D&D General A campaign without classes that use magic?

[Horwath]

the rogue scout makes a pretty good spell-less ranger

rogue scout makes better ranger than ranger, overall. But lets avoid tongue-in-cheek comments about 5e rangers

 

[Fenris-77]

True. When it comes to Fantasy my players only want to play D&D. Not another game. At least they are tired of the D&D high magic fantasy mish-mash. So I can work from there to get a consensus.

D&D can do low magic just fine. Social interaction, on the other hand, is a weak part of the rules no matter how much magic you're using, at least not without some fine grade hacking first (IMO anyway).

 

[Fenris-77]

rogue scout makes better ranger than ranger, overall. But lets avoid tongue-in-cheek comments about 5e rangers

What, like they enjoy rocking a pair of smooth criminals down-under so they don't swish when they walk? I want to say something about the scene from Beastmaster where his loin cloth gets stolen by a pair of larcenous and soon-to-be animal companion ferrets. High comedy. Anyway, yeah, we should definitely avoid all such talk.

 

[Dausuul]

The only problem is that you drastically restrict the number of options available to the players. Everyone has to play a barbarian, fighter, rogue, or (depending on your definition of "magic") monk, and they don't even get access to all the subclasses of those classes.

If the players are on board with this, you're good to go. If not, you may want to consider a more narrowly tailored approach.

 

[Fenris-77]

There's a literal ton of good 3PP material that can open the non-magic-using class choice up a lot. I don't think it's an issue.

 

[dave2008]

rogue scout makes better ranger than ranger, overall. But lets avoid tongue-in-cheek comments about 5e rangers

I was being serious. I don't think class names are important, what they do is. If the scout makes a good ranger, it is a ranger. I would probably drop the thieves cant though.

 

[dave2008]

The only problem is that you drastically restrict the number of options available to the players. Everyone has to play a barbarian, fighter, rogue, or (depending on your definition of "magic") monk, and they don't even get access to all the subclasses of those classes.

I restricted it to rogue and fighter only (12 subclasses total). That is more then enough choice IMO, assuming everyone buys in for the no magic idea. I find the barbarian and monk to much like magic for this exercise.

 

[A pod of seals]

On the other hand there are going to be more manly fighter types too most likely, so more broad backs for a party face to hide behind. Also, with no spell casting, that face is going to get a lot of hero moments if he's the only CHA type in the party. Same goes for intelligence. Not being able to maximize a stat is not at all the same thing as it being useless, especially in the absence of magical equivalents.

The swashbuckler uses CHA in combat btw. He'd be great in a spell free game.

These are good points. Thank you.

 

[Marandahir]

Why not try using the Warrior and Expert sidekick classes and call it a day? You'll stay away from the big flashy effects and specialised powers.

 

[Pauln6]

I created a half orc side kick. The player said she was incredibly superstitious, always sending up a prayer before undertaking any task, kissing the ship before any journey so I gave her the magical adept feat with resistance, guidance, and bless. She doesn't feel magical (she's a fighter) but can aid the players skill rolls and saves. Maybe it's all just the placebo effect?