Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6707266">That still doesn't make sense.&nbsp; What if the missing text were &quot;twice your maximum HP&quot;?&nbsp; Who wouldn't sacrifice one action from the healer, and a bonus action from each character who needed healing, for that much healing?&nbsp; Not that I'm suggesting it should be that much, but clearly there is some value at which it becomes an interesting/hard decision.&nbsp; &quot;Gosh I hate to give up my bonus action....but that's a bunch of HP.&quot;Actually, a few people (Bawylie, mellored) have convinced me that a &quot;master of tactics&quot; could be a fun and useful class.&nbsp; And throwing some healing in there is a good idea.&nbsp; I don't think questioning the necessity of one aspect of the fluff, with nothing to do with mechanics, is doubting the whole archetype.I'll try to make an analogy: if we were debating the Druid and I kept arguing, without budging an inch, that Druids should only be able to use non-metallic weapons, would that detail seem like a deal-breaker to you?&nbsp; &quot;Dude, if you don't like metal weapons, don't use them in your game.&nbsp; It doesn't change anything.&quot;&nbsp; (Which is exactly the approach I'll take if the Warlord makes it in: I'll pretend the healing is magic.)&nbsp; I'm just trying to understand why non-metallic weapons, or non-magical healing, are so freakin' important.I sort of see it that way already.&nbsp; They couldn't do some of these things without magic.&nbsp; But the PHB doesn't specify how they do it; the descriptions don't say whether or not its magical.&nbsp; It's written in such a way that everybody can interpret them however they want.&nbsp; The word &quot;spell&quot; isn't used, but a lot of class abilities (c.f. Paladin, Ranger, Monk) are clearly magical without being described as such.Which is why I think it's odd that the warlord must be written to specifically say &quot;this is not magic&quot;. Or, conversely, to provide a specifically non-magical mechanism, &quot;your courage restores hope in your ally&quot; or whatever.&nbsp; Why not describe it without locking it in to one or the other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6707266"] That still doesn't make sense. What if the missing text were "twice your maximum HP"? Who [I]wouldn't[/I] sacrifice one action from the healer, and a bonus action from each character who needed healing, for that much healing? Not that I'm suggesting it should be that much, but clearly there is some value at which it becomes an interesting/hard decision. "Gosh I hate to give up my bonus action....but that's a bunch of HP." Actually, a few people (Bawylie, mellored) have convinced me that a "master of tactics" could be a fun and useful class. And throwing some healing in there is a good idea. I don't think questioning the necessity of one aspect of the fluff, with nothing to do with mechanics, is doubting the whole archetype. I'll try to make an analogy: if we were debating the Druid and I kept arguing, without budging an inch, that Druids should only be able to use non-metallic weapons, would that detail seem like a deal-breaker to you? "Dude, if you don't like metal weapons, don't use them in your game. [I]It doesn't change anything.[/I]" (Which is exactly the approach I'll take if the Warlord makes it in: I'll pretend the healing is magic.) I'm just trying to understand why non-metallic weapons, or non-magical healing, are so freakin' important. I sort of see it that way already. They couldn't do some of these things without magic. But the PHB doesn't specify how they do it; the descriptions don't say whether or not its magical. It's written in such a way that everybody can interpret them however they want. The word "spell" isn't used, but a lot of class abilities (c.f. Paladin, Ranger, Monk) are clearly magical without being described as such. Which is why I think it's odd that the warlord [I]must[/I] be written to specifically say "this is not magic". Or, conversely, to provide a specifically non-magical mechanism, "your courage restores hope in your ally" or whatever. Why not describe it without locking it in to one or the other? [/QUOTE]

Verification