Any current class can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and proficient in the Arcane skill.I like all kinds of classes and variety. Purely martial classes are interesting, but so are classes that mix in some magic.
This thread however gives me an interesting thought: how about an Arcane class with no spell-casting ability? Like a Westerosi Maester?
Any current class can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and proficient in the Arcane skill.
What do Maesters actually do that is outside that?
The biggest point for me is how prevalent they’ve made magic. Virtually every round of every combat will see at least one spell and probably more.
And then out of combat spells become the go to solution for everything as well.
I would like at least the option of playing a lower magic game.
WotC designers were practically forced into providing a lot of magical options because the gamers wanted them, but if a gaming group has too much magic or too many spellcasters, they can only blame themselves. Because they are options and nobody is forced to choose them. Looking at how many classes cast spells gives a distorted view, because the amount of Sorcerers or Warlocks at large is not the same as the amount of Fighters (according to last year statistics, the most popular class in DnDBeyond). Most of the times, gaming groups still look for a balanced party, and so there is going to be either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard. Sometimes the Rogue is substituted with a Ranger or Bard, and the Fighter can be a Paladin, so eventually a group with 4 spellcasting characters is more probable than one with 4 non-spellcasters, but my guess is that most groups end up with 2-3 spellcasters and 1-2 non-spellcasters.
I think it's your group who wants to have such situation. In our games we have a Fighter and a Rogue with zero magic, and then a Cleric and a Druid without combat cantrips. We're still only level 3, so spell slot scarcity eventually will disappear, but so far we have lots of rounds without spells being cast. In fact we also have encounters without a single spell being cast. The big spam for us is cure wounds.
Yes, but again this is all gamer's fault, who wanted to have spells in the game to bypass challenges, and then play the game as if they have to choose those spells or feel stupid for not doing so.
You have it. You are just not using it. If you don't want to play the same game the conservative majority of gamers do, don't make those choices. And if your DM makes it impossible for you to play the game without those choices (although I am somewhat skeptic that it can truly happen), blame your DM, because it's also up to the DM to create the conditions to play the game the players want.
In other words, I think the problem here is that most of us assume that the game must be played in a certain way. They assume they need spells or they cannot win. They assume they need specific spells for each situation otherwise they can't do it. They also assume they need to kill everything they fight against, they assume they need to pick up each coin they find, they assume they need to spend all the treasure in something that increases their power, they assume they need to have high stats. And they assume their DM won't let them play differently. So it becomes pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Oh, and I really want a martial artist that isn't a monk.
WotC designers were practically forced into providing a lot of magical options because the gamers wanted them, but if a gaming group has too much magic or too many spellcasters, they can only blame themselves. Because they are options and nobody is forced to choose them. Looking at how many classes cast spells gives a distorted view, because the amount of Sorcerers or Warlocks at large is not the same as the amount of Fighters (according to last year statistics, the most popular class in DnDBeyond). Most of the times, gaming groups still look for a balanced party, and so there is going to be either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard. Sometimes the Rogue is substituted with a Ranger or Bard, and the Fighter can be a Paladin, so eventually a group with 4 spellcasting characters is more probable than one with 4 non-spellcasters, but my guess is that most groups end up with 2-3 spellcasters and 1-2 non-spellcasters.
I think it's your group who wants to have such situation. In our games we have a Fighter and a Rogue with zero magic, and then a Cleric and a Druid without combat cantrips. We're still only level 3, so spell slot scarcity eventually will disappear, but so far we have lots of rounds without spells being cast. In fact we also have encounters without a single spell being cast. The big spam for us is cure wounds.
Yes, but again this is all gamer's fault, who wanted to have spells in the game to bypass challenges, and then play the game as if they have to choose those spells or feel stupid for not doing so.
You have it. You are just not using it. If you don't want to play the same game the conservative majority of gamers do, don't make those choices. And if your DM makes it impossible for you to play the game without those choices (although I am somewhat skeptic that it can truly happen), blame your DM, because it's also up to the DM to create the conditions to play the game the players want.
In other words, I think the problem here is that most of us assume that the game must be played in a certain way. They assume they need spells or they cannot win. They assume they need specific spells for each situation otherwise they can't do it. They also assume they need to kill everything they fight against, they assume they need to pick up each coin they find, they assume they need to spend all the treasure in something that increases their power, they assume they need to have high stats. And they assume their DM won't let them play differently. So it becomes pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.