D&D 5E The Mage - Casting Methodology that is the difference

[Sadrik]

I actually like putting in all of the different specialty casters under one roof (mage). To make it work though, it needs to use one casting methodology across all classes and subclasses.

This may be what they have in mind already, I don’t know. I think the vancian methodology would be the best implementation for all casters; it’s simple and its classic. Then in the DMG provide alternate casting methods that could either be allowed on a character by character basis, or the DM says in this campaign setting all casters cast this way. This actually gives the most ability of customization and the most ability to keep it simple too. Examples: you might want a ranger with spell points, because you like the idea. You might like a druid with artificer methodology (hopefully this is what they do with the artificer) so you make items/runes/sigils/glyphs to manifest your magic. You might want a cleric with at-will magic because you like that. Also the DM might say in this setting everyone uses at-will magic, period or vancian or whatever. Lots of options.

So the casting Methodologies could be:
Vancian
At-will (warlock)
Spell Points (psion)
Spontaneous (Sorcerer)

Then here is where I think there could be some cool add ons:
Music (Bard songs, make music and magic happens)
Artifice (Artificer, craft items, sigils, glyphs and objects)
Monk (only affects self, but perhaps always on too)

Anyway, pulling the methodolgy out of the classes is really good for a number of reason. So if the mage/wizard, mage/sorcerer, mage/warlock, and mage/psion all have the vancian to begin with and then perhaps suggest a certain methodology to be used but dont have it hard coded it would be good.

 

[Sadrik]

A listing of caster sub-classes and traditions:

Class Mage:
Wizard
*School specialization
Sorcerer
*Bloodlines
Psion
*Focus in different powers
Warlock
*Pacts with different types of entities

Class Cleric:
Domain

Class Druid:
Circle

Class Paladin:
Oath

Class Ranger:
Favored enemy

Class Bard:
College

It appears to me that these are not balanced if there is a solid argument for the casters to not have many types crammed into a class it is that the mage is simply a lot more busy than the others. Although, I like the idea of the mage as an encompassing class I also would like to see that same design principle applied across the other classes it does not make sense to do one class of archetypes one way and then others a different way.

The cleric for instance could, instead of domains could be priest, monk, druid, archivist, favored soul etc. Then domain a subset of some, circle could be a subset of the druid, etc.

For the more gish classes (bard/paladin/ranger). I think something similar could be done with them.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's starting to sink in with me exactly what they're going for. By not having any class defined by its casting mechanics, the number of options increases.

For example, the fighter/mage subclass they've discussed will probably default to wizardry, just like the mage. But since new spellcasting systems are required to replaced wizardry wholesale, that subclass can now serve for all of them.

And it's not just the fighter. Any class can have a subclass option that adds spellcasting. So, perhaps the classic warlock is actually a rogue with a spellcasting subclass using witchcraft.

The mage is then defined as a class that has a pure focus on magic.

 

[Aldeon]

I definitely agree with the idea that the default casting form should be vancian (or whatever is in the last playtest, since some people are concerned that it isn't real vancian), with alternate spellcasting types being outside of player hands at first (like in the DMG or a splatbook). It unnecessarily complicates it for beginners to have the Mage class and have to choose between four or five spellcasting systems, and I think one of the more important things for D&D Next is to be accessible to newbies. Those alternate spellcasting systems are a good idea, but not out of the box IMO.

-

I also agree wholeheartedly with Jeff Carlsen's idea that the mage is a class focused purely on magic. However, I kinda want the devs to take it a step further and slaughter one of their sacred cows and break up the whole arcane/divine separation. I don't think there isn't a good reason a mage couldn't learn a healing spell (such as telekinetically placing a bone back into place after it was shattered, or rewinding time locally over a wound to a pre-injured state), and it's kinda bogus that a cleric can't cast polymorph even if he has a shapeshifting trickster god (unless it is a domain spell, but even then it leaves out many other spells that would fit the bill).

I think it would be really cool if it was similar to how Monte Cook pulled it off in Arcana Unearthed. For those unfamiliar, he simply split spells between 'simple' and 'advanced', giving his mage class (magister) the ability to cast both simple and advanced spells, then giving the ability to cast simple spells to his mage-fighter gish class (which could function as a paladin, bard, hexblade, cleric, etc depending on spell choices). At the same time, he made options so the mage-fighter class could learn some advanced spells too. With a split between simple and advanced spells, it would make it possible to balance spellcasting between pure casters and gishes.

Of course, this is just a pipe dream of mine. I'll just homebrew it when D&D Next comes out... :<

 

[steenan]

I don't like the idea of casting the same (or, at least, strongly overlapping) spells using significantly different mechanics. As the spells are something specific in-setting, it leads to questions why it is so - and then one has to either engage in strange explanations and justifications or handwave it away (so we have some fluff about the spellcasting and then declare it meaningless).

I'd gladly see different magic systems in the game, but I would like them to be really different - with varied effects, varied (in-fiction) ways of achieving them and varied mechanics to represent it.

That's why I think that (sub)classes where fluff is separated from casting mechanics is a bad approach. If characters cast differently, it should be because of some fictional reasons and it should lead to significantly different effect (both mechanically and in-fiction).

 

[Remathilis]

A listing of caster sub-classes and traditions:

Class Mage:
Wizard
*School specialization
Sorcerer
*Bloodlines
Psion
*Focus in different powers
Warlock
*Pacts with different types of entities

Class Cleric:
Domain

Class Druid:
Circle

Class Paladin:
Oath

Class Ranger:
Favored enemy

Class Bard:
College

It appears to me that these are not balanced if there is a solid argument for the casters to not have many types crammed into a class it is that the mage is simply a lot more busy than the others. Although, I like the idea of the mage as an encompassing class I also would like to see that same design principle applied across the other classes it does not make sense to do one class of archetypes one way and then others a different way.

The cleric for instance could, instead of domains could be priest, monk, druid, archivist, favored soul etc. Then domain a subset of some, circle could be a subset of the druid, etc.

For the more gish classes (bard/paladin/ranger). I think something similar could be done with them.

Again, if your goal is to fit every class into either Fighter, Mage, or both, spot on.

That said, I suspect Archivist, Favored Soul, Mystic, Invoker, Seeker, Crusader/Warpriest, and Combat Medic will become subclasses for cleric, either augmenting or supplementing the domain system of priest customization. The Druid will end up soaking up Shaman and some of the other Primals.

Remember, perfect symmetry of class design in 4e led to a bunch of redundant classes, classes built to fill specific roles, and other wtf moments.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the vancian methodology would be the best implementation for all casters; it’s simple and its classic.

...

So the casting Methodologies could be:
Vancian
At-will (warlock)
Spell Points (psion)
Spontaneous (Sorcerer)

I would certainly be positive about such an approach.

One nitpick tho: the current spellcasting default is not the classic vancian used in 30 years of D&D. I think this is a glaring miss, but apparently nobody but me around here seems to care about it. Still, I would want "classic vancian" (not the current hybrid) to be an option in core, at least in DMG.

I know people hate to hear the sentence "it doesn't feel like D&D to me", and designers have explicitly listed the absolutely necessary elements to capture the D&D feeling (e.g. classes, hit points, AC...) and vancian was not on the list. So I will say that it still feels like D&D to me, but classic vancian (i.e. one prepared spell = one slot) used to be one of those few mechanics that for me defined the D&D experience and distinguished it from other systems, so I'd really love to have it as an option in core. Hide it in a sidebar if it offends modern gamers...

 

[Sadrik]

One nitpick tho: the current spellcasting default is not the classic vancian used in 30 years of D&D. I think this is a glaring miss, but apparently nobody but me around here seems to care about it. Still, I would want "classic vancian" (not the current hybrid) to be an option in core, at least in DMG.

What is the classic vancian?

For me I want cantrips to be spell slots. I hope that is an option. I dont want at-will magic, unless it is an option that the player or DM buys into through the warlock casting methodology. Or they get a wand... Tacking on a sub-system to spells that makes 0 level spells better than 1st level spells and in some cases 2nd level spells (scaling) then it is off in my mind. A 0 level spell memorized in a higher level slot sure then it could be better.

 

[Sadrik]

Again, if your goal is to fit every class into either Fighter, Mage, or both, spot on.

That said, I suspect Archivist, Favored Soul, Mystic, Invoker, Seeker, Crusader/Warpriest, and Combat Medic will become subclasses for cleric, either augmenting or supplementing the domain system of priest customization. The Druid will end up soaking up Shaman and some of the other Primals.

Remember, perfect symmetry of class design in 4e led to a bunch of redundant classes, classes built to fill specific roles, and other wtf moments.

Note I think all the classes are fine on the list except for barbarian and monk. So 8 classes:
Non-casters
Fighter
Rogue

Hybrid casters
Bard
Paladin
Ranger

Casters
Mage
Cleric
Druid

I do think you are on to something though in that the domains are not good hitches for the cleric that those should be equivalent to the school specializations of the wizard or pacts of the warlock. I think all those cleric subclasses you mention make good sense more than just the domains.

Also I dont think that this is the same thing as "the grid" to fill in in 4e. I think that separating the power source from the mechanics from the class basically creates that grid organically rather than hard code that stuff into each individual class. Let the players discover the options rather than the designer doing so and then publishing it. different design principle, I endorse the 5e strategy...

 

[Li Shenron]

What is the classic vancian?

Uhm... are you really asking? As I said, it's one prepared spell = one slot. It's when you don't actually even need to talk about "slots", when having e.g. 3 first-level spells to prepare means you can then cast each of them once, unless you prepare the same spell multiple times. It's how AFAIK core classes spellcasting worked in OD&D, BD&D, AD&D and how it worked for every core class except Sorcerer and Bard in 3e.