Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6817172" data-attributes="member: 996">There's nothing inherently magical about the Warlord, though, indeed, like the fighter, it's quite to opposite.  Nor is the concept necessarily magical for some of the classes that do have all-spellcasting sub-classes - if only because some of them, like the Bard, draw on RL archetypes that obviously weren't actually magical, what with magic not being real.  The Barbarian description gives both a non-magical and magical (Totem) rationale for rage, so one of the Barbarian sub-classes is at least plausibly non-magical.  'Functionally magical' is an interesting way of putting it.  Magic isn't really about function, but about the origin or nature of an ability.  Fireballs aren't magical because of their function (doing fire damage to a lot of enemies at once) - a vat of burning oil dumped from atop a castle wall could fulfill much the same function.Good, because the existing precedent of the Warlord is non-magical. There is nothing a caster couldn't do with some new spells, so that's in the realm of meaningless tautologies.  5e's theoretical balance of mostly-daily-resource classes with few-resources or mostly-short-rest-recharge classes is pretty fragile.  But, in practice, 5e balance doesn't rest on class mechanics, but is in the realm of the DM.  FWIW.</blockquote>