Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7410779" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Player: Can I use my free object interaction to kick away his sword, so he can't just grab it again?DM: No, you're standing in grass. It won't go anywhere.I perceive that the spellcaster is already limited in many ways, such that further limitations would be egregious. The primary limitations are that their spells frequently do nothing (because a successful saving throw negates), or they are inferior anyway (because they deal significantly less damage than the fighter swinging a sword).The game is already plenty interesting when the fighter has their sword and the wizard has their spells. That is the baseline level of interesting which the game advertises. By taking away the majority of the spells from the wizard, the resulting game is less interesting because of it. If this was still third edition, and spells actually were more useful than swords, then the ability for a fighter to shut off ninety-percent of the wizard's spell list would have made the game more interesting. Or you could go back to AD&D, when fighters really could shut down wizards from casting spells, and that was also fine.It's only fifth edition, with spell DCs and spell damage nerfed into the ground, where giving the fighter an ability to shut down a wizard would be bad design. (Or fourth edition, I suppose. From what I recall, you also didn't see nearly as many anti-magic zones in 4E as you did in earlier editions.)</blockquote>

Verification