D&D 5E New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 1, 2012

It sounds like the plan is to build a single spell list and then design all the various casting mechanics to be balanced and swappable. I suspect that each class will have it's own default spellcasting system, like it does now. But the DM will have the tools to swap out one mechanic for another, while keeping all the rest of the mechanics for each class.

This doesn't add to the complexity of character creation because "choose your mechanic" isn't what's presented in the player's handbook. The spell-point wizard and the vancian warlock are optional modules.

It doesn't remove what makes each class special, because alternative casting mechanics are considered variants by default.

slobster · Oct 1, 2012

Jeff Carlsen said:
It sounds like the plan is to build a single spell list and then design all the various casting mechanics to be balanced and swappable. I suspect that each class will have it's own default spellcasting system, like it does now. But the DM will have the tools to swap out one mechanic for another, while keeping all the rest of the mechanics for each class.

This doesn't add to the complexity of character creation because "choose your mechanic" isn't what's presented in the player's handbook. The spell-point wizard and the vancian warlock are optional modules.

It doesn't remove what makes each class special, because alternative casting mechanics are considered variants by default.

If that's how it ends up working, I don't have any problems with it. Party on.

Iosue · Oct 1, 2012

mlund said:
Meh. D&D is always a consensus-driven game. The general consensus is that the DM's job is so demanding that everyone else either doesn't want to do the job or isn't up to the task. Ergo, you generally defer to the guy who bit the bullet for everyone else if he really feels strongly about some option or another making it harder or less rewarding for him to carry the load as DM.

- Marty Lund

Yup, that's my experience, too. If I suggest I want to run a certain kind of game, and no one's interested, then I'm SOL. But if the other folks want to play a game I have no interest in running, then one of them can GM. Somehow it's always worked out.

Moon_Goddess · Oct 1, 2012

I'm really happy and hopeful about this.

I originally thought this was what 5e was going to be when I heard about it.
I was disappointed when I learned they were going to have different classes do different things as they're modularity.

This will make me happy if they get it right.

pogre · Oct 2, 2012

Why not go with 4 base classes and let folks customize everything with rules modules?

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Warrior, Barbarian - All Fighting men who take different maneuver /feat packages.

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Witch - All Magic-Using men that use different spell sub-systems.

Thief, Bard, Assassin, Scout, Protagonist - All Sneaky bastiches that use various skill types and feat subsystems.

Cleric, Druid, Shaman - All holy men using different prayer subsystems.

FireLance · Oct 2, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
In 4e, a Fighter and a Ranger had the same ADEU + Role Mechanic structure, so the play experience was very similar no matter the label on your class. You can make a persuasive case that it doesn't matter what you call it, since it behaves basically the same. The names have no real meaning in and of themselves, they're just words for lumps of ADEU powers + a Role Mechanic.

In 5e, a Wizard and a Sorcerer have a different play experience (or at least they SHOULD). Independent of whether you use spell points or spell slots, a Wizard's schtick is to prepare in advance the magic she will use from a vast library of potential tools, while a sorcerer's is to pick in the moment from a limited list that they can use repeatedly. Wizards pick the right tool for the right circumstance, while to a sorcerer, well, they have a hammer, and every problem is a potential nail.

So in 5e, if you crossed out "Wizard" and wrote "Sorcerer," the experience wouldn't be interchangeable. You'd still be preparing magic from a vast list, not calling it spontaneously from a small pool. Regardless of spell points or spell slots, the behavior is different for each class.

Now, this raises another interesting point with respect to what makes a class distinct in terms of play experience: is it the power structure or the powers/spells/abilities themselves?

Now, there is no argument that if you vary both, you would likely have a very different play experience. However, if you varied just one factor, would it be enough? Varying the power structure without varying the powers would be quite similar to the 3e wizard and sorcerer, which cast essentially the same spells with different mechanics. Varying the powers without varying the power structure would be quite similar to the 3e wizard and cleric, or (an even closer parallel) the 3e wizard and archivist (from Heroes of Horror) because the archivist also maintains a spellbook of sorts from which he prepares spells.

I am personally of the view that varying the powers has a greater impact on play experience than varying the power structure. However, I do recognize that it is just my opinion, and not objective truth.

GX.Sigma · Oct 2, 2012

pogre said:
Why not go with 4 base classes and let folks customize everything with rules modules?

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Warrior, Barbarian - All Fighting men who take different maneuver /feat packages.

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Witch - All Magic-Using men that use different spell sub-systems.

Thief, Bard, Assassin, Scout, Protagonist - All Sneaky bastiches that use various skill types and feat subsystems.

Cleric, Druid, Shaman - All holy men using different prayer subsystems.

That's pretty much the idea, and that's the point of opening up different magic systems. The core 4 classes are versatile enough that you can make any kind of character with them. Then the other classes are in there, as specific flavor things.

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 2, 2012

pogre said:
Why not go with 4 base classes and let folks customize everything with rules modules?

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Warrior, Barbarian - All Fighting men who take different maneuver /feat packages.

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Witch - All Magic-Using men that use different spell sub-systems.

Thief, Bard, Assassin, Scout, Protagonist - All Sneaky bastiches that use various skill types and feat subsystems.

Cleric, Druid, Shaman - All holy men using different prayer subsystems.

You're getting some of this, but it won't be presented this way, and for good reason. Class is the big choice. For new players, or even players who want a simple game, all they should have to pick is race and class. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a good generality. Choosing a major class option is fine, particularly for the advanced classes. Everything else is being built to be optional and packages to make those choices easier.

So, the default is to reduce the number of choices players have to make, but the modules allow for more options for those who don't mind the complexity.

What's interesting to note is that, at a high level, what you present seems simpler, but at the table it takes more work.

ZombieRoboNinja · Oct 2, 2012

Jeff Carlsen said:
It sounds like the plan is to build a single spell list and then design all the various casting mechanics to be balanced and swappable. I suspect that each class will have it's own default spellcasting system, like it does now. But the DM will have the tools to swap out one mechanic for another, while keeping all the rest of the mechanics for each class.

This doesn't add to the complexity of character creation because "choose your mechanic" isn't what's presented in the player's handbook. The spell-point wizard and the vancian warlock are optional modules.

It doesn't remove what makes each class special, because alternative casting mechanics are considered variants by default.

This actually would mess up the warlock quite a bit, because his spells don't fall into 9 spell levels with no scaling (not to mention that they're at-will or encounter instead of daily).

The sorcerer would be fine, except it would be a pain for anyone who wanted to play a Vancian sorcerer (for some reason) to figure out when he starts growing scales and stuff.

I serious hope this idea is only for wizard and maybe clerics/Druids.

Minigiant · Oct 2, 2012

Question:

Is warlock will be part of this switchable casting system? They are back to invocations which don't follow the basic spell level scheme. Do you think each invocation will get a spell level equivalence?