Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 6593567" data-attributes="member: 6777696">Re: casters, 5e definitely has a lot of caster classes. That being said, you can certainly deal with this by just banning those classes and subclasses outright, if that's what works for your table. The game does a very good job at allowing "unbalanced" parties a decent shot at success, so, if your players are cool with the non-magical options, they will still be a viable party. You can also check out this thread for ideas on allowing arcane player characters, but trying to modify them to keep a more "magic is rare feel": <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?424215-Low-magic-player-characters-in-D-amp-D-5e" target="_blank">Low magic player characters in D&D 5e</a>.Fighters and Rogues both work out of the box without any divine magic. Wizards recently published a suggested variant to the Ranger which does not have any spell-casting. You can read about it in their <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdnd.wizards.com%2Farticles%2Ffeatures%2Fmodifying-classes&ei=XSkwVfDoKdWwyATds4DQAg&usg=AFQjCNFkxKCiMjvPru2kFcwa1AGpQtS1MQ&sig2=G5kunOul8jcbNrbUc6VxMw&bvm=bv.91071109,d.aWw" target="_blank">Unearthed Arcana column</a>. The barbarian has some quasi-magical properties, as does the monk. It's up to you as to whether or not those fit in your world. The bard is a full caster in this edition, as are, obviously, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Clerics. (Paladins are still Paladins as well, but they're no more or less cast-y than their predecessors.) Banning casters outright will certainly mean taking a bunch of classes of the table, but you don't need them.As for advantage. You can still get the "need to crit!" situation. Advantage and disadvantage are common, but they are related to specific tactical concerns, not general "you're outnumbered and at a disadvantage." Basically, advantage comes from things like: attacking while hidden, attacking a prone enemy with a melee weapon, attacking an enemy who is restrained (I think), having some spell or class feature that grants advantage in a specific circumstance, and, sometimes, DM fiat. Disadvantage is a similar list. Generally speaking, the DM would only grant situational advantage/disadvantage when a character is significantly hampered by their environment. For instance, you might give disadvantage to somebody attacking an opponent standing above them (say on a ledge), or attacking while swinging from a rope, or simply attempting to do something that seems particularly tricky.So, yes, if you are restrained and attacking a monster that you can only hit on a natural 20, you will have a very low chance of success. Most of the time, however, these "against the odds" moments just come up because of being outnumbered, out of resources, or otherwise in a tight spot.Advantage is considered roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus, but replacing the roll with the bonus will cause lots of problems in the upper and lower bounds of difficulty classes. Basically, advantage is one of the tools that allows "bounded accuracy" (ie a fairly tight range of difficulty classes, allowing any character some marginal chance of success, even against high level challenges) to function. I would recommend giving it a spin, and I think you'll find it works very intuitively and doesn't do anything to take away from those nail-biting moments.</blockquote>

Verification