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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7788112" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I disagree. Having magical Barbarians isn't even the same thing, in every case thus far, as mixing Barbarian and Wizard. They aren't casting spells! They're still raging and hitting things as their primary mode of engaging with combat threats. They're still primarily a combat oriented class. A barbarian/wizard would be completely different. Not only that, but again and again and again, this Barbarian isn't any less a Barbarian than the Berserker or Totem Barbarian. 5e subclasses aren't remotely, anything at all, like breaking down abilities into point costs and presenting them a la carte. That is an entirely different model of game design. Having subclasses that share thematic space (in this case, just...has magic infused in their body, which is very broad) doesn't invalidate classes.Nothing in my post leans on the idea of a bad DM, though. It doesn't take a bad DM to not allow MC. There are also a lot of players who hate 5e MC mechanics, because they're kludgey as hell, and half the time don't really get you what you're going for. And if the group views MC as something that requires training or a story justification, it's often easier and more immersive to just play an Eldritch Knight, rather than trying to figure out the Fighter/Wizard. Also, I don't discuss this stuff under the assumption that it will stay UA material. The whole point is to determine if we think it should get published. There's a wide gap between DMs that ban MC, and DMs that play PHB only.</blockquote>

Verification