D&D (2024) Final Guesses: packet 7 subclasses

[Mirrorrorrim]

Except they can't because they're all shackled to the shredded corpse of Jack Vance's work and a desperate desire to keep daily attrition mechanics alive to the detriment of the game.

Except the Warlock, the single bright light in a sea of spell slots they tried so gamely to snuff out.

D&D magic is D&D magic and that is a good thing. I believe it is a boon to the game. There are so many spell options that a series of spell slots that can be used to cast whatever is in your tacklebox is a great way to depict it.

I have never, not once, had a good experience with spell points. It has always been broken in any game I've participated in. Being able to turn all your spell points into many powerful low level spells (Shield or Smites, for instance), or more high level spells (more fireballs rather than a higher level spell that just borks it. It also makes upcasting less important.

With spell slots, if you run out of 1st level spells that don't scale (like Shield or Smite), you have to use 2nd level spell slots. But you get diminishing returns.
With spell points, you just spend fewer spell points and cast more 1st level spells, netting you more spells per day, which is crazy good for spells that are powerful without scaling.

We have very different tastes, because to me Pact Magic is the Worst.

 

[WanderingMystic]

D&D magic is D&D magic and that is a good thing. I believe it is a boon to the game. There are so many spell options that a series of spell slots that can be used to cast whatever is in your tacklebox is a great way to depict it.

I have never, not once, had a good experience with spell points. It has always been broken in any game I've participated in. Being able to turn all your spell points into many powerful low level spells (Shield or Smites, for instance), or more high level spells (more fireballs rather than a higher level spell that just borks it. It also makes upcasting less important.

With spell slots, if you run out of 1st level spells that don't scale (like Shield or Smite), you have to use 2nd level spell slots. But you get diminishing returns.
With spell points, you just spend fewer spell points and cast more 1st level spells, netting you more spells per day, which is crazy good for spells that are powerful without scaling.

We have very different tastes, because to me Pact Magic is the Worst.

So spell points work great if the game system is designed for them, however since dnd is based for spell slots when ever they try to convert something to be useful as spell points it never works right. When I have seen them done right it's like every spell is a first level spell that you can upcast by spending more points as you level. Since, in DND they are tied to making sure your points could give you the same number of spell slots it can be abusive by casting more lower level spells all of the time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have never, not once, had a good experience with spell points.

But what if D&D actually tried at developing spell points instead of converting slots to point values and trying to call it good?

Man, actually, they sums up this whole playtest: the wonderful fantasy world where we find out what would happen if D&D tried again after just... stopping after the Next Playtest so long ago.

 

[Deekin]

Imagine a Firebolt you could augment with spell points, from a basic dart of fire, all the way up to a storm of explosive fireballs....

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Imagine a Firebolt you could augment with spell points, from a basic dart of fire, all the way up to a storm of explosive fireballs....

I have played around with a variety of systems, including a system that has cantrips and 1st level spells that can be enhanced to do more. I've also tried Path Magic, Magic Spell Points, Psionics-style points, a system where some spells generate mana and other spells spend mana. But each of those take up so much design space that it effectively requires classes, races, and monsters need to be rewritten. Which turns out to not be D&D.

I've learned that if I want an alternative magic system, I will play an alternative game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which turns out to not be D&D.

First thing we need to do to build a better D&D: ignore whenever someone declares something 'not D&D'.

As if there wasn't someone saying the same thing about whatever your favorite thing that came around post-1e and even half the stuff from 1e.

We should be asking 'is this fun', 'is this good design', 'is this usable', not 'does this follow my orthodoxy'.

 

[bedir than]

Imagine a Firebolt you could augment with spell points, from a basic dart of fire, all the way up to a storm of explosive fireballs....

This currently happens via spell level.
It's not really a shift.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

First thing we need to do to build a better D&D: ignore whenever someone declares something 'not D&D'.

As if there wasn't someone saying the same thing about whatever your favorite thing that came around post-1e and even half the stuff from 1e.

We should be asking 'is this fun', 'is this good design', 'is this usable', not 'does this follow my orthodoxy'.

Oh please. D&D absolutely has core conceits and designs that make it D&D. Yes, D&D has evolved over the years, but 5E still feels like D&D. You can't just change the d20 system into a percentile system and call it D&D. You can't remove the class system and have the community agree that it is still D&D. Completely changing the spellcasting system from the ground up changes the game. The last time D&D was altered significantly we got 4E. I'm not saying 4E was a bad game. I played it for the life of the edition. The problem for many was that it didn't feel like D&D.

The 2024 rules update is not going to rewrite the game into something completely different. And it shouldn't. That is the role of other role-playing games. A game can have different mechanics that are interesting and fun, but it doesn't make it D&D. A little red wagon has 4 wheels and a flat bed to carry things, but that doesn't make it a pickup truck.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh please. D&D absolutely has core conceits and designs that make it D&D. Yes, D&D has evolved over the years, but 5E still feels like D&D. You can't just change the d20 system into a percentile system and call it D&D.

You literally could. That is how intellectual property works.

You can't remove the class system and have the community agree that it is still D&D.

If that classless system is still good and fun, then maybe the 'community' doens't deserve D&D if they're going to be like that.

Completely changing the spellcasting system from the ground up changes the game.

So we're just shackled to a bad system because 'tradition'? Then maybe it's time for D&D to go, chained to the weight of pointless tradition, dragging it to the sea floor like Bootstrap Bill Turner.

The last time D&D was altered significantly we got 4E.

And it was great! not perfect, but great!

The problem for many was that it didn't feel like D&D.

Yeah, that's their problem. And they made it everyone else's.

The 2024 rules update is not going to rewrite the game into something completely different.

They're not even going to try to rewrite it into an improved version of itself at this point, yes.

And it shouldn't.

It should have tried to do literally anything and absolutely discarded backward compatibility, but that ship sailed the second they couldn't offload the OGL.

That is the role of other role-playing games.

Good ones. Ones not being denied a future by their fandom.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If that classless system is still good and fun, then maybe the 'community' doens't deserve D&D if they're going to be like that.

So we're just shackled to a bad system because 'tradition'? Then maybe it's time for D&D to go, chained to the weight of pointless tradition, dragging it to the sea floor like Bootstrap Bill Turner.

It should have tried to do literally anything and absolutely discarded backward compatibility, but that ship sailed the second they couldn't offload the OGL.

When it comes to D&D design, it seems we disagree on a very basic level. I like 5E D&D. It's my favorite edition. So they are making a good D&D for me, despite there being small things I don't like. You think it is a bad system. That last sentence suggests that they should literally create a new game from the ground up and try to call it D&D. 4E proved that being a decent game wasn't enough. Looking at your comments, are you suggesting that 3.5 players didn't deserve D&D because they didn't like 4E?

Replacing 5E D&D with an unrecognizable new game with different core mechanics would be leaving established D&D players behind for a system that is yet unproven as objectively "good." I'm very, very glad that they won't be doing that. And if they don't rebuild it from the ground up, they aren't leaving anyone behind if they are not on that path in the first place.

Why are there people so focused on D&D being the name of the thing they want, and changing D&D to be something it isn't, when it never has been that thing? Why not a different game? Is it because of the power of the IP? Do people want to be able to say "I play D&D" and it not mean a system they don't like?

Luckily there are so many TTRPGs out there for those who don't like the D&D rules. I'd love to hear what your preferred game is that uses pre-defined, templated powers for all characters that minimize the power of DM narrative adjudication. I would love to check out a game that claims and proves it can be done right.