Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7853832" data-attributes="member: 6750235">To be fair, I do resolve a lot of problems using skills, backgrounds, and roleplaying.  Why bother wasting a spell slot I actually need at some point?On bards that's because it's fun and they are good and it.  On sorcerers it's more of the reality that I have to do things that way.  On wizards and warlocks not using magic for everything is actually convenient more than using slots or invocations quite regularly.What I find funny is both are useful, often for different things, and people keep trying to "prove the plight of the poor (insert class here)" as often as they can.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I just assumed the Cap'n has sense of humor.  Most of us do.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Literally, however, the argument about magic is common.  Everyone has an opinion on it and it gets a little overboard to extremes sometimes.  The implication that magic is not useful because of skills, backgrounds, and roleplay is just as silly (imo) as the implication that magic invalidates those same options (imo).I don't think magic is needed but magic is definitely useful, to be clear on my opinion if that matters to anyone.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This is where there's a bit of a disconnect.  The comparison between 3e and 5e magic has no bearing on the effectiveness of magic in 5e.  Sometimes I wish people could simply forget past editions because edition bias kicks in.  In the case of 3e people look at the differences and similarities to justify weaker or stronger when the reality is 3e mechanics mean nothing here.5e mechanics need to be compared to 5e mechanics.   That's why knock, one of my favorite spells to bash, is so situational I cannot justify taking it on a bard and wouldn't prep it on a wizard unless I specifically know there's going to be a need for it.  It's an example where skills are almost always the way to go over magic.  That's because I'm comparing a 5e spell to 5e ability check guidelines.Compare knock to rope trick.  It's possible to barricade a door and keep a watch for a short rest, but rope trick is clearly the more reliable option.On topic, there are a lot of spells that known spells caster NEVER take that might actually see use on that class with spell versatility.  Knock is an example of such a spell.  I cannot help but think using them was part of the design plan in placing them on those lists in the first place.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification