D&D 5E "I would play in a 5e game with no caster classes at all" (a poll)

[TwoSix]

What about subclasses of Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian and Monk that are explicitly supernatural, but don't cast spells? Would Psi-warrior or Soulknife be allowed? Sun soul or shadow monk?

Yes to all. The goal isn't to not have magic, per se, it's to shake up the way magic is used in the system.

 

[el-remmen]

Sure. Though I can imagine it being pitched in a way that would make me skeptical - but that is not about the premise, but about the DM running it.

 

[delericho]

Depends. For a one-shot or a short campaign, sure.

For a long campaign, it would depend what you'd replaced the casters with - four classes just aren't enough if they're non-casters. But something like an updated Iron Heroes could work.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure. I'd only take issue with it if it were for more than one campaign. For a single campaign every now and again, that could be a fun change of pace. As a regular thing, I think it would lose most of that charm.

My group actually (mostly) did this in a 2e campaign. The DM told us to make non-caster characters. The reason I said mostly is because one of the DM's friends nagged him until he let the guy play a wizard. But after a few sessions that wizard died and the player created some variety of warrior. So it was a mostly casterless campaign, and it was quite fun and memorable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. Why wouldn’t I?

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. I'd only take issue with it if it were for more than one campaign. For a single campaign every now and again, that could be a fun change of pace. As a regular thing, I think it would lose most of that charm.

Oh, definitely. I change up rules every campaign I run, so I didn't even think of the idea as a regular thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Oh, definitely. I change up rules every campaign I run, so I didn't even think of the idea as a regular thing.

In the campaign that I mentioned, I recall that the DM created his own custom weapon specialization rules. I don't recall anymore exactly how it differed from 2e specialization, but I think at higher levels of specialization you had a chance to parry attacks and such.

It obviously doesn't need to be weapon specialization, but adding new options unique to such a campaign might help it to be more readily accepted by reticent players.

 

[Mind of tempest]

He is... a LIBRARIAN!
View attachment 257062

I am lost is this a joke or serious answer?

 

[Inchoroi]

I have to vote no!

However, with the right DM and the right setting and the right campaign, it might be fun. I wouldn't enjoy it, either as a player or DM.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't see why not.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would and I have. All monk game in 5E, in other editions both all Fighters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For a long campaign, it would depend what you'd replaced the casters with - four classes just aren't enough if they're non-casters. But something like an updated Iron Heroes could work.

again I suggest the middle earth book for new classes

 

[Vael]

I dunno, I like playing casters.

 

[billd91]

I am lost is this a joke or serious answer?

Well, he's not THAT librarian. But he is a librarian. We went to the UW-SLIS together back in the mid 1990s. Funny thing was I don't think either of us knew the other was a gamer at the time. Then a few years later he pops up with the 3e News site, 3e comes out, Eric retires from message board managing, and ENWorld gets spawned - roughly speaking.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Sure, assuming it had to do with the story or setting and wasn't just some weird DM powertrip.

I would grumble that there are better systems to use for not being spellcasters than the system based around almost everyone being at least a little bit of a spellcaster and that adapting 5e is a bit of an absurd approach. Then I would remember that it's easier to just adapt the system people know than to try to get everyone to buy books for some other system.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, he's not THAT librarian. But he is a librarian. We went to the UW-SLIS together back in the mid 1990s. Funny thing was I don't think either of us knew the other was a gamer at the time. Then a few years later he pops up with the 3e News site, 3e comes out, Eric retires from message board managing, and ENWorld gets spawned - roughly speaking.

so the founder more or less, why not just say that?

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, assuming it had to do with the story or setting and wasn't just some weird DM powertrip.

All of my powertrips are always justified and never weird.

I would grumble that there are better systems to use for not being spellcasters than the system based around almost everyone being at least a little bit of a spellcaster and that adapting 5e is a bit of an absurd approach. Then I would remember that it's easier to just adapt the system people know than to try to get everyone to buy books for some other system.

"System everyone already knows" is exactly what I'm going for. And fantasy systems where magic isn't granted at character creation and assumed to be prevalent during character progression are surprisingly hard to find, in my experience.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Are paladins okay if their slots only fuel smite?

No

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I've played in that campaign. Twice. Both fell apart rather quickly. The character limitations were painful and after the Big Twist revealed that magic was indeed a thing that existed there weren't any ideas left. Never again.

It's the sort of high concept that can work in a novel but not so much a TTRPG, where the players are co-authors and character advancement is a lot more locked in.

I find that utterly ridiculous. I’ve been involved in several all martial campaigns and they were a blast. No magic or low magic are my favorite types of D&D.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

And fantasy systems where magic isn't granted at character creation and assumed to be prevalent during character progression are surprisingly hard to find, in my experience.

Indeed. Which is especially disappointing considering how much fantasy literature is very low magic by comparison.