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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6720621" data-attributes="member: 1879">Interesting, but also violently contrary to about 30 years of D&D tradition. Classically loss of spell casting power is one of the first signs used by GMs who want to tell PCs that they have gone astray. If that's the way it was in 4e, that's fine, but I don't think it's a default assumption in 5e. In any event it seems to me that the fluff there is very campaign dependent, and therefore a class reliant on it, should not be a core book class. As far as balance goes, 4e was the only edition with the explicit assumption that all class defences and armour types should have parity, and I'm okay with that assumption dying. However if someone at my table really wanted to play this type of character, and we developed some satisfactory fluff, I think I would offer the following options:1.) Offer them them a choice of a rogue or monk sub-class with some appropriate powers.2.) Allow them the option to have a Paladin trade in his Abjure Enemy channel for either the Barbarians version of Unarmoured defense or to add Mage armour to his spell list. 3.) Allow them to receive a blessing in exchange for a vow of faith to never wear armour. In which case they lose all armour proficiencies and get Unarmoured Defense based on Cha. 4.) Point out that at 4th level (or 1st as a Variant Human) they could take magical initiate and learn Mage Armour. (*But it's not divine magic you say? Well if you're not willing to get your hands dirty, maybe this isn't the job for you after all.*)Note that with options 2 and 4, they always have the option to strap on full plate if the situation demands, which to my way of thinking reduces MAD complaints to wanting to have your cake and eat it too.</blockquote>

Verification