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
*TTRPGs General
This Week in D&D
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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6033314" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>There is a redonkulous level of woe-is-me in this thread, and I can't really puzzle out as to why.</p><p></p><p>To address a few things that have been brought up:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>While I'm fond of magical classes with distinct casting mechanics, it's not a solution that's very modular. "Don't use the Wizard" or "Don't play with the Sorcerer" isn't a useful thing to tell someone -- there's no reason that an academic spellcaster must be tied to A Particular Spell System. </p><p></p><p>There's also a lot of worldbuilding juice in defining how magic works in your setting. Think of FR's deity-based Weave and Dark Sun's defiling and Eberron's industrial spellcasting. It's more than just adding a certain class, it's <em>defining how magic works</em>. </p><p></p><p>I also don't believe that this rules out the possibility of using multiple spellcasting mechanics alongside each other. Slot-based magic and at-will magic and other forms of spellcasting can be (generally) balanced alongside each other, so those who want Wizards to be one and Warlocks to be another can probably do that. </p><p></p><p>This also removes the need for 1,001 magical sub-classes all just differing in their magical mechanic, and promotes the idea of mechanics that back up the <em>other</em> story elements of the class. Now, we can have sorcerers with bloodlines instead of sorcerers who are "wizards, but with different mechanics." </p><p></p><p>I'm in your boat with what I think I'd like to play with, but it's not appropriate for every game (such as a game from a 4e fan who wouldn't touch Vancian spellcasting with a ten-foot pole, or a <em>Dark Sun</em> game where any spellcasting should be an environmental metaphor). I don't think what I'd like to play with is going to be ruled out, though. It has been implied that all these magical systems can be used alongside each other. </p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>Just because it's not a spell doesn't mean every cleric has to have it. It can be one of those "granted powers" mentioned for the God of Life. </p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>Some folks want it that simple, and those are the folks who aren't going to bother to invest the time in the game that you would need to understand that the Expertise system CAN be that simple. </p><p></p><p>But, as above, just because this is an option doesn't mean it'll be the ONLY option</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>On this I actually kind of agree, I just think it has to do more with a pillar other than combat, and they might not be ready to show off what those other pillars can do yet. I think you need to be able to scale exploration with the rogue like the fighter can scale combat.</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>I'm kind of with you here, too "More, but narrower" doesn't seem like what I really want out of the skills system. What I really want out of the skills system is ways to interact with it instead of "roll a d20."</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>A modular game cannot be exclusive with regards to dominance. If a devotee of the Thief God is as sneaky as a Thief, that's a <em>good thing</em>. The rogue can also be that sneaky, without magic, and a cleric of the Deciever can be that sneaky, with magic, and as long as they are the same sneaky, it doesn't really matter how they get there.</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p>They did mention that the class isn't going anywhere, it's just not going to be called "sorcerer," because that meant something different in D&D history. So you don't need to get too bent out of of shape. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p>*whew*</p><p></p><p>For me, I'm otherwise a little miffed that they're going with the idea that specialization means you cast <em>more often</em> rather than with the idea that specialization means that you cast <em>things no one else can cast</em>, but it'll be worth seeing what happens with that with regards to the "different magic systems." It's quite possible that translates into a Vancian system or something more cleanly than the pseudo-at-will/encounter power they're advocating here.</p><p></p><p>And I really think that the firs step in making the Rogue awesome is to better address the <strong>whole Exploration Pillar</strong>, because I don't think the rogue is going to be very awesome without that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6033314, member: 2067"] There is a redonkulous level of woe-is-me in this thread, and I can't really puzzle out as to why. To address a few things that have been brought up: [sblock] While I'm fond of magical classes with distinct casting mechanics, it's not a solution that's very modular. "Don't use the Wizard" or "Don't play with the Sorcerer" isn't a useful thing to tell someone -- there's no reason that an academic spellcaster must be tied to A Particular Spell System. There's also a lot of worldbuilding juice in defining how magic works in your setting. Think of FR's deity-based Weave and Dark Sun's defiling and Eberron's industrial spellcasting. It's more than just adding a certain class, it's [I]defining how magic works[/I]. I also don't believe that this rules out the possibility of using multiple spellcasting mechanics alongside each other. Slot-based magic and at-will magic and other forms of spellcasting can be (generally) balanced alongside each other, so those who want Wizards to be one and Warlocks to be another can probably do that. This also removes the need for 1,001 magical sub-classes all just differing in their magical mechanic, and promotes the idea of mechanics that back up the [I]other[/I] story elements of the class. Now, we can have sorcerers with bloodlines instead of sorcerers who are "wizards, but with different mechanics." I'm in your boat with what I think I'd like to play with, but it's not appropriate for every game (such as a game from a 4e fan who wouldn't touch Vancian spellcasting with a ten-foot pole, or a [I]Dark Sun[/I] game where any spellcasting should be an environmental metaphor). I don't think what I'd like to play with is going to be ruled out, though. It has been implied that all these magical systems can be used alongside each other. [/sblock] [sblock] Just because it's not a spell doesn't mean every cleric has to have it. It can be one of those "granted powers" mentioned for the God of Life. [/sblock] [sblock] Some folks want it that simple, and those are the folks who aren't going to bother to invest the time in the game that you would need to understand that the Expertise system CAN be that simple. But, as above, just because this is an option doesn't mean it'll be the ONLY option [/sblock] [sblock] On this I actually kind of agree, I just think it has to do more with a pillar other than combat, and they might not be ready to show off what those other pillars can do yet. I think you need to be able to scale exploration with the rogue like the fighter can scale combat. [/sblock] [sblock] I'm kind of with you here, too "More, but narrower" doesn't seem like what I really want out of the skills system. What I really want out of the skills system is ways to interact with it instead of "roll a d20." [/sblock] [sblock] A modular game cannot be exclusive with regards to dominance. If a devotee of the Thief God is as sneaky as a Thief, that's a [I]good thing[/I]. The rogue can also be that sneaky, without magic, and a cleric of the Deciever can be that sneaky, with magic, and as long as they are the same sneaky, it doesn't really matter how they get there. [/sblock] [sblock] They did mention that the class isn't going anywhere, it's just not going to be called "sorcerer," because that meant something different in D&D history. So you don't need to get too bent out of of shape. ;) [/sblock] *whew* For me, I'm otherwise a little miffed that they're going with the idea that specialization means you cast [I]more often[/I] rather than with the idea that specialization means that you cast [I]things no one else can cast[/I], but it'll be worth seeing what happens with that with regards to the "different magic systems." It's quite possible that translates into a Vancian system or something more cleanly than the pseudo-at-will/encounter power they're advocating here. And I really think that the firs step in making the Rogue awesome is to better address the [B]whole Exploration Pillar[/B], because I don't think the rogue is going to be very awesome without that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
This Week in D&D
Top