D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[FrozenNorth]

Fanatical faith is not exclusive to paladins.

True, to bring the discussion back to sorcerers, you could totally create a Divine Soul Sorcerer who instead of being blessed by a Celestial, derives their magic from their powerful faith, without being beholden to a god.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Every one of those gets their superpowers from something diagetically capable of providing them.

Who gives the ranger and monk superpowers?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would argue that since he could understand the language of thrushes, Bard could have been a ranger.

Definitely in my version of 5e, rangers can pick up a “ranger discipline” that allows them to understand the speech of beasts. Not sure it’s something generally available to rangers though.

 

[FrogReaver]

Would you allow any character, regardless of class, to access barbarian rage if there was a sufficiently triggering reason?

If not, it's more than just road rage.

By taking no levels in barbarian you’ve indicated that your fighter doesn’t get stronger when angry - not necessarily that he cannot but that he doesn’t.

Its the difference in what is and what must be.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that answers a different question . Your background should inform who you are, it shouldn’t limit who you become.

My cleric’s background is that he is an acolyte of his faith. He served as a priest in his village for years before he was called for something greater. Should the DM limit the cleric’s spellcasting because most acolytes aren’t empowered to cast spells?

So why should fighters be limited to mundane features just because soldier and town guard are common backgrounds?

I didn't say limit. I said influence, as in very important to. My background as an acolyte was a very important influence in my PC becoming a cleric. His being an acolyte of Mystra was instrumental in his decision to choose the magic domain and Mystra as the deity he became a cleric of.

I was pushing back against your statement that background stops being important once you get that 1st level in your class. For a lot of us that isn't true. It continues to be important throughout the career of the PC, influencing the subclass chosen as well as possible multiclasses and other subclasses.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, but their narrative role was defenders of Christianity. So the religious connotation was there from the start.

It’s all about where you set the limits.

I get that it’s a little silly to say “Charlemagne’s paladins were defenders of Christianity, it doesn’t make sense to have them as zealous warriors in an openly polytheistic society”

But is it any less silly to go “having zealous warriors for non-Christian gods is fine, but zealous warriors in defense of a non-god cause or ideal, THAT doesn’t make sense.”

 

[Maxperson]

Definitely in my version of 5e, rangers can pick up a “ranger discipline” that allows them to understand the speech of beasts. Not sure it’s something generally available to rangers though.

Speak with Animals is on their spell list. It's not a base ability like Bard the Bowman had, but if you translate Bard to D&D, ranger works as an option.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I was pushing back against your statement that background stops being important once you get that 1st level in your class. For a lot of us that isn't true. It continues to be important throughout the career of the PC, influencing the subclass chosen as well as possible multiclasses and other subclasses.

That was someone else’s statement, so I’ll let them defend for themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

That was someone else’s statement, so I’ll let them defend for themselves.

You are correct. When you replied I thought it was you who said it. In any case, my above post is why I said influence, which is different from limitation.

 

[Stormonu]

If the chant that Bard used before shooting the Black Arrow was magical, does that make Bard magical as well? I would argue that it doesn’t, and therefore Bard is a reasonable representative of a mid-to-high level fighter.

The main point is that it is Bard’s player’s choice as to how magical he is, and whether actions in game are magical. Maybe one Rogue’s Evasion ability is tied to his being a tiefling, tabaxi or a halfling, or having some sort of latent magical ability, or just being that good.

But tagging Evasion with a Ex tag or a Su tag is a solution in search of a problem.

The (Ex) and (Su) tag was more for handling what Dispel Magic/Counterspell/Anti-magic Shell and the like could stop - which was a huge factor in 3E (and the source of many an argument/discussion in prior editions). With 5E's non-spell list stat blocks, I'd like to see some of that come back.