Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6100816" data-attributes="member: 50304"> That's not a bad framework, but I think the distinction drawn between many class features is based on a subjective level of comfort hand-waving how vague details are. People seem really comfortable with waiving away the causality and details of meta-physical actions (spells), but take a stridently opposite position with physical actions because, hey, physics. See, I think this is where the subjective preferences guiding arbitrary hand-waiving. "Move faster," begs the question "how much faster?" and carries physics baggage about "what are the consequences of moving faster." These are hand-waived as "magic" because the ultimate point isn't a simulation, it's a meta-game construct - get an extra attack and movement. Things like the consequences to your body, mind, and equipment due to moving that much faster are discarded because they aren't germane to the meta-game goal of the spell's effects. Occasionally, depending on the spell version, they throw you a bone with something like aging as a side-effect. On the other hand, look at the standard for the Warlord. Attacking is already abstracted into Rounds without the Warlord. There is no physical "swing sword once," assumption in the imaginary space. The imaginary space is already abstract. Modifying an abstract concept just continues the abstraction. Haste gives you more or better opportunities in the abstraction due to speed. Direct the Strike gives you more or better opportunities due to communication. "Using magic" doesn't qualify as a process. It's horribly vague, and I'm accepting of that. I think people should be just as accepting of vague (or flexible) process models for non-casters. It's a bad double-standard that comes back to "simulation-based restrictions for thee, but not for me," among the classes that's bad for the game. Everything has to be limited in power. The whole "at-will" vs. "encounter" vs. "daily" argument is a red herring because it's completely tangent to the warlord. The "use limit" economy is linked to the game framework, not any particular class. Between the Marshall and the Warlord we've seen implemented classes in for both AEDU and A/D frameworks. Once a framework is set, you can build an appropriately balanced Warlord / Marshall / Tactician on it. I think "full scope" may be misapplied here. The Warlord didn't copy over every existing feature of the Marshall that came before him either. The Fighter in Next lacks Weapon Specialization, Bonus Feats, Iterative Attacks, and Marking. No class carries over every existing feature of all its incarnations prior to Next. Which is really just a matter of the tangent of "I do/don't like the abstracted damage / resilience that HP have explicitly represented in every edition of D&D." The reason magical healing doesn't get dragged into the muck with non-magical healing is that it gets hand-waved. You still see conflict on the fringes though - you can arbitrarily erase mortal wounds  (horribly vague - is this blood loss, organ failure, or disembowelment, or what?) on the one hand but you can't reattach severed fingers without a different spell because - er - metaga- LOOKOUTBEHINDYOUAMONKEY! However important the tangent argument over what the mechanical framework should be, it isn't an existential question to the Warlord. You give him a framework and the mechanics get tweaked accordingly - like every other class. Can't non-magically heal after the fact? Have damage prevention instead, and tweak the raw numbers upward to compensate for reduced flexibility. It isn't a question of "can I" or "what do I" so much as "how do I?"</blockquote>

Verification