D&D 5E Mage Suggestion for WotC: Modular but separate.

[variant]

My suggestion to Mike Mearls and the team working on D&D Next over at WotC is "modular, but separate".

The Mage class would still have "Wizardry" and encompass magic systems that are very similar to it such as the High Sorcery in Dragonlance, Preserver magic in Dark Sun, Wild Magic, etc.

However, all the classes that are really different, would stay separate classes, but would maintain the modules such as 'Sorcery', 'Invocation' (better than 'Witchcraft' for the Warlock), etc. The classes would line up and be balanced with the Mage on their subclass progression.

The classes themselves would have their own progression tables that better reflect their respective classes and would not have the abilities that fit the Mage such as Brew Potion. The classes would have things that make them unique such as the Warlock's ability to wear armor and Eldritch Blast.

I think this is a good compromise. The modularity of the spell systems stay the same without the extra redundancy of placing them elsewhere for the Wizard and we get our separate and different classes. The PHB is already going to be mostly filled with the same information regardless, the only thing that would change would be the couple of extra progression tables and the small amount of text giving information such as hit points for the Warlock and Sorcerer.

 

[Derren]

I think the promise of modularity is just a marketing statement and will not work.

When writing splatbooks and adventure the writers have to assume a common rules framework in order to balance them. That will be the core game. Everything else, every optional module, will be a houserule, not better than option presented in Unearthed Arcana books. Some groups might use them, but WotC, when designing the game, will not assume it and most of the time not reference it.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the promise of modularity is just a marketing statement and will not work.

When writing splatbooks and adventure the writers have to assume a common rules framework in order to balance them. That will be the core game. Everything else, every optional module, will be a houserule, not better than option presented in Unearthed Arcana books. Some groups might use them, but WotC, when designing the game, will not assume it and most of the time not reference it.

The only thing the adventure writer has to know is the general power level of a typical party. - Assuming they in 5e actually uses some time getting the classes closer in power level than in 3e (much like in 4e), basically all the classes can be optional and part of a module. I am currently playing in a 4e party missing the leader role (healer) and even so it works out well most of the time.

In other words, modules can be added or removed if it doesn't affect the general power of the characters or monsters.

 

[Derren]

In other words, modules can be added or removed if it doesn't affect the general power of the characters or monsters.

Which alone is pretty hard to ensure. And then there comes also the non combat part which might change larger part of the adventure. Having different magic progressions depending on optional modules like the OP suggest will certainly run into this problem (non combat spells).

And in splatbooks, the new stuff will only interact with the core rules and maybe 1-2 more popular options, if at all. People who use different modules (aka houserules) have to figure out how to integrate the new material by themselves.

 

[Blackbrrd]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] the OP is not suggestion they have different power levels, he is suggesting that they get their power differently. It's hard to get right, and they probably won't all the time, but most of the time I hope they will be close enough for it to work. Creating adventures that depend on the characters having - or not having a certain spell isn't good design in my opinion and should be avoided anyway.

Regarding the non combat part, I don't quite see how it will be any different than the combat part? When they create the non combat modules they will have to balance them out. Sure it's hard, but it's probably doable, but as with the combat, probably not perfectly.

Splabooks usually only interact with the core rules, so I don't quite see the problem there, and it's a good limitation in my eyes. I really hated the 4e "everything is core" mentality. I really prefer the 3e and earlier mentality which is more of a buffet where you select the things you like and ignore the rest.

 

[Derren]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] the OP is not suggestion they have different power levels, he is suggesting that they get their power differently.

Whenever things are different, something will always be better for a situation than the other(s) unless in a highly limited environment.
Combat is such an environment, but even there total balance is only theoretically possible and won't be achieved in praxis.

Non combat is a lot less restricted environment and it is impossible to prevent some optional module to have a big effect on how the module will/can be played and how much of a challenge it is (unless you restrict the out of combat part like 4E did).
But in the end, the more optional modules you make, the more pages of the rules you devote to something WotC will ignore in further splatbooks/adventures like they did with most rules from Unearthed Arcana. There will be a core game with a set of core rules, no matter how much WotC advertises the modularity of 4E. The only difference is that Unearthed Arcana will be folded into the core books so they contain a set of suggested houserules.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Whenever things are different, something will always be better for a situation than the other(s) unless in a highly limited environment.

I agree with this statement, but I hope the different modules will be close enough in power to (nearly) all be viable. It's not like we have had perfect balance so far and that modules will disrupt this balance. To the contrary, 3e was so unbalanced, the optimal party probably only had clerics with different domains and maybe a wizard.

One of the modules they have talked about so far is the feat module which you add as an option instead of gaining stats. The base module, stat gain is very powerful generally, while feats make your character more specialized, but weaker over all. It's the perfect example of a module and the way it will be designed.

(Personally, I think using some stat gains and just one or maybe two feats will be "optimal", but that the all-stat gain character will be pretty close in power. Close enough that I don't care.)

 

[Evenglare]

You can't complain about things being unbalanced in a module because it's a trivial statement. In a game this complex balance issues can NEVER be resolved. Modules should be balanced towards themselves in a game. The naysayers of modularity sounds like "It's going to suck so don't even try". That's an awful attitude to have towards the creation of a game.

 

[Jester David]

This "compromise" sounds like it takes the worst part if the single class design (abilities locked in to specific levels and rigid design) without any of the benefits (reducing pagecount, keeping class numbers down, limiting assumptions of magic to allow for customization).

 

[variant]

This "compromise" sounds like it takes the worst part if the single class design (abilities locked in to specific levels and rigid design) without any of the benefits (reducing pagecount, keeping class numbers down, limiting assumptions of magic to allow for customization).

Classes are by their very nature rigid. There is absolute no difference in having feat and ability progress outlined on a separate Sorcerer class table than having it with the Mage class which the Sorcerer is a subclass of. It also doesn't increase the page count by a whole lot, probably less than a a single page of tables and class information for two classes. All of these classes have to be detailed as subclasses regardless. The Sorcerer may even have to have a special table for Spells Known anyway. Also, having Sorcery under the Sorcerer class is no different than having it under the Mage class. It would take just as many pages.

The key major difference between having a separate Sorcerer class is that abilities that are not apart of Sorcery are tailored specifically for the Sorcerer instead of ending up with a Sorcerer with Brew Potions and Scribe Scrolls.