Search results

I dunno. You can if you want I guess?

Oh yeah for sure. Like I get them being reluctant to mess with that sorta stuff for the main chunk of 5E's lifespan, but. Bit of a shame they never did.

I mean technically Fighter has additional (attack) actions as their thing too, sorta. Somewhat double-dipping in that respect. But yeah possibly. I don't necessarily have huge problems with 5E's designs for the other classes like some folks. Not in "you should try another system" territory yet...

That's the sorta thing I might like for Ranger. I was messing with something in that vein for my homebrew; I wanted them to have more means of capitalizing on their bonus damage mechanic. I figured they probably can't get more Extra Attacks because that's Fighter's bag, so I gave them a later...

Do sorta agree, but I still reckon those are solveable issues. I like what BG3 did for the Thief subclass specifically, just gave them an additional bonus action. Universally useful, nominally relevant for specific Thief/Rogue things.

Yes, I think that's accurate. I don't really care about this discussion. You got anything else?

Spell scrolls specifically don't require any components. So okay, pretend I said that then. I mean, I agree, so I have no idea why you brought settings up. That's what I was expressing confusion over.

I mean. It was the point I was making. The initial question was about power-gaming multiclass combinations, and the reasons why a given occupant of a world might not immediately rush to achieve the pinnacle of power. Not everyone can, not everyone wants to. It came out of a point about Ranger...

But that is my point! Something might be, in a mechanical sense, the absolute highest power a person can achieve in a setting, but not everybody can do that, nor does everyone want to! Even when they're risking their skin going out to fight stuff.

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...