NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6754737" data-attributes="member: 996">They were a sort of 'switch' yes, an optional rule like the modules 5e provides in it's DMG, or for that matter, like feats & MCing.  That's not a rule change in the sense of a house-rule, just choosing to use an available option.  5e doesn't need that particular kind of module, since it factors magic items out of encounter balance under Bounded Accuracy, but it has a lot more ground to make up in supporting low-/no- magic or all-martial-party styles in it's paucity of martial PC options... There's already quite a lot of non-magical healing - overnight healing and HD, for instance - it's just not enough or not accessible/efficient enough to be a practical replacement for that aspect of the contributions made by a primary-support character.  Even if it were, it's not the only important support contribution.  Low-/no- magic or all-martial, among other things, yes.  Those are examples of styles that 5e doesn't cover yet that a prior edition did cover well and quite easily/seamlessly.  I'd like to see it try (and, hopefully, succeed).There's enough redundancy among the existing classes that you couldn't prove any one of them 'necessary' in that sense, so it's an unnecessarily high bar to prove the class necessary to enable a few specific playstyles functional.  None the less, that proof has been presented.  Not that necessary automatically means sufficient, either.  5e could do with a lot more martial options.  The PDK, Swashbuckler & Assassin are steps in the right direction, but very small ones.  The Warlord would be a much larger one.  Depending on how they design the Warlord, though, there could still be quite a lot of design space left...</blockquote>

Verification