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

If things were going to be 'that' modular, is the OP expecting classes to just be a list of powers and then in sidebars there will be diferent ways on 'how' those powers are used - new mechanics for each class's powers?

If that is modularity you are aiming for, then there should be different ways for a Fighter's Combat Superiority, different ways for a Rogue's Skill Mastery and Sneak Attacks, etc.

(Oh, I don't mind if there are alternate ways to do these things, but each class should at least start with a standard 'how to', and that is exactly what is happening).

Tony Vargas said:

They're all classic classes that were Vancian before, so presumably will be again.

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope not. Oh, the druid has enough tradition as being similar to the cleric that it may end up the same.

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. 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.

A bard class based on Taliesin, with maybe a dash of Orpheus and even Vainamoinen, could be very intriguing. Forget sorcerer-like casting and take bardic music to the hilt. Or, depending on how Celtic they want to go, tying it closely to the druid would also be an interesting option. (Of course, if it were up to me, druids would be arcane casters anyway, not divine...) That option would also hark back to 1e, though I heartily encourage losing the thief part of the 1e bard. (It seems to be based on nothing but an ethnic slur against the Welsh.)

As for paladins, they've already said they don't want them casting spells. I can buy that, though I'm thus far politely skeptical of the auras they were talking about before.

Rangers... Sigh. There's another class that has gone through many different revisions across editions. If they get spells at all, I'd vote for druidic ones, rather than the wizard ones of 1e/2e.

(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.)

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"?

Click to expand...

This used to be my first approach to Wizards vs Sorcerers in 3.0. I still remember that this is among the early things I told my players when I DMed my first game... that the 3ed Sorcerer was just an alternative mechanical design of the Wizard for players who were uncomfortable with the limits of spell preparation, and that if anyone didn't like the "fluff" about a Sorcerer's inborn magic, I would definitely allow them to describe their Sorcerer exactly like a Wizard, learning spells from dusty old tomes using intellect and discipline.

But now see next part...

Umbran said:

That's fluff, not crunch.

Click to expand...

In the case of the 3.0 Sorcerer yes.

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.

This might remain a case only for the Draconic Heritage Sorcerer, but I seriously doubt... if the mechanic works soundly and is balanced, they will probably keep it as default for all heritages, and vary their details, rather than trying to have completely different mechanics for different heritages, which will increase the need for careful balance even within the same class. Most likely this mechanic will become the "signature" mechanic of the Sorcerer class, in which case "refluffing" wouldn't work that well, because if you like the Sorcerer spell-points spellcasting mechanics you'll have to buy also the transformation mechanic (which presumably is designed with the spell-points in mind so that altogether they make for a balanced class) which IMHO is quite a strong mechanical characterization that a lot of Wizard players are not interested in.

Okay, what i'm hearing is that you can allow or ban classes to explain the feel of the campaign and where magic comes from.... So instead of me wanting to play a wizard who focuses on high int with spellpoints ( or willpoints or whatever) I have to play a sorcerer who focuses on charisma and has crazy heritage and other class features that I simply do not want as part of my character. Let me stop before you even suggest that I just "dont us those features", that's not a valid compromise since it would be limiting the effectiveness of the class. Also "just change the sorcerer's key attribute to int" is also an invalid solution since I was led to believe the fundamental nature of the game was adding complexity in modules, not house ruling something that I could have easily done in any other edition.

So the next question is why the hell make a new edition and have the selling point be modular if modular simply means banning or allowing classes that have the mechanics you want? I can do that with every other edition. If this IS the case, im extremely dissapointed in wizards .

Evenglare said:

Okay, what i'm hearing is that you can allow or ban classes to explain the feel of the campaign and where magic comes from.... So instead of me wanting to play a wizard who focuses on high int with spellpoints ( or willpoints or whatever) I have to play a sorcerer who focuses on charisma and has crazy heritage and other class features that I simply do not want as part of my character. Let me stop before you even suggest that I just "dont us those features", that's not a valid compromise since it would be limiting the effectiveness of the class. Also "just change the sorcerer's key attribute to int" is also an invalid solution since I was led to believe the fundamental nature of the game was adding complexity in modules, not house ruling something that I could have easily done in any other edition.

So the next question is why the hell make a new edition and have the selling point be modular if modular simply means banning or allowing classes that have the mechanics you want? I can do that with every other edition. If this IS the case, im extremely dissapointed in wizards .

Click to expand...

I think you need to keep in mind that this is the second play test. There is going to be a core spell casting mechanic, and it is going to be the 40 year old Vancian system. That's going to be the default for the core classes- Wizard and Cleric. We'll see a few limited scope alternate systems through other classes that are either new or have traditionally been structure around variant casting (the Sorcerer), but I imagine that is it for a while. The core system needs to be play tested first before alternate systems, and the core system is going to be built around the idea of Vancian Wizards and non-Vancian Sorcerer's and Warlocks.

In other words, even if the final product were going to be a D&D erector set with every element selectable by the DM (which I don't think it is), it would be impossible to play test it that way- no two groups would be playing the same game, so the feedback would be meaningless. My guess is it will be quite late in the process before we start seeing modules available for testing.

If they're going to support several different magic systems, it's almost certainly better if they give the associated classes different names. That way, if the DM wants to use both systems side-by-side, it is easy to do so.

Now, that said...

From the keynote, it did sound as though "modularity" was probably not going to be quite what I had expected. When discussing having the three classes side-by-side, it definitely sounded like they expected all three magic systems to be used side-by-side, in all campaigns.

I believe the revelant quote was something like, "we want each DM to be able to run the game he wants, and each player to be able to create the character he wants".

In which case, it sounds like "modularity" is going to be something on the DM's side only - maybe modules for grid-based combat, or expanded exploration, or what-have-you. But not an inbuilt module to only use Vancian casters, or only use spell-point magic, or similar, because it's up to the players to decide what characters they want.

(Of course, I'm not sure it matters too much, since DMs have generally been able to say "no Elves!", or whatever, for their campaigns, and this is no different. But on the other hand, I never cared for this kitchen-sink approach in 3e or 4e, and would have preferred not to see it being assumed in 5e either.)

Evenglare said:

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.

Click to expand...

They always said the Wizard would be vancian (as it's one of the things that makes D&D, well D&D), but other classes would exist to give those who didn't like vancian other options. This is not a change.

Evenglare said:

Okay, what i'm hearing is that you can allow or ban classes to explain the feel of the campaign and where magic comes from.... So instead of me wanting to play a wizard who focuses on high int with spellpoints ( or willpoints or whatever) I have to play a sorcerer who focuses on charisma and has crazy heritage and other class features that I simply do not want as part of my character. Let me stop before you even suggest that I just "dont us those features", that's not a valid compromise since it would be limiting the effectiveness of the class. Also "just change the sorcerer's key attribute to int" is also an invalid solution since I was led to believe the fundamental nature of the game was adding complexity in modules, not house ruling something that I could have easily done in any other edition.

So the next question is why the hell make a new edition and have the selling point be modular if modular simply means banning or allowing classes that have the mechanics you want? I can do that with every other edition. If this IS the case, im extremely dissapointed in wizards .

Click to expand...

Willpoints are equal to the number of spell-levels that character can cast on the wizard chart.

1.) Total up the total spell levels (IE: 3 1st, 2 2nd, 1 3rd = 10 will).
2.) Use those to determine wizard spells per day.
3.) Use Sorcerer list for number of spells known.

Done.

No game can be completely module. The idea is to create a game where PCs (and DMs) can dial the complexity up or down (grid v. gridless, full heal or partial heal, skills/feats yes or no, lots of magic/little magic). Its not DIY Fantasy. Never was.

Ultimatecalibur said:

Currently it is rather easy to convert the wizard into a spellpoint caster that prepares spells.

1. Use the Sorcerer's willpower per level chart as the Wizard's spellpoints per level.
2. Use the Sorcerer's spells known chart as the Wizard's max number of prepared spells.
3. Use the Wizard Spells per Day chart to determine Max Spell Level.
4. Use Spell level as spellpoint cost. (i.e. 1st level spells cost 1 sp, 2nd level spells cost 2, and 3rd level spells cost 3)

Click to expand...

I'm quoting this because here is a module for wizards.

There you go done!

Thanks [MENTION=59539]Ultimatecalibur[/MENTION]

john112364 said:

I'm quoting this because here is a module for wizards.

There you go done!

Thanks @Ultimatecalibur

Click to expand...

It's even easier than that: Swap the Wizards "Arcane Magic" for sorcerer's "Sorcery" and "Spellbook" becomes about Rituals. Done. A wizard that uses point system.