D&D 5E New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules

[UngeheuerLich]

I also really don't get the focus the article places on the DM. I mean, obviously the DM gets to approve classes and races and such, but should every wizard player really have to prepare a sales pitch for his preferred casting method?

Yes! After all, it is the DM that has to create the adventure. And there are adventures that use certain spellcasting methods and would not work with a different.
Also it is a matter of balance: If you put things on the DM side, some options may be a little bit more or less powerful.

A DM can be advised to allow Wizards to use the sorcerer method if some player really does not want to play a sorcerer but likes how he casts spells. Think about it a different way: If you as a player may chose every little thing of a class, why have classes at all (and yes, creating your own class may be a module)

 

[FireLance]

Hmm. Judging from the reactions so far, 4e could have avoided a lot of griping if WotC had explicitly said something along the lines of: "As a module, the DM could allow any class to swap powers with any other class. For example, if you want to have an archer fighter, the DM could allow the character to take ranger powers instead."

Or is what's being proposed somehow fundamentally different from: "See where it says 'Class: sorcerer' on your character sheet? Just scratch out 'sorcerer' and write 'wizard' instead."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmm. Judging from the reactions so far, 4e could have avoided a lot of griping if WotC had explicitly said something along the lines of: "As a module, the DM could allow any class to swap powers with any other class. For example, if you want to have an archer fighter, the DM could allow the character to take ranger powers instead."

Or is what's being proposed somehow fundamentally different from: "See where it says 'Class: sorcerer' on your character sheet? Just scratch out 'sorcerer' and write 'wizard' instead."

The problem was 4e´s overfocus on balance. And the designer´s fear to allow the game breaking. That is how I interpret 4e in retrospect.

After seeing 3.5 break terribly at high level, they were even afraid to get unified power/spell lists for similar classes. Later with essentials they lost a lot of that fear which made better game overall, but too little too late.

 

[Raith5]

The problem was 4e´s overfocus on balance. And the designer´s fear to allow the game breaking. That is how I interpret 4e in retrospect.

After seeing 3.5 break terribly at high level, they were even afraid to get unified power/spell lists for similar classes. Later with essentials they lost a lot of that fear which made better game overall, but too little too late.

[FONT=&quot]I largely agree with this. "Generals are always prepared to fight the last war" it seems. 4th ed made balance a feature of those who like the game (and a straitjacket for those who did not) by making balance so strict. The problem for DDN is that not only will there have to be some at least approximate balance between classes but also some degree of balance within classes between different ways of deploying spells. I hope they can make it work but it just seems that each round playtesting is making their job so much more difficult.[/FONT]

 

[FireLance]

The problem was 4e´s overfocus on balance. And the designer´s fear to allow the game breaking. That is how I interpret 4e in retrospect.

After seeing 3.5 break terribly at high level, they were even afraid to get unified power/spell lists for similar classes. Later with essentials they lost a lot of that fear which made better game overall, but too little too late.

I'm sure that WotC had its reasons for not officially proposing such an approach in 4e. What amuses me, however, is the difference in the reactions.

The typical reaction to "scratch out 'ranger', write 'fighter' instead" was usually along the lines of: "But I want to play a fighter, not a renamed ranger."

So far, the reaction to "scratch out 'sorcerer', write 'wizard' instead" seems to be quite positive. Words like "the best news to date", "interesting" and "groundbreaking" were used.

I simply found the contrast to be amusing. I suppose the most likely explanation is that the vastly different opinions were expressed by vastly different people.

 

[Iosue]

"Scratch out 'sorcerer' and write 'wizard' instead" is the system in the last playtest: magic systems siloed via character classes. This is something fundamentally different.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm sure that WotC had its reasons for not officially proposing such an approach in 4e. What amuses me, however, is the difference in the reactions.

The typical reaction to "scratch out 'ranger', write 'fighter' instead" was usually along the lines of: "But I want to play a fighter, not a renamed ranger."

So far, the reaction to "scratch out 'sorcerer', write 'wizard' instead" seems to be quite positive. Words like "the best news to date", "interesting" and "groundbreaking" were used.

I simply found the contrast to be amusing. I suppose the most likely explanation is that the vastly different opinions were expressed by vastly different people.

I see where you are coming from, but the difference is: the 3.5 sorcerer is a wizard with a different casting system, nothing more...

so if you like the 3.5 sorcerer, it is scratch wizard, write sorcerer instead, because it is what he has always been.

Especially, when you consider that the only other differentiation between sorcerer and wizard in 3.5 was a slightly different skill set (and weapon table, but who cares anyway), which is now independant of class.

So now a sorcerer is:

take wizard, write sorcerer instead.
Take charlatan as background

done.

It is fundamantally different than having a ranger with all those wilderness skills and call it fighter...

on the other hand: there needs to be taken care on how much reskinning should be implented in the system. If the dressing and class does not mean a lot like in 4e, we are back to dissociation between rules and fluff. So thumbs up for your post!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I always thought that the 3E separation of Wizard and Sorcerer made in-world sense. Monsters had always been able to cast spell-like abilities, and they introduced a class who, thematically, did the same thing. Sure, on paper, the way they achieved this was modifying the Wizard slightly, but that was the spellcasting paradigm: discrete spells in level-based slots. Scratching out Wizard and writing Sorcerer meant a fundamental change from book-learning to innate ability (and this eventually played out as the Sorcerer's heritage became accessible via feats).

 

[FireLance]

"Scratch out 'sorcerer' and write 'wizard' instead" is the system in the last playtest: magic systems siloed via character classes. This is something fundamentally different.

Frankly, the only difference I see is that in one system, it is a (derided) "house rule" and in the other system, it is a ("groundbreaking") "module".

 

[Kinak]

So now wizards will be choosing their class, tradition, options under tradition like signature spells, and casting type on top of race, subrace, background, specialization, and spells? I can't say I'm terribly impressed with this compromise, but if they can make it work, more power to them.

I do have some hope they can make it work, because they've obviously identified where spells and traditions will cause problems with the modularity. And I appreciate that they're including some flavor suggestions so these systems mean something in world.

At the end of the day, my biggest concern is that every time there's a conflict, their response seems to be "Oh, you can do both!" and adding another level of complexity to the game.

So, enough of those compromises and everyone's happy (in theory)... except the people who just want a simple game they can pick up and run.

Cheers!
Kinak