D&D 5E So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.

Umbran · Aug 20, 2012

Li Shenron said:
In the case of the 5e playtest Sorcerer no.

Because it's quite clear that the current (draft, of course) Sorcerer is mechanically more than a spellcaster: it's a spellcaster that gradually turns into a fighting machine as her spells are used up.

Look again - the sorcerer, really, isn't that far from a spell-point wizard, except that a couple of his spells are chosen by the heritage.

The bennies for running out of spell points are not huge (a couple points of melee damage and resistance to one damage type do not a "fighting machine" make). I suspect those are meant to balance against the Wizard's extra cantrip and higher magical attack rating - the idea is to keep spellcasters in play when spelled out - the sorcerer is just experimenting with other ways to do this.

The mechanic may well be the same insofar as "you can use some of your spell points to use another power, and when you run out, you get some minor abilities to keep you in action". But they won't all be melee related.

Tony Vargas · Aug 20, 2012

The Shadow said:
But the bard for a long time now has been a class in search of a rationale. It's been different in every single edition of D&D.

The bard was a Vancian caster (once it finally took bard levels) in 1e, a Vancian arcane caster in 2e, a Vancian arcane caster in 3e, an and an arcane caster in 4e.

The preponderance of D&D tradition makes the bard an arcane Vancian caster.

I would like to see it reimagined from the ground up, and it sounds like that's what they're doing - taking it back to its Celtic roots. I find this exciting, and hope they pull it off.

Sounds cool, probably not going to happen. Maybe we'll get a bard-like class with some alternative mechanics and such in a later module. Something like the Skald, perhaps?

(And if I could just mention... I'd really like to get away from the terminology of 'spells' for clerics. It's jarring, and always has been.)

IIRC, Clerics cast spells in all editions but 4e. Ergo, Clerics will cast spells in 5e.

Li Shenron · Aug 20, 2012

Umbran said:
Look again - the sorcerer, really, isn't that far from a spell-point wizard, except that a couple of his spells are chosen by the heritage.

The bennies for running out of spell points are not huge (a couple points of melee damage and resistance to one damage type do not a "fighting machine" make). I suspect those are meant to balance against the Wizard's extra cantrip and higher magical attack rating - the idea is to keep spellcasters in play when spelled out - the sorcerer is just experimenting with other ways to do this.

I think I got that the idea was to keep spellcasters in play when out of spell. What is left when regular spells slots or points are used up?

The wizard still has 3 cantrips and rituals (but the latter only out of combat).

The (draconic) sorcerer has 2 cantrips. And then he has double the base HP, full martial weapon proficiencies, full armor and shield proficiency (can cast those cantrips in armor), some energy resistance and bonus to damage (here I made a mistake, I thought I remember +2 bonus to attack, that would have been definitely better...). So offensive-wise it's not that better (meaning that it is better, but if cantrips are still more convenient then the weapon proficiencies are kind of moot), but defensive-wise it definitely is.

I like the fact that a low-battery Wizard still has the edge out of combat thanks to Rituals (if I understand right that Rituals don't cost any slot to use). This is actually probably fine with me since I tend not to have too many combats per day but other types of challenges, hence there would be definitely more than one reason in my games to play a Wizard.

Li Shenron · Aug 20, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
The bard was a Vancian caster (once it finally took bard levels) in 1e, a Vancian arcane caster in 2e, a Vancian arcane caster in 3e, an and an arcane caster in 4e.

The preponderance of D&D tradition makes the bard an arcane Vancian caster.

Sounds cool, probably not going to happen. Maybe we'll get a bard-like class with some alternative mechanics and such in a later module. Something like the Skald, perhaps?

My knowledge is practically limited to the 3ed Bard, the spellcasting of which used the mechanic of the Sorcerer but had a spell list that seemed like a smaller version of the Wizard/Sorcerer's list plus spells from other lists.

My guess is that the Bard will follow the trend of all other spellcasters in 5e, i.e. unique mechanics and own spell list (although this will at least overlap with others).

I don't really know how the Bard originally was conceived... but sometimes I got the feeling that it had a bit of everyone's spellcasting abilities, possibly explained by having occasionally learned spare spells from a variety of sources, thanks to being a jack-of-all-trades exposed to different stray knowledge.

So what if instead of another spellcasting mechanical variant and another separate spell list, the 5e Bard had simply the ability to "dip" into everybody else spell lists?

(I guess then some mechanic still needs to be chosen... how about the same mechanic as the Wizard but obviously lesser numbers and replacing Int with Cha?)

avin · Aug 20, 2012

Ok, I've been a few days out, but where are you guys getting this "spell points for sorcerer" rules from?

Umbran · Aug 20, 2012

avin said:
Ok, I've been a few days out, but where are you guys getting this "spell points for sorcerer" rules from?

The newest playtest packet has a sorcerer and warlock class.

Jupp · Aug 20, 2012

I fail to see the issue that there is no modularity. You have the meta class "caster class type" and then you have different choices, call them modules if you want to, from where you can choose how the caster should be played based on your very own taste and and playstyle. I can live with that kind of modularity.

Tony Vargas · Aug 20, 2012

Li Shenron said:
My knowledge is practically limited to the 3ed Bard, the spellcasting of which used the mechanic of the Sorcerer but had a spell list that seemed like a smaller version of the Wizard/Sorcerer's list plus spells from other lists.

Ah, I believe you're right. That still leaves it arcane for the majority of it's time in D&D, and Vancian for a different majority, but, maybe the preponderance of tradition isn't quite so cut and dried.

triqui · Aug 20, 2012

I think people is missing the point. They didn't say you could play any class you want, with any ruleset you please to do so. What they said, is that you can find a place in a 5e table, whatever is your playstyle or edition of choice.

That means that if you like Vancian magic, you can play 5e. Use a Wizard. If you don't like Vancian magic, you can play 5e too. Use a Sorcerer. If you want fighters with a ton of maneuvers, different options, and combat stuff, you can play a 5e fighter and use Combat Superiority. If you rather preffer a simple fighter that hit and do damage, 2e style, just use Combat superiority as extra damage and you are done.

THAT's what they promised. They never said you could play a wizard like 2e, 3e, 4e, essentials, BECMI, alternate Unearthed Arcana and NeverWinter Nights videogame style in the same table.

hamstertamer · Aug 20, 2012

Umbran said:
That's fluff, not crunch. They can rename and restyle after they've gotten the basic mechanics worked out in playtest. In the meantime, giving them different names helps them avoid confusion in the playtest reports.

So they are doing it completely backwards then.

Decide what the class is then make the mechanics fit that class. There should be no "renaming" or "restyling" to fit the mechanics as an after thought. This just shows that their rpg design philosophy is not coherent or their going an approach that will be accectable to only a certain gaming playstyle niche (theirs).