D&D 5E Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As someone who wants a warlord, I honestly dont care if the fluff says they heal because the target stops being a baby, rubs some dirt in it and walks it off, or because the warlord knows the divine speech of kings. What I really want is a class that doesn't use spells in it's baseline. Because at this point, FAR too many classes use them. It's hard to pretend magic is special, when everyone at the table is using the exact same mechanics. BTW, didnt people whine about that in 4E? The homogenization of classes? Well it's back with a vengeance in 5E! I guess you get to pick whether you want full calorie or diet (1/2 to 1/3 caster).

At least they showed some design ingenuity for the psion. I liked that 3E decided to try new things, even with magical effects, like the martial adepts, incarnates, etc. Since we already have the basics for 5E, I'd like to see some more innovation on any theoretical new class.

 

[sleypy]

That's helpful. Okay, I think I do understand one point of contention a little better. How can you inspire an unconscious person with your words and leadership, if it's a non-magical effect?

That said, in the end it doesn't really matter. People should create what they want to. I still fail to understand, from the 1000' view, why it matters whether or not it is magical, or non-magical. Especially because it seems like every ... single ... class ... in 5e is magical, or at least has "magic options."

Let's look at gnomes.

There are people that irrationally hate the gnome; there are people that irrationally love the gnome.

Apply this logic to the magic vs. non-magic argument and things will become clear. (Won't claim it will make you understand though.)

 

[TwoSix]

Question: Is a Barbarian "Magical" or "nonmagical"?

See, Rage to me is magical; it does something above mortal ability. Lots of people can get mad, but none get mechanical bonuses for it. Rage taps into some form of magic; call it Primal Fury if you want. Its not dispelable, it doesn't go away in anti-magic, but its magical nonetheless, and if we were going for "nonmagical campaign", barbarian wouldn't make the cut.

Warlord should be the same way. They tap into something beyond mortal abilities. They don't cast spells, they don't learn magic, but they are magical in that they can do things far beyond what a normal soldier can do. I can accept that a warlord taps into some latent magic in the world to aid his words and give allies new vigor; I don't accept that he does it because "he's that charismatic".

I was just thinking similar thoughts, and the Barbarian is an excellent example.

I think there's a divide between how people view the D&D setting in regards to magic. Some people see it as medieval Europe, but with elves and wizards that can summon demons on top. Other people see dragons flying and people taking 10 axe blows and assume the world is laced with magic all the way down. The game initially treated magic as something external, something other; spells were usable only by obscure rituals or by intercession of the gods. But more recent classes have also treated magic as something intrinsic, something transformational; a mutant power or an alien birthright as opposed to a gadget, to invoke comic tropes.

So yea, I'm totally OK with the warlord doing something magic with the understanding that the world itself is magic, and heroes embrace that to become heroes in the first place.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Being able to do more than an ordinary person does not require magic. You're free to imagine it does, and attribute magical powers to people who exceed the norm - like Olympic Athletes, victorious warriors, rock stars, or whatever. It's not an unusual human compulsion, even IRL, where magic (we presume) doesn't exist, at all.

Heh. Professional athletes in D&D would be dang clerics given how often they credit God with their victories.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

I keep going back to the idea that in 5e, lay on hands, and bardic inspiration, and shadow monks becoming invisible are all "non-magical." They're varying degrees of supernatural and superhuamn, but there's nothing inherently "this uses MAGIC(tm)" about any of these, and they function fine when spellcasters and the like are off-line from effects like Anitmagic Shield. Psionics looks like it's going to be in a similar niche.

The range of not-really-magic / "purely martial" / Charles Atlas Superpower in 5e is pretty big, and inspirational healing can comfortably cavort in that space, it just requires some carefully worded abilities.

I've used the word "preternatural" for abilities of that nature in threads before. Running is natural; running as fast as a horse is preternatural; running so fast no one can see you is supernatural.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[sleypy]

Well, that's just saying that there are people that are correct, and there are people that aren't worthy of breathing oxygen.

Wait ... did I just miss your point, or prove it?

You're both a gentleman and proved the point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Heh. Professional athletes in D&D would be dang clerics given how often they credit God with their victories.

so do all bards "rappers" need to multi as clerics too?

 

[TwoSix]

That's a good way to look at it. I remember, if you look at the early OSR/BECMI/1e materials, that players were just like everyone else, and only as they gained in level did they become "special." In other words, when you went into town, there were many people that were of various classes and levels.

Whereas it seems with 5e, players (and classes!) are a little more special. For example, if you run into a random village of "Barbarians" you wouldn't necessarily assume that they are all Barbarian (class) of varied levels.

One thing I got away from 4e, and carried with me to 5e, is assuming that NPCs have classes at all. In my personal view, classes carry no weight within the narrative at all.