Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6730233" data-attributes="member: 996">People /do/ recover from diseases and survive being poisoned without magic.  The world is full of people who got sick and got better - no magic.  And those all fit the concept, just fine.  Same as Bard instead of cleric:  concept.  Not everyone wants to play a holy-roller some would rather play a minstrel, and vice versa - some would rather play a Druid or a Warlord. I mean, think about it, how unique from eachother are the existing support classes?  They all cast spells, a lot of the same spells when doing support, in fact.  That's not a high bar for uniqueness.Don't see why they couldn't, though 5 or 6 PCs would be more typical (it's hard to come up with that many non-magical PCs, as limited as the options in 5e are now.)  They'd certainly do better than a Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, and Berserker.If the /campaign/ is non-magical, a bit more - the absence of Tiamat, for instance.  Aside from limiting potential foes and challenges as well as potential PC concepts though, not much.  The game is very nearly playable as it stands even assuming total absence of magic.  Just needs adequate support for the party, maybe some 'control.' On the contrary, it's a relatively high priority to cover non-magical concepts and low-/no-magic campaigns and related playstyles, because magical ones are already lavishly supported and don't need anything more right away.I'll acknowledge that you are very hard to convince of anything.  ;PI don't have to ignore that the Totem Barbarian uses magic to play a non-magical Berserker.  For a clearer example, I don't have to ignore that the Eldritch Knight casts spells to play a Champion who doesn't (I'd just have to ignore how deadly-dull I personally find DPR characters).  So, sure, we could have a Warlord archetype that uses some sort of magic, while others don't.  Not a problem.  I know you like psionics, wouldn't an Ardent fit perfectly?  And, there are, 'coincidentally' two kinds of barbarian, one obviously magical, and one not.  You brought it up again.  The concept is and always has been non-magical.  That's just a fact, I couldn't go back in time and change it if I wanted to, even for the sake of compromise.But I did think we settled on a pretty cool example of fluff text that leaves open varied opinions about the Warlord's abilities, while allowing it to be faithful to that concept.  Not only that, but I repeated it in the post you were quoting, and here it is again, for a third time, awaiting your acknowledgement:</blockquote>

Verification