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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6381980" data-attributes="member: 1879">You are correct that a 4e feat is cheaper than a 5e feat. However it's still a low bar for entry for the Champion, Thief and Assassin which are the only subclasses that have no existing "magic" of any kind. New rituals may be entered into the book whenever they are available at a cost of two hours and 50 gp per level, the same as a Wizard scribing a new spell into his book. Indeed that is true. So let me ask for what will probably be the last time. Given the existence of martial characters ranging from flying barbarians to banishing smite paladins to lighting shooting rangers to the eldritch knight who can easily be refluffed (which is only a minor modification of an existing class and subclass and touches the action economy not at all.) Given that even if he later experiences 'buyers remorse' access to magic is no further away than his next feat or level. Given that the narrative control some seek is attainable even with 'mundane' fluff by the Lucky feat. Why, exactly, is it offensive that someone who wishes, for whatever reason, to play a character who is closer to Fafherd or Boromir than Herakles or Beowulf has an option in the book that allows him to do that? Why is it that it is bad that I can make a character who actually has to try to use persuasion and skill to get by in the world instead of just waving some bat crap around as a universal problem solver?</blockquote>

Verification