Sacrosanct
Legend
I'm going to pick on D&D, but this is applicable to far more than just D&D. I'm talking about the design decision between complexity vs. simplicity, specifically around core character design.
By and large, D&D takes the simple route. Most classes of the same archetype are the same mechanically for their powers. What is the difference between a cleric and a wizard? Armor? They both use the exact same mechanic for spellcasting. As does every other caster other than warlock (pre-1DND). Even half casters use the same mechanic. And that's Vancian. I don't blame D&D for that; because it's D&D it pretty much has to keep certain sacred cows of design sacred. That, and because it's the biggest name out there, it has to be accessible. If every class had a completely different mechanic for it's powers, it would be more stuff for players to try to learn. And that would turn folks off.
On the other had, having a more complex system offers a ton of more flexibility and makes each class feel unique. Sometimes I feel D&D's big strength (accessibility) is one of its greatest weaknesses. The trick is finding the sweet spot, and that's gonna vary from person to person. I've found that once you get away the assumptions that each class needs to follow the same rule, doors open to really add flavor and the opportunity to allow the class to feel more on-theme, so-to-speak.
For example, let's look at the bard. In D&D, it's a typical half caster. Mechanically, no difference in spell casting than a wizard or cleric. They use the same spells, with the same effects, as those classes. "Oh! but my bard casts fireball with their lute, not a twiddle of the fingers like a wizard!"
Yawn. During gameplay, that never comes up. 99.9% of the time it's "I cast X." The same as every other caster.
I was talking with one of my players, and he deserves credit for this idea, as much as I'd like to take it
Instead of casting spells, bardic magic is based on rhythm, tempo, and invoking emotion. That's what song, poetry, dance, and instrumentals do, right? So for bardic magic, they start their turn performing, using tempo and rhythm to choose an emotion. Each emotion has a list of certain effects the bard can impose. the next round, the bard can continue and build off of that performance, adding another effect, possibly chaining them as combat progresses to powerful magics.
For example, anger is:
Anger
And it can be chained with other emotions in subsequent rounds, like:
Love + Hope + Anger = the target also gains resistance to one damage type for the duration.
Meaning, on round 1 you choose 1 anger effect, on round 2 you add 1 love effect (both are active), and on round 3 you add 1 hope effect (all three are active) AND you trigger the combination power.
Another example is the classic swordmage. In most games, it's pretty much a fighter/magic user hybrid. But if you don't assume you use the same core mechanic for spells, you can build it into a true warrior class that uses magic to augment battle. Therefore, the magic could be tied to the battle itself. The arcane warrior can harness the energies created from the chaos and emotion that is created in battle. These energies are used to power the swordmage's spells, and as the combat encounter progresses, the spells get more powerful and more powerful options are unlocked. Their magic isn't tied to spell slots or spell points, but is tied to how epic the battles are. Like what a warrior would focus on thematically anyway. A warrior won't sit down and study spellbooks, they'd find a way to harness magic from combat directly.
By and large, D&D takes the simple route. Most classes of the same archetype are the same mechanically for their powers. What is the difference between a cleric and a wizard? Armor? They both use the exact same mechanic for spellcasting. As does every other caster other than warlock (pre-1DND). Even half casters use the same mechanic. And that's Vancian. I don't blame D&D for that; because it's D&D it pretty much has to keep certain sacred cows of design sacred. That, and because it's the biggest name out there, it has to be accessible. If every class had a completely different mechanic for it's powers, it would be more stuff for players to try to learn. And that would turn folks off.
On the other had, having a more complex system offers a ton of more flexibility and makes each class feel unique. Sometimes I feel D&D's big strength (accessibility) is one of its greatest weaknesses. The trick is finding the sweet spot, and that's gonna vary from person to person. I've found that once you get away the assumptions that each class needs to follow the same rule, doors open to really add flavor and the opportunity to allow the class to feel more on-theme, so-to-speak.
For example, let's look at the bard. In D&D, it's a typical half caster. Mechanically, no difference in spell casting than a wizard or cleric. They use the same spells, with the same effects, as those classes. "Oh! but my bard casts fireball with their lute, not a twiddle of the fingers like a wizard!"
Yawn. During gameplay, that never comes up. 99.9% of the time it's "I cast X." The same as every other caster.
I was talking with one of my players, and he deserves credit for this idea, as much as I'd like to take it
Instead of casting spells, bardic magic is based on rhythm, tempo, and invoking emotion. That's what song, poetry, dance, and instrumentals do, right? So for bardic magic, they start their turn performing, using tempo and rhythm to choose an emotion. Each emotion has a list of certain effects the bard can impose. the next round, the bard can continue and build off of that performance, adding another effect, possibly chaining them as combat progresses to powerful magics.For example, anger is:
Anger
- +1 PD bonus on attack rolls.
- Must attack an enemy to the best of their ability on their next turn.
- -1 PD penalty to all Will ability checks.
And it can be chained with other emotions in subsequent rounds, like:
Love + Hope + Anger = the target also gains resistance to one damage type for the duration.
Meaning, on round 1 you choose 1 anger effect, on round 2 you add 1 love effect (both are active), and on round 3 you add 1 hope effect (all three are active) AND you trigger the combination power.
Another example is the classic swordmage. In most games, it's pretty much a fighter/magic user hybrid. But if you don't assume you use the same core mechanic for spells, you can build it into a true warrior class that uses magic to augment battle. Therefore, the magic could be tied to the battle itself. The arcane warrior can harness the energies created from the chaos and emotion that is created in battle. These energies are used to power the swordmage's spells, and as the combat encounter progresses, the spells get more powerful and more powerful options are unlocked. Their magic isn't tied to spell slots or spell points, but is tied to how epic the battles are. Like what a warrior would focus on thematically anyway. A warrior won't sit down and study spellbooks, they'd find a way to harness magic from combat directly.
