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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6744990" data-attributes="member: 996">Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm also entirely against I'm A Banana's idea of filing the serial numbers off spells and faking martial classes like the Warlord with them... ...there are just some oddities that I can't let go.......also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I couldn't remain entirely serious, so sorry if my humor doesn't always make sense to anyone else....Clerics blazon their holy symbol on shields and slip by that requirement all the time, and how much help is that +1d4 to hit when you're in a capture scenario, anyway?Aside from being able to lift stolen couches with one hand, the hypothetical power-up you describe might just be justified by a corresponding lack of versatility - depending on the actual design, of course.  A Not-Warlord who not-casts not-magic not-spells from a list of a half dozen or so could reasonably have fairly powerful not-spells on that list compared to (not?)other casters, by virtue of having an order of magnitude or so fewer choices.I'm sure there's other ways of preventing stacking.  For instance if the not-Warlord not-casting not-bless needed to speak throughout, rather than just on initial not-casting.That's going to get funny if you keep it up.So on, like, can be caught by a dexterous enemy and tossed back at him, maybe?  Magic can be countered by magic.  Mundane not-magic can presumably be countered by just about anything.  Oh, including magic, just not metamagic. And lol.Well, not the only reason, nor a very good one, since they didn't actually just recycle spells the way 5e already does for casters, but for non-casters as well, as I'm A Banana is suggesting, but, rather gave each class a unique set of 'powers,' that were consistent in number/availability and format, only.  What I'm A Banana is suggesting is a /lot/ more blatantly effects-based than that!  Way above and beyond the imagined 'sameyness' of similar formating and balanced classes, to actually using /the exact same spell/, not just for both arcane and divine casters as 5e already does, but for martial characters, psions, alchemists, gunslingers, or whatever else you feel you can file the serial numbers off an existing caster to get.  That wouldn't earn WotC an Edition War II, it'd provoke The Edition Apocalypse.  Other than swords being notoriously melee-oriented and slashing-damage, anyway.  Maybe a magical flaming sword of swarming meteors, though, or a swarm of magical flaming swords.Essentials sub-classes still all had powers, they were all still resolved using attack rolls (martial mostly vs AC, arcane mostly vs other defenses) and miss & effect lines and so forth, as before.  Essentials martial classes just got far fewer powers, none of them dailies, and in a structure pointedly incompatible with their existing sub-classes (a strict power downgrade), while caster sub-classes got more powers and could draw upon all the powers of their existing sub-classes (and vice-versa). And, yeah that was a "strict power upgrade" for the casters, especially the Wizard, who got new powers in virtually every book.  Just not nearly as big a strict power upgrade as they received from 5e.  Well, you could make some investments....While I agree with the conclusion (going back to the bizarre alternate gaming future of 2009 that we glimpsed, rather than staying here, in the early 90s, where D&D belongs, would be a huge mistake for 5e), I find your reasoning is strangely backwards.  Greater mechanical consistency doesn't break games, D&D just has an image to maintain in service to it's fanbase that is incompatible with the particular kind of effects-based approach that the idea amounts too - something, as we've both pointed, that 4e was pilloried for doing to a much lesser degree.  Faulty reasoning and even edition-warring aside, the idea of further re-cycling spells as mechanics for non-magical abilities is sheer madness.  It's antithetical to 5e's design philosophy, which is concept-first, blurry lines between mechanics & fluff, and DM Rulings over the resulting Rules.   It's tempting Fate to even discuss such things.</blockquote>

Verification