Search results

This is a spell with a casting ime of 1 reaction. THE EFFECT: you cast a spell (expending the required resources like normal, except spell slots and you dont need to know it). Its clear enough given the way 5e does things and how its worded but it may be deceptively stated.

Thank you for the thoughtful response! Alot of good points, especially concerning your ruling and perspective on Wizard and Sorceror (although I may resist making it into a sorc specific class feature). EDIT: I figured the sor would be a point of contention and i, seemingly much like yourself...

Dont think there is any rule that say advantage gives you +5 to the relevant role (I am aware, however, that it is apparently demonstrable that rolling 2d20, taking the higher result averages out to a value around 5 higher than merely rolling 1d20; but I dont think it is a rule or a variant...

I dont find it OP. invisibility for what 1 round? 2/day or 1/day invis until end of next turn is NOT OP. I mean invisibility only confers advantage/disadvantage (enemie you go invis in front of during combat still PERCEIVE you (or at least can unless you make a stealth check; which this abiility...

Yeah the sorcerer is by far the biggest problem and (all) points well taken... EDIT: that sorc may be subpar though; using your reaction every round excludes usage of well OTHER reactions (like counterspell, shield, etc.) in a high level fight THIS IS A DAMNED RISKY SPELL TO USE

Yet game designers keep doing it... but my statements were slightly different than yours and you have clearly identified an interesting thesis that does not forge a connection between too powerful and most desired... and maybe you identified the real heart of the issue and I havent exactly...

go on...

This WAS a spell in 3.5e... but well taken, although spell selection is still relevant; you still need your current highest level spells and also you only get 1 reaction in a ROUND (it may still be advantageous to NOT cast this spell andcastt either a level 1 spell normally or else a level 2...

NOTE: About above disucssion, I was concerned with the principle and not trying to justify inclusion of anyspell based off of the weight of that principle (i.e. I am independently curious about the truth of such principles. And the criticisms about anyspell (aside from the "any person criticism"...

Yeah I understood that (although I did use examples that indicated I was talking about the meaning of the words and not the impact on the players psychology, or the meaning of the act itself; but just because everyone does something does ot mean it is meaningless to THEM... it just doesnt.. I am...

As a note: sliding between "alwasy chosen" "meaningless" and"too powerful" is slieght of hand at best, seriously... In fact, I imagine if it was meaningless then it couldnt be too powerful nor alwasy chosen (who would choose a feature that is meaningless to them? and how could a meaningless rule...

I respect your opinion, but as far as I am concerned the PRINCIPLE IS LITERALLY FALSE (and you are engaged in wordplay). Further, I am making a claim about the GENERAL connection between the psychological states of players and the mechanical power of a feature; IT WILL BE HARD TO AaRGUE FOR THIS...

Huh? Stares blanky... (and yes i have heard thi s and wondered about the reasons people give for it; suffice t o say I am not impressed by the reasons) EDIT: but seriously, I want to makeit a spell because it seems to be in the vein of 5e and alo i want it to be accessible to many classes...

Well THAT condition IS NOT SATISFIED for any spell or choice as a matter of fact so the principle is moot. But, in general, and as I formulated it above, it was about what players would choose And, so if ALL PLAYERS would choose, say [insert mechanically weak SPELL; Friends, idk] that would mean...

As a note: in this context i hear alot the following: Dominant Preference Principle: IF X is such that any player would choose X above any other feature option then X is too powerful of a feature option (where X is some specific feature or option your character can gain or choose but does not...

I think everycaster WOULD GET IT... you have mastered magic to such an extent that once you reach the ability to cast 2nd level spells 1st level spells come easy...

I wanted to go with casting time varies but thought that actually specifying the action cost was more consistent with how other 5e spells were written; I think it actually works smoother with 5e rules; a TRIGGER: well you think about it or mutter something (that could be the verbal component)...

As an FYI Wish already allows casting a, say, 10 min csting time spell, as an action.

You arent exactly reading it right. You USE a reaction to cast ANYSPELL and then CHOOSE ANY spell on your list an CAST IT without spending a slot or needing to know the spel; but you still must expend the action cost of the spell... But yes if you use a 9th level spell slot you can cat any 8th...

No problem, really. But this is a spell that would exists IMO; and also itfills that storytelling void of those fantastical tales of people that can seemingly do anything at all with a thought.. And also, I like the idea of a more flexible magic system and this is a straightforward way to...