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

Evenglare · Aug 20, 2012

So they released the warlock and sorcerer, that's cool and all but then I began to remember them talking about modularity and playing the game you want to run. So I was under the impression that magic systems would be modular, but with the release of warlock and sorcerer those classes seem to be tied to the magic system of their choice. This ISNT what they initially promised. The original verbiage implied that you would be able to play a wizard and then how you cast your spells were whatever kind of spell system that the DM had for his campaign.

Originally they wanted each class to be extremely basic and then from there you would be able to attach modules to build up complexity as you see fit. Now with the introduction of warlock and sorcerer it seems those classes are very specific and antithetical to what was originally promised.

Raith5 · Aug 20, 2012

Good question Evenglare. I have a similar question about expertise dice with the fighter. Are these expertise dice THE form of modularity than enables 4th ed style fighters - is that the whole thing. Or could we expect 4th ed style powers to come later at some point?

TwinBahamut · Aug 20, 2012

I don't think the existence of the sorcerer and the warlock are exactly proof that modularity is gone. After all, there really is very little difference between a class with a completely alternate set of core mechanics and a totally new class. It is almost certainly easier to create alternate versions of the wizard with alternate spellcasting mechanics as new classes than it is to attempt it any other way. Classes themselves are modules, and the class system has always been one of the most elegant forms of modularity in any edition of D&D. It is that form of modularity that allowed things like Psionics, the Book of Nine Swords, or 4E Essentials to seamlessly provide very different game experiences from their respective core rulesets.

Still, despite disagreeing with the reasoning I do generally agree with the conclusion. 5E hasn't shown any signs of this much-vaunted modularity. WotC has shown almost nothing regarding these modules, and more importantly the game rules are not really modular in any way that previous editions were not. 5E isn't adding in any new framework for seamlessly adding in new rules, concepts, or mechanics. Unless it does, it will not be any more modular than any previous edition was.

Shadeydm · Aug 20, 2012

I hope they are just playtesting some of the modules. I too would be disappointed if the fighters action dice or these alternate magic systems were a default assumption and not optional rules modules.

Umbran · Aug 20, 2012

Evenglare said:
This ISNT what they initially promised.

Well, as others have already noted: What is the difference between having a Wizard class and a sorcerer class, and having a wizard class and then a a wizard class that works exactly like the sorcerer class, but is called a "wizard"?

TwinBahamut said:
Still, despite disagreeing with the reasoning I do generally agree with the conclusion. 5E hasn't shown any signs of this much-vaunted modularity. WotC has shown almost nothing regarding these modules...

In the keynote speech, they mentioned that they expected the playtest process to go for two years, at their current rate of progress. I would question the wisdom of attempting to show you modules of complexity now, before the base, not-terribly-complicated rules were thoroughly playtested, wouldn't you?

Evenglare · Aug 20, 2012

Umbran said:
Well, as others have already noted: What is the difference between having a Wizard class and a sorcerer class, and having a wizard class and then a a wizard class that works exactly like the sorcerer class, but is called a "wizard"?

Because a sorcerer is not a wizard. Their magic is inherent. Is the same logic of... let's say 3.5. If a cleric can do everything a fighter can do and better then why not just call the cleric a fighter if they both essentially do the same thing? The answer is because a cleric is a cleric and a fighter is a fighter. A sorcerer should have spells, but they should be thematically linked to the sorcerer, this does not include -how- magic works , it simply means what kinds of spells the sorcerer has access to.

Crazy Jerome · Aug 20, 2012

I also got the impression from the wording of the announcement on the latest classes that the current configuration is a playtest thing, not set in stone. It's easier to test separate magic systems in separate classes, but that doesn't mean those magic system can't later be pulled out as modules for use in multiple classes. Doesn't mean that they will be so pulled out, either, but for testing it is easier to keep them separate.

Evenglare · Aug 20, 2012

I hope that is the case Crazy Jerome.

tlantl · Aug 20, 2012

Listening to the way the developers are talking, they are still focusing on the core of the game.

The sorcerer and warlock are probably as close to modular spell casters as they are going to get though unless they get a whole lot of feedback telling them it's not what we want. From what I've heard recently it may be such that there really isn't that many people that really care about alternative methods of spell casting. Other than some really loud voices on the forums. A hand full of verbose forums goers are not going to make much difference if tens of thousands of players don't care or don't want anything other than vancian casters.

From listening to the DM seminar they seem to be looking at the different casting methods being built into the different classes presented and if you want a spell point wizard you'll need to re-flavor the sorcerer or just play one as written.

D'karr · Aug 20, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
I also got the impression from the wording of the announcement on the latest classes that the current configuration is a playtest thing, not set in stone. It's easier to test separate magic systems in separate classes, but that doesn't mean those magic system can't later be pulled out as modules for use in multiple classes. Doesn't mean that they will be so pulled out, either, but for testing it is easier to keep them separate.

They were not looking at it that way during the monster seminar. This particular question was asked and the answer at this time was "scratch-out sorcerer from the character sheet and write-in wizard."

At this point they have not looked at separate modules for separate magic systems. It doesn't mean that they will not look at it as the playtest progresses because they did seem to allude to it.