Search results

Also a significant setback, but not worse than death.

I wouldn't want to lose my grandfather's sword either. But given the choice between that and death...well, I wouldn't choose death, and I wouldn't consider the threat of death less scary than the threat if losing a prized possession. And your concern about tougher resurrection (not more...

I don't spend a lot if time at high levels, and the games I play have IMO a better martial/caster balance than vanilla 5e (albeit in different ways).

So it's a good thing? Cool.

So like 4e rituals? Is there an in fiction explanation for why magic works that way?

The Level Up ranger is not a spellcaster (unless you choose the Wildborn archetype that has spells). Instead, it has a variety of class features that enhance exploration, combat, and (to a less degree) social options. Most provide a choice from several options at level up. Rangers also have...

I can see it as an optional class feature. It just has less utility (but not no utility) if you aren't a spellcaster.

It's IMO an unfortunate attitude that has little to do with what most any character would actually do in the fiction.

Corpse run!

High level D&D never made much sense to me anyway. One way to counteract this feeling is to make resurrection magic (beyond stuff like revive, which I think should be out of combat or with a longer casting time) extremely difficult to accomplish and not without consequences. Most fiction treats...

The spellcasting archetype I suggested should definitely have that spell.

That's too bad IMO. Gear is replaceable, in kind if not exactly. Few characters in the fiction would rather die than lose their sweet axe, so the attitude would be a problem for me too. That being said, if the table wants to play that way more power to them.

I understand where you're coming from regarding high level spells, but that scaling down is much harder to do when the effect in question isn't about damage. At some point, to maintain parity (if that is your goal) I think you would need to compromise effect. Personally I feel that high level...

I don't think rangers should have spells at all as a default, just class features focusing on exploration first, then combat (with a smattering of social options). If you want a magical ranger, include an archetype that features spellcasting. Such spells should IMO have a druidic feel.

I think she likes 13th Age. That might be a feature for her.

This is assuming tradition distribution of power. The GM, largely or entirely, makes the world and controls everything that isn't the PCs. If you could somehow make them do that for a game they didn't enjoy, I think it's pretty obvious that's not going to be a fun game for anyone. If a player...

They can reflect, but that doesn't mean they should just start running what the players want if it wouldn't be fun for them.

I don't know. A5e made a bunch of changes to accommodate its exploration and supply rules, but it still has rangers, and it's not exactly low magic by default.

Sure, but how big a deal is that really?

No it doesn't, and if that was offensive to you I apologize.