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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5756686" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Personally, probably because 3.X says (Ex) abilities can break the laws of physics, and thus are not necessarily entirely mundane. The Warlord seems to be defended as mundanely inspiring people. If he was literally breaking the laws of physics to heal actual injuries, I think there'd be less objections (though there'd definitely be some objections to that style of healer).Just my thoughts. I think that's the reasoning widely used, in all likelihood. In 3.X, (Ex) doesn't mean mundane, it means non-magical. Although, certain (Ex) abilities definitely beg to be questioned, such as Evasion or Hide in Plain Sight (as you noted).3.X also did things like make a barbarian rage a certain number of times per day with no association to the game world (for some reason). That kinda warrants an explanation beyond "game balance" too, in my mind.At any rate, I feel like I'm mostly agreeing with you. I understand why people draw that line, because 3.X kinda covered itself with (Ex) abilities by saying, "if it doesn't make sense, it's because it doesn't need to be entirely mundane, since it can break physics." In 4e, the Warlord is defended as a mundane healer, using just inspiring words to bring allies to their feet. This gets questioned because, from what I've heard, the Warlord is rarely defended as "it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics." If that were the case, that disconnect would probably dry up.Just my thoughts. I might be way off, though. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification