Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5982938" data-attributes="member: 996">'Rage' as a 'spell,' is particularly funny since there actually was a Rage spell - broken out from the old Emotion spell - that was mechanically similar to the Barbarian's Rage (though not quite as good).  I do not recall much controversy over 'Barbarians being casters' at the time.'Daily mechanics' is a more cogent term in general.  In the case of 4e, though, 'spell' as a specific meaning, that specific meaning being "a power with the 'arcane' keyword."  Yep, as opposed to ordinary and general.  Heroes do have a tendency to do extraordinary, singular, things, so it's only appropriate.The objection to fighters and other martial characters having powers, then, can accurately be summed up as:  "Fighters should have only ordinary, generic abilities."  Wow, sounds like oodles of fun.I assume you mean "classically," in the sense of classic D&D (the standard issue appeal to tradition and nostalgia, that demands nothing ever change).  In the genre, singular deeds are classic bits, only a fated hero could do this or that, or only the hero could wield string his bow or wield his weapon, and so forth.  Not that powers are so singular as all that.  The vast majority of martial attack powers, for instance, are weapon powers - they are about using weapons, just using them better than others.If you want to say "fighters with spells" as a metaphor for fighters with daily abilities, that's your choice, but be aware that when discussing 5e, the statement is factually incorrect, as 'spell' has the specific meaning of 'arcane power' and the only fighters with arcane powers are those multi-classed to an arcane class and swapping in such powers.</blockquote>

Verification