Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Unwise" data-source="post: 6854233" data-attributes="member: 98008">Not coming from a D&D background, I really have to ask, does the D&D casting system of components etc really add anything to the game? If you are playing a class designed to use a shield and sword and cast spells, what are you adding to the game by accounting for all this stuff? In a system that tries its best to streamline and get rid of micro-management, why the heck do we even need to have discussions around this? Why does the warcaster feat need to exist in its current for? Why can a War Cleric/ Eldritch Knight etc wear platemail and wield greatsword, but not be able to use their spells if they don't juggle? It all just seems so arbitrary and silly.The point seems to be that some spells can't be cast if you are silenced, some can't be cast if you are tied up, some can't be cast if you are robbed of your components. Why not leave it at that? Why not just say that those things come into play in those and similar circumstances.It just seems like such an odd thing to get hung up on. It is like having an entire rule set for how full your waterskin is. If it is half empty, it will slosh when you sneak, so you get disadvantage. If it is full or empty you are OK. Sure, I see how that makes sense, but seriously, who wants to play like that? Would you make a rogue state that they put down or fill up, or consolidate their waterskins before making a stealth role?To me, if in combat the class is doing the things you would expect it to do, I don't feel compelled to nerf it or add in micro-management. If the EK is beating people up and casting the odd spell that is fine. If the wizard wants to lift a portculis while casting a somantic spell, we might have an issue. I am sure if I came from a background of an edition where I had to count the feathers and slugs I kept in my mages pockets I might feel differently.</blockquote>

Verification