Oh dear, please not. At least not in general. It's alright for me, if there are some spells that only work for wizards or only for sorcerers, but strictly separate lists will entail lots of redundancy, as we have seen in 4e.
Warlock and Sorcerer
Oh dear, please not. At least not in general. It's alright for me, if there are some spells that only work for wizards or only for sorcerers, but strictly separate lists will entail lots of redundancy, as we have seen in 4e.
Bow_Seat
First Post
Is there some place where I can find this to watch?
Edit: nevermind. I found an audio recording, which is just as good.
For anyone else who missed the keynote, I'm listening to a recording at
http://thetome.podbean.com/2012/08/17/the-future-of-dnd-keynote-address-gencon-2012/
Last edited:
lutecius
Explorer
I don't.
I don't care what it's called but I need a class (point based, ideally) to completely replace the Wizard (and every pseudo-Vancian caster for that matter), which won't work if spontaneous casters come with their own spell-lists and too much hardwired flavour (like 3e psionics for example).
that too. no need to take so much space in a book for spells that do more or less the same thing. If you want different flavours of casters why not just use spell schools or spheres?
Last edited:
I hope the Sorcerer to be spellpoint based with 3.x fluff (bloodlines, spontaneous magic abilities) and the Warlock to be AEDU with 4E fluff (pact with otherworldy entities).
Combined with the Vancian Wizard we should have all the bases covered and be happy pandas.
Oh, and just one big spell list for all classes a la 3.x, please.
Combined with the Vancian Wizard we should have all the bases covered and be happy pandas.
Oh, and just one big spell list for all classes a la 3.x, please.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
I think the 3.5 warlock did a great job of having its own fluff with its powers, while mostly drawing upon the same spell list that wizards and sorcerers used. The warlock powers would just state "this invocation works like X spell, except..." and that way they had tons of very unique and flavorful powers without a huge spell list of their own. The entire warlock invocation list in Complete Arcane, including descriptions, was only 4 pages long.
I hope they take a similar approach in this edition, as the warlock would be very boring if it just had the same old wizard spells, like "fly, wall of fire and baleful polymorph" instead of "wall of perious flame, fell flight and word of changing."
thecasualoblivion
First Post
If in order to never touch Vancian magic in 5E I have to never play the Wizard archetype and in order to run a Vancian-free 5E game I have to ban the Wizard class, I consider the system somewhat broken. I expect better from the word modularity.
Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this
Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this
Is it really such a problem to ban the Wizard? I mean, you are asking quite a lot if you are expecting everyone to come around to not having Vancian magic in the course of the playtest. If Vancian magic is a deal breaker for you, but I'm sorry but you are probably already out.
I mean, Vancian magic has its problems, some solveable and some not. But there are things Vancian magic does that you can't get with the other D&D magic systems. For example, I enjoy finding and collecting a wide variety of spells for example, which you can't really do with spontaneous casters, mana point casters, at-will casters who all have set spells chosen by character advancement instead.
Even things that are problems that result (ie. the 15 minute adventuring day) still have their good points. The daily spell resource management allows for a sense of magic that is extremely powerful, whereas at-will wizards will generally not be able to do things that are wondrous because they have to stay in line with what the mundane classes can do round to round.
You think the flaws of the Vancian magic system are too great to overcome its virtues, fair enough. But those virtues are going to essential for a great number of D&D players, including myself. I don't mind some alterations to reduce the flaws, but asking me to do without the virtues is too much.
As a side note, casualoblivion, remember how much it annoyed the crap out of us when certain people (who are mostly on my ignore list) thread crapped on every innovation and new mechanic related to 4e, even if it was fun and interesting? The people who insisted that we couldn't be having fun with 4e because it wasn't really playable or D&D? Over the last few days you've started to sound like that guy. I mean this is a thread talking about the sorcerer and the warlock, not about how much Vancian casting sucks.
Jack99
Adventurer
Well, just because we get the sorc and the lock with different kinds of spellcasting, it doesn't automatically mean we won't get other variations for the wizard. On the other hand, modularity does not equal getting every option for every flavor and taste. Especially not out of the gate.
I'm curious as to why refluffing (or more to the point, replacing) doesn't fix it? At least as far as the playtest wizard is concerned... the stuff having to do with just his spells (how he acquires them and how he casts them) is its own independent system apart from all the other stuff the wizard gets. Why wouldn't you be able to just use all of the wizard class's base stuff (hit points, proficiencies, magic/weapon attack scores, INT for Save DCs, Arcane Knowledge, wizard spell list) and then just lift out the Vancian casting method and insert the warlock or sorcerer casting method in it's place? But maintain all the standard wizard fluff that goes with it? That's like barely a refluffing, and more just a mechanics replacement.
And if you say "no, that doesn't work for me"... what if WotC were to specifically write in the Player's Handbook that the three differing casting mechanics of the wizard/warlock/sorcerer are all interchangeable and you move any of them around to create the casting mechanic / class combo that you prefer? Does that then make it "modular" enough that you'd be okay with it?
Ultimatecalibur
Explorer
Which ever class gets spellpoints, I hope they price the point costs by spell effect rather than by spell level.
Similar Threads
