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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 6724544" data-attributes="member: 5142">That's fine. We can talk about something else. Let's go back to your earlier argument then: I find your whole external vs. internal to be something of a false dichotomy anyway. You are defining magic as an external force. Something that is exerted upon someone. Who is to say that the cleric's magic is acting upon a person? Perhaps it is doing exactly what you are describing here with the barbarian: it allows "the barbarian to tap into [their] own internal forces that were there all along"? It's not as if magical healing is explained how it works anywhere. The spell descriptions basically amount to "you regain hit points." Where does it come from? How does it work? If the only reason is "magic," then that's just a cop-out answer. It's a non-answer. It's just a conversation killer that seeks to avoid addressing any internal consistently or coherence. That may very well involve allowing the barbarian tapping into his internal hidden reserves in a manner similar to the hypothetical warlord. You are then defining the warlord's "shout healing" to be internal because of their own internal forces. Why isn't the warlord's "shout healing" considered an externality similar to magic? It acts upon a person. It's external to the patient as derived from an acting agent that causes an effect. Is this magic? For you? Yes. For others? No. At the very least then, for all its "magic," it should be spell-less, which rules out the bard and cleric. And since you may see this as "magic," then that also rules out the Battle Master as appropriate, since you see that as "non-magical." Then it should be written in a manner that blurs the extraordinary and the supernatural. If you see this as 'supernatural,' then let it be so - at your table. If others see this as 'non-magical,' then let it be so - at their table. I have not been in a campaign to date in which many of the flavors, fluff, and lore of characters, class, races, and such were not discussed and agreed upon beforehand with the players and GM. (The nature of the 3e monk, psionics, and the sorcerer were big topic of controversy in this regard at my past tables.) This is simply another such issue.</blockquote>

Verification