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

[EzekielRaiden]

For me it’s obviously yes but I’m playing a gish of some sort.

Given the excision of the EK and AT, perhaps most gishes should be removed as well? "No subclasses that offer Extra Attack" might work, since that's a simple and objective measure. That would only block three subclasses (Valor and Swords Bard, and Bladesinger Wizard

Moon Druid and Hexblade Warlock would still exist of course, though I suppose this leaves open the question of whether to permit that one Warlock invocation that is essentially Extra Attack.... On the one hand, baseline Monk is still a bit magical, and going full Hexblade Blade Pact + multiple Invocations with level prerequisites is a large investment. On the other, the point is to try to cut out as much "martial-ness" as possible. On the third hand, War Clerics would still exist and Tempest isn't that far behind them in terms of weapon-using interest.

I'll let the thought percolate (and hear what others think.)

I tend to just call those "normal games".

I'm being a little facetious, but most of our games are solidly caster-oriented. (Which is hard to avoid with normal 5e rules.)

Sure, I'm just thinking about a situation where everyone must be a full caster and anything more than tiny dabbling in physical combat is restricted. As noted above, no Extra Attack, for example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, you're not wrong--but it's hardly the worst edition in that respect. Remember when combat prowess itself was just another kind of magic? Muscle wizard casts sword! Shout at your broken arm until it heals!

At first I was confused, until I realized you must be quoting someone who has blocked me and thus made it impossible for me to see their posts too. Figured it was only a matter of time before Snarf did so.

As for the content of your post, this is a rather tired edition-war slur against 4e and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make such baseless claims. Powers were the generic system for defined actions. "Melee Basic Attack" was a power. That doesn't make it magic. Magic is about what the power does, usually in the form of manifesting energies where those energies did not exist before (elemental keywords), teleporting, summoning, etc. It's simply false to claim that that makes all combat prowess a form of magic.

No. When was that?

They're talking about 4e. It's a very tired edition war argument. "Fighters are now Wizards," or to use the ur-examples, "Fighters can shoot lightning bolts out of their arses" and "Warlords can shout hands back on." Mike Mearls notably referenced that second one very specifically as the reason they weren't going to include Warlords in 5e. It was a very, very disappointing moment for me during the playtest.

 

[James Gasik]

Well even if we excise extra attack, Clerics are still a thing for our all-caster party, and while they can't do the melee damage a martial can, they can control the battlefield very well with things like Spirit Guardians and Domains giving them access to heavy armor.

 

[CleverNickName]

At first I was confused, until I realized you must be quoting someone who has blocked me and thus made it impossible for me to see their posts too. Figured it was only a matter of time before Snarf did so.

As for the content of your post, this is a rather tired edition-war...

I was referring to the Book of Nine Swords, in 3.5 Edition. (EDIT: Or was it the Miniatures Handbook? I can't remember which one had the Marshal prestige class in it.) It was the first book I remember seeing that modeled martial combat abilities after spell-like abilities. But your point stands; this is a 5E thread. I will stay on topic henceforth.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, I'm just thinking about a situation where everyone must be a full caster and anything more than tiny dabbling in physical combat is restricted. As noted above, no Extra Attack, for example.

Sounds fun to me! Heck, I'd be up for restricting it a bit more, like do all wizards or something like that. But I like themed parties in general.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

A barbarian campaign? Swords and sorcery where the sorcery is what you vanquish? Could be kewl.

A rogue, a barbarian…seems familiar but I don’t know why

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've long been curious about how such a game would work, so yeah, I'd totally try it.

I’d try it, but I’d rather do it using Adventures In Middle Earth’s classes, since they’re built for it.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I have a caster fetish so my answer is HELL NO. I'd rather play Toon.

(In fairness, I'd do it for a one-shot or two-shot game).

 

[JediSoth]

If I'm going to strip that much out of D&D, then I would play a different fantasy RPG that supported that kind of gameplay out-of-the-box.

 

[Garthanos]

Just use A5e and your good to go!

It certainly makes non-casters more interesting