Search results

Not always of course, I'm just kinda thinking about the median. Your average PC can't wander into the room next door to the one they started the campaign in, and summon a Fiend for a quick pact. Or hop on over to their artificer buddy's workshop, and procure a repeating firearm at a mate's...

"Relative commoners" in terms of knowledge and access, at the baseline. Mechanically it doesn't shake out that way, but they don't usually have much to draw on at the very start of a game.

I mean sure, but I'd argue PCs that start as relative "commoners" are pretty normal? Sure, but that still doesn't mean it's gonna work for/be available to everybody. For one reason or another. Some people simply will not enter a Warlock pact, because they believe it's a bad idea, they're genre...

We're getting back into "why doesn't every peasant simply become a master wizard" style logic. There are (usually) meaningful barriers to (greater) power, including but not limited to; knowledge, and access. They did! But when global knowledge of and access to firearms became the norm, and not...

You sure can! And y'know what it doesn't do? Cast at it's highest available level. Like it does when a Warlock casts it with a Warlock spell slot.

It's not though. A Wizard flatly cannot decide "well I'm a master of arcana, I'm just gonna only have my highest level spell slots like those warlock fellas, why not?". Warlocks have their own system of magic, that is a mechanical reflection of it's source. To cast the same spells, yes of...

Yeah honestly, there are a few legacy terms/concepts that seem like they'd solve a lot just by being reintegrated into the lexicon, they don't even necessarily have to have entirely new rules penned around them. Like I seem to remember when 5E started dipping it's toes into offering Psionic...

I think it feels worse just on the face of it than it materially would be in-game. Unless you have just problem players, in which case, if that wasn't on the table they'd be doing something else.

Yeah that's a nice way of considering it. I tend to contextualize it along the lines of "spellcasting to a Ranger is like Displacement is to a Displacer Beast, or Teleporting is to a Blink Dog, it's as natural and instinctual as any magical ability is for any other magical creature, because...

The stealth breaking bit isn't the only angle in this discussion, for me anyway. Some players dislike the idea of a Ranger muttering or gesticulating to cast spells from a flavour perspective, even outside of the mechanical implications. I see it a lot in Ranger discussions, some seem to dislike...

Anyone's free to disagree of course, but I don't think keeping it locked to just the Ranger spells (and those considered Ranger spells via subclasses) would be that big of a deal. It's a neat thing Rangers can do to keep up their stealth edge in close quarters/get an advantage against a more...

Kinda similar I guess? I'd say it's closer to, how Warlocks always have their highest spell slot and get 'em back on a short rest. It's a mechanical expression of how their spells work/are accessed.

You're treating magic and spellcasting as entirely homogenous, it's like an extension of that point "well why doesn't everyone in a fantasy setting learn magic", not everyone can. Not everyone has learned the right lessons, not everyone can apply the right lens... And even if something does...

I can't speak for everyone on this side of the fence, but here are my thoughts off the cuff; Thematically, I personally like the idea that a Ranger's connection to their magic, their spells, is different than the other casters. Comes from their intuition/instinct, that's their forte. When...

Shall we veto every mechanic this evil DM might concievably inflict on this solo player that's being made to fight other PC builds?

That's exactly the point though. There's no debate with your DM about whether a Gith can cast their Psionic Spells without components, for example. They can do it. It says so in the description of that ability, end of discussion. The argument is that Ranger's spellcasting would benefit from...

I mean, you can't just declare to your DM "I'm going to make a (whatever) check", they ask for a check and you make one. The point is, it's not enshrined in the Ranger's spellcasting mechanics to do that.

Says who? That sounds cool as hell.

I think they're saying their interpretation is; because they dropped the first usage, the 2nd attack and the 2nd application of Favoured Foe becomes "the first time you hit" all over again. It refreshes, it's as if the first attack and application didn't happen. Don't know if that's a reasonable...

I've liked the idea of Rangers being able to ignore components for their spells. Other casters have to supplement that lack of intuition and instinct by speaking coded phrases and signing in the air.