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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9339151" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I didn't, no. It was in the jump between the first unread posts and recent posts.This is literally just spellcasting, but with a "it's totally not spells! Everything else is identical but it's totally not spells you guys!" disclaimer. Like... it's there, verbatim. "It's Not Magic" is a word for word subheading. If I did not know better, I would think you were being sarcastic, because this is genuinely at the level of parody.I'm not clear as to what "this" refers to in that last sentence.Most spells are not acceptable things for a Warlord to do. This is not a particularly controversial opinion. I would even dare say it is one of the exceedingly few things that both Warlord haters and Warlord fans agree upon, given the whole "can shoot lightning from their arses" canard I'm sure you've seen someone use at some point.Warlords (with the one exception, as I have noted, of an EK/AT-style subclass) should not be using magic. Period. It should be a genuinely distinct mechanic. At absolute most, some of the exploits (or whatever we call them) might be equivalent to certain healing spells, since that's a subsystem that doesn't really allow for a lot of variation, but if possible they should definitely still be distinct.Taking literal, actual spells and just saying, and I quote, "It's Not Magic" is not acceptable. Edit: And something I just noticed. You phrase it as "access a list of nonmagical 'spells.'" But what you have actually proposed is a list of "nonmagical" spells. They are spells. You have made no effort to make them not spells. Your efforts have extended only so far as to insert a (again, genuinely humorous, almost parodic) "It's Not Magic" disclaimer and to find-replace all instances of "spell(s)" with "exploit(s)", "cast" with "use", etc. Well, that and explicitly saying that they are spells in the opening paragraph: "For you, spells are called exploits...."I was simply using the low-hanging fruit, because it was there. I did not add summon celestial to the list. You did that. If you wanted people to not draw the conclusion that your proposed spellcaster masquerading as a Warlord could summon angels...perhaps it would have been better to not mention that they could summon angels. Angel Summoner and BMX bandit being such a popular example of the problems with how spellcasters are designed vis-à-vis martials, it seemed warranted to point out that you had made something so overtly magical, hilarious "It's Not Magic" disclaimer notwithstanding, others entirely outside the D&D sphere had already used it as a joke for overwhelming magical superpowers.Spells that outright conjure something from the void are absolutely not thematically appropriate for a completely nonmagical class. They just aren't, and I struggle to take seriously the notion that you sincerely believe they are a fitting component of any proposal for a 5e Warlord.</blockquote>

Verification