Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7029592" data-attributes="member: 996">A completely non-spell-casting option might not be too crazy, though, in theory - a sort of fantasy engineer.&nbsp; It would just need mechanics(npi!) to make it's presence in an adventure meaningful, rather than just the presence of its gear.&nbsp;So, wait, the original class mechanics(npi!) didn't fit that well into it's own setting?&nbsp; Really, though, a decidedly narrow, not very fantasy-genre concept, that it is, as a class iconic in just one of D&amp;D's many settings, rating even consideration as a full class should be encouraging to fans of other classes that were excluded from the 5e PH, like the Warlord from the 4e PH1.&nbsp; &quot;Need&quot; to fill out the range of plausible casters, perhaps.&nbsp; (Indeed, it may be a bit over-filled as it is).&nbsp; There's a lot of unexplored design space for non-casters, though.&nbsp; Both in terms of ground already tread in a past edition PH1, the Warlord as a non-magical support-contributing class &amp; 'battlefield control' and other not-just-DPR builds in 3.5, to similar ideas that only scratched the surface (Marshal in the 3.0-compatible D&amp;D minis game, 'controller'-like martial exploits, &amp; martial practices in 4e), to completely new ideas opened up by 5e's concept-first philosophy of class design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7029592, member: 996"] A completely non-spell-casting option might not be too crazy, though, in theory - a sort of fantasy engineer. It would just need mechanics(npi!) to make it's presence in an adventure meaningful, rather than just the presence of its gear. So, wait, the original class mechanics(npi!) didn't fit that well into it's own setting? Really, though, a decidedly narrow, not very fantasy-genre concept, that it is, as a class iconic in just one of D&D's many settings, rating even consideration as a full class should be encouraging to fans of other classes that were excluded from the 5e PH, like the Warlord from the 4e PH1. "Need" to fill out the range of plausible casters, perhaps. (Indeed, it may be a bit over-filled as it is). There's a lot of unexplored design space for non-casters, though. Both in terms of ground already tread in a past edition PH1, the Warlord as a non-magical support-contributing class & 'battlefield control' and other not-just-DPR builds in 3.5, to similar ideas that only scratched the surface (Marshal in the 3.0-compatible D&D minis game, 'controller'-like martial exploits, & martial practices in 4e), to completely new ideas opened up by 5e's concept-first philosophy of class design. [/QUOTE]

Verification