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

[slobster]

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is this:

If a spellcasting class doesn't have a fixed casting system, or proficiencies, or even hit dice... What's left? What makes the class distinctive, other than fluff?

I share your concern. If warlocks, wizards, sorcerers, illusionists, shadow-casters, invokers, and psions all exist, you want there to be something separating them. Pretty much by definition, that means some will have things that others don't get, and will use magic in ways that other classes do not.

I also think that different casting mechanics have different balance considerations. Spontaneous spell point casting is obviously more flexible and powerful than normal rigid Vancian preparation. As a result I would give the wizard some class features to bump him up to par with the sorcerer. But then you can't really swap out the wizard's Vancian for spell points one-for-one, because such a thing would leave the wizard suddenly more powerful than the sorcerer, who was designed with fewer built-in abilities because his casting style used to have an edge over the wizard's. No longer.

Same could be said of any different character mechanics. If they are truly different, they are likely not precisely balanced against each other, so the balance has to come from elsewhere in the class. Swapping them out willy nilly opens up space for mechanical abuse, and one of the options may well emerge as mechanically superior to the others, which never get played as a result. I'm want a zany collection of classes built on different mechanical chassies, that play very differently from each other as a result. I worry that diluting archetypes by removing the mechanical underpinning of their supposed narrative differences will hurt the game as a whole.

Now I'm all for GMs customizing the game to suit their preferences. If you hate Vancian casting, you are free to give the wizards spell points, or use the psion and call it a "wizard", or make your own class and casting mechanic from scratch, or whatever else blows your skirt up. Discuss how to do so in the DMG, in as transparent a way as possible with real insights into how the designers approached "balance" between the classes. Offer actual examples of how to switch existing classes' casting mechanics out for others, in a balanced way.

But don't put it in the PHB. Many people observed that putting magic items in the 4E PHB made them into commodities rather than objects of wonder (including +x by level y into the underlying math didn't help either). In the same way, I believe that making every mechanic available to every class in the PHB risks losing what makes each class unique.

 

[mlund]

If a spellcasting class doesn't have a fixed casting system, or proficiencies, or even hit dice... What's left? What makes the class distinctive, other than fluff?

Well, let's look a Wizards with 3 flavors of casting - Fixed Slots, Spontaneous Slots, and Mana Points.

Common Features:
1.) Base Armor and Weapon Proficiency: No armor, basic weapons, staff
2.) Spell book
3.) Spell memorization
4.) Spell list
5.) To Hit Bonuses and Spell Save DCs

Now how about a Sorcerer?

Common Features:
1.) Innate spells
2.) Willpower and Transformations
3.) Bloodline ability progression

I guess there's a common baseline of weapons, spells, to-hit bonuses, and spell DCs but the Bloodlines muck with these a whole lot. Still, I guess that's kind of the whole point with Sorcerers - different bloodlines add on to-hit bonuses, save dcs, weapons, armor, and HP.

To some extent Wizard Traditions will probably do some of that too - at least weapons and armor if they are going to try to roll the War Mage and Beguiler under the Wizard umbrella.

Warlocks strike me as the least-developed class so far. We've only seen one pact so far and it didn't mutate the hit dice, Eldritch Blast, weapons, armor, save DCs, spell-casting, or hit bonuses. I suppose those things could change, but the Warlock seemed defined by a very narrow swath of pact-based invocations and limited ritual magic. I'm not sure how anyone would add casting variety to those classes. I'm OK with that, though. I'd enjoy it if the Warlock was more of an on-rails "simple" caster pulling "Spell-like Abilities" from within his Pact instead of trying to lock him down to a flexible Prepared/Spontaneous/Pointed arcane casting paradigm.

Did I mention I really liked the 4E Essentials Hexblade?

- Marty Lund

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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?

No - that is something the DM decides that fits his world.

Most good games collaborate between DM and players about this - but it's the DMs game (the whole empowerment thing) - I can't play a vancian wizard in 4E - the game didn't allow it - I wanted to play a vancian wizard I had to play a different game. Now that choice is up to the GM rather than the rules themselves for flexibility at different tables. So I may not be able to play a vancian wizard at one table, but I can play it at another and still be playing Next.

Personally I think that is one of the best things I've heard about next.

One of the things I think this addresses is the "I want spell points but I don't want to be a sorcerer" thing that has been said. A wizard (depending on DM preference) could be vancian, or spell point, or inner power, or pact or etc. Maybe even in the same campaign. So those that wanted their specific type of casting mechanic tied to their preferred flavor and background can get what they want.

 

[The Shadow]

Well, let's look a Wizards with 3 flavors of casting - Fixed Slots, Spontaneous Slots, and Mana Points.

Common Features:
1.) Base Armor and Weapon Proficiency: No armor, basic weapons, staff
2.) Spell book
3.) Spell memorization
4.) Spell list
5.) To Hit Bonuses and Spell Save DCs

How does a spontaneous-casting wizard have spell memorization in any meaningful way? Are you talking about a system similar to that of the cleric, where the wizard prepare a set of spells he can then cast spontaneously that day?

Okay. But 'spell memorization' is itself a spellcasting mechanic which can presumably be switched out for something else? Or are you taking it as given that wizards always memorize spells in some fashion?

The more I read the column, the more I think he means that switching out spellcasting is limited to the wizard, and perhaps the cleric. Even so, that leaves many questions.

 

[Iosue]

Um, nowhere in the entire article does it talk about "DM empowerment".

It's fairly simple.
Situation: A variety of people want a variety of magic systems in the game. Some want Vancian, some want spontaneous casting, others want a point system, still others want all of the above.
Problem: Including all of the above as options in the Players Handbook increases the complexity of character generation, and serves as a barrier to new and casual players.
Solution 1: Create different magic-using classes, each with a different magic system, and slightly different flavor to guide decision-making. Advantages of this solution is that it's clean, easy to balance, and easy to design.
Problem 2: Feedback indicates widespread dissatisfaction with this solution. Some enjoy mechanics, but don't want the flavor. Some like the flavor, but aren't wedded to the mechanics. Reskinning/renaming is an option for players, but not a wholly satisfactory solution. Warlocks/Sorcerers can still have more focused flavor and unique mechanics, but the core Wizard class remains undefined satisfactorily.
Solution 2: Wizard traditions. Each tradition mechanically distinct -- magic systems are siloed into sub-classes. Advantages of this solution is that people can now have their classic Wizard flavor with multiple magic systems, and more in the style of various favored editions.
Problem 3: Complexity increases. Wizards now dominate other classes in terms of options. In addition to trying balance each distinct class, now each tradition needs to be balanced as well. Core game is meant to be simple and is now bloating.
Solution 4: Change magic system from a player option to a DM option. This creates little new work for DMs; they would have had to familiarize themselves with the various systems anyway when they were player options, as well as decide which classes/traditions were part of their campaign world. Putting the options in the DMG streamlines character generation, and allows DMs to tailor complexity of options to their particular group.

Money quote: "After all, a magic system is big. It defines part of a fantasy world, and building the world is mostly (in many groups, entirely) the DM’s job. Why not let the DM pick and choose, and then make those options available to the players? A player who wants to use a specific system could just ask the DM, in much the same way a player might ask to play a lizardfolk wizard or a warforged character in the Greyhawk setting."

Those who are particularly allergic to any hint of Viking hats read this as a lowly player petitioning the mighty DM for a player option, but that's not it at all. Mearls is demonstrating group consensus regarding style of play. Note that he never says, "The DM can withhold certain magic systems if he wants to." He's talking about a DM being considerate of his group, and adjusting the game to their interests. Got a group of veterans who like varied options? "This approach makes it easy to use all of the systems at once in your campaign—perhaps competing empires or arcane academies use markedly different approaches to magic—with a minimum of work." Got a group of newbies and don't want to overwhelm them? Choose one or two systems you think they'll pick up quickly, and introduce others if you and the group want them.

 

[Zaukrie]

I do agree, I think the spell lists and powers need to be more distinct, otherwise it barely matters in play other than how you manage various resources.

 

[mlund]

How does a spontaneous-casting wizard have spell memorization in any meaningful way? Are you talking about a system similar to that of the cleric, where the wizard prepare a set of spells he can then cast spontaneously that day?

Yes. I guess I didn't make that clear enough in my initial post on the thread.

Okay. But 'spell memorization' is itself a spellcasting mechanic which can presumably be switched out for something else? Or are you taking it as given that wizards always memorize spells in some fashion?

Yes, I mean Wizards memorize their spells regardless of what method they use to discharge Arcane energy for the day. That's the point of the spell-book, in my mind. They also draw from the same Spell List and Level allocations - "Wizard 2" vs. "Cleric 3" or whatever like in 3E when they had shared spell entries.

- Marty Lund

 

[Greg K]

Money quote: "After all, a magic system is big. It defines part of a fantasy world, and building the world is mostly (in many groups, entirely) the DM’s job. Why not let the DM pick and choose, and then make those options available to the players? A player who wants to use a specific system could just ask the DM, in much the same way a player might ask to play a lizardfolk wizard or a warforged character in the Greyhawk setting."

Those who are particularly allergic to any hint of Viking hats read this as a lowly player petitioning the mighty DM for a player option, but that's not it at all. Mearls is demonstrating group consensus regarding style of play. Note that he never says, "The DM can withhold certain magic systems if he wants to." He's talking about a DM being considerate of his group, and adjusting the game to their interests. Got a group of veterans who like varied options? "This approach makes it easy to use all of the systems at once in your campaign—perhaps competing empires or arcane academies use markedly different approaches to magic—with a minimum of work." Got a group of newbies and don't want to overwhelm them? Choose one or two systems you think they'll pick up quickly, and introduce others if you and the group want them.

I disagree with your interpretation regarding group consensus. I think he is stating that for most groups the DM makes such decisions and, therefore, that the default assumption is that it is in the DMs hands as to which system(s) is being used. However, the DM is free to consider player requests if he or she chooses (much like someone requesting a nonstandard race for a specific race), but players should not assume that every option is on the board. And, in those more rare instances in which such decisions are made a group, then the group will decide.

I don't think that the former is a group consensus. It has been the traditional role of the DMG/GMs in most rpgs And, I am perfectly fine with it that way. Then again, I am not one for group setting building whether as a DM or player.

 

[mlund]

Meh. D&D is always a consensus-driven game. The general consensus is that the DM's job is so demanding that everyone else either doesn't want to do the job or isn't up to the task. Ergo, you generally defer to the guy who bit the bullet for everyone else if he really feels strongly about some option or another making it harder or less rewarding for him to carry the load as DM.

- Marty Lund

 

[Tovec]

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?

Unlike the other direct posts I have seen, I'm going to say YES.

Yes, the lowly player will have to petition the DM for a spellcasting system which the game/campaign/setting is not by in large using already. That is a good thing.

If I am running my game and I decide that everyone should be using the wizard mechanic, or the sorcerer mechanic but not the warlock; then you come and ask me to play a warlock I can say no. If you want to pitch me on why you playing a warlock is a good idea for your character/concept then that is fine and I may then allow it. But as a default if I have already established that warlock mechanics don't exist then it is a good thing I am not suddenly expected to allow them just because WotC released another book.

To be fair, it has always been this way, that's why I disallow psionics, incarnum and book of 9 swords in my 3e games. If you want to play anything from those books you have to come up with a damned good sales pitch.

The flip side of this of course is that not everyone is required to use the wizard or sorcerer mechanics only. If the game is opened up enough that a larger variety of choices is available that just gives us so many more tools in the box. This is akin to 4e classic vs. 4e classic + essentials; both of which don't allow 3e vancian magic.

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."

I think the problem with this is that when I want to play a fighter, I want that fighter class to allow me to play it my way, instead of having to play another class and still not get 100% of what I wanted in the first place.

Meaning, if I have to play a ranger with a scratched out name and written in fighter then I am significantly closer to the character that the party ranger (without the rewritten name) than I am to the party fighter (without the rewritten name.. and a bow).

That is the benefit I see with Mearls' most recent idea. That the mechanics of spellcasting, not the fluff or bonuses or anything else, but the HOW TO of casting is independent of the class. I like that, surprisingly. They just need to make sure to follow it through. It is actually exactly what I've been proposing since the Sorcerer and Warlock showed up, that they need to divorce At-Wills from the class and make it a universal option. To be entirely accurate it is the same thing I've been saying about CS dice too.

Okay. But 'spell memorization' is itself a spellcasting mechanic which can presumably be switched out for something else? Or are you taking it as given that wizards always memorize spells in some fashion?

The more I read the column, the more I think he means that switching out spellcasting is limited to the wizard, and perhaps the cleric. Even so, that leaves many questions.

It depends on how they end up doing this thing, I think the first couple of rounds will likely only affect the wizard, but if done correctly then I could easily see it diverging.

We could (and I think should) have a default/core/generic/universal wizard who has a spellbook. Then we could have a wild mage, then an elementalist, or evoker, perhaps an illusionist or summoner. Basically make wizard the umbrella name with a default mode of spellbook and default array, then open up the options to include all the different kinds of wizards that could still fall under that base. As long as these other wizards still need to plan ahead, are relatively weak in hand to hand and use magic from sources outside of themselves I think they all work relatively well under the wizard title.

With Mearls' idea they COULD all with vancian, at-wills or whatever. The mechanics are a different layer to tell us how the magic works in a specific world.

On top of that I would have the sorcerer be the one who draws power from inside, from their bloodline (though I hate that term). They may be more powerful in bursts or with reserves always available but lack the breadth and width of the wizard. Again, that is completely separate to what kind of sorcerer they are and separate again to the magic system being used.

Of course the reason I like this idea the most is because I dislike the warlock we currently have and I dislike the sorcerer with armor we currently have. I'm also not a fan of breath weapons . But again, if done well that will just be minor aspects of the whole.

For warlocks, if they do intend to pursue this pact magic stuff then they should go full out. Give us different variations that ARE NOT just different species - ie. Fire, ice, darkness. They could require big elaborate rituals, or that the benefactor live inside the warlocks body or that their magic only works at specific times. Again, independent from the mechanics being used.


And yes shadow, I can see them applying this to clerics/divine casters too.

Better yet I can see them applying the mechanics separate from the classes. Allowing any character class to benefit from the magics, if done broadly enough. It allows options where at-wills or spell-slots could be given to a plain fighter in the right (preferably in game) circumstances.