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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5995518" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Apparently, the playtest cleric is slightly different implementation though still Vancian. And, the reason, I assume, is because that's how it was before. </p><p></p><p>They're all classic classes that were Vancian before, so presumably will be again. Whatever module allows you to remove Vancian might have a Sorcerer-like Favorite Soul to replace the Cleric, a Skald to replace the Bard, and so forth.</p><p></p><p>The Sorcerer was introduced 12 years ago, for the first 8 of those years, it used a different way of casting spells (and, recently, a new flavor of Sorcerer, an Elementalist, was introduced that also casts differently than the 4e Wizard). The preponderance of tradition is on the side of the Sorcerer being mechanically distinct from the Wizard. And, 5e seems to have a mandate to make each class mechanically distinct, in any case. </p><p></p><p>For the record, I'm not arguing for that (I'd prefer more consistent mechanics, like in 4e), I'm just speculating as to how WotC might deliver a modular system with each caster class having it's own mechanics. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that by making the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes part of the 'module.' Vancian-only, strike Sorcerer, Warlock, Favoured Soul, etc. No-Vancian, reverse that. The 'concise and simple' core system is obviously not going to achieve those qualities by making classes mechanically consistent, that was tried last ed and there's no indication it's even on the table this ed. It's the core mechanics - skills, attacks, and other resolution systems - that are going to help make core simple by being 'rules lite.'</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5995518, member: 996"] Apparently, the playtest cleric is slightly different implementation though still Vancian. And, the reason, I assume, is because that's how it was before. They're all classic classes that were Vancian before, so presumably will be again. Whatever module allows you to remove Vancian might have a Sorcerer-like Favorite Soul to replace the Cleric, a Skald to replace the Bard, and so forth. The Sorcerer was introduced 12 years ago, for the first 8 of those years, it used a different way of casting spells (and, recently, a new flavor of Sorcerer, an Elementalist, was introduced that also casts differently than the 4e Wizard). The preponderance of tradition is on the side of the Sorcerer being mechanically distinct from the Wizard. And, 5e seems to have a mandate to make each class mechanically distinct, in any case. For the record, I'm not arguing for that (I'd prefer more consistent mechanics, like in 4e), I'm just speculating as to how WotC might deliver a modular system with each caster class having it's own mechanics. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that by making the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes part of the 'module.' Vancian-only, strike Sorcerer, Warlock, Favoured Soul, etc. No-Vancian, reverse that. The 'concise and simple' core system is obviously not going to achieve those qualities by making classes mechanically consistent, that was tried last ed and there's no indication it's even on the table this ed. It's the core mechanics - skills, attacks, and other resolution systems - that are going to help make core simple by being 'rules lite.' [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.
Top