Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6274128" data-attributes="member: 7006">As someone who has never seen spells always as &quot;Spells!&quot;... in other words, treated every single ability gained through a spellcasting table as automatically &quot;Magic&quot;... the full caster table doesn't bother me, and in fact will give the Bard some much needed variety.When you design a class, you can hand out class feature abilities in several different ways.&nbsp; You can just put a small list of abilities into the class itself that the player chooses (like the list of abilities each Fighter sub-class gets)... or you can give them a spellcasting chart that has a larger number of abilities (that the game has defined as &quot;spells&quot;) that a player can select from.&nbsp; But for me... just because the book has identified this method as &quot;spellcasting&quot;, and those abilities as &quot;spells&quot; (just for the ease of explanation of how the class gets and uses the abilities if nothing else)... it doesn't ipso facto mean I personally HAVE to describe those abilities as &quot;Spells&quot; and &quot;Magic&quot;.&nbsp; So a large list of Bard spells does not mean in my fiction that he therefore has a large amount of Magic.&nbsp; Rather, he has a select list (once I've chosen his &quot;spells&quot; for him) of Bardic Abilities he can use throughout the day.&nbsp; Some of them might be &quot;Magic&quot;... some of them might just be high-powered abilities he gets because he's a trained Bard.It's the same reason why the Ranger having &quot;spellcasting&quot; never bothers me.&nbsp; Because if I want a non-spellcasting Ranger... I just hand my Ranger the Hunter's Mark and Animal Friendship &quot;spells&quot;, scrub off the &quot;mystical&quot; fluff to them... and treat Hunter's Mark and Animal Friendship as just two regular Ranger abilities they might've otherwise had in their class features had the designers arranged them differently.&nbsp; After all... why is Hunter's Quarry considered non-magical in 4E, and yet Hunter's Mark *is* magical in 5E?&nbsp; Merely because it's been placed in the &quot;Spells&quot; section of the 5E book.&nbsp; Now you just ignore that... and both abilities can be treated exactly the same.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6274128, member: 7006"] As someone who has never seen spells always as [I]"Spells!"[/I]... in other words, treated every single ability gained through a spellcasting table as automatically "Magic"... the full caster table doesn't bother me, and in fact will give the Bard some much needed variety. When you design a class, you can hand out class feature abilities in several different ways. You can just put a small list of abilities into the class itself that the player chooses (like the list of abilities each Fighter sub-class gets)... or you can give them a spellcasting chart that has a larger number of abilities (that the game has defined as "spells") that a player can select from. But for me... just because the book has identified this method as "spellcasting", and those abilities as "spells" (just for the ease of explanation of how the class gets and uses the abilities if nothing else)... it doesn't ipso facto mean I personally HAVE to describe those abilities as "Spells" and "Magic". So a large list of Bard spells does not mean in my fiction that he therefore has a large amount of Magic. Rather, he has a select list (once I've chosen his "spells" for him) of Bardic Abilities he can use throughout the day. Some of them might be "Magic"... some of them might just be high-powered abilities he gets because he's a trained Bard. It's the same reason why the Ranger having "spellcasting" never bothers me. Because if I want a non-spellcasting Ranger... I just hand my Ranger the [I]Hunter's Mark[/I] and [I]Animal Friendship[/I] "spells", scrub off the "mystical" fluff to them... and treat [I]Hunter's Mark[/I] and [I]Animal Friendship[/I] as just two regular Ranger abilities they might've otherwise had in their class features had the designers arranged them differently. After all... why is Hunter's Quarry considered non-magical in 4E, and yet Hunter's Mark *is* magical in 5E? Merely because it's been placed in the "Spells" section of the 5E book. Now you just ignore that... and both abilities can be treated exactly the same. [/QUOTE]

Verification