Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7032889" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Then why do incorporeal things even have resistance in the first place? If it makes just as much sense for a bear to rip a ghost apart as a dragon, doesn't it also make just as much sense for man with a mundane sword to chop a ghost apart as a dragon? Of course not. Dragons are meat. Ghosts are not. The ghost's resistance exists to represent this dichotomy. You don't win any points by literally saying "whatever" to the physical distinction between matter and nonmatter.If I cast the flavor of the sorcerer as a fire channeler, does that justify an argument that all sorcerers should get fireball automatically, and having to select it constitutes an unconscionable spell tax? Or does it just mean I've cast the flavor of the sorcerer too narrowly?I don't want to argue that at all. As you say later in your post, classes and subclasses have different abilities. For the ranger not to have this ability is no reason for them not to have it. And conversely, for them to have this ability is no reason for the ranger to have it.Why is having to cast a spell a "meaningless obstacle" but having to find a magic weapon not? I see both as quite meaningful obstacles.Maybe in part, but they're also designed that way because it carries thematic water for these holy men and women to be imbued with sacred magic in their very touch. Anyone who's watched enough Hong Kong movies expects a monk to be able to punch ghosts and otherwise interact with them in a way most people can't. For a grizzled woodsman -- and not even the woodsman himself, but his furry sidekick? That's much more of a stretch.I didn't say they were stopped by spell resistance. I used your words: "pretty much crippled". Resistance to nonmagic weapons doesn't stop physical attackers either. What both traits do is force the characters to change their tactics. This is healthy for the game. You said it yourself: the caster has to use different spells. And by the same token, the physical attacker might try disarming, tripping, or grappling. So don't try to tell me the physical attacker doesn't have options.I'll try one more time to explain it before giving up. If I install a lock on my door, but then give everyone in town a key to that lock for free, then I should have just not installed the lock in the first place. It would have exactly the same effect for much less trouble. Seriously? You're gonna challenge me on the principle that class features should be interesting? Okay. Says... everybody who wants an interesting game, I guess.Other than inserting some hopeful language about the beastmaster, it's like you're making my argument for me. Why should the beastmaster be one of the classes that gets a free key rather than one of the classes that has to work for it? Why can't it be one of the everyone elses that have other abilities to make up for the fact that it has to actually earn its key -- keeping in mind that you're actually proposing removing one of those abilities in order to give it this ability?</blockquote>

Verification