The Bard has been much lately. I am wondering if we will see it before the August timeframe? Will the Sorcerer and Warlock come back? And what about the Assassin?

The Bard has been mentioned alot lately. I am wondering if we will see it before the August time-frame? Will the Sorcerer and Warlock come back? And what about the Assassin?
It would be awesome! Mike said there wouldn't be new Playtest Packets until Gen Con, but he also said there would be Playtest Update. So who knows what those will include. New Races, New Classes? New Feats? New Rules ? 
Has there been any talk about when we might get a Playtest Update? I haven't seen any information regarding the matter, unfortunately.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
No date was given on Twitter.


@Adam: Does this use the current ruleset we have or will there be another playtest released before Gencon?
@Mike Mearls : Not a full packet, but I anticipate we will have new material.

 
It would be awesome! Mike said there wouldn't be new Playtest Packets until Gen Con, but he also said there would be Playtest Update. So who knows what those will include. New Races, New Classes? New Feats? New Rules ? 




Yeah, I'm hoping for a Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Bard, or Sorcerer (I can live without the Sorcerer, but we'll see) update or something.


It would definitely be nice to see something concrete on bards sooner rather than later.
It's been a solid two months with no updates, yet mentions of all kinds of additions and changes. An update would be much appreciated, no matter what it was. I would take pretty much anything!
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
I keep hoping anytime now, that something new will pop-up, such as a race or class. I know my best guess is that the Bard will be the first. Reference of healings by bards has recently been mentioned. I have been hoping the gnome comes to and they throw the tinker aspect into it. Tinker gnomes are kool.
The relationship between how "done" various character options are and when they show up is murky. A while back, they put the Warlock and Sorcerer classes into a packet because those were the classes they felt they had the least idea what to do with, and they wanted to get feedback on the harder parts quickly. (This is a useful design practice in general - focusing on the tough stuff first.) More recently, they added the monk to the regular rotation on the grounds that they felt like it was a quick design that they basically had done.

What's in the playtest packet presumably follows some sort of logic, but the logic isn't "as much as possible as soon as possible"; if they were interested in just expanding the amount of material, we would have likely seen more races ages ago, since races are dramatically simpler designs than classes are, and it's not like it's potentially wasted effort (like, say, a Psychic Warrior class or something), because there's almost no question that there'll be more than four races in the PHB.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Every version of DnD has a completely different version of the Bard.  So I am just excited about what we will get.  It's the one class people can't yell "tradition" or "nostalgia" because none of that has ever applied in any edition of DnD.  So I hope the developers have fun and give us a big surprise.  It might be divine, arcane, or something else.
Every version of DnD has a completely different version of the Bard.  So I am just excited about what we will get.  It's the one class people can't yell "tradition" or "nostalgia" because none of that has ever applied in any edition of DnD.  So I hope the developers have fun and give us a big surprise.  It might be divine, arcane, or something else.




I still think of the Bard as under "druidic tutelage".
Every version of DnD has a completely different version of the Bard.  So I am just excited about what we will get.  It's the one class people can't yell "tradition" or "nostalgia" because none of that has ever applied in any edition of DnD.  So I hope the developers have fun and give us a big surprise.  It might be divine, arcane, or something else.




I still think of the Bard as under "druidic tutelage".




Boy do I agree with you.  But I also see the Druid as a Wizard.
The bard is mentioned in the new ritual chapter. So I guess the OP is right about seeing him soon.
The bard is mentioned in the new ritual chapter. So I guess the OP is right about seeing him soon.



The Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock look to be the new classes.
The bard is mentioned in the new ritual chapter. So I guess the OP is right about seeing him soon.



The Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock look to be the new classes.



Where are you seeing that? I just downloaded the 06072013 playtest pack and didn't see them in there.
page 23. on the top, where rituals are explained, bards are mentioned besides wizards, clerics and druids as classes that make use of rituals.
page 23. on the top, where rituals are explained, bards are mentioned besides wizards, clerics and druids as classes that make use of rituals.




Found it! Thanks! I too am glad to see the bard mentioned. I was getting nervous that they might exclude it from Next.
There's also this...

Members of certain classes, such as bards, use Charisma as their magic ability. If Charisma is your magic ability, your Charisma modifier helps determine the saving throw DCs of your spells. (How to Play, 8)

 

Danny

Every version of DnD has a completely different version of the Bard.  So I am just excited about what we will get.  It's the one class people can't yell "tradition" or "nostalgia" because none of that has ever applied in any edition of DnD.  So I hope the developers have fun and give us a big surprise.  It might be divine, arcane, or something else.



Well, they were arcane in 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th so that seems consistent for some time.  AD&D bard (which was more like a PrC) was the only divine caster in the bunch.  ;)

Every version of DnD has a completely different version of the Bard.  So I am just excited about what we will get.  It's the one class people can't yell "tradition" or "nostalgia" because none of that has ever applied in any edition of DnD.  So I hope the developers have fun and give us a big surprise.  It might be divine, arcane, or something else.




I still think of the Bard as under "druidic tutelage".




Boy do I agree with you.  But I also see the Druid as a Wizard.



Depending on what a person is looking at druids were under the tutelage of bards historically.  I still think of bards as wizards.  ;)
The bard is mentioned in the new ritual chapter. So I guess the OP is right about seeing him soon.



The Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock look to be the new classes.



Where are you seeing that? I just downloaded the 06072013 playtest pack and didn't see them in there.




In articles I remember them mentioning the Sorcerer and Warlock too, but maybe they have both been folded into the Wizard, fine with me.
hope the bard will be able to use a a shield 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk3BvNLeNgw 
If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.
If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  *facepalm*  If you really want to play Pokemon with your Poketrainer, then go play Pokemon.


Dude, chill. This is a bard thread, not a freak-out-at-the-W-word thread.
 
Everyone else, thanks for finding the references to other classes. Now I'm really looking forward to the next packet. 
and make people run faster than is physically possible,


The movement rules in D&D have always been slow... sometimes excruciatingly slow the explanation has always beeen combat movement is restrained by a need for caution. If somebody managing the timing of the battlefield, creates and coordinates an opening for you that inhibition is removed. There is no faster than physically possible going on.
 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

and make people run faster than is physically possible,


The movement rules in D&D have always been slow... sometimes excruciatingly slow the explanation has always beeen combat movement is restrained by a need for caution. If somebody managing the timing of the battlefield, creates and coordinates an opening for you that inhibition is removed. There is no faster than physically possible going on.
 



Yeah, 30 feet in 6 seconds is hardly the limit of human capability. Any able bodied person could walk backwards that fast.
If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  *facepalm*  If you really want to play Pokemon with your Poketrainer, then go play Pokemon.


Then the bard and the warlord suffer from the same problem, and should be absorbed by other classes. 

If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  *facepalm*  If you really want to play Pokemon with your Poketrainer, then go play Pokemon.


Then the bard and the warlord suffer from the same problem, and should be absorbed by other classes. 




Bards use magical spells to heal.  That's not even close to the same.
If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  *facepalm*  If you really want to play Pokemon with your Poketrainer, then go play Pokemon.


Then the bard and the warlord suffer from the same problem, and should be absorbed by other classes. 




Bards use magical spells to heal.  That's not even close to the same.


Sure it is.  Druids and clerics use magical spells to heal too.  That makes the bard just as absorbable into those classes as the warlord is refluffable from the cleric.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class.



  Hurray, the class that can heal people by yelling at them and make people run faster than is physically possible, all because people can't accept that the bonuses they get to AC and attack from sources like prayer are already simulating the effect the warlord is supposed to be doing, but doing it in a sensible way consistent with the system rather than an overblown kiddy cartoon way.  *facepalm*  If you really want to play Pokemon with your Poketrainer, then go play Pokemon.


Then the bard and the warlord suffer from the same problem, and should be absorbed by other classes. 




Bards use magical spells to heal.  That's not even close to the same.


Sure it is.  Druids and clerics use magical spells to heal too.  That makes the bard just as absorbable into those classes as the warlord is refluffable from the cleric.



Your answer is out of context.

I was reading, "heal people by yelling at them" as relevant to the quote.  It's not the fact that bards, druids, and clerics all cast spells to heal; it's the comparison to yelling at them to heal that doesn't apply to bards.

Getting back to, "If we can actually see the design intent behind the bard, then we can also have a serious discussion on the warlord class." we either have the same intent making the second class a duplicate or we have a different class completely making the comparison invalid.  Either doesn't work.

It's entirely possible that bards could be changed from arcane casters to divine casters and rolled into a subset with clerics and druids, or they could remain arcane casters and be rolled into a subset of wizards, or they could remain distinctive and their own separate class.  None of that is relevant comparing a bard and warlord.

At best I would give warlords the ability to add temp hit points instead of healing and apply half damage to the temp hp pool and half to the actual hit points, or something similar.  That's a better mechanic than, "you are bleeding to death but now you are not because you feel better about yourself after that pep talk."  It's not warlords or the general concept of a party booster that are particularly bad -- just the opposite, that is something appealing about the class.  The way warlord healing works is the turn off for me.
At best I would give warlords the ability to add temp hit points instead of healing and apply half damage to the temp hp pool and half to the actual hit points, or something similar.  That's a better mechanic than, "you are bleeding to death but now you are not because you feel better about yourself after that pep talk."  It's not warlords or the general concept of a party booster that are particularly bad -- just the opposite, that is something appealing about the class.  The way warlord healing works is the turn off for me.


I support temp HP as a martial healing option.  However, the "pep talk" healing of "bleeding wounds" is misrepresentative of the warlord.  First off, it ignores damage that isn't physical wounds.  Also, with abstract HPs, you can be healed to full by a warlord and still have bleeding cuts on your body.  Just as every papercut needn't be represented by a loss in HPs, so too can you be cut and bleeding without having less than full HPs.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

At best I would give warlords the ability to add temp hit points instead of healing and apply half damage to the temp hp pool and half to the actual hit points, or something similar.  That's a better mechanic than, "you are bleeding to death but now you are not because you feel better about yourself after that pep talk."  It's not warlords or the general concept of a party booster that are particularly bad -- just the opposite, that is something appealing about the class.  The way warlord healing works is the turn off for me.


I support temp HP as a martial healing option.  However, the "pep talk" healing of "bleeding wounds" is misrepresentative of the warlord.  First off, it ignores damage that isn't physical wounds.  Also, with abstract HPs, you can be healed to full by a warlord and still have bleeding cuts on your body.  Just as every papercut needn't be represented by a loss in HPs, so too can you be cut and bleeding without having less than full HPs.



The problem I have with that is that abstract only incorporates components of the abstract to rationalized warlord healing instead of the same abstract we've been using for many other editions and completely ignores any real damage that is also a part of the same abstract.  It doesn't make any sense to only acknowledge part of the abstract when calling it such but dismissing other parts.  Falling off a flying mount and landing in a pool of lava at the center of a volcanoe cannot be 100% walked off with a "buck up and walk it off soldier".  What you refer to as an abstract completely ignores that other part of what is happening.

If a warlord can heal someone up to full hit points with just a pep talk then we have pretty much the opposite of an abstract because very few things are actually getting included in that sort of recovery system.
At best I would give warlords the ability to add temp hit points instead of healing and apply half damage to the temp hp pool and half to the actual hit points, or something similar.  That's a better mechanic than, "you are bleeding to death but now you are not because you feel better about yourself after that pep talk."  It's not warlords or the general concept of a party booster that are particularly bad -- just the opposite, that is something appealing about the class.  The way warlord healing works is the turn off for me.


I support temp HP as a martial healing option.  However, the "pep talk" healing of "bleeding wounds" is misrepresentative of the warlord.  First off, it ignores damage that isn't physical wounds.  Also, with abstract HPs, you can be healed to full by a warlord and still have bleeding cuts on your body.  Just as every papercut needn't be represented by a loss in HPs, so too can you be cut and bleeding without having less than full HPs.



The problem I have with that is that abstract only incorporates components of the abstract to rationalized warlord healing instead of the same abstract we've been using for many other editions and completely ignores any real damage that is also a part of the same abstract.  It doesn't make any sense to only acknowledge part of the abstract when calling it such but dismissing other parts.  Falling off a flying mount and landing in a pool of lava at the center of a volcanoe cannot be 100% walked off with a "buck up and walk it off soldier".  What you refer to as an abstract completely ignores that other part of what is happening.

If a warlord can heal someone up to full hit points with just a pep talk then we have pretty much the opposite of an abstract because very few things are actually getting included in that sort of recovery system.


Remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Restrict the warlord to only healing HPs from non-physical damage and you must then restrict cure spells to only heal HP's from physical damage (since all they say they do is mend wounds), which D&D has never done.  Also, if you want that degree of granularity, it's easy enough to get by tracking physical and non-physical damage separately.

Also, landing in a pool of lava being survivable at all is laughable, regardless of whether the party healer is a cleric, druid, warlord or bard.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

At best I would give warlords the ability to add temp hit points instead of healing and apply half damage to the temp hp pool and half to the actual hit points, or something similar.  That's a better mechanic than, "you are bleeding to death but now you are not because you feel better about yourself after that pep talk."  It's not warlords or the general concept of a party booster that are particularly bad -- just the opposite, that is something appealing about the class.  The way warlord healing works is the turn off for me.


I support temp HP as a martial healing option.  However, the "pep talk" healing of "bleeding wounds" is misrepresentative of the warlord.  First off, it ignores damage that isn't physical wounds.  Also, with abstract HPs, you can be healed to full by a warlord and still have bleeding cuts on your body.  Just as every papercut needn't be represented by a loss in HPs, so too can you be cut and bleeding without having less than full HPs.



The problem I have with that is that abstract only incorporates components of the abstract to rationalized warlord healing instead of the same abstract we've been using for many other editions and completely ignores any real damage that is also a part of the same abstract.  It doesn't make any sense to only acknowledge part of the abstract when calling it such but dismissing other parts.  Falling off a flying mount and landing in a pool of lava at the center of a volcanoe cannot be 100% walked off with a "buck up and walk it off soldier".  What you refer to as an abstract completely ignores that other part of what is happening.

If a warlord can heal someone up to full hit points with just a pep talk then we have pretty much the opposite of an abstract because very few things are actually getting included in that sort of recovery system.


Remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Restrict the warlord to only healing HPs from non-physical damage and you must then restrict cure spells to only heal HP's from physical damage (since all they say they do is mend wounds), which D&D has never done.  Also, if you want that degree of granularity, it's easy enough to get by tracking physical and non-physical damage separately.

Also, landing in a pool of lava being survivable at all is laughable, regardless of whether the party healer is a cleric, druid, warlord or bard.




Being able to survive falling into lava is where that abstract actually comes into play.  With a little luck and a bit of skill actual damage is minimized by landing on a chunk of crust not molten and a bit of a roll to absorb part of the impact (or even a bit of divine inspiration).  Players survive that because it is an abstract and not 100% real damage any more than it is 100% non-real damage.  All or nothing physical damage is not an abstract either way.

There is every reason for magic to heal the spirit as well as the body.  It's magic.  It's the medium used to suspend disbelief and by it's very nature can simply do whatever the designers want it to do.  No where does it say the cure spells only mend wounds.  It's easy to see magic as healing everything.  It's not with mundane/martial/nonmagical/nonsupernatural etc because a pep talk can really only cover so much.
There is every reason for magic to heal the spirit as well as the body.  It's magic.  It's the medium used to suspend disbelief and by it's very nature can simply do whatever the designers want it to do.  No where does it say the cure spells only mend wounds.  It's easy to see magic as healing everything.  It's not with mundane/martial/nonmagical/nonsupernatural etc because a pep talk can really only cover so much.


There would be every reason if it said it did that.  It does not say that.  The cure spells do not say they restore luck or divine favor.  You are holding magic to a different standard by assuming all things are included unless stated otherwise.  And you are using "because magic" to justify it.  Well, the other side has their own justification: "because cinematic."  As I type this, I know that you will find "because cinematic" preposterous.  And that's a good thing, because that's exactly how I feel about the "because magic" excuse.  Either both excuses are valid (but not required at tables that don't want to use them) or neither are because neither of them is anymore inherently right than the other.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

all physical damage causes mental trauma, that said mental trauma may cause physical symptoms. this may not be 1 for 1 in an abstract, but since they use a unified pool of hp trying to extract one from the other is not feasible. that said i think warlord should cause the use of HD to heal where as magical healing is applied directly to hp.
all physical damage causes mental trauma, that said mental trauma may cause physical symptoms. this may not be 1 for 1 in an abstract, but since they use a unified pool of hp trying to extract one from the other is not feasible. that said i think warlord should cause the use of HD to heal where as magical healing is applied directly to hp.


Extracting the two is very feasible.  If the Dm describes lost HPs from one attack as a matter of luck (non-physical hps) then you track that in one column while tracking HP loss as meat damage in another column.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

There is every reason for magic to heal the spirit as well as the body.  It's magic.  It's the medium used to suspend disbelief and by it's very nature can simply do whatever the designers want it to do.  No where does it say the cure spells only mend wounds.  It's easy to see magic as healing everything.  It's not with mundane/martial/nonmagical/nonsupernatural etc because a pep talk can really only cover so much.


There would be every reason if it said it did that.  It does not say that.  The cure spells do not say they restore luck or divine favor.  You are holding magic to a different standard by assuming all things are included unless stated otherwise.  And you are using "because magic" to justify it.  Well, the other side has their own justification: "because cinematic."  As I type this, I know that you will find "because cinematic" preposterous.  And that's a good thing, because that's exactly how I feel about the "because magic" excuse.  Either both excuses are valid (but not required at tables that don't want to use them) or neither are because neither of them is anymore inherently right than the other.



Well no, because everything that removes hit points is listed as damage.  Cure spells specifically cure that damage.  It's not an abstract coming off but not an abstract while going back on.

Cinematic is also covered within the hit point abstract simply by describing what happened to justify the hit points.  A pep talk healing physical damage is not cinematic, however.

If hit points are a catch all abstract it's still far easier to justify magic as the cure for any part of it than a pep talk.  That pep talk certainly isn't going to give back some luck, divine intervention, or restore a bit of good karma.  It's easy to justify spiritual healing, physical healing, and restoration.  Magic is a better catch all for an abstract concept than the pep talk idea.

There isn't even any point to warlords healing with a pep talk.  Healing can be made available from a choice of several classes that make use of a game mechanic that's easier to justify.  The only way to justify warlord healing is to exlude things from the overall abtract in hit points.

Also, done with the derail.  You can enjoy your idea of healing and I'll continue to be more correct.  :P  (IE i'll leave it as an unresolvable disagreement  ;) )
the problem with "because magic" is that in DnD there are both existing rules and assumptions about magic, there for there can be no "because magic" with out DM fiat.

  1. magic is daily 

  2. magic comes from somewhere. the weave, gods, elemental forces, etc.

  3. has a shape in the form of spells. which at the minimum means it must be programmed in some form

  4. with the latest pack and this edition components both physical and mental are required.

  5. there for magic is limited and subject to cause and effect. so unless they change magic to be spontaneous and require no energy from a system it can not be "because magic" in DnD.

with the DnD magic system player can never do any "because magic"  but they can Magic=(energy+matter)*action=effect as a cause of action. in Dnd magic as a rule has never been "because magic", causing it to be so is reflavoring and is on your head not the games. 

the point is healing word does not heal every form of damage "because magic" unless made to do so at the cost of energy from a god.
all physical damage causes mental trauma, that said mental trauma may cause physical symptoms. this may not be 1 for 1 in an abstract, but since they use a unified pool of hp trying to extract one from the other is not feasible. that said i think warlord should cause the use of HD to heal where as magical healing is applied directly to hp.


Extracting the two is very feasible.  If the Dm describes lost HPs from one attack as a matter of luck (non-physical hps) then you track that in one column while tracking HP loss as meat damage in another column.



well then you have 2 hp pools totaling to one not 1 pool

[Edit] we are off topic and this is something the gaming group should talk about

There is every reason for magic to heal the spirit as well as the body.  It's magic.  It's the medium used to suspend disbelief and by it's very nature can simply do whatever the designers want it to do.  No where does it say the cure spells only mend wounds.  It's easy to see magic as healing everything.  It's not with mundane/martial/nonmagical/nonsupernatural etc because a pep talk can really only cover so much.


There would be every reason if it said it did that.  It does not say that.  The cure spells do not say they restore luck or divine favor.  You are holding magic to a different standard by assuming all things are included unless stated otherwise.  And you are using "because magic" to justify it.  Well, the other side has their own justification: "because cinematic."  As I type this, I know that you will find "because cinematic" preposterous.  And that's a good thing, because that's exactly how I feel about the "because magic" excuse.  Either both excuses are valid (but not required at tables that don't want to use them) or neither are because neither of them is anymore inherently right than the other.



Well no, because everything that removes hit points is listed as damage.  Cure spells specifically cure that damage.  It's not an abstract coming off but not an abstract while going back on.

Cinematic is also covered within the hit point abstract simply by describing what happened to justify the hit points.  A pep talk healing physical damage is not cinematic, however.


You're conflating all damage with physical damage.  While that may be your preference, it's not an automatic corollary.

If hit points are a catch all abstract it's still far easier to justify magic as the cure for any part of it than a pep talk.  That pep talk certainly isn't going to give back some luck, divine intervention, or restore a bit of good karma.  It's easy to justify spiritual healing, physical healing, and restoration.  Magic is a better catch all for an abstract concept than the pep talk idea.

There isn't even any point to warlords healing with a pep talk.  Healing can be made available from a choice of several classes that make use of a game mechanic that's easier to justify.  The only way to justify warlord healing is to exlude things from the overall abtract in hit points.


That's not so.  Warlord healing in no way requires removal from the abstract.  The only thing it literally requires is the dual recognition that HP loss doesn't have to mean physical injury, and that physical injury doesn't have to mean HP loss.

Also, done with the derail.  You can enjoy your idea of healing and I'll continue to be more correct.  :P  (IE i'll leave it as an unresolvable disagreement  ;) )


Actually, it's perfectly resolvable; so long as we both agree that each others' playstyles are valid even if our preferences and table conventions differ.  And, for what it's worth, I like both magic and martial healing being able to heal all HP loss.  Which is to say that I accept both the excuses of "because magic" and "because cinematic" equally.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Sign In to post comments