Horwath
Legend
This.
I see spells as Feats, anyone can take them if they have class resource to do so(spells known/spell slots)
D&D (2024) Abilities as Spells: splitting your abilities between class section and spell section
I see spells as Feats, anyone can take them if they have class resource to do so(spells known/spell slots)
Then you would be probably the only one. Because this idea was put forth 9 years ago when 5E was first released that if you wanted a Warlord, all you could do was just take the Cleric, strip off the names of things and insert "non-magical" terminology onto them, and then make a curated selection of spells who mechanics duplicated the actions you wanted a Warlord to have, and rename them and call them "exploits". Voila! You'd have a non-magical Leader whose abilities were as diverse as the Cleric's, but had none of those pesky "magic words" over everything.
But everyone said "No, that doesn't count". Why? Usually because of the arguments of 'spell components' and 'anti-magic fields' thrown up as the reasons why a Warlord made off of a Cleric chassis wouldn't be "non-magical". As though the idea of just ignoring components and anti-magic fields for this Warlord (two things that almost all of us already do) was impossible.
Nope... for some people once you tag a mechanic as something, that's what it is. You can't just refluff it or rename it and turn it into something else. Even if you have two mechanics that are exactly the same (this "martial exploit" grants an ally Advantage on their next attack, and this "arcane spell" grants an ally Advantage on their next attack), so long as one is tagged as magic and the other isn't... to them that's just how they are and are unmoving and unable to be different. And to get a non-magical version of a feature that doesn't yet exist of some magical feature that does, someone at WotC would have to write it down in a book and give it a snappy non-magical name for it to count.
Horwath
Legend
having features as spells is limiting in some situations.
That is why people do not want everything to be spells.
Spell components, especially Verbal seriously disable stealth play. There is also risk of counterspell, dispel magic, anti magic field as you mentioned.
Hunter's mark spell has Verbal components; somehow, I cannot imagine a ranger, as guerrilla warrior and hunter yell at his prey from top of his lungs: I AM TRACKING YOU NOW!!! and then Hunter's mark is cast on the target.
Our warlords right now are often refluffed sword or war bards not clerics. Then again most of our fighters are refluffed hexblade so I guess there are at least two of us.
Gorck
Prince of Dorkness
I couldn't see anything in the PHB that says a caster needs to "yell . . . from top of his lungs." I see no reason why the Ranger in question can't just whisper or mutter under their breath.
I'll make sure to mark that down on my tally sheet. Don't want to misconstrue any of the numbers in the future.
LOL!
The question though is how many DMs are actually forcing players to follow the letter of the law on these things? Are there DMs who are making all characters make grand verbal statements, wild hand gestures and pull out all kinds of components from their pouches because that is what "spells require" (and thus are "breaking stealth" for example)? Or are most DMs just doing what it seems like most do, which is completely ignore components anyway? And if that's the case, what difference does it make if Hunter's Mark is listed as a "spell" rather than a "class feature", if the actions the Ranger takes end up being the exact same thing?
Likewise... are there actually DMs out there that are Counterspelling or Dispelling Hunter's Marks or forcing Rangers into Anti-Magic Fields so they can't use their Hunter's Marks? How often is anything like that ever happening? When people bring those things up it always seems to me to be a "potential problem" of the system they are thinking of, but not one that actually ever happens. So something like Hunter's Mark being a spell versus a "magical class feature" does not end up having any appreciable difference at actual tables in actual games. Thus to me the idea we need to ask WotC to change up rules-- turn things from "spells" to "features" just so players can apparently play RAW (rather than just continue to ignore the rules we don't like) seems to me to be unnecessary.
Horwath
Legend
well, most DMs I played with say that the voice must be loud enough to be heard in battle.
And since 5E made cluster f..k of Skills and DCs and examples of, most people turn to 3.5e for guidelines on DCs, as there is next to none in 5E
And what is a Perception DC for hearing a sound of battle? DC: -10. So you need to be completely deaf not to here it. Or to be on a safe side, around 300ft from potential eavesdropper.
So Verbal components are completely up to DM, and if you play Baldurs gate or similar games, you can hear that casting a spell is at a volume of yelling.
PHB, just needs to write precise DCs for certain things, like Verbal components.
Gorck
Prince of Dorkness
I can see this for fullcasters like Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards. But for a Ranger that is often sneaking around in nature, I can easily picture them skulking in the bushes, spying on their target, and whispering, "You are mine" or "Now I have you" before using Hunter's Mark.
Horwath
Legend
spell is a spell. unless it is written directly into spell description, all spells have same volume of components cast by anyone, except with Subtle metamagic.
If they only put in that rangers ignore Verbal components of their spells. Ranger spells only, no multiclass cheese here.
