Now, this raises another interesting point with respect to what makes a class distinct in terms of play experience: is it the power structure or the powers/spells/abilities themselves?
Now, there is no argument that if you vary both, you would likely have a very different play experience. However, if you varied just one factor, would it be enough? Varying the power structure without varying the powers would be quite similar to the 3e wizard and sorcerer, which cast essentially the same spells with different mechanics. Varying the powers without varying the power structure would be quite similar to the 3e wizard and cleric, or (an even closer parallel) the 3e wizard and archivist (from Heroes of Horror) because the archivist also maintains a spellbook of sorts from which he prepares spells.
I am personally of the view that varying the powers has a greater impact on play experience than varying the power structure. However, I do recognize that it is just my opinion, and not objective truth.
Question:
Is warlock will be part of this switchable casting system? They are back to invocations which don't follow the basic spell level scheme. Do you think each invocation will get a spell level equivalence?
My biggest concern is that these alternative spell resource systems will step on the toes of the Sorcerer and Warlock.
Allow me to phrase this in another light.This actually would mess up the warlock quite a bit, because his spells don't fall into 9 spell levels with no scaling (not to mention that they're at-will or encounter instead of daily).
The sorcerer would be fine, except it would be a pain for anyone who wanted to play a Vancian sorcerer (for some reason) to figure out when he starts growing scales and stuff.
I serious hope this idea is only for wizard and maybe clerics/Druids.
Right now, define the warlock and sorcerer. Do it WITHOUT describing HOW they cast spells. If you can't do it then this concern is already moot. If you CAN then there shouldn't be a problem if they all use vancian or not.My biggest concern is that these alternative spell resource systems will step on the toes of the Sorcerer and Warlock.
Allow me to phrase this in another light.
Let's say wizards have 9 spell levels, sorcerers have 7 spell levels and warlocks 5 spell levels. That all assumes that they use spell levels. It doesn't assume they use the same spells, same versions of spells or anything like that.
If they all became at-will users, or ritual users or recharge or any combination. They will (or at least should) have power levels, spells and options based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have little to do with which mechanics they are using.
You only run into troubles when all three classes have 9 spell levels and are all vancian and/or when all three could easily be confused with one another. If you can't take a warlock (regardless of mechanics) and slap on a wizard sticker then I'll be exceedingly happy with the outcome on this matter.
Right now, define the warlock and sorcerer. Do it WITHOUT describing HOW they cast spells. If you can't do it then this concern is already moot. If you CAN then there shouldn't be a problem if they all use vancian or not.
at some level this is going to be about how a class's abilities augment the general spell pool, isn't it? That's where we'll probably see the most "flavour", as far as class goes. How will a wizard handle 'at will' differently than a warlock?