Recent content by TwoSix

You could certainly design a non-combat class for 5e if that was desired. d6 HD, no weapon or armor proficiencies, no offensive spells. or combat buffs of any kind. Like a peace cleric on quaaludes. :)

But we weren't really discussing viability, we were discussing your "4 points per class, putting 3 in combat, 1 in exploration, 0 in interaction" analogy. You said you wouldn't design a game with classes that are 3-1-0, so I'm assuming you would always do some sort of 2-1-1 or 1-2-1...

Agreed. As long as it's well communicated, I see no problem with some classes having moderate or even extreme differences in situational capability. The challenge, of course, is giving a character whose schtick is "all non-combat abilities" at least some push-button abilities that aren't...

I do wish there were more games in the space of "light OSR style mechanics" but also "combat is fun, not reckless and dangerous".

A miserable little pile of secrets?

I imagine you would see a decrease in Wizards. Which doesn't really sound that bad.

Since this is a druid thread, I guess it's been reincarnated.

No matter how good the arguments are, some people can't accept we need exactly 7 classes.

You mean like posts people start about litigation? I never know where those things are going, I mean, they're kinda long. :)

And that's OK. Some people can't ride roller coasters because they have heart conditions or have bad backs or are 4'6". That doesn't make roller coasters somehow mean-spirited for not being inclusive enough.

That looks like the 3.5 list of classes, along with some of the more popular third party stuff.

The best example I know is Mage Hand Press's Warmage. Gets a few cantrips, a scaling buff to cantrip damage (which puts the cantrip damage in the same tier as Warlock Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast), but no spells, just some invocations that add riders to the cantrips and some spell-like...

Of course it is. As I said in my post, simpler games are generally more accessible. There's a correlation between accessibility and complexity, of course. But they aren't opposites. A complex game can be more accessible than a simpler one if it has superior attempts to explain its procedures...