Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8131815" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Thematics is 95% of that, not balance. And, it has nothing to do with my point. Let us take a Bard. The Bard has a spell list.  Is that Bard a balanced class if they are going into the Caves of Mourning with Hypnotic Pattern, Speak with Plants, See Invisibility, Hold Person, Heat Metal, Faerie Fire, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and Healing Word? What if I told you there are no invisible creatures in the Caves? What if I told you that there is a Boss that wears Full Plate? What if I told you that the main enemies were Drow and they have resistance to charm effects? What if I told you that there is an ancient tree in the center of the cave that can tell the players about a secret back way into the boss's chamber? Has the balance of the Bard shifted back and forth? What if I had a bard who instead of Hypnotic Pattern, See Invisibility, and Tasha's the bard had Thunderwave, Invisibility, and Stinking Cloud? Has the Bard become unbalanced because it now lacks dead weight spells for the Caves? The game is balanced on the assumption that the Bard's spell list is the best spell list it can possibly be. Because players could pick any spells they might want, and they might, by pure chance, have the perfect spell list for the adventure they are on, and that can't be overpowered beyond what the game can handle. To balance it any other way would be to assume that a percentage of your spells are useless, and that in any given adventure you are not operating at 100%. Which is not an assumption that makes sense to make. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But the dog that does hunt is allowing wizards, clerics, druids, and all the others to cast spontaneously and just as often as Sorcerers? Because that is what 5e did. So everyone else got the benefits of sorcerers, but sorcerers are required to keep the penalties for the benefit they sued to have? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you are doing it at the start... why not just have the wizard cast it as an action before they open the door, and do the exact same thing. Or the sorcerer does that without using any metamagic.Sure, a brief one, not enough to really make a case for changing anything. And I was refering to my earlier statement. You want to alter how the King is treating you by subtle casting a spell to make him think he is having a divine revelation? You need a charisma check (likely at advantage, but depends on a lot of factors) because you don't get to change someone's actions that dramatically without a check. I'm sorry, but you can't even force someone to do something with Geas, which is far higher level. I'm not letting Phantasmal force be more powerful than a spell three levels higher than it.So, now your defense is that one of their most iconic tricks was just a ribbon feature and not important. I mean.. they literally are forced to take mage hand, and two of their four features other than spellcasting utilize it. But, most not be important.Oh, also, they have an ability that specifically only works if they cast a spell while hidden from a creature, meaning that that is something they are expected to do as well.You want to have an illusion of a hawk come in and attack them? Fine. You want to have a shadowy figure lurking in the corner so they send guards on a goose chase or move the meeting somewhere more private? Fine. You want to make them think they recieved a divine message to manipulate them into doing something or giving you something that you want? That is going to require a check. Phantasmal Force allows you to place the illusion in their head, you want to persuade or decieve them with that illusion, that requires more than just casting the spell. Sure, but you are basically saying that those slots aren't worth having. You just essentially cast 6 spells (two second, two third and two fourth) and you are treating it like you are being frugal. I don't get it. I legitimately don't. I have never looked at my 3rd and 4th level spell slots and gone, "Man, these are just cluttering up space on my character sheet"And, just to point out, if you want to get those spell slots back? You need to spend 28 sorcery points. So, hope you were really confident in needing those points more than those slots, because it is literally impossible to get them back, since it costs ten more points than you gained.I've rarely been in a scenario where "I need this spell right now, or we all die" is a thing. And the few times I did (when playing a sorcerer in fact) I had those spells.... because I still had my spell slots. If I've cast two fireballs and we are still in a situation where I need yet another fireball or we are all dead, then I did something horribly wrong with my first two castings, because we shouldn't still be in that dire of straits after I've unleashed my biggest guns at the problem. And if we are? Maybe someone else has a plan will cover it, because obviously Fireball isn't working.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because Reducto ab absurdum does lead to faulty conclusions, it is just inflated hyperbole. "I think maybe we should remove this traffic light, it doesn't seem to be preventing traffic accidents" "Well, let's just remove all traffic lights and stop signs in the entire country, since none of them prevent accidents" Obviously the second point does not follow from the first. Just because this one situation exists, does not mean it can be logically taken to apply to every single scenario. "This rule wasn't bad, you are just saying it is because you don't like it. And not liking a rule doesn't mean it is bad" cannot logically be countered with "Then there is no such thing as a bad rule" The rule of needing to stab yourself with a rusty nail every time you take damage in the game has no bearing on the discussion at all, and is so absurd that it is just a red herring, meant to distract from the point and cause us to waste energy knocking down an absurd claim, rather than addressing the actual meat of the conversation.</blockquote>

Verification