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

My impression, honestly, is that the designers never intended that Next be modular to the degree that everyone is expecting. I admit I don't have any particular quotes to back this up, and maybe someone could refute me by going back to early announcements and interviews. But I really suspect that people are anticipating some kind of erector set D&D, where almost everything is a separate piece that can be dropped in or pulled out as desired, and there are ten different subsystems that you can choose for every little thing, all on top of an extremely bare-bones core.

People talk about two or even three complete combat systems, where you have something extremely basic and bare-bones, and then a whole separate section clearly labeled "Tactical Combat Module 1" which details a whole optional set of rules for miniatures play. They talk like there's going to be a version of the Fighter which is almost like a different class, complete with AEDU powers. And here's this thread, in which some people are expecting every arcane caster class to be fully compatible with three or four different magic systems.

I really don't think WotC ever promised any of that. They said a few vague things about modularity and "adapting the game to your table" and "playing the D&D you want to play" towards the beginning, and people's imaginations just ran with it. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong to want that kind of modularity; maybe you're absolutely right to want it. I'm just saying that I don't think most of us forumites and WotC are (or ever have been) on the same page here. There isn't going to be a whole separate rules-set, complete with its own chapter in the PHB, for grid combat. Every single caster class is not going to have four different alternative subsystems for how its magic works. That was never the plan.

This article is a great example:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/29/2012)

As KaiiLurker pointed out, all they talk about in that article is some very minor tweaks to facilitate a high-magic or low-magic game, maybe something you'd find in a sidebar. But evidently someone looked at that article and concluded that every caster class would have multiple magic systems, perhaps depending on what the DM wanted in his campaign. I'm a bit afraid of what's going to happen when we see more of Next and everyone realizes that they've been expecting a level of modularity that WotC never intended to promise.

Tony Vargas said:

Classes /are/ being differentiated by their mechanics, so the 'how' does matter. Perhaps the modularity will include which classes go with which modules? So a 'non-Vancian' game would simply see the wizard ejected, and the Sorcerer in his place?

Click to expand...

Alright, let's say you are right, then why do clerics have vancian casting such as wizards do ? Should druids have a completely separate way magic works? What about Bards? Paladins? Rangers? All of these classes cast spells, so each of them should cast them differently? This makes no sense at all. Also just saying "lol rename sorcerers stop complaining" isnt the way that this should be handled. Sorcerers have worked alongside wizards now for quite a while using the same way of casting magic, sure they should have different class mechanics, but a WHOLE different way of casting spells. No.

If you accept that they want to make a core system that can modified easily, then multiple magic systems is simply not the way to go . If they want to make a complex system that is core, that's cool, but they need to specify that they are taking the game in a direction that is completely different from the one original envisioned. I dont know how you can possibly argue FOR sorcerers and warlocks having different casting methods if you believe they want to make a modular system out of a concise simple core system.

Evenglare said:

I dont know how you can possibly argue FOR sorcerers and warlocks having different casting methods if you believe they want to make a modular system out of a concise simple core system.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm not seeing what's so non-concise about it? I mean, virtually all of the magic rules are exactly the same for all the classes. The only differences are how spell resources are measured, and this takes only a paragraph or two per class, along with a chart.

My only source of confusion is to what extent an invocation is treated like a spell, other than that all is clear.

The Shadow said:

The only differences are how spell resources are measured, and this takes only a paragraph or two per class, along with a chart.

Click to expand...

All magic system using magic/resources the same way vs each class having a slightly different system that require 1 or 2 paragraphs as well as a chart to accompany them. However "slight" the variance is, it still adds complexity that could be used for their modular systems they are so excited about. If you dont understand that a singular descrption is more concise than multiple system (no matter how small of a difference) I simply cant help you.

Evenglare said:

If you dont understand that a singular descrption is more concise than multiple system (no matter how small of a difference) I simply cant help you.

Click to expand...

I don't argue that it makes it slightly more complicated. I just think it's slight enough, with enough benefit, to be well worth it.

They're responding to complaints of all classes feeling 'samey' in 4e. They want each class to feel mechanically different, and this is something I for one applaud. Especially since it doesn't take that much explanation.

I mean, if all spellcasting classes were Vancian, they'd still all require a big chart to list spell slots per level. The sorcerer, for example, cuts out that chart in favor of a table entry for Willpower. This actually *saves* space.

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)

Evenglare said:

Alright, let's say you are right, then why do clerics have vancian casting such as wizards do ?

Click to expand...

Apparently, the playtest cleric is slightly different implementation though still Vancian. And, the reason, I assume, is because that's how it was before.

Should druids have a completely separate way magic works? What about Bards? Paladins? Rangers? All of these classes cast spells, so each of them should cast them differently?

Click to expand...

They're all classic classes that were Vancian before, so presumably will be again. Whatever module allows you to remove Vancian might have a Sorcerer-like Favorite Soul to replace the Cleric, a Skald to replace the Bard, and so forth.

This makes no sense at all. Also just saying "lol rename sorcerers stop complaining" isnt the way that this should be handled. Sorcerers have worked alongside wizards now for quite a while using the same way of casting magic, sure they should have different class mechanics, but a WHOLE different way of casting spells. No.

Click to expand...

The Sorcerer was introduced 12 years ago, for the first 8 of those years, it used a different way of casting spells (and, recently, a new flavor of Sorcerer, an Elementalist, was introduced that also casts differently than the 4e Wizard). The preponderance of tradition is on the side of the Sorcerer being mechanically distinct from the Wizard. And, 5e seems to have a mandate to make each class mechanically distinct, in any case.

If you accept that they want to make a core system that can modified easily, then multiple magic systems is simply not the way to go . If they want to make a complex system that is core, that's cool, but they need to specify that they are taking the game in a direction that is completely different from the one original envisioned. I dont know how you can possibly argue FOR sorcerers and warlocks having different casting methods if you believe they want to make a modular system out of a concise simple core system.

Click to expand...

For the record, I'm not arguing for that (I'd prefer more consistent mechanics, like in 4e), I'm just speculating as to how WotC might deliver a modular system with each caster class having it's own mechanics. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that by making the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes part of the 'module.' Vancian-only, strike Sorcerer, Warlock, Favoured Soul, etc. No-Vancian, reverse that. The 'concise and simple' core system is obviously not going to achieve those qualities by making classes mechanically consistent, that was tried last ed and there's no indication it's even on the table this ed. It's the core mechanics - skills, attacks, and other resolution systems - that are going to help make core simple by being 'rules lite.'

I think the Sorcerer is meant to be an example of how an alternate system can work- remember that the goal was to have players use the system that they liked, possibly side-by-side in the same game. Want both Vancian and Willpower magic? Allow both the Wizard and the Sorcerer, and fluff them to be different. Want only Willpower/flex magic? Just use the Sorcerer magic progression with the Wizard's non-casting attributes, or cross out Sorcerer and write 'Wizard' as suggested.

When the Sorcerer first appeared in 3e, it was little more than 'spontaneous casting Wizard'- essentially, a mechanical difference without much lore behind it. They've picked up additional fluff over the years (and some mechanical differentiation), but at its core the Sorcerer has always been 'alternate magic system Wizard'. In a game that uses both classes it's necessary to give some in-game reasons for why one is different from the other, but in a single-system game there is no reason to not just apply the Sorcerer system everywhere.

When I was thinking about, say, a power-based Fighter, I never really thought it'd be some bolt-ons to the Fighter class. I more expected it to be an alternate class you can take or leave.

IMO, siloing different casting mechanics into different classes is modular at its core - you don't use the ones you don't care for. Game A allows Wizards only. Game B allows only Sorcerers and Warlocks. And so on... If the system won't crumble when you do this, that's enough modularity for me.

I don't see a reason to have different kinds of wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks when, among those three classes, you have the majority of your bases covered.

-O

Obryn said:

IMO, siloing different casting mechanics into different classes is modular at its core - you don't use the ones you don't care for. Game A allows Wizards only. Game B allows only Sorcerers and Warlocks. And so on... If the system won't crumble when you do this, that's enough modularity for me.

I don't see a reason to have different kinds of wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks when, among those three classes, you have the majority of your bases covered.

-O

Click to expand...

Yep. And if you want to call the only arcane class allowed in your campaign a wizard even though mechanically it's a sorcerer, more power to you.