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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7217001" data-attributes="member: 2525">The thing is, 20% is a massive exaggeration. It's such an exaggeration that it makes me suspect a biased agenda at work. Seriously, exactly how often do you encounter an anti-magic field? The counterspell spell from a foe versus any of those spells I named? Lack of material component pouch*? A gag in your mouth where any of those spells would still be applicable to begin with? Actually applying any of those instances to those particular spells results in an incredibly small number of instances of this coming up. So far from 20% that it's ridiculous.As for the claim that the abilities being used only a limited number of times per day or per rest being unrealistic, we already have lots of non-magic abilities in this version of the game that do that so it's not a good objection for this issue, though it might be a good objection for the edition in general. But if you already buy into the edition, I am not seeing the problem with this specific issue.*Almost none of those spells even have a material component, and even those that do mostly have a component you'd have even without such a pouch. Hunter's mark is verbal only. Beast sense is somatic only. Find traps is verbal and somatic. Freedom of movement requires a leather strap - which you'd have without a pouch. Pass Without Trash is ashes from a burned leaf, which you should be able to do without a pouch. Locate creature does require fur from a bloodhound, which is a bit tricky. Swift quiver requires...your quiver. So almost every spell I mentioned should not be a big deal without a material component.</blockquote>

Verification