Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9210924" data-attributes="member: 6807784">Why would casting a Cantrip be any easier then casting a spell? It's easier to cast a 2d10 firebolt (11 fire damage) then it is to cast burning hands (11 fire damage)? Blah blah blah it's a cone blah blah blah.Cantrips, for the most part, are not interesting. Firebolt is not interesting. I'd much prefer to have a FUN mechanic to fall back on if my spells can be wasted by people interrupting them. If I can't make weird handsigns and say funny words while dodging swords, give me something interesting to do while dodging swords. Having to dodge swords just to do the only thing my class can do isn't really worth my time. But if dodging swords and having another option, like the Components one I mentioned above, would be way more fun. If I could raise my Crystal Ball and daze my opponent with visions for a turn (reliably), and so on, that'd be dope.Keep in mind none of what people are saying in this thread makes the half-casters any more fun to play. Rangers already have a hard time using spells due to almost all of them requiring concentration. Now they can't use spells when they melee? Now my Paladin can't use bonus action smite spells due to melee? It's just not fun, man. I don't get why giving magical classes something fun to do other then spells is an idea worth arguing against. What is it about this that you disagree with? It's wrong to want my Sorcerer to be able to spend a sorcery point to punch the heck out of someone if I can't cast spells in melee? It's wrong if I want to burn spell slots to use Channel Divinity since I can't cast in melee??</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shardstone, post: 9210924, member: 6807784"] Why would casting a Cantrip be any easier then casting a spell? It's easier to cast a 2d10 firebolt (11 fire damage) then it is to cast burning hands (11 fire damage)? Blah blah blah it's a cone blah blah blah. Cantrips, for the most part, are not interesting. Firebolt is not interesting. I'd much prefer to have a FUN mechanic to fall back on if my spells can be wasted by people interrupting them. If I can't make weird handsigns and say funny words while dodging swords, give me something interesting to do while dodging swords. Having to dodge swords just to do the only thing my class can do isn't really worth my time. But if dodging swords and having another option, like the Components one I mentioned above, would be way more fun. If I could raise my Crystal Ball and daze my opponent with visions for a turn (reliably), and so on, that'd be dope. Keep in mind none of what people are saying in this thread makes the half-casters any more fun to play. Rangers already have a hard time using spells due to almost all of them requiring concentration. Now they can't use spells when they melee? Now my Paladin can't use bonus action smite spells due to melee? It's just not fun, man. I don't get why giving magical classes something fun to do other then spells is an idea worth arguing against. What is it about this that you disagree with? It's wrong to want my Sorcerer to be able to spend a sorcery point to punch the heck out of someone if I can't cast spells in melee? It's wrong if I want to burn spell slots to use Channel Divinity since I can't cast in melee?? [/QUOTE]

Verification