Can we brainstorm a warlord that heals without healing?

So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into?

So, pretty universally, the people who like the warlord and martial healing want the inspirational "get up soldier! You're not gonna die on me now, son! ATTACK!!" Right?

People who don't like the warlord don't like wounds closing, meat being regained, etcetera.

We could go back and forth about HP being meat or part meat or no meat or schrodinger's wound blah blah blah I don't effing care anymore! No one is gonna change their mind on what HP is.

So can we create mechanics that give warlord players the feel of "Get up, you maggot! Ignore the pain!" without going through HP?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Not really, without the ability to restore HP you have very limited options as far as "healing" temp HP is one thing, but then you're better off pre-buffing and just storming in with a nice fat wall of THP between yourself an your real HP.
If the game were desinged around the idea that you do not need a healer to survive things could be much better. If HP overall was reduced and HP recovered quickly throughout the day, then we could have a warlord with no heals.

Also, temp HP should be able to bring an incapacitated ally back to the fight.
So, pretty universally, the people who like the warlord and martial healing want the inspirational "get up soldier! You're not gonna die on me now, son! ATTACK!!" Right? People who don't like the warlord don't like wounds closing, meat being regained, etcetera.



No.  I don't care about the healing (although at that point it's just a cleric or a paladin).

What I don't like is the implicit "Noooooo, you're not playing right! I'M the officer and YOU'RE the private. I rolled Warlord and you didn't.  Without me here yelling at you like Patton you'd just be simpering kobold fodder.  See, it says right here on my character sheet...I'm a WarLORD."

Curiously, the strident, whiny pro-Warlord posts often seem to support what might otherwise be a completely unfair generalization.
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
You could of at least tricked me a little with a subject of "Can we brainstorm something" ~click~ Warlords! Got ya!

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

Shrug    give the hit points are wounds people some module in which the Warlord enhances the saving throws assoicated.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into?


You know.  You all know.

Give me a moment to rant here:

It's not just you (it's mostly another poster), but seriously, I'm a huge fan of the Warlord, and I'm getting completely put-off by the sheer volume of warlord discussion in new threads, and existing threads.  It's turned into the forum-equivalent of Godwin's Law - which, if no one else has named it, I hereby name Greatfrito's Law:

"As an online discussion of Dungeons and Dragons grows longer, the probability of a discussion of warlords or warlord healing approaches 1."

Rant over.

And honestly, no, not really.  It's really hard to justify a non-hp-associated mechanic for changing how long a character in D&D can keep fighting, when hp is the measure of how long a character in D&D can keep fighting. 

You may as well be asking "Can we brainstorm ways to say how far away something is from something else, without associating it with measures of distance?"

I mean, you could, but... why the heck would you?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into?


You know.  You all know.

Give me a moment to rant here:

It's not just you (it's mostly another poster), but seriously, I'm a huge fan of the Warlord, and I'm getting completely put-off by the sheer volume of warlord discussion in new threads, and existing threads.  It's turned into the forum-equivalent of Godwin's Law - which, if no one else has named it, I hereby name Greatfrito's Law:

"As an online discussion of Dungeons and Dragons grows longer, the probability of a discussion of warlords or warlord healing approaches 1."

Rant over.

And honestly, no, not really.  It's really hard to justify a non-hp-associated mechanic for changing how long a character in D&D can keep fighting, when hp is the measure of how long a character in D&D can keep fighting. 

You may as well be asking "Can we brainstorm ways to say how far away something is from something else, without associating it with measures of distance?"

I mean, you could, but... why the heck would you?



Greatfrito's Law would be a nice TTRPG Blog set up Onion style

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

What I find most interesting is how the Bard and Warlord classes are the same in many aspects starting with Inpiring Word and Majestic Word.
What I find most interesting is how the Bard and Warlord classes are the same in many aspects starting with Inpiring Word and Majestic Word.

I know I am going to get flak for this one......
What I find most interesting is how the Bard and Warlord classes are the same in many aspects starting with Inpiring Word and Majestic Word.



A Classic Bard - was a member of a religious hierarchy, his singing was a tool to teach the community both religous and secular history.he was considered sacrosanct as harming him could result in loss of station but also retribution in the form of curses, thus they were one of the few who were trusted as travellers..... he was probably a member of the nobility and trained in the weapons of the fighting classes as a child (but since curses and threats arent absolute he may have kept himself more adept)... A bards song is the song of creation like many Myths including Tolkeins music is magical. When his music kills its because creation agreed with his mockery and you really dont deserve to exist.

A bard has little to know direct knowlege of tactics aside from as a historic excercise.

A Bard would be closer to a Cleric than most clerics.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Give me a moment to rant here:

It's not just you (it's mostly another poster), but seriously, I'm a huge fan of the Warlord, and I'm getting completely put-off by the sheer volume of warlord discussion in new threads, and existing threads.  It's turned into the forum-equivalent of Godwin's Law - which, if no one else has named it, I hereby name Greatfrito's Law:

"As an online discussion of Dungeons and Dragons grows longer, the probability of a discussion of warlords or warlord healing approaches 1."

Rant over.



It's only to be expected. If WOTC had said, "Hey guys, no monks in this edition, we think they work better as a fighter option, UNLESS YOU CONVINCE US OTHERWISE," we'd see thread after thread about monks, whether wuxia belongs in D&D, etc.

Now, there IS a valid argument to be had there. Monks are weird. They don't really fit thematically with medieval fantasy, and if you do strip away the Far Eastern vibe, you're left with basically an unarmed fighter. But on the other hand they have a tradition in D&D. But on the other hand they haven't been "core" in some editions. But on the other hand their ki abilities distinguish them from fighter. But on the other hand ET CETERA ET CETERA AD INFINITUM.

You know why we're not forced to have (or read or ignore) that argument for months? Because they just PUT IN THE FRIGGIN' MONK and let people who didn't like the class not play it. And lo and behold, the people who like monks get their two friggin' pages in the PHB, the people who hate monks glue the pages together so they can flip from "druid" to "paladin" without sullying their vision, and the people who absolutely despise the monk so much they refuse to touch an edition that contains those two pages are rightfully ignored because they are being silly.

Now, if they had done the same for warlords - just stuck in the class, let a few people write "goodbye cruel world" threads about how this is the LAST STRAW and they're giving up on Next forever, and then let the rest of us play or ignore warlords - this would be a non-issue. A bunch of people, myself included, have already brainstormed a million potential ways to bypass the biggest issues with inspirational healing. Mike Mearls even mentioned one on the podcast talking about warlords - just make it so you can't use Inspiring Word on someone who's already unconscious. They could just try that out, and we could be having discussions about that mechanic the same way we discuss monk ki powers and fighter maneuvers and other slightly controversial elements of the playtest.

But nope, this is what we get instead.
@Garthanos That is part of my point. They shouldnt have similaries in their powers. 

@ClockworkNecktie  Monks are more on the spiritual (Cleric) side than just a unarmed fighter.  In the oriental lands, they are the priests that the people look to for guidance.
So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into? So, pretty universally, the people who like the warlord and martial healing want the inspirational "get up soldier! You're not gonna die on me now, son! ATTACK!!" Right? People who don't like the warlord don't like wounds closing, meat being regained, etcetera. We could go back and forth about HP being meat or part meat or no meat or schrodinger's wound blah blah blah I don't effing care anymore! No one is gonna change their mind on what HP is. So can we create mechanics that give warlord players the feel of "Get up, you maggot! Ignore the pain!" without going through HP?



Since the typical vision of a warlord is more akin to a military commander of some type we do this. Warlords bestow a mechanic similar to temp hp called Endurance Points. Endurance Points simulate basically how one would feel when a person in charge praises them or insults them (think like a Drill Sergent in boot camp). Whether out of spite or admiration, the person pushes themselves beyond what their bodies are capable of in response to the warlords command. Endurance Points kick in once the character reaches 0 HP, acting as a second set of hit points.

Various abilities of the warlord would allow the increase of this and other riders in which a person may spend Endurance Points to increase an action. One example: player A is almost down for the count with 0 HP left, the warlord shouts at them to keep pushing, giving the player some Endurance Points. The ability the warlord used also allows this player to spend some Endurance Points to have a percentage based chance that their next attack is a critical hit.
------
Though frankly the whole HP argument is the biggest load of **** I have read in these forums. In the end it is still a mechanic no matter how you fluff it. Restoring HP is no different between a cleric calling down the healing power of a god, a warlord yelling at you, or someone shoving healing potions down your throat. HP is restored one way or another.
 
Now flame away.
I'm not too concerned with Warlords having healing; that's never been what they were about. Clerics heal; warlords lead. If a warlord must be the type that can inspire people to ignore their wounds, how about literally representing that? Warlords with the ability to make allies ignore their wounds, such that even someone in the negatives can keep fighting. Right up until they die. 
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
@Garthanos That is part of my point. They shouldnt have similaries in their powers.   

   
The Bard shouldnt exist because its reallly just a Cleric? Actually I think the cleric shouldnt exist because every class should be able to take religion as a skill and be a priest that way we can get priests perfect to their religion ... and ofcourse there should be a school of magic for healing which is even more appropriate since Healing magic is arguably the most common asserted miracle through-out history (exclusivity for it was claimed by one religion and that no other could do so, personally I dont think that makes for a game world specific option.) 

(And most who use healing miracles/magic did not do so garbed in heavy armor and mace... the Templars were considered Warlocks in real life not exactly a cleric)

As for Warlord if you Collapse Bard in to Cleric as appropriate... then we have inspirational healing alongside Tactical warfare for the Warlord class and you can not worry about class overlap so much.



 


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm not too concerned with Warlords having healing; that's never been what they were about. Clerics heal; warlords lead.



This is true, but the trick is that Next still more or less requires healers. Some people play warlords because they like the healer support role (or because they feel that the group needs one), but don't enjoy the trappings and/or mechanics of the cleric or druid. 
What if warlording for HP became a skill?  Essentially anytime you want to restore HP for your side, just throw the dice vs a skill check.  Let each table figure out the fluffy fiddly matter.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

What I don't like is the implicit "Noooooo, you're not playing right! I'M the officer and YOU'RE the private. I rolled Warlord and you didn't.  Without me here yelling at you like Patton you'd just be simpering kobold fodder.  See, it says right here on my character sheet...I'm a WarLORD."


I have never seen anyone here say something like that about the Warlord...well, ok, I have...I've seen them brought up as things Warlord fans say, with a suspicious lack of quoting where it was said.
Since the majority of spell have verbal components, ban em! Let discuss spells without talking.
So can we create mechanics that give warlord players the feel of "Get up, you maggot! Ignore the pain!" without going through HP?



As a swift action, the warlord can yell at an ally to rally them to keep going. The ally must be able to hear the warlord clear, but can be unconscious. (Insert range limit.) The ally may immediately spend HD to recover hitpoints.

There, done. The warlord can get people off the ground or keep them in the fight. They suck at healing and don't really extend the work day, but if their offensive abilities are badass enough they can just have this as a backup crutch. (4e warlords usually focus on offensive bonuses rather than heals anyways.)

This is assuming the current HP/HD paradigm.

----
My own preference would be characters start with HP = Constitution score. This HP is "meat" in the sense that it needs either magical or slow/natural healing.
Characters get HP = HD x level (mix'n'match for multiclass), that represent their skill/moral/luck/fatigue, and ability to turn deadly blows into lesser ones. These HP are non-meat. They recover every short rest.

Clerics can heal meat HP, but have either no or notably little ability to heal HD damage.
Warlords can restore HD. This ability has limits to its use but it can be used fairly frequently.
Clerics heal people whose ability to defend themselves has faltered and they need real bone-mending, wound-closing healing power.
Warlords can rally people whose ability to defend themselves is faltering so that they won't need real bone-mending, wound-closing healing power.

Bards would probably get warlord style healing with an options of getting real healing with their spells. Druids would get real healing but with no HD restoration (not even as an option).

HD restoration works better on high HD classes, so it's more valuable when teamed with barbarians and fighters, which generally fits the warlord's MO. Balance should probably be roughly around healing d8s.              
How about we brainstorm a version of the Warlord that can heal, but with the healing removeable or with an alternative option to the people who don't want the Warlord to regularly heal.
How about we brainstorm a version of the Warlord that can heal, but with the healing removeable or with an alternative option to the people who don't want the Warlord to regularly heal.



That is trivially easy for the devs to design.
(Since we have no idea how they'll design the class, due to DDN being so ad-hoc with class design, we can only wildly speculate at this point.) 
What I don't like is the implicit "Noooooo, you're not playing right! I'M the officer and YOU'RE the private. I rolled Warlord and you didn't.  Without me here yelling at you like Patton you'd just be simpering kobold fodder.  See, it says right here on my character sheet...I'm a WarLORD."


I have never seen anyone here say something like that about the Warlord...well, ok, I have...I've seen them brought up as things Warlord fans say, with a suspicious lack of quoting where it was said.



I dont' know who he's been playing with, and  so just because I haven't seen it on the boards doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

But, I think 4e did a pretty good job trying to remove that tendency. "Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in
an adventuring group....  target specific foes for the party to concentrate on. Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics"

As well, many of the warlord powers specifically had you grant movement or an attack to the ally, instead of FORCING them to move them or attack. This was so you were facilitating, not mind controlling.  I liked that part of it -- the warlord was the ultimate in servants, because they were making everyone better.    It's part of the reason I like the warlord - I like helping people succeed at helping me.

And as for unique mechanics -- the warlord, as I see it, is the only class able to grant attacks as at will under level 5.  It's not a cool power they get late in the game, it's their bread and butter.    
So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into? So, pretty universally, the people who like the warlord and martial healing want the inspirational "get up soldier! You're not gonna die on me now, son! ATTACK!!" Right? People who don't like the warlord don't like wounds closing, meat being regained, etcetera. We could go back and forth about HP being meat or part meat or no meat or schrodinger's wound blah blah blah I don't effing care anymore! No one is gonna change their mind on what HP is. So can we create mechanics that give warlord players the feel of "Get up, you maggot! Ignore the pain!" without going through HP?



I still feel that the best compromise here is for Warlords to do hit point restoration, but not to inspire those who MUST be wounded (those on 0HP or below).

While it forces a Warlord player to be more proactive in hit point restoration than the casters it is a compromise which can be balanced by enhanced access to THP (assuming that mechanic is ever introduced into Next) or simply slightly more effective restoration above 0.

I'm not confident that any other mechanism can model the kind of character which I want to play having read about them in books and seen them on TV and in films.
but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics"


+1

Warlord could be the party leader. But not always, he could just as easily be the tactics guy of the group.
As for brainstorming -- so far as I can tell, most early edition people who hate "yelling someone healed" don't actually have a problem with the warlord having the occasional way to bring someone back into a fight if it requires touch.    Because, even the most meat-centric model of HP allows for warlords to heal with touch -- even if you have to argue it's done by healing potions for your versimilitude.

As well, so far as I can tell, temp hp as adrenaline is fine for the majority of warlord haters as well.   After all, the barbarian often has the ability to avoid falling unconscoius at 0 hp, due to their rage, and so in some senses, the warlord is inspiring rages in others. 

Most warlord lovers would prefer "full healing", and really push for a full healing option, but would live with a healing option that allowed anyone to play warlord instead of cleric in a 4 player party.  To do that, the warlord NEEDS a way to bring people back, and they need to give out THP.   Now, THP aren't as powerful as real HP, so this assumes that a warlord would do more THP healing than the cleric as baseline.    

So, that's the constraints -- make a warlord who specializes in extra attacks, granting advantage, and pulling out brilliant successes from impossible odds, which still allowing the warlord to take over the clerics role in a 4 party group, allow him to revive people back to a fight when they are down, but do that at touch, and make a kit that doesn't use full healing.

Honestly, I don't know if it's that hard -- sure people will complain for awhile on both sides, but if it means that 5e succeeds financially, and I can find a game easily, I figure it's worth the compromise.   Because that's what we all want -- more people to play with.
How about we brainstorm a version of the Warlord that can heal, but with the healing removeable or with an alternative option to the people who don't want the Warlord to regularly heal.



That is trivially easy for the devs to design.
(Since we have no idea how they'll design the class, due to DDN being so ad-hoc with class design, we can only wildly speculate at this point.) 



This is what I want.

Each Warlord player should have the option to select a:

1: Hit point restoration feature

OR

2: Temporary hit point granting feature

OR 

3: Totally unrelated feature (save bonus, damage bonus, something unrelated to HP)

Allowing each player (or table) to mould the Warlord into the class that they want.

Just as the alternative casting systems module (whenever we get it) will allow players (or tables) to mould the caster classes into what they want to play.
I still feel that the best compromise here is for Warlords to do hit point restoration, but not to inspire those who MUST be wounded (those on 0HP or below).




A potential problem with this is the "DM rolled 3 crits" problem -- the reason in-combat healing is so popular and valuable is that sometimes, the DM rolls abnormally good, and the party needs a come from behind mechanism.  If the party rolls poor on initiative, the warlord might not do anything at all before the wizard is down, and the "interesting challenging" battle has become a TPK.  Allowing the warlord to fill the cleric role means allowing the warlord to occasionally bring people back to balance the DM rolling hot.  But, it can be bad, compared to the cleric, because it's designed to not be used often.   So, the cleric might nto require touch, but the warlord might - but the classes will still be balanced, since the warlord will focus (and do well at) not letting the party be knocked down, allowing the party to have more attacks before a party member goes down.

So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into?


You know.  You all know.

Give me a moment to rant here:

It's not just you (it's mostly another poster), but seriously, I'm a huge fan of the Warlord, and I'm getting completely put-off by the sheer volume of warlord discussion in new threads, and existing threads.  It's turned into the forum-equivalent of Godwin's Law - which, if no one else has named it, I hereby name Greatfrito's Law:

"As an online discussion of Dungeons and Dragons grows longer, the probability of a discussion of warlords or warlord healing approaches 1."

Rant over.

And honestly, no, not really.  It's really hard to justify a non-hp-associated mechanic for changing how long a character in D&D can keep fighting, when hp is the measure of how long a character in D&D can keep fighting. 

You may as well be asking "Can we brainstorm ways to say how far away something is from something else, without associating it with measures of distance?"

I mean, you could, but... why the heck would you?


I think the reason it keeps getting brought up is because it is an issue that very effectively shows the differences between the camps of players. Everyone wants to find a compromise solution on warlords, because that would be a big step towards seeing what an overall system compromise might look like.

Another thing is that we were promised all edition's classes in D&DN. The warlord is sort of a litmus test on whether or not WotC is acting in good faith. The warlord is a PHB class that is unique to 4e, one that very clearly does something different from any class in D&D history. If it is not included in D&DN, then that is an extremely clear signal that WotC does not care about 4e fans.

I personally don't care all that much if a warlord is in the game. I think it's a neat class, but not a dealbreaker. I do see it as symbolic of WotC's approach though. If they can't deliver a fun warlord that is true to the original concept, that is pretty solid proof that WotC simply does not care about pleasing 4e fans. I will personally judge Next on its merits. If they don't care enough to make a functional warlord, however, that means they probably don't care enough to make a game that actually respects 4e fans.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
I still feel that the best compromise here is for Warlords to do hit point restoration, but not to inspire those who MUST be wounded (those on 0HP or below).




A potential problem with this is the "DM rolled 3 crits" problem -- the reason in-combat healing is so popular and valuable is that sometimes, the DM rolls abnormally good, and the party needs a come from behind mechanism.  If the party rolls poor on initiative, the warlord might not do anything at all before the wizard is down, and the "interesting challenging" battle has become a TPK.  Allowing the warlord to fill the cleric role means allowing the warlord to occasionally bring people back to balance the DM rolling hot.  But, it can be bad, compared to the cleric, because it's designed to not be used often.   So, the cleric might nto require touch, but the warlord might - but the classes will still be balanced, since the warlord will focus (and do well at) not letting the party be knocked down, allowing the party to have more attacks before a party member goes down.




Sure.

But I'd like to see that hole more thoroughly filled with a "heal to 1HP" option for Wisdom supported by the Heal skill. 
So yeah...a warlord thread. What am I getting myself into? So, pretty universally, the people who like the warlord and martial healing want the inspirational "get up soldier! You're not gonna die on me now, son! ATTACK!!" Right?

Right.  Fun stuff.  Wonderfully genre-appropriate, and less setting-dependent than the traditional clerical healing.

People who don't like the warlord don't like wounds closing, meat being regained, etcetera.

That's one excuse.  I expect most of it is just anti-4e edition warring.  

No one is gonna change their mind on what HP is. So can we create mechanics that give warlord players the feel of "Get up, you maggot! Ignore the pain!" without going through HP?

No.  I'm sorry, but no.  Hit points are the only metric D&D has of ability to go on fighting.  There's no way to model that sort of thing without restoring hps.

However....

There is no reason that restoring hps need always be 'healing.'   While the standard warlord is going to have to restore hit points (not that, ideally, that there shouldn't be alternative choices that players who don't care for the "healbot" role could take, just that the choice should be there), there's no reason the modular/customizeable version of the game couldn't have much more detailed rules on tracking injury than just hps.  Once you add in some sort of serious wound-tracking, you can also add specific abilities that stabilize (Heal checks, which is what the warlord would likely resort to) or remove (rituals or spells that remove wounds instead of restoring hps) serious wounds.  


Another thing is that we were promised all edition's classes in D&DN. The warlord is sort of a litmus test on whether or not WotC is acting in good faith. The warlord is a PHB class that is unique to 4e, one that very clearly does something different from any class in D&D history. If it is not included in D&DN, then that is an extremely clear signal that WotC does not care about 4e fans.

True.  OTOH, there are a lot of H4ters out there for whom any inclusion of 4e is a dealbreaker.  WotC has their work cut out for them.  They have one set of fans who will balk if abused too brutally, and another set of fans who will balk if the first set isn't abused as brutally as humanly possible.  That's a tough balancing act, and thus they're always trying to fine-tune the level of scorn and abuse they heap on 4e and its fans.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

How about we brainstorm a version of the Warlord that can heal, but with the healing removeable or with an alternative option to the people who don't want the Warlord to regularly heal.


Why not have the removable option be the warlord class itself?

I mean, a warlord that can't heal is basically just a fighter with charisma. So let people play a fighter with charisma. Especially if the fighter gets the ability to grant extra attacks and help out allies, which I think are abilities the fighter and warlord should both have.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
@Garthanos That is part of my point. They shouldnt have similaries in their powers.   

   
The Bard shouldnt exist because its reallly just a Cleric? Actually I think the cleric shouldnt exist because every class should be able to take religion as a skill and be a priest that way we can get priests perfect to their religion ... and ofcourse there should be a school of magic for healing which is even more appropriate since Healing magic is arguably the most common asserted miracle through-out history (exclusivity for it was claimed by one religion and that no other could do so, personally I dont think that makes for a game world specific option.) 

(And most who use healing miracles/magic did not do so garbed in heavy armor and mace... the Templars were considered Warlocks in real life not exactly a cleric)

As for Warlord if you Collapse Bard in to Cleric as appropriate... then we have inspirational healing alongside Tactical warfare for the Warlord class and you can not worry about class overlap so much.




IMHO, I think the warlord should help with Attack and Defence rather than healing. A good example is the movie The Gladiator, in the arena. He inspired attack and defence.  Another good one is Captain America.  In Avengers, he was the Warlord. There are many examples from books, Comics, and movies. 

IMHO, I think the warlord should help with Attack and Defence rather than healing. A good example is the movie The Gladiator, in the arena. He inspired attack and defence.

That's an easy enough thing to do, if the class is designed with enough choice.  It's not like classes with that level of choice aren't around.  If you see a Cleric as not healing so much, you just don't take Lifebringer or Cure..Wound spells.  If you see a warlord not healing so much, you should be able to just take something else instead of Inspiring Word (or any of the other 50 or so other healing powers).  Merely introducing an alternative feature to Inspiring Word would make the 4e Warlord capable of meeting that concept, for instance.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Somistarted this thread and haven't contributed at all. So lets fix that.

When I said healing without healing, I mean "Is there a way to get the inspirational, push your allies beyond themselves feel of the warlord without having it to through HP"?

For some, HP is meat, and no amount of restoring HP through talking is going to work. So how do we get the inspirational "ignore the pain" part without moving HP numbers up?

Lets pretend for a moment that HP is meat. Lets just accept that as a given, for now. Any mechanic we propose has to nice with this.

If I've been hurt and am bleeding, what is it that keeps me going? Adrenaline and sheer grit. I get a surge of it. So what if warlords granted grit points?

Warlord yells and gives grit points. Player can spend grit points to do stuff. Maybe the powers the warlord has (call them commands or orders, but functionally they are like spells) grant grit points, and allow for the immediate expenditure of grit for certain effects at a discount. Like, normally it costs 2 grit to make an attack off turn. But if you do it immediately after the warlord uses his "You! Attack now!" power, it only costs 1 grit.

Suppose the warlord has a "Get up soldier, you ain't dead yet!" power. It grants 1 grit. It allows you, if you are down but not dead (0 or lower HP, but not at the death point) to spend 5 grit to get back up and act as if you had at least 1 HP, as long as you still have grit. The warlord will need to keep yelling at you, giving you grit, but you can stay up in your half dead state.

At higher levels, warlord can hand out more grit at a time, or give grit to multiple allies, and so on and so forth.

So, there's an idea, as a start. The warlord doesn't heal, but he allows you to act even when injured. You can heal after the fight is over (however that is handled).
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
For some, HP is meat, and no amount of restoring HP through talking is going to work.  So how do we get the inspirational "ignore the pain" part without moving HP numbers up?



You don't. You tell those people to not play a Warlord if they want to maintain a stupid all-or nothing view of a mechanic that has never been supported.
Can we agree to not gut something that a bunch of people like in a vain attempt to appease people who will still not play it anyway?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What I don't like is the implicit "Noooooo, you're not playing right! I'M the officer and YOU'RE the private. I rolled Warlord and you didn't.  Without me here yelling at you like Patton you'd just be simpering kobold fodder.  See, it says right here on my character sheet...I'm a WarLORD."


I have never seen anyone here say something like that about the Warlord...well, ok, I have...I've seen them brought up as things Warlord fans say, with a suspicious lack of quoting where it was said.



I dont' know who he's been playing with, and  so just because I haven't seen it on the boards doesn't mean it doesn't exist.   

It may exist, but at the same time, humans appear to have an impressive cabability to imagine problems with things that they neither like nor understand, and I don't think it pays to waste a ton of time worrying about issues that aren't even real. That's not to say that some sociopath wasn't annoying at some point with their warlord character, but I sort of suspect that anybody who's a warlord sociopath is likely to not suddenly become a model player if you make them play something else.

------------------

I see warlord healing as not strictly necessary in any sense - few things are - but good for the game. I feel as though there's a tendency on these boards for people do default to "if something different from what I think of as the default can't be shown to be strictly vital, then out with it" (the other side of this is "for all things that I do think of as the default, that thing should be preserved at almost any cost"), which I think is a worse design principle than "let's include things that seem to generally be more good than bad."

Warlord healing's biggest benefit isn't actually for the warlord itself, for the game. If the game expects a certain level of healing, it's beneficial for that level of healing to be available to several classes, ideally classes that are as otherwise distinct as possible. It's totally fine for some classes to go way beyond that level, and for there to be classes that don't hit that level of healing, but can still contribute some, but having several classes capable of delivering that level of healing. There's no particular reason that the warlord has to be such a class, but it might be better for the game.

Additionally, giving classes access to additional party functions decreases the extent to which classes end up as "fifth wheels". Again, this isn't fatal, but extending various party functions to different character classes makes more class combinations interesting. It's important to not extend every function to every class in a big way, but there's a balance point when it comes to access to critical party functions.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Can we agree to not gut something that a bunch of people like in a vain attempt to appease people who will still not play it anyway?



But then the scale would be unbalanced.

It's a forum. ~shrugs~

Here, watch. As much as like and dislike Seerow, at the same time (somehow), he will counter what I say. Then I will not respond, or I might, or who cares, whatever.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

How about we brainstorm a version of the Warlord that can heal, but with the healing removeable or with an alternative option to the people who don't want the Warlord to regularly heal.



That is trivially easy for the devs to design.
(Since we have no idea how they'll design the class, due to DDN being so ad-hoc with class design, we can only wildly speculate at this point.) 



This is what I want.

Each Warlord player should have the option to select a:

1: Hit point restoration feature

OR

2: Temporary hit point granting feature

OR 

3: Totally unrelated feature (save bonus, damage bonus, something unrelated to HP)

Allowing each player (or table) to mould the Warlord into the class that they want.

Just as the alternative casting systems module (whenever we get it) will allow players (or tables) to mould the caster classes into what they want to play.

At the DM's discretion, of course.

Sign In to post comments