Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7918095" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is one of my pet hates about 3.X and 5e casters as well - but it's also something 5e has at least some nod towards doing well. And I think doing it actually well would do a lot about the sameyness.This is for a couple of the spell schools it is very clear when a spell from that school is being cast by a master of that school and when it's not (most don't do it so well). In the case of Evocation spells an Evoker can tweak their spell to protect a few of the targets (so an Evoker can ground-zero the fighter with a fireball and the fighter will be entirely unharmed) and in the case of Illusion spells the Illusionist can seriously change the illusion at sixth level (burning their illusionary case full of scrolls) and make illusions have physical effect at 11th.This makes both magic and specialisation feel much better to me. But I think the approach is fundamentally wrong, and that the bonuses for specialisation should be written into the spell and not the character description to allow for a much more flexible and appropriate range of effects. You get to use the specialist version if you qualify for it via one of the tags.</blockquote>