Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6806104" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Er, that's...not what TwoSix is speaking of. He means a spellcasting class (or subclass) with the same kind of "no thought needed" features. And no, I don't mean that in the sense that a Champion player never thinks at all, only that you don't have to do any special planning/coordination/prediction/selection etc. to employ its resources. You don't prepare anything, you don't build for anything, you don't have long-term investment or any significant system mastery requirements for entry (unlike, say, the Blade Warlock). You just make the rolls you'd already make--ability checks and attack rolls. None of the things you've chosen as examples has anything like "fling magic as your core shtick without spending significant time at every level planning out your abilities."Also, just to go through why none of those things works...Eldritch Knight: Has spell slots and must choose spells known from a (restricted) list.Multiclass Champion: Unrelated to the subject at hand, as the goal is a pure caster as simple as a Champion, not a Champion with spells.Valor Bard: Spell slots, spells known, for starters. Magical Secrets is WAY too plan-y/think-y for this context.Feat: Doesn't--and shouldn't--turn a character into a pure caster as simple as the Champion.The closest example I can think of in any D&D game--since 5e doesn't have a "Champion-like spellcaster"--is the 4e Elementalist subclass of the Sorcerer. You pretty much just pick your elemental affinity at the start, and...that largely (though not absolutely) dictates the direction of your character from there on out. It's an imperfect example because 4e doesn't so much do the "you don't have any resources to plan or options to winnow, you just roll standard rolls well" thing--even the Slayer, the closest approximation of a truly-simple-as-simple-can-be class, still had to make resource decisions and interfaced with other intricacies of the system. But the complexity/intricacy difference between the Slayer and the Elementalist is...close to, but not completely, non-existent, and that's what really matters here.*sigh* I keep seeing this idea, that things which aren't "needed" shouldn't be created. I don't understand it. There is no class that is "needed." There is no mechanic that is "needed." Nothing whatsoever in the rules is "needed" in the sense that there is no specific rule or concept logically necessitated for the game. So it is spurious to use such a strict sense of "need" to try to explain away the lack/non-presence (depending on your perspective) of any particular thing. And any looser sense will put in some concept of "goal" or "intent," which would mean that there could be contexts where someone--e.g. TwoSix--"needs" to (in order to meet that goal).Furthermore: wanting "long, drawn-out, tactical combats" is unrelated to wanting a class that doesn't interface with the Spells-And-Spell-Slots system in any meaningful way, but which nevertheless provides a rich and intricate pool of alternative options.Or, to put it differently: Spells don't "need" to be the only intricate, rich resource-expenditure mechanic.Edit:Okay, somehow I missed that this post was super far back. And that most of what I'd said was already said in the thread (Tony Vargas in particular). So I apologize for that. I came to it all completely independently, though, so I'm just gonna leave it here.</blockquote>

Verification