NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9059085" data-attributes="member: 7006">Nope.  They are both merely game mechanics, and I've been "fluffing" how all this crap works since I've started playing D&D 40 years ago.If you personally want to be beholden to RAW on what a "spell" is and looks like and thus you see Channel Divinity and a Divine Spell as two completely separate and different things... I mean, okay.  But I do not give the word "spell" or the word "magic" that much living space in my head.Look, I get it-- some people need that demarcation of words in the book to be able to treat and imagine this stuff differently.  So in order to have a "non-magical Ranger" some people have to have a game mechanic that gives the exact same +10 to Stealth bonus that Pass Without Trace does but isn't called Pass Without Trace or called a 'spell'.  Or they have to have the healing of Cure Wounds available to them written down by WotC in the book as a "poultice" that produces the exact same effect as Cure Wounds, in order to get their "non-magical Ranger" rather than just imagining and calling the difference themselves.I find it so funny that some players aren't willing to make those changes to fluff to things like this... and yet there's whole host of other players who are happily throwing fluff entirely out the window in order to create these Frankenstein's Monsters of Warlock-multiclass shenanigans where the fluff of the Warlock is blackened out entirely just so they can min-max the CHA-based game mechanics.  Everyone has their breaking point I guess.</blockquote>

Verification