Search results

Covered already. But since you jumped into the pool, I will ask the same of you. If those other cantrips had a few opportunity costing class choices designed to augment them, would they elevate to "must have" territory? Would your cleric be compelled to take sacred flame at that point? Would...

Thank you for responding. And I agree. Even if it had the same number of additional opportunity cost class choices to enhance it, it would still not be a "must have". Just as is the case with eldritch blast.

Agreed. Third parties are going to throw all kinds of stuff out there. I just don't want WotC to feel like they need to compete with the glut by producing a glut of their own.

That being said, as a DM, I would totally allow an archer EK to choose "quiver of arrows" as their second weapon bond. But that's just me trying to adhere to the Rule of Cool.

Anecdote Time! One of the greatest ongoing experiences of my entire gaming life involved a long-running campaign (started out in AD&D, ran through 3e) in which I played a quite committed LE warlock joined up with a LG knight, and NG cleric. We had a unified goal. Amazing character interaction...

For those of you saying EKs make great archers, to which I like the idea of it as well, but... It seems unfortunate that weapon bond doesn't appear to allow for ammunition. Which is a shame.

FWIW, in my setting, the rapier is a distinctly elven weapon by design. Sure, all those foppish human dandies like to run around dueling with them and all, but it is elf in origin none-the-less.

I was speaking more of the type of person who was "beaten up" in some other thread, who then jumps into another thread to white-knight and chastise someone else. Pouncing on someone else hoping to prove them wrong or make them look lesser because of some need to feel better about themselves in...

There seem to be a few posters who consistently try to undermine by dismissal. Most of the time as a third party trying to be seen white knighting. Often because they didn't like being shown to be wrong, sometimes by whomever they are currently hoping to cast shade on, sometimes not, in another...

Oh, so additional opportunity cost class features? That's great. If you want to use them up to be that one-trick pony. Oh, you know what? Clerics get other opportunity cost class features too. Giving them tricks warlocks can't do either. So you are saying that, if such a thing existed, clerics...

Then please, explain how the two cantrips are not comparable. By any standard. If anything sacred flame can be seen as potentially better in a lot of situations.

How is it not? They are both the primary damage dealing cantrip exclusive to their respective classes. How much more apples-to-apples can two game elements get?

People 'want' all kinds of things. That doesn't necessarily mean the game would be well served trying to meet all those 'wants'. Would you believe, there is a game systems to emulate that very thing. The point being, there are different systems that meet different needs. And that's okay. And...

Come now. Those aren't apples-to apples. Try to stay between the goalposts. Those first two are not choices made within a class option, such as a caster choosing to know a particular spell. Because that's the argument. Your third attempt would be more apropos if you asked, "Must all 5th-level...

Must all bards take vicious mockery? All clerics sacred flame? All druids shillelagh? Seems that is the implication I'm getting from some.

So, after 500+ posts,... Can we agree that trying to shoehorn what 4e did with the warlord, into a completely different system like 5e, is like trying to fit 50 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack? Or is it still a no contest?

My point was that none of us can lay claim to having any kind of real stake/horse/dead in this debate/race/funeral. Except for the devs themselves and DMGuild submitters, perhaps. We are all spectators and recievers of free literature. How can we complain in good faith either way? They provided...

Are you somehow of the opinion that the current UA article does not contain content? (And I can't see how anyone here can have a stake in this debate, whatever that even means.)

Um, this current UA article meets the criteria of this "promise" you claim they are breaking.

Then it would seem an odd stance to try and discount or marginalize my take on the rules, supplanting them with your own interpretation, in an effort to "correct" me. Weird. Anyway... Between my bard's prestidigitation and the cleric's [/i]purify food and drink[/i], We can no only stomach...