Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Yaarel]

I would be happy to see healing spells in the abjuration school of wizardry.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would be happy to see healing spells in the abjuration school of wizardry.

Healing spells are generally necromantic or conjuration (positive energy). I suppose you could make an argument for alteration.

 

[Yaarel]

Tactical Focus (TF) – Choose four 5'x5' squares that you can see within 100'. Each must share a side with one other. That set of squares is your tactical focus. You can change this area once per turn. (method not specified)

Many 4e fans want more grid tactics. Tactical Focus as any four contiguous ‘squares’ grants this.

For myself, I mainly use mind style (theater of the mind). So I am trying to translate these squares into a more realistically vivid description.

So far, the tactical focus seems something like the melee range of one character (≈ 1 to 3 meters from a character), or alternatively a throwing range in a line from one character (≈ 10 meters).

In game, I go by these distances: ‘hit’, ‘reach’, ‘throw’ (nearby, close), and ‘shoot’ (far away, distant).

If measurements matter, I hand waive these ranges as 1m, 3m, 10m, and 30m, respectively. 1 meter ≈ 1 yard.

 

[Yaarel]

Healing spells are generally necromantic or conjuration (positive energy). I suppose you could make an argument for alteration.

I realize there is a fad to associate healing with ‘necromancy’, namely death magic.

But in my view, the negative energy of death magic, is literally the opposite of the positive energy of life magic. One literally has nothing to do with the other.

So, negative energy can animate an undead corpse, but cannot imbue real life.

Thus, in my own game, resurrection, healing, and restoration use positive energy. I organize spells by themes (more like domains), so healing positivity is a subset of life magic, which includes plants and animals, organic shapeshifting, and psychometabolism.

If wanting to see healing magic for the official wizard, then healing belongs in the official school of abjuration, because it is literally protective, restorative magic.

 

[cbwjm]

I realize there is a fad to associate healing with ‘necromancy’, namely death magic.

But in my view, the negative energy of death magic, is literally the opposite of the positive energy of life magic. One literally has nothing to do with the other.

So, negative energy can animate an undead corpse, but cannot imbue real life.

Thus, in my own game, resurrection, healing, and restoration use positive energy. I organize spells by themes (more like domains), so healing positivity is a subset of life magic, which includes plants and animals, organic shapeshifting, and psychometabolism.

If wanting to see healing magic for the official wizard, then healing belongs in the official school of abjuration, because it is literally protective, restorative magic.

I don't think it is a fad, it's just how these spells were organised in the past via the 8 schools of magic. Healing effects in past editions were:
2e: necromantic
3e: conjuration [creation]
4e: just healing?
5e: evocation (I think)

Like you, I do kind of like associating them with the positive/negative energy planes (in the world I'm brewing these would be the greater planes of Life and Death) so cure wounds is positive energy and inflict wounds is negative energy.

 

[Yaarel]

Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.

I probably agree most with 4e, that healing is its own distinctive kind of magic, but see it as part of life generally.

It makes sense to me, the Druid accesses healing magic, precisely because of specialization with life magic.

 

[Yaarel]

Relatedly, I spin the cosmology as follows.

Ethereal Plane + Positive Energy = Feywild
Ethereal Plane + Negative Energy = Shadowfell

Thus fey magic, especially where it associates with living plants and animals, inherently accesses healing magic.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.

I probably agree most with 4e, that healing is its own distinctive kind of magic, but see it as part of life generally.

It makes sense to me, the Druid accesses healing magic, precisely because of specialization with life magic.

2E Necromancy did not automatically equal death magic they even explained it back then. Things like clone for example were also necromantic. Necromantic magic was life, death and doing things with the flesh and spirit that were not altering it (which were transmutation). Necromancy magic could be used to preserve corpses/clones etc and necromancers did not have to be automatically evil. Mending wounds basically fit into the fixing the flesh side of necromancy. Resurrection and raise dead were necromantic effects along with regeneration.

I think 3E tied negative energy to being evil. Positive nergy did not exist as stongly in AD&D they had the energy planes of course but it was not so baked in.

 

[Yaarel]

Negative energy can be used in ethically good ways.

I just see it as radically different from positive energy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.

In 1e all healing spells were Necromantic - and reversible, that may have had something to do with it. Healing was positive energy, reversed healing negative. Good clerics tended to heal, evil to reverse it, and, IIRC, there was an obscure rule that you couldn't memorize both at the same time (or it could have been an obscure mis-reading some DM used when I was young & impressionable).

Many 4e fans want more grid tactics.
For myself, I mainly use mind style (theater of the mind). So I am trying to translate these squares into a more realistically vivid description.

Meh. 4e's use of squares (cubes, really) was nice enough for tactics, but mostly I liked it because it was much simpler to track everything, map or not. It was simpler to count whole squares than diagonals, easier to visualize how cubic areas aligned with eachother than circular/conical/fans/spreads/etc doing so (either because you're not using a map, or because you're using a 2d map for a 3D combat, which I tended to do a lot).

Plotting a circle (like a fireball) to a grid is such a PitA that for 3.x we'd use wire templates to do it. In 4e, they're just all cubes. Simple.
Back in the day, I remember plotting areas and deciding if characters near the edge took fool effect or 1/2;save:none or a save bonus or something else...

Tactical Focus as any four contiguous ‘squares’ grants this.

Not so sure it does, honestly. Simply nominating an ally or enemy (/or/ terrain feature or item of importance) could have worked fine, not caused odd effects, and worked more seamlessly with TotM.

By odd effects, I mean you decide you want the party to protect a certain NPC, you stick that NPC in your tactical focus, the DM has him wander out of it, directly thereafter...

Three general categories of utility/power:

Inspiring/Insightful Heal
Can heal or boost damage

MDD's were a dice-based damage boost in the playtest, sounds like the idea may not be entirely dead.

As far as dice, he converted the spell pool of the Eldritch Knight into an abstract pool of dice that could be used per long rest, to 'fuel' powers.

5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc...

I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler. Too late now, obviously. 5.5,maybe?

Overhealing becomes temporary hit points

That one's been tossed out many times over the years, and it's potentially pretty impactful. Surprised he went with it.

Does not do condition removal (eg: no Lesser Restoration equivalent)

Bad idea, but this, by definition, is just a gimped 1/3rd-caster-equivalent, just getting a few abilities tacked onto the fighter's primary/overriding tank functions.

Tactical Smarts
Add your Int bonus to weapon damage rolls

On top of STR/DEX or instead of it? Neither's good, mind you... 'On top of' just doubles-down on the fighter's already serious DPR, 'instead of' is essentially, of use if your INT is higher than your STR/DEX, but, this is still a fighter, with Extra Attack, and gambits seem to key off attacking a lot, so you'd be really hurting yourself as far as landing anything goes in order to benefit from it.

If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR.

Cunning Plan
Tactical Focus (TF) – Choose four 5'x5' squares that you can see within 100'. Each must share a side with one other. That set of squares is your tactical focus. You can change this area once per turn. (method not specified)

Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM. It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies. Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4'

Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway. :shrug:

Cantrip-like abilities
Use these as part of an attack action (don't want to use bonus action, doesn't want to interfere with two-weapon fighting). Only one active at a time?

• Enemies can't make opportunity attacks (OA) allies moving out of the Tactical Focus area.
• Hitting an enemy in the TF area can be moved 5'. (no saving throw)
• Ambush: As a reaction (by the Warlord) when an enemy enters a TF square, you/allies may move half your speed. Does not use allies' reaction.
• As part of move, can swap positions in TF area using 10' of movement.

Strangely complicated, almost as if being complicated were the point... ("Oh, you want a complex fighter?" No, we want a fighter with meaningful options & significant agency, we'll put up with the complexity if we have to. "So, you want complexity, then, OK!")... Ambush doesn't sound like an 'at will,' exactly, but that could just be how it sounds... 'converge on the tactical area,' I guess, is what it's getting at.

Spell-like abilities
Once per battle,

Pleasant surprise, that. Per encounter (ie, between rolling initiative and dropping out of initiative order) makes a lot more sense for gambits than recharging on a rest. Pull one trick in one fight, probably won't be able to pull it again right away. "fool me once..."

• Get Down! – Characters can move out of an AOE. (exact distance you can move not specified; not guaranteed that you can leave AOE area)
• Call Down Death – Bonus on damage against targets in TF area.
• Control effects: Force movement, charm someone, etc.
• Spot Weakness: Drop AC, or give accuracy
• Negate Cover (not full cover)
• Defensive Formation: Allies gain AC bonus while in TF area.

Reasonable enough as a brainstorming list, I guess.