Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6836168" data-attributes="member: 6802951">The tautology has been my point all along. I assume that the DM would compensate for anything the party lacks if removing those options was the DM's decision. I posit a party with no magic who solve all their problems in a non-magical manner because I assume that the DM engineers all challenges so that not using magic works - if its a no-magic game.As the DM, throwing something at the party that they do not have the ability to handle has always been a jerk move, but throwing something at the party that they do not have the ability to handle because you banned the options that would give them the ability is an order of magnitude more jerk.A non-magic party can compensate a little for lack of AoE, healing etc by using different tactics, terrain, being willing to swap out on the front line and such like. However the DM is going to have bear that its a no-magic game in mind when designing encounters.  Historically, the name is probably closer to a bard isn't it? I thought the class was mostly based upon the "Wise man/woman of the woods, who lived apart from people but who could talk with or even turn into the animals" found in European folk tales. - With a splash of 1960s/70s environmental activism added into the mix.The druids based on those sources tend to act like wizards because unlike D&D, the tales don't make the distinction; - the character could be a Wizard as a Druid.The only fiction that I recall Druids matching the D&D concept of druids are some of the books set in D&D worlds. Those Druids pulled out scimitars and staves and fought when they weren't casting spells because that is what the rules of the edition that those novels were based on were. Aside from one science-fiction series and books derived from D&D itself, the idea of spell slots is not a common one. Most settings of D&D are among the most "high-magic" settings out there. There are more settings in novels and suchlike that don't have easily-castable combat magic and rely almost solely on rituals or magical items. Whether magic is relatively common for adventurers in the game because that is part of the setting, or whether its part of the setting because magic is relatively common for adventurers in the game is one of those chicken/egg questions. They seemed to object more to the classes using the spell slot system rather than to the classes having magical abilities.For example they aren't objecting to Monks being a magical class with a different magical resource system. They don't even seem to be objecting to Paladins having Lay on Hands. They do seem to be objecting to Paladins having spells and using spell slots though. Hence why I'm asked about that distinction. Yep, but neither of those classes has been free of that fluff for a while. Rangers and Paladins have always used spell mechanics haven't they?</blockquote>

Verification