Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8573672" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Darkvision is not the powerful ur-feature people think it is, really, it's a ribbon &quot;hey what if my torch goes out/I don't have a light spell?&quot;&nbsp; It's better than being blind in darkness or having to squint in dim light, and that's about it.&nbsp; What makes Darkvision strong is that a lot of people don't read what it actually does, they assume it works like old Darkvision, where you just see in darkness out to the range listed.I know this, because I saw it in action, when I first started playing 5e, I didn't have darkvision, and it was annoying when I couldn't even get a light spell cast so I could see what I was doing (as an archer build no less).&nbsp; When I started DMing though, I took a closer look and realized- hey this doesn't do what people seem to think it does!Now as for spellcasting classes, well the problem here is, what would you create?&nbsp; The way the Paladin is built, a non-casting version would have to have a totally reworked smite, and it would lose a ton of utility- most noncasting Paladins I've seen just give them the ability to replicate things they could do with spells x/day anyways.The Ranger is in the same boat.&nbsp; And there's not a lot of conceptual design space for a new class that specifically doesn't use magic that isn't covered by something that already exists- scouts, duelists, rakes, hunters, assassins, acrobats, I think we could maybe get an alchemist, which is just a roundabout way to have non magic magic, and a warlord- but there's a lot of pushback against the idea of martial healing (though non-magical granting of temporary hit points seems kosher).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8573672, member: 6877472"] Darkvision is not the powerful ur-feature people think it is, really, it's a ribbon "hey what if my torch goes out/I don't have a light spell?" It's better than being blind in darkness or having to squint in dim light, and that's about it. What makes Darkvision strong is that a lot of people don't read what it actually does, they assume it works like old Darkvision, where you just see in darkness out to the range listed. I know this, because I saw it in action, when I first started playing 5e, I didn't have darkvision, and it was annoying when I couldn't even get a light spell cast so I could see what I was doing (as an archer build no less). When I started DMing though, I took a closer look and realized- hey this doesn't do what people seem to think it does! Now as for spellcasting classes, well the problem here is, what would you create? The way the Paladin is built, a non-casting version would have to have a totally reworked smite, and it would lose a ton of utility- most noncasting Paladins I've seen just give them the ability to replicate things they could do with spells x/day anyways. The Ranger is in the same boat. And there's not a lot of conceptual design space for a new class that specifically doesn't use magic that isn't covered by something that already exists- scouts, duelists, rakes, hunters, assassins, acrobats, I think we could maybe get an alchemist, which is just a roundabout way to have non magic magic, and a warlord- but there's a lot of pushback against the idea of martial healing (though non-magical granting of temporary hit points seems kosher). [/QUOTE]

Verification