Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zephiel7" data-source="post: 3536454" data-attributes="member: 51147">I didn't state that a caster only has a handful of spells. Just that his spells do not grant him a definite advantage against a class that can easily recover  expended maneuvers designed to resist those spells. I thought my position was rather clear when I stated that a warblade could stand toe to toe against a caster a few posts ago. Which, as I stated above, was my position. Which limits you to one spell - maybe two at the very most.   Nice, aren't they?Granted, but they still do enough that five attacks from a longbow can seriously damage a flying wizard. Granted. If you take a look at my post a page back, I stated that the warblade in question was elven and would have his secondary score being dexterity (implied) due to the fact he was relying on bow and arrow as a  means of attack.  See above. Nonsense. I was stating that if the mage had the material component required to cast displacement, then what would stop the warblade from having a potion of clarity? It seems absurd to confer one side with advantages with regards to items and equipments while witholding the advantage of proper equipment to the other side. What's so confusing? You stated that the mage would be able to cast a spell at the warblade AND cast invisibility mixed in with displacement. I was simply countering that point by stating it would not be possible in one round. Assuming the mage spends that action laying the beat down on the warblade instead of casting a "save" spell. Either way, this argument is really going no where. Since we both stated that we basically agreed with one another a couple of posts ago, lets leave it at that.</blockquote>

Verification