing.

Given the overwhelming feedback in the past week.  They should.

Not that fighter's can't have a few tactical/leader maneuvers  or bards can't inspire.  Neither will kill the warlord.  Just like paladins getting cure light wounds would not kill the cleric.


Agreed.

BTW, as someone that has done the Fonz Bump (NOT CPR) to get someone out of asystole (flatlining, for those that don't know), it would really really piss me off if they made all sudden healing had to be magical.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
*reads answer 3* Ha. --- Anyway. The easiest thing to me is to make an inspiration healing module and make Warlord and Fighters best at it. Then make it Charisma based so Charisma classes are better still.



First thing I thought when I saw answer 3

...I...I think they might actually be using Orzel's idea (or at least something in the same vein)....I'm SO PUMPED.

seriously best idea I've seen on the forum to date. 




and one more  for the ranger answer.

I wonder if they are walking back on the Warlord is not a class thing.

Given the overwhelming feedback in the past week.  They should.

Not that fighter's can't have a few tactical/leader maneuvers  or bards can't inspire.  Neither will kill the warlord.  Just like paladins getting cure light wounds would not kill the cleric.


Agreed.

BTW, as someone that has done the Fonz Bump (NOT CPR) to get someone out of asystole (flatlining, for those that don't know), it would really really piss me off if they made all sudden healing had to be magical.

But did you say, "Heeeeyyyy!" after?  Well done, too!  And yes, as others have said, I think the Warlord (or non-magical healing in general) needs a way to revive a fallen but not yet dead companion.

Also, it is so nice to see everyone happy and excited.

Regarding martial healing, this is a very good compromise for me.
I would even like this more if the Warlord became his/her own class with built-in martial healing mechanisms. But at least martial healing seems to be in there somewhere, which is very good.

I also get the impression that the discussions on these boards helped in that they realized they had to communicate some more facts about the entire matter. Which is also good. Communication with the customers is good.
If hit points are abstract, then healing is abstract, so then make sure that warlord healing is also abstract.  "You shout and people get better" is too specific.  Just set it up so that the warlord player knows that rallying a target requires that the target either be aware of the warlord or somehow made aware of the warlord, and then let the player figure it out based on the situation.  Normally shouting works, but maybe shouting isn't possible or practical so they pound fists or use sign language.  Maybe the target is unconscious and requires a slap or shake.  Maybe the target is unconscious, but people are revived by other people calling their names all the time in fiction.  Let the group be the creative one.  "Rulings, not rules" and all that jazz.
I love the Ranger concept.  I hated having to pick specific focuses that granted situational bonuses against small groups of enemy.   If earlier rangers picked Orc or Gobin, or Giant, the DM had to make sure to throw some of that into the adventure.  To me, this was kind of like railroading the DM.   If D&DNext rangers gain broader advantages that work in more situations, I'll be really happy.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I really wish they would change the wordage of 0 HP and below to incapacitated instead of unconscious. This would greatly help to illustrate the fact that someone at 0 may not necessarily be narcoleptic and in fact be fully capable of hearing those around them. They are simply overcome by pain/shock/trauma/etc to the point where they cannot act.
"don't die on me!" manuever

Good name.  But don't forget the warlord has to help the guy to his feet and carry him a few steps too.

Don't Die On Me: As an action, with shouts of encuragement and possibly a bit bandaging one dying adjacent ally gains 1 hit point and stands up.  You can them move half your remaining speed, and bring the ally along.

[sblock Don't Die On Me][/sblock]

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.





and one more  for the ranger answer.

I wonder if they are walking back on the Warlord is not a class thing.

Given the overwhelming feedback in the past week.  They should.

Not that fighter's can't have a few tactical/leader maneuvers  or bards can't inspire.  Neither will kill the warlord.  Just like paladins getting cure light wounds would not kill the cleric.


Agreed.

BTW, as someone that has done the Fonz Bump (NOT CPR) to get someone out of asystole (flatlining, for those that don't know), it would really really piss me off if they made all sudden healing had to be magical.

But did you say, "Heeeeyyyy!" after?  Well done, too!  And yes, as others have said, I think the Warlord (or non-magical healing in general) needs a way to revive a fallen but not yet dead companion.

Also, it is so nice to see everyone happy and excited.




At the time I didn't really realize I had Fonz Bumped the guy that I had, in fact, Fonz Bumped him.

And I definitely agree that as long as the character is not dead, they should be subject to healing, whether magical or non-magical.  There is WAY too much documentation on coma patients responding to verbal stimuli, or soldiers on the battlefield that have suddenly been roused by their commanding officers.  
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Well, do I see a sliver of true modularity here?
 Good. I'm on board with the Warlord being it's own class!
Very encouraging. Congrats 4e fans.Smile
And I definitely agree that as long as the character is not dead, they should be subject to healing, whether magical or non-magical.  There is WAY too much documentation on coma patients responding to verbal stimuli, or soldiers on the battlefield that have suddenly been roused by their commanding officers.  

Well, luckily this is something that can easily handled at the group level.  Even if the book says, "Warlord healing requires that the target can hear you."  If your group thinks that it is a silly restriction, you can simply ignore it.  I can't imagine such a restriction is going to have an impact one way or another on how much healing they hand out.

*reads answer 3* Ha. --- Anyway. The easiest thing to me is to make an inspiration healing module and make Warlord and Fighters best at it. Then make it Charisma based so Charisma classes are better still.



First thing I thought when I saw answer 3

...I...I think they might actually be using Orzel's idea (or at least something in the same vein)....I'm SO PUMPED.

seriously best idea I've seen on the forum to date. 



We found something to agree on. Orzel's idea was awesome. :P
And I definitely agree that as long as the character is not dead, they should be subject to healing, whether magical or non-magical.  There is WAY too much documentation on coma patients responding to verbal stimuli, or soldiers on the battlefield that have suddenly been roused by their commanding officers.  

Well, luckily this is something that can easily handled at the group level.  Even if the book says, "Warlord healing requires that the target can hear you."  If your group thinks that it is a silly restriction, you can simply ignore it.  I can't imagine such a restriction is going to have an impact one way or another on how much healing they hand out.




They need to make some sort of item then that can revive an unconscious character, if the normal healing won't. It doesn't even have to be magical. Adrenaline shot. Stim pack. Smelling salts. Call it whatever. :P
Well, do I see a sliver of true modularity here?
 Good. I'm on board with the Warlord being it's own class!
Very encouraging. Congrats 4e fans.Smile




Didn't say that just yet.  Don't go making a promise they didn't actually make.  They said it isn't totally out of the question (not that it ever was said that it was), basically reconfirmation of what we already knew to be true.

What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  

Yet again this is outside interpretation on how the military functions based mainly off reading books and history and stuff...if any actual military guys would like to provide better assessment on this that would be excellent. 

 
*reads answer 3* Ha. --- Anyway. The easiest thing to me is to make an inspiration healing module and make Warlord and Fighters best at it. Then make it Charisma based so Charisma classes are better still.



First thing I thought when I saw answer 3

...I...I think they might actually be using Orzel's idea (or at least something in the same vein)....I'm SO PUMPED.

seriously best idea I've seen on the forum to date. 



We found something to agree on. Orzel's idea was awesome. :P




that's why I think it's happening.  I'm not expecting it to be exactly the same, but Orzel's idea was so pure and simple and awesome it is literally the only thing everyone on the board has almost unanimously agreed on.
Well, do I see a sliver of true modularity here?
 Good. I'm on board with the Warlord being it's own class!
Very encouraging. Congrats 4e fans.Smile




Didn't say that just yet.  Don't go making a promise they didn't actually make.  They said it isn't totally out of the question (not that it ever was said that it was), basically reconfirmation of what we already knew to be true.

What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  

Yet again this is outside interpretation on how the military functions based mainly off reading books and history and stuff...if any actual military guys would like to provide better assessment on this that would be excellent. 

 



It depends on which area you're talking about, really. It's a lot different now than it was even as relatively recent as WW2. NCO's are basically the ones handling infantry in the field, for the most part. They're the true backbone of the entirely military infrastructure.
What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  



Basically, the way I see what they're proposing, is that Fighters are to Warlords as Paladins are to Clerics. Paladins get a few Cleric powers, but trade in most of the flashier ones in exchange for better survivability and combat skills, plus a few tricks all their own. It'd be cool if Fighters had the same sort of dynamic with Warlord style tactics--if you want the full "tactical leader" experience you build a warlord, but basic fighters still get a bit of that stuff to supplement their own skills.
And I definitely agree that as long as the character is not dead, they should be subject to healing, whether magical or non-magical.  There is WAY too much documentation on coma patients responding to verbal stimuli, or soldiers on the battlefield that have suddenly been roused by their commanding officers.  

Well, luckily this is something that can easily handled at the group level.  Even if the book says, "Warlord healing requires that the target can hear you."  If your group thinks that it is a silly restriction, you can simply ignore it.  I can't imagine such a restriction is going to have an impact one way or another on how much healing they hand out.




They need to make some sort of item then that can revive an unconscious character, if the normal healing won't. It doesn't even have to be magical. Adrenaline shot. Stim pack. Smelling salts. Call it whatever. :P




maybe something like a healer's kit?  make a check stabalize the dying...that kind of a thing. dump a potion down his throat boom back up now tell him he isn't allowed to die on you?

kinda seems appropriate.  the class should definitely come with a healers kit in its default item setup.
I must say I am very relieved to see them open their eyes in regards to non magical healing. I got excited when I saw them mention that the Fighter was going to be putting on hat of Warblade. Most of the stuff since then has been disheartening. Yay for positive.
And I definitely agree that as long as the character is not dead, they should be subject to healing, whether magical or non-magical.  There is WAY too much documentation on coma patients responding to verbal stimuli, or soldiers on the battlefield that have suddenly been roused by their commanding officers.  

Well, luckily this is something that can easily handled at the group level.  Even if the book says, "Warlord healing requires that the target can hear you."  If your group thinks that it is a silly restriction, you can simply ignore it.  I can't imagine such a restriction is going to have an impact one way or another on how much healing they hand out.




They need to make some sort of item then that can revive an unconscious character, if the normal healing won't. It doesn't even have to be magical. Adrenaline shot. Stim pack. Smelling salts. Call it whatever. :P




maybe something like a healer's kit?  make a check stabalize the dying...that kind of a thing. dump a potion down his throat boom back up now tell him he isn't allowed to die on you?

kinda seems appropriate.  the class should definitely come with a healers kit in its default item setup.



In regards to their hulk example, I think the Warlord itself should be allowed to do that once per day. It isn't something that should happen all the time, but it should happen. This is fantasy, after all. 

That, coupled with an item, would make for a pretty awesome concept within the Warlord. Maybe said item actually heals when used by the Warlord, but only brings them back to 0 and consciousness when used by anyone else (they can spend a feat to allow it to heal). It allows for the cinematic view of the "GET BACK ON YOUR FEET SOLDIER!" as the character comes around.

That is my biggest issue with DDN right now in regards to what it is missing that 4e provided in abundance. The cinematic feel of everything. The narrative power it gives to the players. 
What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  



Basically, the way I see what they're proposing, is that Fighters are to Warlords as Paladins are to Clerics. Paladins get a few Cleric powers, but trade in most of the flashier ones in exchange for better survivability and combat skills, plus a few tricks all their own. It'd be cool if Fighters had the same sort of dynamic with Warlord style tactics--if you want the full "tactical leader" experience you build a warlord, but basic fighters still get a bit of that stuff to supplement their own skills.




exactly what I'm hoping for.  though I do want the fighter to be able to make that full tactical build.

Basically to me the fighter should be able to fill any combat role defender, striker, controller, leader.  either dedicating to one of them and for the most part filling the role or partially filling multiple of them.

Also very happy to hear they are working up some utility stuff for fighter.
 
What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  



Basically, the way I see what they're proposing, is that Fighters are to Warlords as Paladins are to Clerics. Paladins get a few Cleric powers, but trade in most of the flashier ones in exchange for better survivability and combat skills, plus a few tricks all their own. It'd be cool if Fighters had the same sort of dynamic with Warlord style tactics--if you want the full "tactical leader" experience you build a warlord, but basic fighters still get a bit of that stuff to supplement their own skills.




exactly what I'm hoping for.  though I do want the fighter to be able to make that full tactical build.

Basically to me the fighter should be able to fill any combat role defender, striker, controller, leader.  either dedicating to one of them and for the most part filling the role or partially filling multiple of them.

Also very happy to hear they are working up some utility stuff for fighter.
 



A full tactical build would be fine, as long as it operates different from the Warlord. The Warlord is ordering the charge, the Fighter is leading it type of thing. It should just come at a higher cost to the Fighter than the Warlord.

This makes sense, considering how they talked about healing before. Where the Druid and Cleric are naturally good healers, but the Paladin can still fill in for them. It just requires more of an investment on their part. Same thing for Fighter and Warlord. I'm totally cool with that.

Does that make sense? I'm home sick with bronchitis and doped up. :P 
Wel it sais there might be  "inspiring" healing similar to the 4E warlord's healing.

But the same terms where used in the podcast when refering to bard and the healing it does.
So this could still mean that yes there is  inspiring" healing but it is a bard thing like they said in the podcast.

So you might still need to go multi class bard.
Or get a background simular to the mystical healer but instead would give healing based on the  "inspiring" healing the bard does.
If you want to gain acces to  "inspiring" healing as a fighter class character
Wel it sais there might be  "inspiring" healing similar to the 4E warlord's healing.

But the same terms where used in the podcast when refering to bard and the healing it does.
So this could still mean that yes there is  inspiring" healing but it is a bard thing like they said in the podcast.

So you might still need to go multi class bard.
Or get a background simular to the mystical healer but instead would give healing based on the  "inspiring" healing the bard does.
If you want to gain acces to  "inspiring" healing as a fighter class character



There is no such thing as a "bard thing", though. Magical healing isn't just a "cleric thing". This Q&A does some backpedaling from that podcast. The "bard thing" is in how they deliver it.
Well, do I see a sliver of true modularity here?
 Good. I'm on board with the Warlord being it's own class!
Very encouraging. Congrats 4e fans.Smile




Didn't say that just yet.  Don't go making a promise they didn't actually make.  They said it isn't totally out of the question (not that it ever was said that it was), basically reconfirmation of what we already knew to be true.

What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  

Yet again this is outside interpretation on how the military functions based mainly off reading books and history and stuff...if any actual military guys would like to provide better assessment on this that would be excellent. 

 

Hey Sheep, I'm not promising the Warlord will be a class but saying I'm on board with it. I also have just witnessed possible modularity. In a playtest that narrows playstyles with every release this is a good sign. In a game avoiding all reference to 4th edition this is a great thing.
 I'm attempting to both be encouraging and show my personal support. Devs discussing the premise is a good sign, as the premise being a closed one and avoided is a bad sign, in the realm of modularity I mean. 
I say( strong opinion to follow)  the Warlord deserves to be it's own class. it's a worthwhile character concept that needs to be pursued. 
What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  



Basically, the way I see what they're proposing, is that Fighters are to Warlords as Paladins are to Clerics. Paladins get a few Cleric powers, but trade in most of the flashier ones in exchange for better survivability and combat skills, plus a few tricks all their own. It'd be cool if Fighters had the same sort of dynamic with Warlord style tactics--if you want the full "tactical leader" experience you build a warlord, but basic fighters still get a bit of that stuff to supplement their own skills.




exactly what I'm hoping for.  though I do want the fighter to be able to make that full tactical build.

Basically to me the fighter should be able to fill any combat role defender, striker, controller, leader.  either dedicating to one of them and for the most part filling the role or partially filling multiple of them.

Also very happy to hear they are working up some utility stuff for fighter.
 



A full tactical build would be fine, as long as it operates different from the Warlord. The Warlord is ordering the charge, the Fighter is leading it type of thing. It should just come at a higher cost to the Fighter than the Warlord.

This makes sense, considering how they talked about healing before. Where the Druid and Cleric are naturally good healers, but the Paladin can still fill in for them. It just requires more of an investment on their part. Same thing for Fighter and Warlord. I'm totally cool with that.




Like if we go back to my maneuvers I was posting I think definately changing them all over to being part of an attack possibly requiring a hit and possibly less stackable and connectable.  You know that movement and that attack both cost reactions of the people using them...like definitely make it operate differently, but make it something the warlord could also do.  Though I think this is the last time I mention those maneuvers till the packet release, mainly because they were just rough ideas to show that the fighter can do stuff like that, and I don't want to get to married to them (also because I would speculate that the next packet is like 2 or 3 weeks from now).

The paladin to cleric comparison does work well. 
Well, do I see a sliver of true modularity here?
 Good. I'm on board with the Warlord being it's own class!
Very encouraging. Congrats 4e fans.Smile




Didn't say that just yet.  Don't go making a promise they didn't actually make.  They said it isn't totally out of the question (not that it ever was said that it was), basically reconfirmation of what we already knew to be true.

What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  

Yet again this is outside interpretation on how the military functions based mainly off reading books and history and stuff...if any actual military guys would like to provide better assessment on this that would be excellent. 

 

Hey Sheep, I'm not promising the Warlord will be a class but saying I'm on board with it. I also have just witnessed possible modularity. In a playtest that narrows playstyles with every release this is a good sign. In a game avoiding all reference to 4th edition this is a great thing.
 I'm attempting to both be encouraging and show my personal support. Devs discussing the premise is a good sign, as the premise being a closed one and avoided is a bad sign, in the realm of modularity I mean. 
I say( strong opinion to follow)  the Warlord deserves to be it's own class. it's a worthwhile character concept that needs to be pursued. 




Oh I get that.  It's just sometimes people will read promises from these things and then think they were lied to when it doesn't come to pass.  That's all.  If you can't tell I'm actually pretty pumped for it as well.
What I am happy about...even if they do make the warlord its own class the fighter might still hold on to the tactical leader type stuff as well.

that's really all I've been interested in seeing happen.  mainly because to me the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat and if he can't do tactics that kinda blows it.

as my buddy and I conversed  we came to the description that the tactical fighter is like an NCO and the warlord is like a CO, at least as far as we grasp it.  The NCO is still a strategic guy, he can make changes in the field, and give orders on the ground and even has some strategic bent to his capabilities, but the CO is all about tactics and strategy.  Their both leaderish type guys, but distinctly different as far as personalities and stuff go. (yes I realize this is a gross generalization).  



Basically, the way I see what they're proposing, is that Fighters are to Warlords as Paladins are to Clerics. Paladins get a few Cleric powers, but trade in most of the flashier ones in exchange for better survivability and combat skills, plus a few tricks all their own. It'd be cool if Fighters had the same sort of dynamic with Warlord style tactics--if you want the full "tactical leader" experience you build a warlord, but basic fighters still get a bit of that stuff to supplement their own skills.




exactly what I'm hoping for.  though I do want the fighter to be able to make that full tactical build.

Basically to me the fighter should be able to fill any combat role defender, striker, controller, leader.  either dedicating to one of them and for the most part filling the role or partially filling multiple of them.

Also very happy to hear they are working up some utility stuff for fighter.
 



A full tactical build would be fine, as long as it operates different from the Warlord. The Warlord is ordering the charge, the Fighter is leading it type of thing. It should just come at a higher cost to the Fighter than the Warlord.

This makes sense, considering how they talked about healing before. Where the Druid and Cleric are naturally good healers, but the Paladin can still fill in for them. It just requires more of an investment on their part. Same thing for Fighter and Warlord. I'm totally cool with that.




Like if we go back to my maneuvers I was posting I think definately changing them all over to being part of an attack possibly requiring a hit and possibly less stackable and connectable.  You know that movement and that attack both cost reactions of the people using them...like definitely make it operate differently, but make it something the warlord could also do.  Though I think this is the last time I mention those maneuvers till the packet release, mainly because they were just rough ideas to show that the fighter can do stuff like that, and I don't want to get to married to them (also because I would speculate that the next packet is like 2 or 3 weeks from now).



I had no problem with the maneuvers you posted, I just didn't find them acceptable as a complete replacement for the class. If something like that exists alongside the Warlord, awesome. More options. I still would love to see the Warlord as a class fully dedicated to that, and I think they realize that a lot of people do, too. 

I'm honestly upset that they abandoned the Assassin, too. There's plenty of design space there. It just depends on what they define as the Assassin. The 4e version is a very unique type of class that would have been a cool way to implement it in DDN. It definitely needed some help, but using that as the inspiration behind it would have been awesome.

The only one that I really agree on is the Illusionist... only because the wizard is so undefined and broad. Which I don't see as a good thing, but I accept it. 
I really wish they would change the wordage of 0 HP and below to incapacitated instead of unconscious. This would greatly help to illustrate the fact that someone at 0 may not necessarily be narcoleptic and in fact be fully capable of hearing those around them. They are simply overcome by pain/shock/trauma/etc to the point where they cannot act.



+1
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.