D&D 5E Magic user back?!

GMforPowergamers · Oct 15, 2012

So in this week legend and lore weget alotaboutclasses (buti am sure wotc golem will startthat thread) but the big bomb shell for me was magic user as a class with wizard and sorcerer as builds :/

My knee jerk reaction was "what!?!"

GX.Sigma · Oct 15, 2012

It's important to note that that sentence begins with "There is a chance that, based on your feedback, we might..." It also says magic-user might be a class category, probably like the class groups in 2e.

timASW · Oct 15, 2012

GMforPowergamers said:
So in this week legend and lore weget alotaboutclasses (buti am sure wotc golem will startthat thread) but the big bomb shell for me was magic user as a class with wizard and sorcerer as builds :/

My knee jerk reaction was "what!?!"

I liked. Magic user should be a skill with how you go about it as a build. Clerics need to be tossed in there with wizards and sorcerers though. I cant ( and never have been able too) figure out why the divine brand of spell caster should be treated any differently then the arcane kind.

Szatany · Oct 15, 2012

GMforPowergamers said:
So in this week legend and lore weget alotaboutclasses (buti am sure wotc golem will startthat thread) but the big bomb shell for me was magic user as a class with wizard and sorcerer as builds :/

My knee jerk reaction was "what!?!"

Lol, that not at all what they said. They talked about a magic user category of classes, not an actual class.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 15, 2012

A "Magic-User" class category?

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! ARCANE POWER SOURCE!

Personally... I have to wonder though what the point of having this "class category" is. What is gained by it? We can group classes together in all manner of different categories, but unless there's an overriding mechanic to them... there's really no point. We already know that some classes use magic and some classes do not. We already know some classes are granted their magical power from someone else (clerics, warlocks, possibly druids), while some classes get their power from their own self and efforts (wizards, sorcerers, bards, artificers). Do we really need them categorized as such? Especially if that category is nothing more than just a fluffy top-down meta-view of where a class's magic comes from (with no applicable mechanical connection?)

That's just grouping classes together for no necessary reason.

gyor · Oct 15, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
It's important to note that that sentence begins with "There is a chance that, based on your feedback, we might..." It also says magic-user might be a class category, probably like the class groups in 2e.

Agreed, Class Category ala Priests, Warriors, Thieves (Expert might be a better name), and Magic Users. Classes don't become builds, they have thier own builds.

So Classes within a Category might share access to simular functions, like those under warriors might all get expertise dice, but only fighters get a fighting style, Warlords might get something different, like commands like project eternity Project Eternity by Obsidian Entertainment — Kickstarter

A rogue in the Expert catogory the other hand might get bonus skills, but only they get sneak attack, while a bard gets songs and other features instead, and assassins get death strike and some shadow magic.

Priests, maybe both Paladins and Priests for example, get access to turn undead and Gods given powers (whatever thier going to call this new mechanic) but only Paladins smite and only Clerics full divine spellcasting or whatever.
Or maybe I'm wrong who knows (okay Mearls does, but still).

gyor · Oct 15, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
A "Magic-User" class category?

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! ARCANE POWER SOURCE!

Personally... I have to wonder though what the point of having this "class category" is. What is gained by it? We can group classes together in all manner of different categories, but unless there's an overriding mechanic to them... there's really no point. We already know that some classes use magic and some classes do not. We already know some classes are granted their magical power from someone else (clerics, warlocks, possibly druids), while some classes get their power from their own self and efforts (wizards, sorcerers, bards, artificers). Do we really need them categorized as such? Especially if that category is nothing more than just a fluffy top-down meta-view of where a class's magic comes from (with no applicable mechanical connection?)

That's just grouping classes together for no necessary reason.

From what I saw thier is a certainly a mechanical aspect, Magic Users for example gives choices for spellcasting system, so for example wizards, sorcerors, and so on can choose how they cast spells, like vancian, spell points, or other. So Class Catogory gives you choices in mechanics, Class in features, build is a subset of class features, Races and subraces gives your racial traits, background skills and background trait, specialities a subsectian of feats that specializes your character.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 15, 2012

gyor said:
From what I saw thier is a certainly a mechanical aspect, Magic Users for example gives choices for spellcasting system, so for example wizards, sorcerors, and so on can choose how they cast spells, like vancian, spell points, or other.

But do you really need to put these classes into a cute little basket in order to tell people "select the spellcasting mechanics for this class"?

And besides which... I could have sworn we've seen a whole host of people clamoring for a non-Vancian divine caster option. So how are we going to get that? The original thought was that the Clerics also could have their spellcasting mechanics selected by the DM/players at the beginning of the campaign... but if Clerics aren't put into this "Magic-User" basket... does that mean they cannot? They are stuck with whatever psuedo-Vancian mechanics get assigned to them?

And if they DO fall inside the "Magic-User" category... then having that category is even more useless and brainless, because we already know spellcasting classes are Magic-Users. That's by definition!

You cast spells... you're USING MAGIC!

The ONLY way I see having a "Magic-User" category to separate out certain classes from others to possibly have any form and function is if there are a small band of classes that cast a small amount of spells that do not (or should not) have multiple mechanics to do so. So maybe classes like the Paladin, or Ranger, or Bard. Because spellcasting is not the focus of their class... they don't require more than one way to cast spells because it's just such a small part of their class identity. Those classes all have a small number of Vancian spells available per day, because their primary focus is combat or exploration (for example).

The "big" primary spellcasting classes... your Wizard, your Cleric, your Druid, your Warlock, your Psion... THOSE maybe you could put into a "Magic-User" basket to tell players that their mechanics are selectable upon the creation of the game... whereas the other minor spellcasting classes cannot. Anything else seems kind of superfluous and unnecessary to me.

gyor · Oct 15, 2012

Its kind of frustrating to try and judge something you haven't seen yet, I really,hope they release it asap.

Ratskinner · Oct 15, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
A "Magic-User" class category?

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! ARCANE POWER SOURCE!

eh?

Sounds more like the 2e "super classes" idea to me. Go 2e!

Although, to be fair, not a lot like 2e. Who knows, maybe the "advanced" versions will be like 2e with the "basic" version being an implementation of those choices....or something. :hmm:

As someone else mentioned, if they go this route, I'd prefer they drop the whole Arcane/Divine distinction. I know, sacrilege, but....why duplicate all the casting/magic stuff for two different power sources. Let Cleric become the "gish" class.