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

tlantl said:

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.

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope this is wrong, if it isnt then they have lost a customer. This isnt what was conveyed to me initially. Just because a sorcerer's magic originates from a different place doesn't mean magic should work different. If that were the case, since a cleric's magic originates from a God then their magic should work differently from a wizard , who's magic originates from the weave (or wherever magic comes from)

Before you can do optional modules, you have to get the core down. If you make modules based on bad rules you have bad modules as well.

As for the sorcerer and warlock, they were promised too. They are supposed to have every class that has appeared in a core PHB represented in the 5e core rules. You can't read too much into things with the little information we have.

Evenglare said:

Because a sorcerer is not a wizard. Their magic is inherent.

Click to expand...

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.

Umbran said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't, especially since modularity is the key selling point of this edition. What's more, modularity is probably the single hardest part of the game to actually design and make work, so it should be the very first thing to design and playtest. Far more important than Wizards and the Caves of Chaos, no doubt.

Quite simply, if they are designing 5E to be modular, then they are simply on the wrong track and need to scrap what they've created entirely and rebuild it from scratch. The rules are still incomplete, but it isn't like they are non-existent, and what is there so far is simply not designed to be modular. The modularity would have to be built right into the very core of the rules, something we've already seen clearly enough, and it simply isn't there. At least, they are not designed to be modular in any way that wasn't seen in 3E and its Unearthed Arcana.

They might very well completely scrap everything they've done so far somewhere between now and when they release two years from now, but I don't think such a possibility is worth basing an argument upon. It is also looking rather unlikely considering the glacial rate of change between playtests and WotC's uncertain ability to either respond to criticism or back up its marketing with actual quality rules. This is a pessimistic view, certainly, but the info on 5E from over the last several months has really soured my initial optimism.

Evenglare said:

I sincerely hope this is wrong, if it isnt then they have lost a customer. This isnt what was conveyed to me initially. Just because a sorcerer's magic originates from a different place doesn't mean magic should work different. If that were the case, since a cleric's magic originates from a God then their magic should work differently from a wizard , who's magic originates from the weave (or wherever magic comes from)

Click to expand...

I'd suggest making your feelings known in as many ways as you can. there's always a comments section on the surveys and i'm sure that these and other forums are given som weight as long as the feedback, discussions, and criticisms are earnest and civil.

There's a lot of play testing to be done and I'm sure that a lot of these issues will be ironed out. I personally have some pretty strong feelings about the spells and their use as well. I'm not happy with the entire system at the moment. Things like at will spells Hit point thresholds most of the spell descriptions, durations and damage output, turn undead as a spell, etc.

I think the sorcerer is likely too strong or it's will points are going to prove overpowered when the character starts using higher level spells, the warlock's encounter invocations are going to be a hindrance to the rest of the party, not to mention they are pretty useless for most situations. There's certainly nothing subtle about them though.

I guess all we can do is wait and see and give our feedback to try to influence the finished product.

Um, sorry, not really seeing the point of the OP.

Where did they promise to take class mechanics out and just choose from all these options. I am pretty sure each class will (and should IMHO) come with a standard mechanic for casting spells. There will be other Spellcasting options that you could swap to.

What is the difference b/w putting these Spellcasting options into a sidebar than to putting them directly into a class. Me - I would much rather a class with a mechanic for casting its spells. If I want to swap this I can - even from other classes. No different in my mind.

AS Umbran said - that is just fluff (oh I hate that word). If you picture wizards as gaining and casting spells differently, well, you have just been presented with 2 more options...not sure how that goes against what you are hoping for (or against 'something Wizards people stated').

Connorsrpg said:

Um, sorry, not really seeing the point of the OP.

Where did they promise to take class mechanics out and just choose from all these options. I am pretty sure each class will (and should IMHO) come with a standard mechanic for casting spells. There will be other Spellcasting options that you could swap to.

Click to expand...

This is completely against what was initally promised. A concise core system that can be modded to how you want to play the game. How in anyway are 3 magic systems in the default game a concise system?

And here is where different magic modules are mentioned.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/29/2012)

Evenglare said:

I sincerely hope this is wrong, if it isnt then they have lost a customer. This isnt what was conveyed to me initially. Just because a sorcerer's magic originates from a different place doesn't mean magic should work different. If that were the case, since a cleric's magic originates from a God then their magic should work differently from a wizard , who's magic originates from the weave (or wherever magic comes from)

Click to expand...

Cleric's magic does work differently.

Evenglare said:

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.

Click to expand...

Classes /are/ being differentiated by their mechanics, so the 'how' does matter. Perhaps the modularity will include which classes go with which modules? So a 'non-Vancian' game would simply see the wizard ejected, and the Sorcerer in his place?