Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8868599" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Or swing a sword or fight with whatever when you have to when your magic is spent?I mean, at lower levels (especially) casters can attack just as well as martials really, dealing respectable damage and continuing to contribute to the game.Well, that was actually a GOOD thing IMO, because it was a balance issue when Paladins were more powerful compared to other martials. They were tough to qualify for (legitimately), and had significant restrictions as well. But, if you played your Paladin as Lawful Good, it was rarely an issue you had to worry about losing your powers. In fact, I recall only two times when a paladin player lost his powers temporarily due to a chaotic act, but later recovered them. Never a permanent loss due to an evil act.It isn't nil when casters have no magic, it is just down. Just like a Fighter can't action surge all the time, a Barbarian can't rage all the time, etc. so why should a caster be able to cast all the time?Why not? If the enemy recognizes the caster as a big threat and they are available, you're playing your enemies on easy mode for your players IMO. Even if a caster has to resort to the Help or Dodge actions, there is always something to do IME.There's a decent number actually IMO, especially if you combine Thunder damage, but sure there's no reason to not have lightning hands (akin to Emperor Palpatine)  instead of burning hands.Well, IMO you should just use whatever enemies fit the story and narrative and not give a fig as to whether the players are rendered ineffective or not, otherwise it just sounds like easy mode again.Nothing wrong with anti-magic areas if (again) it fits the story/world/etc. but I wouldn't have a ton of them LOL!But nothing I can think of short of a Lich has immunity to non-magic weapons, and frankly such a creature in an Anti-Magic zone would be severely gimping itself.</blockquote>

Verification