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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9264892" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, "spells" as a D&D mechanical structure, in all editions except 4e (as usual), have had all of the following characteristics, with varying degrees of implementation:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A level, which approximately defines how powerful they are, and precisely defines how powerful a character must be in order to cast it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A "fire and forget" approach, where the power making the spell happen is lost upon casting (5e is more lenient here than previous eds, but you still lose a slot for it)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cannot be used in certain areas which forbid particular kinds of supernatural activity (antimagic zone, Beholder rays, etc.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Can be countered if an enemy spellcaster has prepared for it (again, 5e is more lenient about how that works)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Require some kind of effort to ensure that an enemy doesn't fizzle the spell in some way (3.x was ultra-lenient here, 5e less so, but much more than earlier editions)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Feature some combination of "components," usually broken down into physical motions, materials (often, but not always, consumed in the casting), and sounds; if a given spell requires a particular component, being unable to furnish it prevents use of the spell.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">For spells which inflict negative effects on enemies, a general preference for inducing enemies to make saving throws, rather than for players making attack rolls. Not exclusive, to be sure, but saving throws are far more the domain of magic than martial skill.</li> </ol>With the descriptions you've given, we are removing 3-6, 2 is almost gone in 5e rules anyway (apart from stuff mostly covered by 1 already), and 7 is more a general pattern than an actual hard and fast rule, and that pattern likely would not hold for these monster-hunting spells, since rangers are generally going to hunt monsters by making attack rolls (one would presume, anyway.)So, yeah, I do feel like this is ripping out essentially everything but the resource mechanic of spells...at which point, if you're already doing that much work and designing these spells meant to have 3-6 stripped away from them, why not simplify the process by just...making up new class features instead?See above. If that "IS the point," then it seems like you might as well just take the final step. You've done practically everything else.</blockquote>

Verification