Search results

And this is where we disagree...or maybe agree with each other, but disagree with the game's design/take. lol. Full casting is, absolutely, baseline for a party caster. My contention is, the Bard is not, nor should ever be considered, a party caster. Your next sentence kinda sums up my thought...

Sure. Conducting it as a ritual is fine....But we need to dictate how often they can use rituals. They are rangers. They "know how" to conduct a few rituals. But I wouldn't necessarily give them free reign to spend all day working whatever rituals they have. How does ritual casting work for...

I actually toy with this for my homebrew system. Not with Rangers. But Paladins, for sure. I've gone back and forth whether or not Bards are better done this way. Make them a limited (5 levels? ish) worth of particular abilities available to any Neutral-aligned Rogue, Fighter, Druid... or...

Here's where we differ in interpretting narrative stuff from the game mechanics...I would posit that "doing miracles" is what any/all casting is supposed to be. That magic, of any type, functions/works is a spectacular thing. You don't have to legit be raising people from the dead or conjuring...

I c I could see that. Would have definitely been a step in the right direction as opposed to "full caster."

Right. I get that. Unbelievably, and it may not be a popular view, but it is entirely possible for a "majority" of feedback -or the "avidly vocal minority" of a playtest sample, more likely- to be wrong. Since when and why did people think a Bard was supposed to walk into a "full caster"...

I can get down with most of that. I, personally, as far as 5e is concerned, do think that a spell slot expense is, really, a minimum requirement for a 1 mile per level (or 6 miles! in favored terrain) esoteric radar. If you wanted to change it, narratively, to be a ritual (listening to the...

I don't know that I agree about the Rogue/Bard stepping on each other's toes. I totally agree with the Bard being...not what it should be. It absolutely boggles the mind how they created the design space of "half-casters" in the game, as a basic construct for integral classes. Then said, "Yes...

I really REALLY like this. I can get down with this too... And I am a STAUNCH "non-spell reliant Ranger" guy, through and through. But I LOVE this idea for breaking down and diversifying -and narratively differentiating- spell-using rangers. I might have to actually rewrite up a new Ranger...

I love this, of course. Elmore is my favorite D&D painter, of any edition, and foundationally shaped my imagination for the looks of my characters for years and years. I love, love, love Elmore. That said...Why does Laurana look like a pissed off Stevie Nicks?

I think, and I certainly can not speak for the actual reasons and mindset of Gygax, but it always seemed/made sense to me, that gatekeeping the subclasses (and monk and bard) behind ability scores served more than a "power-brokering" thing or any attempt at what we'd now call class...

Get outta my lane/head! lol.

Oh sure. I mean...mine are kind of "both," I guess. Each deity has their portfolio, and is "in charge" of their own particular facet(s) of reality. But they're still "running everything." But they aren't omnipresent or omnipotent (other than within their own spheres of influence)... nor...

As I've said elsewhere (other threads) over the years, I've done much of what you suggest. Homebrewing classes and setting specific things is -in my estimation- one of the great joys of D&D/fantasy RPGing. My "Arcane Magic" list is applicable, in it's entirety only to [what my game terms]...

I've been fiddling with, for years and with varying success, working on a way to incorporate both. That is, having the "Cleric's spell list" that any/all clerics would have access to. The, kind of, "baseline/basics" of what clerics must learn and master, wielding/handling the channeled power of...

I've gotten a bit lost about what it is the OP and subsequent discussion are arguing for...or against. Do [or Should?] the "class names" get used -like in conversation, amongst people- and/or have a meaning [I'm guessing, as understood in metagame] something within a setting? My answer to...

I like this. I mean not specifically using Xanathar's (though this is a pretty decent list, really). But could be fun to run up a list of particular characters that are setting specific. I mean more specific than this. Assign them to the classes to nations/regions within a setting. And...

There's room for both, I think. As hinted at in the op and above, the more general/base the class, the more open for interpretation and different places in the world. A thief is a rogue is a thief. Could be an acrobat guy with the traveling carnival. Could be an urchin pickpocket from the slums...

I liked it because you got to play Aragorn. ...and that half-elves could multiclass as ranger/clerics was super cool (and unique, in the day). Played a bunch of those.

Though I can't actually roll my eyes any louder (because as soon as I saw this post I agreed!), I am fairly certain you are correct.