D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

What is it about, say casting healing word mechanically that means that it can't be interpreted as being entirely martial in nature? I wonder how much of it is functional, practical, at-table experience and how much of it is just verbiage...

Mostly the fact that it's a spell. Not that it uses mechanics that are like the mechanics of other spells, but that it comes from a deity or nature or arcane study, and can be detected, countered, & dispelled like other forms of magic.

It wouldn't have been hard, for instance, to have a Sorcerer sub-class that re-imagined spells as psionic powers, including having a feature that arbitrarily made them 'not magic' in that detect/counter/dispel/resist/nullify sense, while still being clearly supernatural.

That 5e didn't go for mere re-skinning of spell mechanics, even for a supernatural class that could do exactly the things magic commonly did (not just merely have similar end-results in highly abstract mechanical terms), illustrates how it cleaves to classic D&D game design philosophy/feel by mechanically differentiating the fluff and 'how' of abilities, as well as what they accomplish.

FWIW.

But it IS the opinion of a great many people.

Which wouldn't be an issue, if they weren't so convinced that opinion gives them the right to tell everyone who they'll be allowed to play D&D.

I also pointed out in an earlier post why I love how the PDK handles this. Putting the "see or hear you" condition on the ability makes sense, and those that see HP in different ways can rule how they like on the issue of raising from 0 hp.

Meh, the DM is free to rule how he likes, without such fig-leaves - to toss the sub-class, substitute the ability for another (like the 4e PDK Paragon Path 'Rally' that granted a movement & attack buff), or tweak it mechanically to something they approve of, like the fore-mentioned temp hps. Cutting something you don't like is a /lot/ easier than making something up, so I'd expect most to go for the first than the second or last.

The 'see or hear' requirement does make sense for what the ability /is/ - inspiration, which is hard to do without communicating on some level, even if a non-verbal or sub-conscious, emotional one - and that mixing of fluff/concept with rules leading to vague areas requiring rulings is very much in keeping with 5e's design philosophy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mostly the fact that it's a spell. Not that it uses mechanics that are like the mechanics of other spells, but that it comes from a deity or nature or arcane study, and can be detected, countered, & dispelled like other forms of magic.

Yeah, but that's mostly just fluff. "Spell," "Power," these things are mechanically very close. There's totally an interaction there with meta-spells like counterspell, though that's easy enough to over-write.

It wouldn't have been hard, for instance, to have a Sorcerer sub-class that re-imagined spells as psionic powers, including having a feature that arbitrarily made them 'not magic' in that detect/counter/dispel/resist/nullify sense, while still being clearly supernatural.

That 5e didn't go for mere re-skinning of spell mechanics, even for a supernatural class that could do exactly the things magic commonly did (not just merely have similar end-results in highly abstract mechanical terms), illustrates how it cleaves to classic D&D game design philosophy/feel by mechanically differentiating the fluff and 'how' of abilities, as well as what they accomplish.

Aside from the verbiage, though, what would be required to turn certain spells into "martial powers?" In a lot of cases it seems like it's not actually that much. If the only thing standing in between a bard who is a spellcaster and a bard who uses "martial powers" is the simple language and some possible counterspell stuff, that's not a huge gap to leap. It'd be easy enough to say something like, "this subclass feature allows the use healing word, and when used by this feature it is not considered a magic spell" or "the spells learned by this feature are not magical, using them requires no components, and these effects cannot be dispelled."

Not saying that anything does this now, just that it'd be a fairly easy swap to make. Possibly paired with a few more bard/cleric spells that are more easy to interpret without magic in certain circumstances (a la healing word).

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's totally an interaction there with meta-spells like counterspell, though that's easy enough to over-write... If the only thing standing in between a bard who is a spellcaster and a bard who uses "martial powers" is the simple language and some possible counterspell stuff, that's not a huge gap to leap.

It would have been a smaller gap to leap to take that approach and make a Psion out of the Sorcerer, but they didn't.

Aside from the verbiage, though, what would be required to turn certain spells into "martial powers?"

Mostly just a completely different design philosophy, one much more "effects oriented" than even 4e was (not that 4e leaned very far in that direction, just much farther than D&D had before or since).

Look at 'powers' in Hero System for an example of that philosophy taken to it's logical conclusion.

 

[mellored]

Aside from the verbiage, though, what would be required to turn certain spells into "martial powers?"

Sword Attack (Cantrip)

Casting Time: 1 action
Range 5'
Components: S, M (a sword, mace, or other weapon worth 15gp)
Make an melee attack against the creature, if you hit deal 1d8+str damage.
At-higher level, increase the damage die to 2d8 at level 5, 3d8 at level 11, and 4d8 at level 17.

 

[Remathilis]

Aside from the verbiage, though, what would be required to turn certain spells into "martial powers?" In a lot of cases it seems like it's not actually that much. If the only thing standing in between a bard who is a spellcaster and a bard who uses "martial powers" is the simple language and some possible counterspell stuff, that's not a huge gap to leap. It'd be easy enough to say something like, "this subclass feature allows the use healing word, and when used by this feature it is not considered a magic spell" or "the spells learned by this feature are not magical, using them requires no components, and these effects cannot be dispelled."

Hmmm... Just off the top of my head...

Verbal, Somatic and Material Components: Especially M components with a GP cost. For example, if we refluff "Revivify" into some form of Triage Resuscitation, you'd have to justify why each use of that Triage uses exactly 300 gp worth of medical supplies every time you use it.

Concentration: Both in terms of hit-disruption (Bob was inspiring us to victory and then took an arrow to the knee, now I am no longer inspired) and in terms of spell activity (Bob was inspiring us to attack faster, but he gave a new order and now we do more damage instead).

Magic Resistance: Having nonmagical effects can bypass defenses to magic, making them more attractive (Tim the mage used a fireball spell at the Raksasha and he laughed at it, so I used my Molotov Cocktail power at it and it did 8d6 fire to it since it was nonmagical).

General Principle: Magic is magic, nonmagical in nonmagical. We tried once where magic and mundane were equal (both in terms of power and expression) and it created the world of trippable oozes and martial mind control powers and raksashas lacking any defense against magic. There are areas where the two can create similar effects (Healing Word vs. Rallying Cry is the relevant one) but do so using different mechanics to make the different powersources (Magic vs. Nonmagical) unique. Psionics is adding a third mechanic to make Psionic powers unique (and not a rehash of martial or magic spells).

I'm sure the only real way to make it work would be to completely rewrite the D&D system to look more like Mutants and Masterminds; you pay for your power's effect, choose its keywords, and the rest is fluff. A "blast" could be a fireball, a telekinetic blast, an alchemy bomb, a lazer beam, or a volley of arrows, but they all do the same damage and range (and only differ based on keywords you paid for when buying said power).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Especially M components with a GP cost. For example, if we refluff "Revivify" into some form of Triage Resuscitation, you'd have to justify why each use of that Triage uses exactly 300 gp worth of medical supplies every time you use it.

Everyone in D&D Land has the same deductible?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hmmm... Just off the top of my head...

Verbal, Somatic and Material Components: Especially M components with a GP cost. For example, if we refluff "Revivify" into some form of Triage Resuscitation, you'd have to justify why each use of that Triage uses exactly 300 gp worth of medical supplies every time you use it.

That's flexible with new spells - a spell like healing word only has V components, for instance.

Concentration: Both in terms of hit-disruption (Bob was inspiring us to victory and then took an arrow to the knee, now I am no longer inspired) and in terms of spell activity (Bob was inspiring us to attack faster, but he gave a new order and now we do more damage instead).

Again, flexible with the spell - not every spell requires concentration (though perhaps it's not entirely out of character for certain martial abilities, either).

Magic Resistance: Having nonmagical effects can bypass defenses to magic, making them more attractive (Tim the mage used a fireball spell at the Raksasha and he laughed at it, so I used my Molotov Cocktail power at it and it did 8d6 fire to it since it was nonmagical).

That'd be one of those things fixed by saying "when you use the spell with this feature, it's not magical."

General Principle: Magic is magic, nonmagical in nonmagical. We tried once where magic and mundane were equal (both in terms of power and expression) and it created the world of trippable oozes and martial mind control powers and raksashas lacking any defense against magic. There are areas where the two can create similar effects (Healing Word vs. Rallying Cry is the relevant one) but do so using different mechanics to make the different powersources (Magic vs. Nonmagical) unique. Psionics is adding a third mechanic to make Psionic powers unique (and not a rehash of martial or magic spells).

I'm sure the only real way to make it work would be to completely rewrite the D&D system to look more like Mutants and Masterminds; you pay for your power's effect, choose its keywords, and the rest is fluff. A "blast" could be a fireball, a telekinetic blast, an alchemy bomb, a lazer beam, or a volley of arrows, but they all do the same damage and range (and only differ based on keywords you paid for when buying said power).

I don't know that it's that far removed in mechanical function. Whether something is a "magic spell" or not seems to largely be about what you want it to be in the fiction, and a few corner cases you can get rid of with some handy wording. I mean, the only real difference between inspiring word and healing word in 4e was a (largely mechanically meaningless) keyword for the power source.

Mostly just a completely different design philosophy, one much more "effects oriented" than even 4e was (not that 4e leaned very far in that direction, just much farther than D&D had before or since).

I'm not convinced its as alien as all that. 5e has "nonmagical spells" already (something like a cleric's divine intervention; psionic monster abilities; etc.). While you could steer away from it as an explicit design choice, I don't see why you'd HAVE to steer away from it as a consequence of the design - there's very little about healing word that isn't compatible with the 4e idea of martial powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know that it's that far removed in mechanical function. Whether something is a "magic spell" or not seems to largely be about what you want it to be in the fiction, and a few corner cases you can get rid of with some handy wording.

In /theory/, sure. In D&D, not so much. ;P

I mean, the only real difference between inspiring word and healing word in 4e was a (largely mechanically meaningless) keyword for the power source.

Not as meaningless as you might think. Because of those keywords, a typical Cleric could give you back significantly more hps than the typical Warlord.

I'm not convinced its as alien as all that. 5e has "nonmagical spells" already (something like a cleric's divine intervention; psionic monster abilities; etc.).

Divine intervention being 'non-magical' is kinda a stretch, and monsters were done with what was available at the time. If the Mystic goes through to the Standard Game, future monsters will doubtlessly follow it's mechanics, and existing ones might even be errata'd.

While you could steer away from it as an explicit design choice, I don't see why you'd HAVE to steer away from it as a consequence of the design

It's just not an effects-based design philosophy: design starts with a concept, and distinguishes it from other concepts that might accomplish similar things through different means with distinct mechanics, even if it must do so arbitrarily for no gain functionality or playability, while paying a price in complexity. 4e sidled away from that philosophy and we got the edition war. People are still, in these threads, insisting that the Warlord be denied maneuvers equivalent to what they had in 4e, because those 4e exploits were wrongly conflated with spells, due to the similar mechanical representations. Do you really think any of them could handle using /actual spells/ for non-magical abilities, when the mere idea of a non-magical ability being viable compared to a spell is utterly intolerable?

Madness.

there's very little about healing word that isn't compatible with the 4e idea of martial powers.

Still a spell. Neither 4e exploits nor 5e maneuvers (conceptually prettymuch the same things) have ever been spells. Sorry, it'd be fine in some other systems, it'd probably make the game better in certain ways, but in D&D it's a non-starter.

 

[Remathilis]

That's flexible with new spells - a spell like healing word only has V components, for instance.

Fine for healing word, but what of other "spells" like Revivify or even lowly Bless? Its a huge leg up to ignore Components. For example, a cleric right now wants to cast "Bless", he needs a free hand (no mace and shield without swapping, feats, or such) and a material component (or focus), but lets say "WarBard" the nonmagical Warlord Bard doesn't, allowing him to just "bless" (shout inspiring words) with his hands full of swords, shields, fallen allies, stolen couches, or anything else. Further, he can do it even if he's stripped naked and tied up, something the Cleric doesn't get the luxury of.

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

Again, flexible with the spell - not every spell requires concentration (though perhaps it's not entirely out of character for certain martial abilities, either).

No, but nearly every buff spell worth its salt does. Bless. Shield of Faith. Haste. Its the innate balancing mechanic for those spells. Without it, you get back into "stacking buffs" again.

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

That'd be one of those things fixed by saying "when you use the spell with this feature, it's not magical."

And thus you've completely nerfed every magic-using class against the nonmagic "Warbard". I mean, If Tim the wizard can cast fireball and there is a chance his spell will be countered, absorbed, dispelled, or merely negated by some monster or spell (such as Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Spell Immunity or Magic Resistance) but Bob the Alchemist can throw a nonmagical "firebomb" that does the exact same effect (8d6 fire in a radius, dex 1/2) that can't be counterspelled (not casting a spell), ingores spell immunity (not a spell effect), or so on, then there is little point in picking the magical version of the effect; the nonmagical one is clearly superior.

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

I don't know that it's that far removed in mechanical function. Whether something is a "magic spell" or not seems to largely be about what you want it to be in the fiction, and a few corner cases you can get rid of with some handy wording. I mean, the only real difference between inspiring word and healing word in 4e was a (largely mechanically meaningless) keyword for the power source.

Exactly; which is why the power system in 4e was often labeled "samey" and that people felt certain classes (either of similar role or similar power source) felt interchangable. For many, that is bug, not a feature and it was probably the #1 complaint against said system.

I'm not convinced its as alien as all that. 5e has "nonmagical spells" already (something like a cleric's divine intervention; psionic monster abilities; etc.). While you could steer away from it as an explicit design choice, I don't see why you'd HAVE to steer away from it as a consequence of the design - there's very little about healing word that isn't compatible with the 4e idea of martial powers.

There is nothing that could stop a fighter from making a sword blow that mimics meteor swarm either, but 5e returned to the notion that magic and nonmagic does not use the same mechanics nor resources. Hell, come Essentials even WotC themselves were acknowledging that martial and magic probably shouldn't be using the same system of resolution. I see no advantage to returning to 2009 again, and while the concept might work "in theory", there is no way to execute this that won't break the game in unintended ways.

Leave magic to the magicians.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm also entirely against I'm A Banana's idea of filing the serial numbers off spells and faking martial classes like the Warlord with them...

...there are just some oddities that I can't let go....

...also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I couldn't remain entirely serious, so sorry if my humor doesn't always make sense to anyone else....

Its a huge leg up to ignore Components. For example, a cleric right now wants to cast "Bless", he needs a free hand (no mace and shield without swapping, feats, or such) and a material component (or focus), but lets say "WarBard" the nonmagical Warlord Bard doesn't, allowing him to just "bless" (shout inspiring words) with his hands full of swords, shields, fallen allies, stolen couches, or anything else. Further, he can do it even if he's stripped naked and tied up, something the Cleric doesn't get the luxury of.

Clerics blazon their holy symbol on shields and slip by that requirement all the time, and how much help is that +1d4 to hit when you're in a capture scenario, anyway?

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

Aside from being able to lift stolen couches with one hand, the hypothetical power-up you describe might just be justified by a corresponding lack of versatility - depending on the actual design, of course. A Not-Warlord who not-casts not-magic not-spells from a list of a half dozen or so could reasonably have fairly powerful not-spells on that list compared to (not?)other casters, by virtue of having an order of magnitude or so fewer choices.

No, but nearly every buff spell worth its salt does. Bless. Shield of Faith. Haste. Its the innate balancing mechanic for those spells. Without it, you get back into "stacking buffs" again.

I'm sure there's other ways of preventing stacking. For instance if the not-Warlord not-casting not-bless needed to speak throughout, rather than just on initial not-casting.

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

That's going to get funny if you keep it up.

And thus you've completely nerfed every magic-using class against the nonmagic "Warbard". I mean, If Tim the wizard can cast fireball and there is a chance his spell will be countered, absorbed, dispelled, or merely negated by some monster or spell (such as Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Spell Immunity or Magic Resistance) but Bob the Alchemist can throw a nonmagical "firebomb" that does the exact same effect (8d6 fire in a radius, dex 1/2) that can't be counterspelled (not casting a spell), ingores spell immunity (not a spell effect), or so on

So on, like, can be caught by a dexterous enemy and tossed back at him, maybe? Magic can be countered by magic. Mundane not-magic can presumably be countered by just about anything. Oh, including magic, just not metamagic.

Sounds like a strict power upgrade.

And lol.

Exactly; which is why the power system in 4e was often labeled "samey" and that people felt certain classes (either of similar role or similar power source) felt interchangable.

Well, not the only reason, nor a very good one, since they didn't actually just recycle spells the way 5e already does for casters, but for non-casters as well, as I'm A Banana is suggesting, but, rather gave each class a unique set of 'powers,' that were consistent in number/availability and format, only.

What I'm A Banana is suggesting is a /lot/ more blatantly effects-based than that! Way above and beyond the imagined 'sameyness' of similar formating and balanced classes, to actually using /the exact same spell/, not just for both arcane and divine casters as 5e already does, but for martial characters, psions, alchemists, gunslingers, or whatever else you feel you can file the serial numbers off an existing caster to get.

That wouldn't earn WotC an Edition War II, it'd provoke The Edition Apocalypse.

There is nothing that could stop a fighter from making a sword blow that mimics meteor swarm either

Other than swords being notoriously melee-oriented and slashing-damage, anyway. Maybe a magical flaming sword of swarming meteors, though, or a swarm of magical flaming swords.

Hell, come Essentials even WotC themselves were acknowledging that martial and magic probably shouldn't be using the same system of resolution.

Essentials sub-classes still all had powers, they were all still resolved using attack rolls (martial mostly vs AC, arcane mostly vs other defenses) and miss & effect lines and so forth, as before. Essentials martial classes just got far fewer powers, none of them dailies, and in a structure pointedly incompatible with their existing sub-classes (a strict power downgrade), while caster sub-classes got more powers and could draw upon all the powers of their existing sub-classes (and vice-versa).

And, yeah that was a "strict power upgrade" for the casters, especially the Wizard, who got new powers in virtually every book. Just not nearly as big a strict power upgrade as they received from 5e.

I see no advantage to returning to 2009 again

Well, you could make some investments....

, and while the concept might work "in theory", there is no way to execute this that won't break the game in unintended ways.

While I agree with the conclusion (going back to the bizarre alternate gaming future of 2009 that we glimpsed, rather than staying here, in the early 90s, where D&D belongs, would be a huge mistake for 5e), I find your reasoning is strangely backwards. Greater mechanical consistency doesn't break games, D&D just has an image to maintain in service to it's fanbase that is incompatible with the particular kind of effects-based approach that the idea amounts too - something, as we've both pointed, that 4e was pilloried for doing to a much lesser degree.

Leave magic to the magicians.

Faulty reasoning and even edition-warring aside, the idea of further re-cycling spells as mechanics for non-magical abilities is sheer madness. It's antithetical to 5e's design philosophy, which is concept-first, blurry lines between mechanics & fluff, and DM Rulings over the resulting Rules.

It's tempting Fate to even discuss such things.