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

Zaukrie · Oct 2, 2012

Yuck and yuck if they only difference is resources. I think the spells need to be distinct. Ok, I'll stop typing that now.

Crazy Jerome · Oct 2, 2012

FireLance said:
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.

I take the reductive view that if, for example, swapping out the "wizard default casting mechanics" for the sorcerer makes the sorcerer just another way to play a wizard--then there wasn't any point in having them as separate classes in the first place. That is, it has often been the case that a "new class" in D&D was some official reskinning with a touch of paint, not really much of a new class in function or flavor.

Or, if you want the more positive slant, then getting that result is a very strong sign that maybe the sorcerer needs reworking so that this state of affairs is no longer true--rather than, say, going back to repacking spells in a slightly different fashion and pretending it was all that and a barrel of monkeys.

Good modular design tends to do that--among other things. It exposes facades for what they are. So then the mature reaction is to build up better (more truly flavorful) facades around the now stronger core elements.

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 2, 2012

Minigiant said:
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?

Maybe? I could see it working with some work. It may not have to. The current playtest Warlock works with the spell list through rituals, which is already interesting and functional.

Crazy Jerome · Oct 2, 2012

Note in passing: There is no reason that putting the choice of magic mechanic systems in the DM's hands (however the DM consults with players) is in any way a requirement that the magic mechanic systems be in the DMG. It is only required that they be outside the class listings.

Such systems can be in the PHB in a dedicated chapter, part of the spell chapter, some split off into the DMG, added to in a separate book, or in a fit of near insanity, even have one or two included in the MM (e.g. "dragon magic" suitable for such monsters).

variant · Oct 2, 2012

My biggest concern is that these alternative spell resource systems will step on the toes of the Sorcerer and Warlock.

VinylTap · Oct 2, 2012

at some level this is going to be about how a class's abilities augment the general spell pool, isn't it? That's where we'll probably see the most "flavour", as far as class goes. How will a wizard handle 'at will' differently than a warlock?

Crazy Jerome · Oct 2, 2012

variant said:
My biggest concern is that these alternative spell resource systems will step on the toes of the Sorcerer and Warlock.

That's like saying that the biggest concern going to the beach is that someone might get sand in their clothes or get wet. Just saying ...

Tovec · Oct 2, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
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.

Allow me to phrase this in another light.
Let's say wizards have 9 spell levels, sorcerers have 7 spell levels and warlocks 5 spell levels. That all assumes that they use spell levels. It doesn't assume they use the same spells, same versions of spells or anything like that.
If they all became at-will users, or ritual users or recharge or any combination. They will (or at least should) have power levels, spells and options based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have little to do with which mechanics they are using.

You only run into troubles when all three classes have 9 spell levels and are all vancian and/or when all three could easily be confused with one another. If you can't take a warlock (regardless of mechanics) and slap on a wizard sticker then I'll be exceedingly happy with the outcome on this matter.

variant said:
My biggest concern is that these alternative spell resource systems will step on the toes of the Sorcerer and Warlock.

Right now, define the warlock and sorcerer. Do it WITHOUT describing HOW they cast spells. If you can't do it then this concern is already moot. If you CAN then there shouldn't be a problem if they all use vancian or not.

ZombieRoboNinja · Oct 2, 2012

Tovec said:
Allow me to phrase this in another light.
Let's say wizards have 9 spell levels, sorcerers have 7 spell levels and warlocks 5 spell levels. That all assumes that they use spell levels. It doesn't assume they use the same spells, same versions of spells or anything like that.
If they all became at-will users, or ritual users or recharge or any combination. They will (or at least should) have power levels, spells and options based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have little to do with which mechanics they are using.

Warlocks currently have one level of spells, and they scale. And they're balanced as at-will or encounter powers, but also balanced with the understanding that the class doesn't get any daily powers. (Which is why Eldritch blast is more powerful than a wizard cantrip.) How do you convert that to a mana point system or (God forbid) Vancian?

You only run into troubles when all three classes have 9 spell levels and are all vancian and/or when all three could easily be confused with one another. If you can't take a warlock (regardless of mechanics) and slap on a wizard sticker then I'll be exceedingly happy with the outcome on this matter.

Right now, define the warlock and sorcerer. Do it WITHOUT describing HOW they cast spells. If you can't do it then this concern is already moot. If you CAN then there shouldn't be a problem if they all use vancian or not.

By this standard fighters don't need CS, rogues don't need skill mastery or sneak attack, etc. Of course you can unify mechanics - there are plenty of RPGs that do just that. But D&D isn't one of them. Each class has its own quirks. By stipulating that all spell casters MUST be malleable in their mechanics you prevent a lot of cool, specific mechanics from being implemented. Just for example, as I've already mentioned, when does a Vancian draconic sorcerer start to grow scales and claws?

GameDoc · Oct 2, 2012

VinylTap said:
at some level this is going to be about how a class's abilities augment the general spell pool, isn't it? That's where we'll probably see the most "flavour", as far as class goes. How will a wizard handle 'at will' differently than a warlock?

Exactly. Historically, wizards/magic-users, clerics, druids, illusionists, bards, paladins, rangers, and assassins have all shared the same basic spellcasting mechanic.

What differentiated them was the spell list, rate of advancement, skills, equipment, saves, attack bonuses, and other class features. No one has ever accused a cleric and wizard of being interchangeable.

By that same token, it seems to me that you can build a wizard, sorcerer, and warlock around the same spell mechanic. It will be their other class features that differentiate them. And as long as those features can be designed to accommodate the different spell mechanic options the class distinctions should hold up.

I think maybe what some are struggling with is the fact that this mean having to add some other significant feature to the basic wizard to give it its own schtick compared to the sorcerer or warlock, and that feature cannot be the tried and true Vancian spell memorization. That will make the D&D wizard more complex than it's ever been. Spells and spells alone can no longer define it. And that's changing something that has been a fundamental part of our favorite fantasy RPG for anyone who came up prior to 4e. It's almost like asking die hard lifelong fans of a sports team to accept the idea that their team is going to change it's colors.