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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nergal Pendragon" data-source="post: 6510222" data-attributes="member: 6777649">Actually, at this point is when you've become illogical.Have you looked up the number of electricity-using creatures in 5E? I have; there's a distinct lack of ones where simply activating it would give a distinct advantage (note that this is different from fire). Most electricity damage is going to come from spellcasters, for whom no sorcerer can know the spell list of without capacity to tell the future. Notice, also, there's a distinct lack of spells that would give enough future information to make that plausible.As such, a sorcerer will almost never know lightning resistance would be useful until after it has proven useful.Note that is different from fire damage, which comes up so much that having it on as often as possible is simply being practical.Nice strawman.Spells require different considerations than class traits. First, what is there in options that is actually better than a defensive spell for filling that slot? Realistically, not necessarily enough. And not taking a second spell is sacrificing power, especially one that is useful because its reaction time casting means that it always applies up until it is actually cast (as long as you slots open to cast spells), after which it stops applying. That's part of why the PHB recommends it.As for the battle master: I gave you an answer. I later edited it out because I felt I was putting in too much information and that you'd not read the whole quote and I'd have to give it to you again, but you managed to quote me anyway. In any case, if you want your answer, scroll up to where you quoted what I said about the battle master and reread it. The answer is there.And your reasoning is flawed in a number of ways. You assume sorcerers are prescient,  you believe that options equal power, you do not understand how someone can have a tactical pattern outside of your worldview, you seem to assume that choosing to give up some options related to defense automatically means giving up all defensive options, you don't even bother to read all of what you quote, and you automatically assume that a person must have the tactical style of thinking they are discussing without bothering to even ask if it is their viewpoint.Now, are we done launching ad hominems at each other?</blockquote>

Verification