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="Jester David" data-source="post: 6826027" data-attributes="member: 37579">It's not in any book I'm familiar with. The absence was a big complaint with both 3e and Pathfinder. The discussion in general is non-core additions. This particular back-in-forth is more comparison, evaluating what is in the game.Could the game use more options to enable low magic play? Sure. Absolutely. But it's already better than any other edition was at launch. More classes with magic doesn't make magic more important. Just more potentially common. The power of spells has pretty much been reduced across the board. There's far fewer essential game changing spells. You can get by in the game without a certain type of caster much easier.Heck, given the ratio of how many classes used magic to non-casters in later 3e and 4e, the current 5e ratio is pretty non-magical. Even then there aren't really "more" caster options. They just took prestige classes that existed in the core rulebooks of 3e and made them subclasses. They were in the game before. You've certainly convinced yourself of that.Sure. And a ninja, samurai, and wu-jen would be useful for an Kara Tur/Wuxia style campaign. A corsair, dervish, and Sha'ir would be good for Al Qadim. An inquisitor, monster hunter, musketeer, and swashbuckler would work for Ravenloft. An espionage/intrigue game could use more skill based classes that are good at deception like a noble or spy.But we really don't need a dozen different classes for each slight tonal shift in the game. More martial or non-magical options would help in a low/no magic game. But a warlord isn't required. Any additional martial options do the trick. A non-magical ranger and more barbarian, rogue, and fighter subclasses would serve the exact same purpose.With hit dice and overnight healing, a class with dedicated nonmagical healing isn't essential. It's just like playing without a healer.  Regardless, 5e is probably more flexible in play style and accommodating different tones of game than any other edition. And it does so right out of the gate. There could be more support but there could always be more support.It's more variety than 3e. Or 4e where you could be a tanky fighter, leader warlord, or DPS ranger/rogue; that's 4 options vs 5. And it's 5 excluding SCAG. And between two-weapon, sword-and-board, greatweapon, and archery there's a LOT of viable options. With just the PHB, the options within those classes are more flexible than 3e or even 4e. There's not much difference between 3e barbarians and rogues, so subclasses double the options.</blockquote>

Verification