Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9025403" data-attributes="member: 7006">Then you would be probably the only one.&nbsp; Because this idea was put forth 9 years ago when 5E was first released that if you wanted a Warlord, all you could do was just take the Cleric, strip off the names of things and insert &quot;non-magical&quot; terminology onto them, and then make a curated selection of spells who mechanics duplicated the actions you wanted a Warlord to have, and rename them and call them &quot;exploits&quot;.&nbsp; Voila!&nbsp; You'd have a non-magical Leader whose abilities were as diverse as the Cleric's, but had none of those pesky &quot;magic words&quot; over everything.But everyone said &quot;No, that doesn't count&quot;.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Usually because of the arguments of 'spell components' and 'anti-magic fields' thrown up as the reasons why a Warlord made off of a Cleric chassis wouldn't be &quot;non-magical&quot;.&nbsp; As though the idea of just ignoring components and anti-magic fields for this Warlord (two things that almost all of us already do) was impossible.Nope... for some people once you tag a mechanic as something, that's what it is.&nbsp; You can't just refluff it or rename it and turn it into something else.&nbsp; Even if you have two mechanics that are exactly the same (this &quot;martial exploit&quot; grants an ally Advantage on their next attack, and this &quot;arcane spell&quot; grants an ally Advantage on their next attack), so long as one is tagged as magic and the other isn't... to them that's just how they are and are unmoving and unable to be different.&nbsp; And to get a non-magical version of a feature that doesn't yet exist of some magical feature that does, someone at WotC would have to write it down in a book and give it a snappy non-magical name for it to count.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9025403, member: 7006"] Then you would be probably the only one. Because this idea was put forth 9 years ago when 5E was first released that if you wanted a Warlord, all you could do was just take the Cleric, strip off the names of things and insert "non-magical" terminology onto them, and then make a curated selection of spells who mechanics duplicated the actions you wanted a Warlord to have, and rename them and call them "exploits". Voila! You'd have a non-magical Leader whose abilities were as diverse as the Cleric's, but had none of those pesky "magic words" over everything. But everyone said "No, that doesn't count". Why? Usually because of the arguments of 'spell components' and 'anti-magic fields' thrown up as the reasons why a Warlord made off of a Cleric chassis wouldn't be "non-magical". As though the idea of just [I]ignoring[/I] components and anti-magic fields for this Warlord (two things that almost all of us already do) was impossible. Nope... for some people once you tag a mechanic as something, that's what it is. You can't just refluff it or rename it and turn it into something else. Even if you have two mechanics that are [I]exactly the same[/I] (this "martial exploit" grants an ally Advantage on their next attack, and this "arcane spell" grants an ally Advantage on their next attack), so long as one is tagged as magic and the other isn't... to them that's just how they are and are unmoving and unable to be different. And to get a non-magical version of a feature that doesn't yet exist of some magical feature that does, someone at WotC would have to write it down in a book and give it a snappy non-magical name for it to count. [/QUOTE]

Verification