NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6744790" data-attributes="member: 996">In /theory/, sure.  In D&D, not so much.  ;PNot as meaningless as you might think.  Because of those keywords, a typical Cleric could give you back significantly more hps than the typical Warlord.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification