Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 9405610" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well, no. I was suggesting blending them into a single subclass. But [USER=52734]@Stormonu[/USER] is correct. If the Fighter-Cleric (a.k.a. Paladin) is special enough to have had its own base class (forever), then the Fighter-Mage is definitely special enough (and loooong overdue) to have its own base class. So you would have a "Swordmage" class (by whatever name) with EK, Bladesinger...maybe Arcane Archer...annnnnd...I dunno, something else that uses weapons and spells together. Then that's your caster-warrior tropes. The Fighters, as they should always be, are a non-magic reliant class (other than enchanted weapons, armor, special items, potions, etc...).No, I wouldn't expect so. I don't know that I've ever played with anyone who was "anti-spell/anti-magic. I certainly am not. I can count the number of non-caster classes (or multi-classed with) I've played in the last 40 years on one hand. And, your observation is kinda my point. We do see few "completely non-magic PCs at all." For several editions now, 5e and this newer 5 being some of the most egregious, the game has been getting more and more "magic-based." "Give 'em spells" seems to be the sole design aesthetic and mechanic. Now, is that because of popular video games? Is that because non-magic folks "feel" like they don't keep up/play as well what have you with the magic-users? Is it our general laziness as a society/culture....I don't want to play someone who has to work hard to better themselves, let me have my "click here/immediate answer" with my spells? Is it flat out aesthetics...the glamorous or mysterious or alluring "pretty people" are the sorcerers and warlocks (and bards, arguably). So if you don't have magic, you can't sit with the popular kids?We could have a lengthy and in depth conversation to examine the "why" that is....but that's not what this thread is for.My interest/concern is that giving everyone magic flies in the face of the Dungeons & Dragons game. And -at the very least- more than 6 of 48 character options should have options for character archetypes -as MOST mythologies and legendary hero stories are/go- who do not cast spells/use magic (though, admittedly, most mythological figures receive magical aid or items to fulfill their quests).It probably would be "more popular." That doesn't make it a "good idea." And, as I said, would fly in the face. of... I would probably argue "not be"... D&D. Would probably be a fun game! Would be a great "[very] high fantasy" game and default setting where everyone has/uses magic all of the time. A group of Dungeons and Dragons adventurers with no casters should be able to go on adventures with a reasonable chance of survival and success. Find/avoid the traps. Beat the monsters. Get the treasures. Save the damsel/village/kingdom/world. In a game where every character has spells, there's no need for skills... or backgrounds or themes of any kind, then. No need for weapon expertise or specializations. Why bother saying your fighter has a two-handed sword or a club. It's about the spells you use in combat. No need for thinking on your feet or figuring things out among/with your companions. Just "Which one of us has the immediate fix-it spell for this situation?"That doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun... or D&D ... to me.</blockquote>

Verification