Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 7944480" data-attributes="member: 7015698">So, if you've seen some of the D&amp;D 5e arguments we've gotten into over the last few months you've probably seen my dislike for challenges that amount to, in my word, &quot;You Must be This Magical to Contribute&quot;. I'm opposed to the idea that playing D&amp;D should absolutely require some amount of spell casting. That your party ABSOLUTELY should include a spell caster or two... or more really. Plenty of players on these boards, however, have no problem with this idea. &quot;I'm fine with problems needing magic to solve&quot; basically. A lot of them mentioned, incidentally, having played the pre-3.X editions. And it occurred to me today that why I feel this way might have to do with my own first role-playing game. My first RPG experience was not with D&amp;D, it was with the British RPG <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Warriors" target="_blank">Dragon Warriors</a>! And in that game, the first book only has two classes: Knight and Barbarian. The magic system and its two magical classes (Mystic and Sorcerer, or Druid/Cleric and Mage essentially) came in a separate book. I'm wondering if this 'Martial Core' might have made my expectations different than players who had Magic Users as one of the core classes of their very first games. And then, when I first really played D&amp;D, beyond one session, it was in 4e, the ONLY edition where you could build a full Martial Party and have a wide array of strategy available and would be fine adventuring until Epic... Provided you had inherent bonuses. So, what do you guys think? That your first game influences how important you expect Magic to be?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Undrave, post: 7944480, member: 7015698"] So, if you've seen some of the D&D 5e arguments we've gotten into over the last few months you've probably seen my dislike for challenges that amount to, in my word, "You Must be This Magical to Contribute". I'm opposed to the idea that playing D&D should absolutely require some amount of spell casting. That your party ABSOLUTELY should include a spell caster or two... or more really. Plenty of players on these boards, however, have no problem with this idea. "I'm fine with problems needing magic to solve" basically. A lot of them mentioned, incidentally, having played the pre-3.X editions. And it occurred to me today that why I feel this way might have to do with my own first role-playing game. My first RPG experience was not with D&D, it was with the British RPG [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Warriors']Dragon Warriors[/URL]! And in that game, the first book only has two classes: Knight and Barbarian. The magic system and its two magical classes (Mystic and Sorcerer, or Druid/Cleric and Mage essentially) came in a separate book. I'm wondering if this 'Martial Core' might have made my expectations different than players who had Magic Users as one of the core classes of their very first games. And then, when I first really played D&D, beyond one session, it was in 4e, the ONLY edition where you could build a full Martial Party and have a wide array of strategy available and would be fine adventuring until Epic... Provided you had inherent bonuses. So, what do you guys think? That your first game influences how important you expect Magic to be? [/QUOTE]

Verification