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

Evenglare said:

That's a shame then, it seem's ill stick with 4th edition or 13th age. There seems to be no class that resembles a wizard with spell points, as I dont want to be a sorcerer with a high charisma and bloodline heritage that morphs overtime. I was hoping I could play a wizard with spell points. It seems that 5th edition has lost me as a consumer. I was really hoping that this wasn't the case. I had very high hopes when this was first announced.

Click to expand...

very over dramatic for the second playtest

Holy cow? I do not get this. You WILL be able to play a Wizard with a spell point mechanic. They are presenting mechanics to TRIAL in other classes. It will be easy to do so.

As stated earlier - are you expecting class powers to all be lists and then in sidebars (or somewhere) there is a bunch of Options to choose from. That would be clumsy in the extreme. 6 different ways to spellcast, 5 for Combat Superiority, 4 for Sneak Attack, etc.

Each class having core mechanics for each feature is fine to form the base class.

Connorsrpg said:

Holy cow? I do not get this. You WILL be able to play a Wizard with a spell point mechanic. They are presenting mechanics to TRIAL in other classes. It will be easy to do so.

As stated earlier - are you expecting class powers to all be lists and then in sidebars (or somewhere) there is a bunch of Options to choose from. That would be clumsy in the extreme. 6 different ways to spellcast, 5 for Combat Superiority, 4 for Sneak Attack, etc.

Each class having core mechanics for each feature is fine to form the base class.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Go listen to the pod cast with penny arcade and PvP. Mike merls (or w/e) says that the wizard class isnt anywhere NEAR the first draft of what they got in store for them. Just wait wizard will get way funner!

Tony Vargas said:

What Mr. Mearls did say in L&L, among other things, was:

"Game Design
The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands. That experience is more important than the specifics of the math..."

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D Next Design Considerations)

Click to expand...

Yes. But he did not say "every character will be able to be created either 1st edition or 4th edition".
One player can build a 4e character (let's say, the warlock), while other character can build a 1st edition character (let's say, the wizard).

Alright, so what I gather from last night's posts and tonight's is that no one actually knows what the hell 5th edition is going to with classes and modularity. Half of you say each class will represent a certain edition, and the other half say that each class will be playable in a variety of ways (which is what I hope for) ... fantastic.

Evenglare said:

Alright, so what I gather from last night's posts and tonight's is that no one actually knows what the hell 5th edition is going to with classes and modularity. Half of you say each class will represent a certain edition, and the other half say that each class will be playable in a variety of ways (which is what I hope for) ... fantastic.

Click to expand...

your right!
No one knows for sure what is going on. We are all reading the same stuff, and interpreting it different ways. Wizards of the coast said that it will be about two years before they release the finial core rules. so don't throw it out so soon. Instead let wizards know what you would like to see. Despite what you think, they are trying to make a game that everyone will enjoy. There is still a lot of time for the game to change.

I seriously don't get it... there is no way some of you will be happy through this process no matter what they do. So chill. Take a deep breath. Relax. Have some cookies.

Now...

There is Modularity in this playtest... Both Backgrounds and Specialties are OPTIONAL. That's Modularity.

We have four different magic systems to play with... so why are you all complaining? Have fun, it's just a game.

If you want the full modularity that you want what Wizards would have to do is go completely Classless... but then many of you would complain that thats not D&D.

So how can you have a Wizard Class, a Warlock class, and a Sorcerer class, all arcane spellcasters... and have it be Modular? If you take all the fluff from the class then they become just pure mechanics... if you take the fluff from the abilities then the abilities are just pure game mechanic... talk about the most boring game to read in the history of gaming.

What makes a Sorcerer a Sorcerer?
a Warlock a Warlock?
A Wizard a Wizard?

Answer these questions... then see how each so far has been adapted to being a arcane spellcaster. Right now they all fit.

Why would you want to play a Wizard who casts magic more spontaneously when the Sorcerer does that... if a Wizard is a person who prepares his spells from a spellbook each day, studies and researches magic in the process of learning magic then how does that fit into a character who gains his spells innately and spontaneously?

And just because they use fluff, they are not going to send Stormtroopers to your place to hold you at blaster point to make you play it as written.

So use your Imagination, it's your most powerful tool and gift... use it, and have fun.

*hands a cookie to everybody*

Stacie GmrGrl said:

So how can you have a Wizard Class, a Warlock class, and a Sorcerer class, all arcane spellcasters... and have it be Modular? If you take all the fluff from the class then they become just pure mechanics... if you take the fluff from the abilities then the abilities are just pure game mechanic... talk about the most boring game to read in the history of gaming.

Click to expand...

How can you have 3 spell casting classes and have it be modular? Well, you seem to be neglecting that each of those classes has some sort of class feature associate with it,NOT just spells. Example, Sorcerers rely on charisma, have bloodlines and morph mechanics along with their spell point system. What if I dont want to have those sorcerer abilities? What if I want to have a high int character who casts spells as a Wizard using that magic point mechanic? Do I just play a sorcerer and not use any of the heritage stuff? If this is the case, you would be playing a VASTLY underpowered character.

What makes a Sorcerer a Sorcerer?
a Warlock a Warlock?
A Wizard a Wizard?

Answer these questions... then see how each so far has been adapted to being a arcane spellcaster. Right now they all fit.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing they dont fit, I'm arguing the fact that modules should be used and applied to those classes to facilitate any spell system I want to use.. If you have seen the GENCON keynote they make it very clear that they want the players to play the kind of game they want, and that the staff at wizards is not there to tell you what playstyle to use... yet here we are being told how to play each class and giving them pretty specific backgrounds . The most recent rule of 3 stated that wizards are afraid of warlocks? Why ? That seems to me that they want me to play the game that they want to make... just like any other edition.

Why would you want to play a Wizard who casts magic more spontaneously when the Sorcerer does that... if a Wizard is a person who prepares his spells from a spellbook each day, studies and researches magic in the process of learning magic then how does that fit into a character who gains his spells innately and spontaneously?

Click to expand...

Again this was addressed at the top....why would I want to play a spontaneous caster wizard? Because the sorcerer's fluff, and other mechanics (such as bloodline stuff, and the fact that they rely on charisma. I dont want to play a character like that. There's nothing to say that a wizard cant study his book and commit spells to memory for the day, then use magic points to cast those memorized spells.

Just because the spell come from different sources (sorcerer innate spells and wizard books) does not mean that they should be cast any differently . I mentioned in an earlier post, what about clerics? They get their magic from their gods, I guess we need another magic system for that class right? What about the druid getting their magic from nature? I guess we need a magic system for that as well. Oh yeah the bard who get's his power from music, let's go ahead and make yet another way to cast spells .

Why are the wizard and sorcerer using the vancian magic system, while the 2 other spell casters have their own way of casting magic. It's a very inconsistent train of thought. I have seen the justification of the cleric using the vancian system because they always have. That's a terrible arguement because the sorcerer used vancian casting in third edition. They had different way's of LEARNING the spells (innate sorcerer, spellbook wizard), but the way they cast them were the same.

And just because they use fluff, they are not going to send Stormtroopers to your place to hold you at blaster point to make you play it as written.

Click to expand...

I understand that I can house rule these things in , but if I have to start using houserules here in the second playtest... that makes me doubt that their original mantra of playing the game how I want to is thrown out the window.

Evenglare said:

That's a shame then, it seem's ill stick with 4th edition or 13th age. There seems to be no class that resembles a wizard with spell points, as I dont want to be a sorcerer with a high charisma and bloodline heritage that morphs overtime. I was hoping I could play a wizard with spell points. It seems that 5th edition has lost me as a consumer. I was really hoping that this wasn't the case. I had very high hopes when this was first announced.

Click to expand...

Where in 4th edition can you play a wizard with spell points?

I believe the edition you are looking for is 3rd edition...

Also you're looking at the game 2 years before it comes out. Lets nail down the core before you nail down the optionals. If your THAT impatient, go play something else while the playtest happens and we'll give you call in 2014...

The issue is that Vancian magic is a sore spot for a lot of people. We don't necessarily want alternatives so much as the ability to run a complete game of D&D while removing it entirely. To put it more specifically, I want to be able to play any character concept I can think of without having to use Vancian magic which I hate, and after seeing the Sorcerer and Warlock refluffing those is most certainly not a good alternative. When I DM, I want to be able to run the game while being able to completely remove Vancian magic without gimping the game, and banning the Wizard class/archetype to me gimps the game. The Wizard archetype is so central to D&D that removing/ignoring the Wizard results in an incomplete D&D.

This isn't the only place modularity fails:

1. DM fiat/Mother May I--I don't really see how this can be modded after the fact in any satisfactory matter.
2. Resource attrition--the current game is being designed around resource attrition, which is great for dungeon crawls and sandbox and considerably less great for anything else. Like #1 , I don't see how this can be modded after the fact in any satisfactory matter.
3. Tactical Depth--Tactically, this game is fight or run away. It lacks the deep and emergent tactics of 4E, or even the rock/paper/scissors Rocket Tag of 3E. Simply adding a grid and 3E style universal maneuvers does nothing to change this, and again modularity isn't likely to be able to fix this for people who want a deeper tactical experience than what pre-3E provided.
4. Interesting mechanics--The mechanics of 5E are very simple and not very compelling, compared to 3E and 4E. The Sorcerer comes close, but is far more interesting in concept than in practice. Mechanics that are interesting in practice are missing from 5E right now, and I'm not seeing where a modular add-on can change that.

Personally, I don't want to play a D&D based around Vancian magic or Mother May I, isn't balanced unless you play in an attrition based story, and lacks tactical depth and compelling mechanics. 5E's core as it is currently design fails at all of those things, and fails harder at them than a couple of tweaks would be able to fix. The problem with a strong core and minor modularity is that it all depends on the core, and if you hate the core modularity can't fix it. For 5E, I would be need to be able to change and deviate from the core to a stronger degree than is currently being described as possible.