That’s a hard sell, for me. While there absolutely should be a magical subclass, the base class also absolutely does not need to pretend magic users don’t exist.
Absolutely.
I’m never going to be concerned with old player option names when choosing names for 5e features.
Granting a cantrip is equal enough to granting an attack that we can treat them the same. All we need to do is figure out what syngery shenanigans will ensue if we make it easy for a caster to drop two cantrips a round, or a cantrip and a spell. If we figure out how the rule can be abused it will index how to properly balance it.
Granting a cantrip after 5th level is more powerful than granting an attack. Granting the Attack Action would be the equal of granting a cantrip.
Correct, so after fifth it either needs to be a full action grant, or the cantrip needs to "cast at first level".
I really wish they’d just given full casters basic spell attacks and made the upgrade a secondary feature.
That would have been nice, yeah. We have other options to help casters. If we add in some disadvantage on saves or some such we can work the synergy going back the other way. That might actually be a good gambit or whatever for the more Martial Marshal who's more likely to be up front. "On a hit the Marshal may expend X mettle to give the target disadvantage on his next X save". It makes sense for DEX, and maybe STR and CON, but less sense for INT/WIS/CHA. Or to set up a stunning strike. It's the kind of synergy I think we're looking for anyway, and not limited to casters.
I do like that, though I think I’ll also keep in just the bonus action: “next time the ally casts a spell that deals damage, ally weapon attacks in your presence deal the same damage type until the end of your next turn. The ally can spend an extra spell a lot to add a damage bonus yadda yadda”
Yep. I’ll add that tonight or tomorrow, and for now I’ll take out the cantrip from Guided Strike.
