D&D 5E (2024) Not a fan of the new Eldritch Knight

[TheSword]

Ah, you finally took a look at the rules. Even if the best you can do is repeat what I said way earlier, it's at least something.

But it is concerning the Influence Action, not the Suggestion spell. I also never said that it would be the charm effect that creates the willingness. I said that the charm effect is already by itself a change in thinking which you claimed wouldn't occur.

But the Suggestion spell creates the willingness and aligns the creature's desires with the urging. The Suggestion has to be a course of action, described in no more than 25 words, and achievable. "Be willing to the spells I cast on you" fulfills all these requirements because, of course, creating one's own willingness is a course of action, it is less than 25 words, achievable, and doesn't obviously deal damage to the target or its allies. Mental activities like thinking are actions and it says nothing in the spell that the course of action is limited to physical activity. And the charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability. The suggestion could equally be "like me", "love me", "be my friend", or anything else along those lines and per the spell's description, the creature would do its best to like me, love me, or be my friend. And nothing would change if I added a qualifier as in "like me willingly".

Thus, your only way out here would be to say that the target couldn't make himself willing, thus that the course of action would be unachievable. It would be nonsense because, of course, is that possible as phenomena like autosuggestion illustrate, but that would at least be something founded in the rules.

Be my guest, cheers, and good night!

By insult I was referring to the general tone as evidenced again here. But I persevered.

In hindsight I should have disengaged. Apologies for derailing the thread folks.

 

[Ancoulainn]

By insult I was referring to the general tone as evidenced again here. But I persevere.

I suggest you start checking your own tone first, starting with your first posting in the matter and then all the way through to the last one before pointing at others.

You took your definition of Willing from the Influence Action.

Yes, I took the definition for "willingness" from there. That does not mean that the Influence Action itself and in its entirety applies.

But ignored the rest of text on the matter. Particularly the section about DM designation. It’s not appropriate to then say the Influence text isn’t relevant.

Because that is the part that is for Influence Action. You cannot apply the requirements for the Influence Action and transfer them to the Suggestion spell, just because you took the definition for "willingness" from there. The caster is not taking the Influence Action here, so its requirements don't apply, even if you use a definition from there to analyze a different rule.

Nothing in the text for Suggestion states that it creates Willingness. If it did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

It doesn't have to. The Suggestion of the Suggestion spell can include "willingness". It requires a course of action and creating that willingness can be that course of action.

You’re trying to brute force the term into the spell effects by saying “Be willing to the spells I cast on you".

The brute forcing is from you. I'm just applying the rules as written.

However there are two stumbling blocks…

• Willing is a game term designated by the DM not something you can explain to a creature.

For the Influence Action, not for the Suggestion spell, so not applicable here. You're trying to brute force here.

• Even if it wasn’t, this suggestion is unreasonable because by including the phrase ‘be willing’ it indicates to the creature that they wouldn’t be otherwise.

I can suggest to somebody something that is already present and even if it were an insinuation that it otherwise weren't present, it would be inconsequential. Either the creature is already willing or it is not and becomes willing due to the spell. Either way, it is willing at the end. At best, it is no longer achievable, because it already has been achieved. But in that case, the target would be already willing to give in to Nystul's Magic Aura, so it's just a waste of a spell slot for Suggestion, but the outcome would be the same.

• “Be vulnerable” is not a reasonable suggestion to a typical creature in the normal course of things. Neither is “do this thing that I acknowledge you don’t want to do”

If your kids don't want to do their homework and you tell them that you understand they don't want to do it but still urge them to do them, that would also not be unreasonable. But by your logic, it would be because that would be saying “do this thing that I acknowledge you don’t want to do”.

I presume you would agree that ultimately the DM would decide if a given suggestion was reasonable?

No, because that's no longer a requirement of the spell. Under 2014 rules, the suggestion had to be reasonable. Under 2024 rules, it only requires to be achievable. The wording is "The suggestion must sound achievable and not involve anything that would obviously deal damage to the target or its allies."

 

[Zardnaar]

The dice rolls are made after the rest and then you substitute them before the d20-test is rolled. There's no whiffing possible because you already know the dice roll.

Nope! Tasha's is a core book. PHB, MM, DMG, TCoE, and XGtE are the core books of 5e.

???

Not often banned. You're incorrect. Never encountered it. Never heard from somebody that they encountered it. Only heard it vaguely mentioned on YouTube channels that certain DMs banned it.

Tashas ans Xanathars are explicitly marked as optional. Outright wrong their chief.

You can all high on the diviners rols. Useful but not as useful rolling low to force spells to fail.

So around half the time you "flunk" the diviners roll. You only get two. Its very limited use unless youre doing 5MWD.

Vs twin enchantment spels for free all the time. Low level diviners wins 10 idk bout that.

Tashas hideous laughter, command. Hold person, hold monster, ottoman dance, tashas mindwhip......

 

[Zardnaar]

I suggest you start checking your own tone first, starting with your first posting in the matter and then all the way through to the last one before pointing at others.

Yes, I took the definition for "willingness" from there. That does not mean that the Influence Action itself and in its entirety applies.

Because that is the part that is for Influence Action. You cannot apply the requirements for the Influence Action and transfer them to the Suggestion spell, just because you took the definition for "willingness" from there. The caster is not taking the Influence Action here, so its requirements don't apply, even if you use a definition from there to analyze a different rule.

It doesn't have to. The Suggestion of the Suggestion spell can include "willingness". It requires a course of action and creating that willingness can be that course of action.

The brute forcing is from you. I'm just applying the rules as written.

For the Influence Action, not for the Suggestion spell, so not applicable here. You're trying to brute force here.

I can suggest to somebody something that is already present and even if it were an insinuation that it otherwise weren't present, it would be inconsequential. Either the creature is already willing or it is not and becomes willing due to the spell. Either way, it is willing at the end. At best, it is no longer achievable, because it already has been achieved. But in that case, the target would be already willing to give in to Nystul's Magic Aura, so it's just a waste of a spell slot for Suggestion, but the outcome would be the same.

If your kids don't want to do their homework and you tell them that you understand they don't want to do it but still urge them to do them, that would also not be unreasonable. But by your logic, it would be because that would be saying “do this thing that I acknowledge you don’t want to do”.

No, because that's no longer a requirement of the spell. Under 2014 rules, the suggestion had to be reasonable. Under 2024 rules, it only requires to be achievable. The wording is "The suggestion must sound achievable and not involve anything that would obviously deal damage to the target or its allies."

Your tone basically sucks. Keep it up and youre blocked. Youll be the first ever. I dont block anyone.

1. Your experiences are not universal.

2. You've been blatantly wrong more than once.

3. Using your ow criteria (prove it) applied to your own claims you cant back up anything either.

Since every DM is different and optional material is exactly that......... Youre the only one using absolutes and assuming youre right.

 

[Ancoulainn]

1) If you have an issue with other people's tone, don't come out all high-and-mighty like the all-knowing expert of DnD like you and this other dude did. People may respond accordingly if you address them condescendingly and patronize them.

2) Absolute statements are statements that use words like always, never, all, and the like. I don't think I have used any of these words in any of my posts with regards to anything, so please show me where I have made such a statement. Otherwise, I assume you mean factual statements rather than personal or opinion statements. "Xyz is better" is a value judgment aka opinion. "I have never encountered this issue" is a personal statement. In contrast, "xyz is widely banned" is a factual statement that can be proven with quantified data. If you don't have that data or don't want to put in the effort, don't make such statements. In contrast, statements like "I have never had that issue" are personal anecdotes. They don't have the same weight, but at least they are honest. So, don't try to equate the two. And remember, if all you say is "xyz is widely banned", then I can say "xyz is not widely banned" and it's on the same level. If you lose your cool over that, that's on you.

3) In this context, don't try to accuse others of making "absolute" statements when you're the one who making "absolute" statements like "xyz is widely banned" or "xyz happens rarely" since you effectively don't and can't know that unless you did respective research which apparently neither of use has. At best, it may even show that you're out of touch with the community and not even familiar with the Adventurer's Guild rules, which are often used, especially for online play, and can be found here: D&D Adventurers League. FYI: These rules are regularly updated, so I suggest going here directly rather than reading about them on Reddit as you may read posts from several years ago and think they are just accurate when the rules have since then changed.

4) Don't make such sweeping statements as described above and then tell others, "your experiences aren't universal" because you just claimed that yours would be when you say things like "xyz are widely banned" because no, they are not widely banned from my experience.

5) If, however, you mean my statements with regards to the rules to the other dude, yeah, sorry, but no:

- You don't use rules for one thing and then apply them to something else, because that's not how rules work. You wouldn't use the rules for the Study Action to take the Utilize Action either.

- Just because you use a definition from page xyz to analyze something on page abc, you can't simultaneously use the rules from page xyz for what is described on page abc. If you use the rules for a traffic violation in a criminal investigation to define what a motorized vehicle is, would you give the perpetrator just a ticket for manslaughter because the traffic rules, where you got that definition from, speak of a ticket?

- Words have certain meanings as defined by the language and the rules in use, including the respective context. Or would you, if your kid pointed at a tree and proclaimed "dog", say that's it's a valid opinion that you respect, so now "tree" and "dog" are interchangeable in meaning and it's just a matter of interpretation?

- Speaking of which, "it's a matter of interpretation" without being backed up by respective analysis is a cop-out to pretend that your unreflected opinion would be equal to one by somebody who put time and effort into figuring something out. It's disrespectful to people who actually apply themselves to something, especially if you explicitly say that you don't want to be bothered by such things and actually don't care. It's like arguing with your doctor because you read something on WebMD and based on what the nurse I'm married to says, it's dealt with in similar fashion.

6) Don't dig your heels in over "xyz" being better than "abc" when you can't handle dissent.

7) Pointing out that I have been wrong without being able to back it up just repeats your opinion from before and nothing more. Everyone is wrong all the time about something. Some more than others.

8) Don't argue over topics that you don't know anything about, because if you do, you won't have any valid or reasonable arguments. If you don't even want to put in the effort to inform yourself about the topic of discussion, all it shows is that you are there to argue for the sake of antagonizing other. And that other dude all but said so explicitly when he said that he just wanted to ensure that people coming to these forums see dissenting views. And I didn't even point that out, partially because I'm not emotionally involved here. But regardless, if you do that nonetheless, don't complain if others respond accordingly because they might.

9) Don't tell people that you don't want to continue the conversation, then reply anyway, and then block them before they can reply. It only shows that you're one of those people who are desperate to have the last say. The other dude did just that, so I'll just tell you in advance, in case you plan to do the same.

10) And finally, to illustrate some of the above:

You said:

Since every DM is different and optional material is exactly that......... Youre the only one using absolutes and assuming youre right.

which is exactly what I said earlier:

Otherwise, everything is always optional.

So, don't act otherwise and stop projecting when you're the one making "absolute" statements like

Its also like the twilight cleric though as in most DMs wont allow it but its obscure book as well.

or

Twilight clerics widely banned.

, especially when you can't back them up and the book is Tasha's.

In short and as I told the other guy, check yourself before pointing fingers at others because neither of you is even an ounce better than what you're complaining about. But if you want to block me, go ahead and do it. It won't change a thing for me. And whether I'm the first on that list or not doesn't really matter. It shows more about you than me either way and my mantra is "if you have a problem with me, that's your problem."

I'm able to just let it go. Are you?

 

[Zardnaar]

1) If you have an issue with other people's tone, don't come out all high-and-mighty like the all-knowing expert of DnD like you and this other dude did. People may respond accordingly if you address them condescendingly and patronize them.

2) Absolute statements are statements that use words like always, never, all, and the like. I don't think I have used any of these words in any of my posts with regards to anything, so please show me where I have made such a statement. Otherwise, I assume you mean factual statements rather than personal or opinion statements. "Xyz is better" is a value judgment aka opinion. "I have never encountered this issue" is a personal statement. In contrast, "xyz is widely banned" is a factual statement that can be proven with quantified data. If you don't have that data or don't want to put in the effort, don't make such statements. In contrast, statements like "I have never had that issue" are personal anecdotes. They don't have the same weight, but at least they are honest. So, don't try to equate the two. And remember, if all you say is "xyz is widely banned", then I can say "xyz is not widely banned" and it's on the same level. If you lose your cool over that, that's on you.

3) In this context, don't try to accuse others of making "absolute" statements when you're the one who making "absolute" statements like "xyz is widely banned" or "xyz happens rarely" since you effectively don't and can't know that unless you did respective research which apparently neither of use has. At best, it may even show that you're out of touch with the community and not even familiar with the Adventurer's Guild rules, which are often used, especially for online play, and can be found here: D&D Adventurers League. FYI: These rules are regularly updated, so I suggest going here directly rather than reading about them on Reddit as you may read posts from several years ago and think they are just accurate when the rules have since then changed.

4) Don't make such sweeping statements as described above and then tell others, "your experiences aren't universal" because you just claimed that yours would be when you say things like "xyz are widely banned" because no, they are not widely banned from my experience.

5) If, however, you mean my statements with regards to the rules to the other dude, yeah, sorry, but no:

- You don't use rules for one thing and then apply them to something else, because that's not how rules work. You wouldn't use the rules for the Study Action to take the Utilize Action either.

- Just because you use a definition from page xyz to analyze something on page abc, you can't simultaneously use the rules from page xyz for what is described on page abc. If you use the rules for a traffic violation in a criminal investigation to define what a motorized vehicle is, would you give the perpetrator just a ticket for manslaughter because the traffic rules, where you got that definition from, speak of a ticket?

- Words have certain meanings as defined by the language and the rules in use, including the respective context. Or would you, if your kid pointed at a tree and proclaimed "dog", say that's it's a valid opinion that you respect, so now "tree" and "dog" are interchangeable in meaning and it's just a matter of interpretation?

- Speaking of which, "it's a matter of interpretation" without being backed up by respective analysis is a cop-out to pretend that your unreflected opinion would be equal to one by somebody who put time and effort into figuring something out. It's disrespectful to people who actually apply themselves to something, especially if you explicitly say that you don't want to be bothered by such things and actually don't care. It's like arguing with your doctor because you read something on WebMD and based on what the nurse I'm married to says, it's dealt with in similar fashion.

6) Don't dig your heels in over "xyz" being better than "abc" when you can't handle dissent.

7) Pointing out that I have been wrong without being able to back it up just repeats your opinion from before and nothing more. Everyone is wrong all the time about something. Some more than others.

8) Don't argue over topics that you don't know anything about, because if you do, you won't have any valid or reasonable arguments. If you don't even want to put in the effort to inform yourself about the topic of discussion, all it shows is that you are there to argue for the sake of antagonizing other. And that other dude all but said so explicitly when he said that he just wanted to ensure that people coming to these forums see dissenting views. And I didn't even point that out, partially because I'm not emotionally involved here. But regardless, if you do that nonetheless, don't complain if others respond accordingly because they might.

9) Don't tell people that you don't want to continue the conversation, then reply anyway, and then block them before they can reply. It only shows that you're one of those people who are desperate to have the last say. The other dude did just that, so I'll just tell you in advance, in case you plan to do the same.

10) And finally, to illustrate some of the above:

You said:

which is exactly what I said earlier:

So, don't act otherwise and stop projecting when you're the one making "absolute" statements like

or

, especially when you can't back them up and the book is Tasha's.

In short and as I told the other guy, check yourself before pointing fingers at others because neither of you is even an ounce better than what you're complaining about. But if you want to block me, go ahead and do it. It won't change a thing for me. And whether I'm the first on that list or not doesn't really matter. It shows more about you than me either way and my mantra is "if you have a problem with me, that's your problem."

I'm able to just let it go. Are you?

You were claiming its not widely banned. Most might be wrong I was more meaning amoung DMs who do ban stuff for balance reasons.

Its tge most common banned thing online imho followed by silvery barbs.

The various splatbooks are strictly optional however hell even 5.0 phb sone races and feats are explicit about being optional. Not optional as in a DM can theoretically ban anything but according to WotC.

I dont generally can phb stuff at least classes and races unless I'm doing a really Non standard campaign.

But if I play with another DM one of the first questions I ask is what's allowed. I dont assume all books are legal.

 

[Ancoulainn]

You were claiming its not widely banned.

I said that in response to your claim that it would be. You didn't back yours up, so I didn't have to either.

Most might be wrong I was more meaning amoung DMs who do ban stuff for balance reasons.

So, yeah, among those DMs who ban things at all, the Twilight Cleric might be one of the first things they ban. Sure, that's possible because it makes sense. Had you said that, I would have responded in the same way as here.

Its tge most common banned thing online imho followed by silvery barbs.

I have a different experience, both when playing in person and when playing online, but then again, I also don't play with DMs who ban things because I'd rather have the NPCs use the same abilities, spells, and features on the party than ban them because in my opinion, that makes the game more interesting. So, these DMs are an automatic swipe left for me. But I also rarely meet DMs who ban things and haven't in years. Beyond what the Adventurers' Guild bans, at least, because I understand that it's a good source of reference that DMs use to make their job easier and to avoid miscommunication.

The various splatbooks are strictly optional however hell even 5.0 phb sone races and feats are explicit about being optional. Not optional as in a DM can theoretically ban anything but according to WotC.

Everything is optional all the time. At this time, even the old 2014 PHB subclasses are considered optional and that would include the Enchantment Wizard since the subclass has not been updated in the 2024 PHB. And even when Arcana Unleashed releases this year, like the Heroes of Faerun subclasses, it would remain optional based on your parameters. In other words, we were comparing two optional subclasses here to begin with. Yes, in 2026, since the release of the 2024 PHB, subclasses from the 2014 PHB are "obscure" to use your wording. If you play 5.24e, that is, which I assume since we are talking here about the 2024 Eldritch Knight, not the 2014 version.

I dont generally can phb stuff at least classes and races unless I'm doing a really Non standard campaign.

Ok

But if I play with another DM one of the first questions I ask is what's allowed. I dont assume all books are legal.

I don't, because I expect the DM to say that upfront and I haven't met one who doesn't, if we include the ones who refer to the Adventurers' Guild guidelines. Nor would I play with one. I simply don't like that exclusionary mentality and to me, it always feels like "I don't want to deal with it, so I ban it" which is not a good enough reason for me and a red flag to me.

Besides, it really doesn't take much effort and I do it all the time when I DM. First comes the campaign synapsis and then comes an explanation for character creation. Sentences like "you can choose your species, classes, and subclasses from the PHB, TCoE, EGtE, FRHoF, and FotA" takes ten seconds to write and making that decision is always part of my creation process when setting up a campaign anyway because it's important that the characters fit thematically into the campaign. It's like when you're writing a play, no matter for what, you always have in the back of your mind who you want to play what. And if the player has a good backstory for something I did not originally green-light, I still allow it anyway. If they put in the effort to come up with something good, I'd hate to disappoint them.

But character power is never a consideration for me because I can always adjust the encounters and creating a monster that fits the bill takes maybe 15-20 minutes. As a matter of fact, I always want my players to be as powerful as possible because it just makes for more epic combat and since most of us find combat the least interesting part of a campaign, we have no encounters that aren't in the deadly category because if it isn't epic, it's a waste of time to us. As one of my players once put it "If we can't lose the encounter, there's no reason to have it. You might just as well narrate it and get it over with."

Same applies to how the ability scores are determined which should also be stated upfront by the DM. I made the mistake once to not do that and ended up with a player who came to the table with pre-rolled ability scores and 4 of them were 18s at level 1. But that was also a guy who wanted to adapt a 3.5 race to 5.24e, wanted to start with 3 origin feats because of what the 3.5 race said unadapted, if I remember correctly, have all the fighting styles because Tasha's was allowed and he ignored that those were alternative choice options, and use two Longswords with Dual Wielder, even though we were playing 5.24.

But then again, I now only play with a group of local friends and three of us are DMing a campaign each and the overlap between the groups is about 60%, so we know each other's styles and don't have to say much anymore at all. We all use point buy, never ban anything, and whenever there are questions, we bend the rules in the favor of the player. For example, the equipment of Moon Druids merges with their Wildshape and loses its effect and we don't do that because we think that the difference between Wildshape and Polymorph needs to be more noticeable than it is.

And when there's a player whom we didn't know, I always try to work with them. And even when the others in the group ask me to kick them, I usually still try to make things work. Because of that, I don't think I have ever kicked somebody from a campaign. Generally, we just continue to tell them what our expectations are and most people who don't want to play along, leave on their own. Especially my wife is quite expressive with her eyerolls when she disapproves of something. They are impossible to overlook.

 

[Zardnaar]

I said that in response to your claim that it would be. You didn't back yours up, so I didn't have to either.

So, yeah, among those DMs who ban things at all, the Twilight Cleric might be one of the first things they ban. Sure, that's possible because it makes sense. Had you said that, I would have responded in the same way as here.

I have a different experience, both when playing in person and when playing online, but then again, I also don't play with DMs who ban things because I'd rather have the NPCs use the same abilities, spells, and features on the party than ban them because in my opinion, that makes the game more interesting. So, these DMs are an automatic swipe left for me. But I also rarely meet DMs who ban things and haven't in years. Beyond what the Adventurers' Guild bans, at least, because I understand that it's a good source of reference that DMs use to make their job easier and to avoid miscommunication.

Everything is optional all the time. At this time, even the old 2014 PHB subclasses are considered optional and that would include the Enchantment Wizard since the subclass has not been updated in the 2024 PHB. And even when Arcana Unleashed releases this year, like the Heroes of Faerun subclasses, it would remain optional based on your parameters. In other words, we were comparing two optional subclasses here to begin with.

Ok

I don't, because I expect the DM to say that upfront and I haven't met one who doesn't, if we include the ones who refer to the Adventurers' Guild guidelines. Nor would I play with one. I simply don't like that exclusionary mentality and to me, it always feels like "I don't want to deal with it, so I ban it" which is not a good enough reason for me. Besides, it really doesn't take much effort and I do it all the time when I DM. First comes the campaign synapsis and then comes an explanation for character creation. Sentences like "you can choose your species, classes, and subclasses from the PHB, TCoE, EGtE, FRHoF, and FotA" takes ten seconds to write and making that decision is always part of my creation process when setting up a campaign anyway because it's important that the characters fit thematically into the campaign. It's like when you're writing a play, no matter for what, you always have in the back of your mind who you want to play what. But character power is never a consideration for me because I can always adjust the encounters and creating a monster that fits the bill takes maybe 15-20 minutes. As a matter of fact, I always want my players to be as powerful as possible because it just makes for more epic combat and since most of us find combat the least interesting part of a campaign, we have no encounters that aren't in the deadly category.

And if the player has a good backstory for something I did not originally green-light, I still allow it anyway. If they put in the effort to come up with something good, I'd hate to disappoint them.

Same applies to how the ability scores are determined which should also be stated upfront by the DM. I made the mistake once to not do that and ended up with a player who came to the table with pre-rolled ability scores and 4 of them were 18s at level 1. But that was also a guy who wanted to adapt a 3.5 race to 5.24e, wanted to start with 3 origin feats because of what the 3.5 race said unadapted, if I remember correctly, have all the fighting styles because Tasha's was allowed and he ignored that those were alternative choice options, and use two Longswords with Dual Wielder, even though we were playing 5.24.

But then again, I now only play with a group of local friends and three of us are DMing a campaign each and the overlap between the groups is about 60%, so we know each other's styles and don't have to say much anymore at all. We all use point buy, never ban anything, and whenever there are questions, we bend the rules in the favor of the player. For example, the equipment of Moon Druids merges with their Wildshape and loses its effect and we don't do that because we think that the difference between Wildshape and Polymorph needs to be more noticeable than it is.

And when there's a player whom we didn't know, I always try to work with them. And even when the others in the group ask me to kick them, I usually still try to make things work. Because of that, I don't think I have ever kicked somebody from a campaign. Generally, we just continue to tell them what our expectations are and most people who don't want to play along, leave on their own. Especially my wife is quite expressive with her eyerolls when she disapproves of something. They are impossible to overlook.

To be clear I generally dont mix class abilities from settings.

So no circle casting in Eberron and setting specific S tier stuff usually stays in that setting.

Eg if you want Ravnica backgrounds play Ravnica.

Things like that and the Dragonmarks can give various classes access to spells they dont normally get. That leads to various combos eg moon druid with spirit guardians.

 

[Ancoulainn]

To be clear I generally dont mix class abilities from settings.

So no circle casting in Eberron and setting specific S tier stuff usually stays in that setting.

Eg if you want Ravnica backgrounds play Ravnica.

Things like that and the Dragonmarks can give various classes access to spells they dont normally get. That leads to various combos eg moon drift with spirit guardians.

I don't know what Moon Drift is. I just tried to look it up and came up empty. Do you mean Moonlight Step or Starlight Step? I also don't think any Dragonmark gives Spirit Guardians or its Druid-equivalent Conjure Woodland Beings. Just looked through FotA and didn't see it.

But regardless, I have no issue with any of that as long as the character fits thematically into the campaign. You might say, I wouldn't care to have a character with powers like Darth Vader in Middle Earth as long as it isn't Darth Vader but a character who fits the theme of Middle Earth.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know what Moon Drift is. I just tried to look it up and came up empty. Do you mean Moonlight Step or Starlight Step? I also don't think any Dragonmark gives Spirit Guardians or its Druid-equivalent Conjure Woodland Beings. Just looked through FotA and didn't see it.

But regardless, I have no issue with any of that as long as the character fits thematically into the campaign. You might say, I wouldn't care to have a character with powers like Darth Vader in Middle Earth as long as it isn't Darth Vader but a character who fits the theme of Middle Earth.

Detp my bad Moon Druid with spirit guardians.

I prefer the caps between the good players and casuals to be closer.

Recently we had a Bezerker Barbarian doing its thing and I could tell one player wasnt having as much fun as they were vastly outclassed. Both were playing strikers.

Its things like that.

Moon Druid with spirit guardians is legal but makes little sense flavor wise.