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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6144408" data-attributes="member: 17106">Because creating a positive emotional state in a humanoid creature who you know is real and is within sight is not the same thing as performing a ritual and hoping that some extraplanar force responds in the way you would like.There's every reason why a character could be more inspiring. That's not the issue. There are plenty of good rules for that.The issue is twofold. One, why make a new class for it? Two, what does that have to do with healing? As others have pointed out, leadership and inspiration are social roles, not the sort of thing that forms the basis of a class. After all, when someone says "why can't my character be a magic item crafter" we don't make a new class for it, we tell them to play a wizard and take crafting skills and feats. When someone says "why can't my character be more seductive" we tell them to play a rogue or a bard and put a good score in Cha and take some skills. When someone says "I want to be a warlord" we tell them to play a fighter or barbarian and select some abilities that support that and recruit some followers. We don't make a new class for every possible type of expertise, only those that form a strong distinct archetypes. And in all the warlord threads, I have yet to see anyone produce a single real-life or fictional example of an actual warlord outside of 4e; such characters are invariably better represented by the existing classes. And leadership abilities are better modeled by teamwork benefits, which take into account the context of a cohesive group.Sure. I like feats, skills, teamwork benefits, etc. Just no need for a class for leadership.Handwaving inventory considerations is fine. Having a class ability that makes nonmagical items magic is not (unless it's a magic class).Okay then.The rules are badly designed in that hps are not meat and blood.I'm pretty sure bards got cures at least in 2e. Paladins and rangers also had healing. The mage/wizard is really the only exception, which is indeed a D&D-ism.Of course not. Who said they did? They do of course have sole control over instantaneous closing of potentially lethal wounds, because that isn't real, but long-term healing, not so much.And with better health and healing rules, natural healing and alterations thereof could become more meaningful.That's only in your eyes though (perhaps in some others as well). Nonmagical characters aren't mudane at all. As has been well documented, the point at which d20 checks are "realistic" typically stops between 5th and 10th level. High level characters can do incredible things. Skills have open-ended and powerful applications.If you're talking about 17th level characters casting Wish, yes that's something that only wizards/sorcerers can do (and should be). If you're talking about doing useful things in the context of a typical game, fighters remain the most popular class in all versions of D&D (except possibly 4e; that I wouldn't know), and the nonmagical classes in general are more impactful in most situations. Magic offers some fantastical, "limit-breaking" effects, but it hardly renders the other characters irrelevant.Not really, no.</blockquote>

Verification