Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9825460" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sounds great to me! In this current design climate, anything that pulls us away from "every class feature is just a spell" is good in my book. (It is of course possible to go too far in the other direction and avoid spells when they should really be used--but 5e does not even remotely have a problem on that end.)Given the somewhat loaded nature of "Priests", perhaps something like the following:Warriors: Weapons and ArmorExperts: Weapons and ToolsAuxiliaries: Spells and IconsMages: Spells and LoreOf course even this won't be perfect--should a Warlord be an Expert but all about support and force multiplication? That sounds like what the intent of a "Priest" is, but Warlords don't use magic. Likewise, there are plenty of things that it's hard to say whether they should go in "Priest"/"Auxiliary"/whatever or Mage, e.g. Druid--and there are Experts who cast spells, and Experts who don't cast spells, so is "spells" really much of an indicator? Especially since we have things like Paladin, which is pretty clearly a Warrior, but it casts spells in 5e. (I personally would have it not cast spells and instead have specific class features, but that's just me.)</blockquote>