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: 6026226" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>As long as the power structure is along the lines of .. wizard has more spells known, less per day .. sorcerer has more power per day (or in a single go) but less spells known .. and the warlock has a small list but infinite uses - or the equivilent - what does it matter which system. There COULD BE a default set in the classes chapter of the book, then at the back or even under the magic section they talk about variants or ways to change that default. That way new players wouldn't be lost but experienced players could use whichever mechanics they like right out of the core.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The example really isn't important anymore so I'll drop it. But I think all of this has to do with the nature of spells, certainly if you are casting the same spell at 20th then it should look different from level 1. If you have a default style or table and then a way to EASILY modify that mechanic into something else then it is a win-win. That way they could make all casters use the 3e/spell slot system and give options to turn it all into AEDU.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it should certainly be simple. But let me put it this way. (You need to be familiar with 3e's regular spells and psionics.) If, in the spells chapter, they had the spell listed with its original 3e style involving spell level, and then another minor section - maybe 2 lines or something - that gave its psionic (pp) cost what would be the harm? Two birds with one stone and you are looking at an extra 2 lines per spell. It would have a similar effect but with small adjustments to allow completely different spell mechanics all the while being in the same book. Now there would be no need for PHB and Expanded Psioncs Handbook, we would only need one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never really played any edition prior to 3e so I'll have to take your word for it. Although, here I assume you are using vancian as in memorization, because both of those classes still used spell slots.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my ideal world, the default wizard (which would be known as the universal wizard) would use a spellbook and memorization. But I would also have several different kinds of wizards put under the same heading. For me wizards are less about spellbooks and memorization and more about contingencies, preparedness and versatility. As well as power sources drawn from the ether and not from their own blood. All of these qualities would work with a blood mage, a wild mage, a psion, and so on.</p><p></p><p>And for me a sorcerer would be about power from within, be that a bloodline or something else. I think sorcerers should have less spells known or available to them because they aren't about that. But they should instead have a greater impact or explosion of power above the wizard. Granted this is mostly foreign to 3e's style so I don't know where I got it but that is my preference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe they would get something like a barbarian's rage (again from 3e) and a certain amount of rounds they would grow scales and get other effects. Although this growing scales thing IS fairly 5e dependent and not so universal so I don't know if that is even necessary.</p><p></p><p>However if it is necessary and a part of sorcerers then I absolutely expect them to make concessions for it no matter which mechanics the DM/setting associates with sorcerers. For all I care sorcerers could be set to spell-slots, with warlocks having power points and wizards having at wills. The powers themselves (effects and oomph) have more to do which the class's uniqueness than the mechanical structure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And if I were writing an L+L for my system then you would get tidbits of information. What is your point? I am not a professional developer nor am I working for WotC. I give them (and you) feedback but I don't do their job for them, especially when I'm working on my own system.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, I would define 4e's fighter as a guy who marks. And if I didn't then I would certainly be forced to define him as a melee fighter and nothing else. I don't see what this has to do with the mechanics the fighter is using - BAB, AEDU. It has to do with his powers, just as casters would and should be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay I think this is the main crux of my argument. I HOPE that WotC puts more effort into one of two things.</p><p></p><p>Either (A) they can put effort into allowing me to make whatever kind of caster I want. That means mixing all toolkits I can until I get the desired outcome. That means allowing me to play a guy with a breadth of options and any system I prefer and calling that class a wizard. Instead of having to take a 'sorcerer' and call him a wizard so that I can get the sorcerer's mechanic along with all that comes with it.</p><p>What if I don't want to play a bookish prepared guy, but don't want scales or having to make a dark pact to get power? Why are those the only options.</p><p>Hopefully with this idea I can also make a fighter-wizard or even sorcerer-wizard if I wanted. The ideas wouldn't be exclusive anymore. I could combine the wizard's progression with the sorcerer's progression and not be stuck with 2 different mechanical systems.</p><p></p><p>Or (B) they make a huge whack of character classes until I can select what I want without having to get a bunch of stuff I don't and without having to give up the concept. That means making a wizard, a wild mage, a wu jen, a warlock, an illusionist, a sorcerer, a transmuter, a summoner, a necromancer, a blood mage, a truenamer, a binder, etc. Basically until they have EVERY caster from every DnD edition to date.</p><p>That way I get the options I need to make the character I want. Because in this system, which you seem to be advocating, I can swap nothing out nor get the mechanics to line up differently.</p><p>Also, don't get me started on divine classes, or ones that cross-over.</p><p></p><p>Oh, the other problem with this is that I HATE the current fluff with the warlock. So even if it had my absolute favourite spell mechanics I would avoid it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Everything else I wanted to say here was already covered. I just wanted to add: I absolutely agree that the classes should match the fluff and so should their powers. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with mixing AEDU or vancian or power points or w/e between the classes. A 4e wizard feels like a 4e wizard, a 3e wizard feels like a 3e wizard. I want it so that I can take the 3e mechanics or the 4e mechanics and use them with a wizard and still feel like a wizard. I'm not suggesting, I don't think anyone has been, that we take the sorcerer mechanics, abilities and spells and call them a wizard.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I really don't want to get into that conversation again, but immersion is highly subjective. And immersion is going to break for me as soon as there is non-magical healing in any form - so 4e in any form <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> So fire not targeting a door because it isn't a creature isn't much more of a stretch.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm" target="_blank">Fireball :: d20srd.org</a></p><p>"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."</p><p>Yes it does?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said earlier, how hard is it so present a default setting for a class. Say how 5e is now. And then add a PART (it wouldn't even require a full chapter) to the magic, spells or another chapter about how you could use AEDU instead of the wizard's spells per day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6026226, member: 95493"] As long as the power structure is along the lines of .. wizard has more spells known, less per day .. sorcerer has more power per day (or in a single go) but less spells known .. and the warlock has a small list but infinite uses - or the equivilent - what does it matter which system. There COULD BE a default set in the classes chapter of the book, then at the back or even under the magic section they talk about variants or ways to change that default. That way new players wouldn't be lost but experienced players could use whichever mechanics they like right out of the core. The example really isn't important anymore so I'll drop it. But I think all of this has to do with the nature of spells, certainly if you are casting the same spell at 20th then it should look different from level 1. If you have a default style or table and then a way to EASILY modify that mechanic into something else then it is a win-win. That way they could make all casters use the 3e/spell slot system and give options to turn it all into AEDU. I think it should certainly be simple. But let me put it this way. (You need to be familiar with 3e's regular spells and psionics.) If, in the spells chapter, they had the spell listed with its original 3e style involving spell level, and then another minor section - maybe 2 lines or something - that gave its psionic (pp) cost what would be the harm? Two birds with one stone and you are looking at an extra 2 lines per spell. It would have a similar effect but with small adjustments to allow completely different spell mechanics all the while being in the same book. Now there would be no need for PHB and Expanded Psioncs Handbook, we would only need one. I never really played any edition prior to 3e so I'll have to take your word for it. Although, here I assume you are using vancian as in memorization, because both of those classes still used spell slots. In my ideal world, the default wizard (which would be known as the universal wizard) would use a spellbook and memorization. But I would also have several different kinds of wizards put under the same heading. For me wizards are less about spellbooks and memorization and more about contingencies, preparedness and versatility. As well as power sources drawn from the ether and not from their own blood. All of these qualities would work with a blood mage, a wild mage, a psion, and so on. And for me a sorcerer would be about power from within, be that a bloodline or something else. I think sorcerers should have less spells known or available to them because they aren't about that. But they should instead have a greater impact or explosion of power above the wizard. Granted this is mostly foreign to 3e's style so I don't know where I got it but that is my preference. Maybe they would get something like a barbarian's rage (again from 3e) and a certain amount of rounds they would grow scales and get other effects. Although this growing scales thing IS fairly 5e dependent and not so universal so I don't know if that is even necessary. However if it is necessary and a part of sorcerers then I absolutely expect them to make concessions for it no matter which mechanics the DM/setting associates with sorcerers. For all I care sorcerers could be set to spell-slots, with warlocks having power points and wizards having at wills. The powers themselves (effects and oomph) have more to do which the class's uniqueness than the mechanical structure. And if I were writing an L+L for my system then you would get tidbits of information. What is your point? I am not a professional developer nor am I working for WotC. I give them (and you) feedback but I don't do their job for them, especially when I'm working on my own system. Actually, I would define 4e's fighter as a guy who marks. And if I didn't then I would certainly be forced to define him as a melee fighter and nothing else. I don't see what this has to do with the mechanics the fighter is using - BAB, AEDU. It has to do with his powers, just as casters would and should be. Okay I think this is the main crux of my argument. I HOPE that WotC puts more effort into one of two things. Either (A) they can put effort into allowing me to make whatever kind of caster I want. That means mixing all toolkits I can until I get the desired outcome. That means allowing me to play a guy with a breadth of options and any system I prefer and calling that class a wizard. Instead of having to take a 'sorcerer' and call him a wizard so that I can get the sorcerer's mechanic along with all that comes with it. What if I don't want to play a bookish prepared guy, but don't want scales or having to make a dark pact to get power? Why are those the only options. Hopefully with this idea I can also make a fighter-wizard or even sorcerer-wizard if I wanted. The ideas wouldn't be exclusive anymore. I could combine the wizard's progression with the sorcerer's progression and not be stuck with 2 different mechanical systems. Or (B) they make a huge whack of character classes until I can select what I want without having to get a bunch of stuff I don't and without having to give up the concept. That means making a wizard, a wild mage, a wu jen, a warlock, an illusionist, a sorcerer, a transmuter, a summoner, a necromancer, a blood mage, a truenamer, a binder, etc. Basically until they have EVERY caster from every DnD edition to date. That way I get the options I need to make the character I want. Because in this system, which you seem to be advocating, I can swap nothing out nor get the mechanics to line up differently. Also, don't get me started on divine classes, or ones that cross-over. Oh, the other problem with this is that I HATE the current fluff with the warlock. So even if it had my absolute favourite spell mechanics I would avoid it. Everything else I wanted to say here was already covered. I just wanted to add: I absolutely agree that the classes should match the fluff and so should their powers. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with mixing AEDU or vancian or power points or w/e between the classes. A 4e wizard feels like a 4e wizard, a 3e wizard feels like a 3e wizard. I want it so that I can take the 3e mechanics or the 4e mechanics and use them with a wizard and still feel like a wizard. I'm not suggesting, I don't think anyone has been, that we take the sorcerer mechanics, abilities and spells and call them a wizard. I really don't want to get into that conversation again, but immersion is highly subjective. And immersion is going to break for me as soon as there is non-magical healing in any form - so 4e in any form :P So fire not targeting a door because it isn't a creature isn't much more of a stretch. [url=http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm]Fireball :: d20srd.org[/url] "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." Yes it does? As I said earlier, how hard is it so present a default setting for a class. Say how 5e is now. And then add a PART (it wouldn't even require a full chapter) to the magic, spells or another chapter about how you could use AEDU instead of the wizard's spells per day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Legend and Lore is up! Magic Systems as DM Modules
Top