Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6755448" data-attributes="member: 48965">Does this idea that 5e needs massive amounts of healing and buffing that you keep claiming come from experience in actual play of the game?  Because it is so far from what I have seen in slightly over a year of play that I feel like I must be missing something.  Could you further expound on what experiences have led you to believe that the healing provided by the variant rule @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=7635" target="_blank">Remathilis</a> posted from the DMG (along with that provided by various feats and some class abilities) would not be adequate in making a martial party functional?  There has to be something I'm missing here.EDIT: Okay and now it seems like your argument is shifting into something totally different... that now it is a lack of non-magic/low-magic concepts available in 5e that is the issue as opposed to whether a party that chose the concepts that fit the genre would be capable of functioning in a 5e game or not.  Is that what you are now stating?  Because low magic is pretty well covered... and even no-magic with the addition of SCAG has been expanded to 3 fighter archetypes, 2 barb archetypes, 4 rogue archetypes, and possibly 1 or 2 monk archetypes depending on whether you view his abilities as magical or not... and this is excluding anything that might be available through UA like the spell-less ranger.</blockquote>