Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6025171" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>Unlike the other direct posts I have seen, I'm going to say YES.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. But again, if done well that will just be minor aspects of the whole.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And yes shadow, I can see them applying this to clerics/divine casters too.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6025171, member: 95493"] 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. 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. 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 :P. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules
Top