D&D (2024) What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?

[FrogReaver]

Honestly, I would be surprised if these kind of design aspects are even on the table for change.

I thought so at first, but I think they realized that if they didn't at least change some stuff (hopefully for the better) that the edition was going to flop hard due to no major incentive for 5e players to buy it. I think they won't take big chances, but I have higher hopes they'll make some significant changes than when they first announced it and backward compatibility (likely to be mostly a lie IMO). I think the playtest is to really get an idea about which ones stick around.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are other ways to do that, like allowing one class to use different Spellcasting methods.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, because this sounds like exactly what I’m proposing…

No class is just their Spellcasting specifics. I’m never playing a Paladin rather than a ranger just because I prefer prepared casting, and even the wizard is more than just how they learn and prepare spells.

Sure, but if I want to play someone who gained magical powers through their bloodline but I don’t like the way sorcerers work mechanically, nothing actually stops me from playing that character using the wizard mechanics.

I want to play a wizard over a sorcerer because of the narrative and themes of the two classes and how wizard fits my character.

And that’s all well and good, but the narrative and themes tied to a class can be changed much more easily than the mechanics can.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, because this sounds like exactly what I’m proposing…

Not at all. A sorcerer would work the same as a wizard in terms of the basic Spellcasting feature, and be distinguished by other things that modify thier Spellcasting, just like it mostly is now.

Both classes would have the option of switching to spell points, or a couple other variants presented in the Spellcasting chapter.

Sure, but if I want to play someone who gained magical powers through their bloodline but I don’t like the way sorcerers work mechanically, nothing actually stops me from playing that character using the wizard mechanics.

Not everyone is okay with completely reflavoring a class.

And that’s all well and good, but the narrative and themes tied to a class can be changed much more easily than the mechanics can.

The mechanics of a class should be designed to serve the narrative and times of the class. It’s good that warlocks completely break the normal rules of casting because that is basically their story. Making one class essentially harder or more frustrating to play for the express purpose of making its Spellcasting different for no thematic reason, is not something you’ll ever convince me to be okay with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not at all. A sorcerer would work the same as a wizard in terms of the basic Spellcasting feature, and be distinguished by other things that modify thier Spellcasting, just like it mostly is now.

I guess it depends on how much leeway you give “things that modify their spellcasting.” I mean, personally I would file something like classic Vancian under that description, but it seems you wouldn’t.

Both classes would have the option of switching to spell points, or a couple other variants presented in the Spellcasting chapter.

Sure, sure, variant rules are a thing, but I’m more concerned with the base class design.

Not everyone is okay with completely reflavoring a class.

Ok?

The mechanics of a class should be designed to serve the narrative and times of the class. It’s good that warlocks completely break the normal rules of casting because that is basically their story.

I agree!

Making one class essentially harder or more frustrating to play for the express purpose of making its Spellcasting different for no thematic reason, is not something you’ll ever convince me to be okay with.

Well that’s not something I’m trying to convince you to be ok with. Again, I’m not suggesting doing it for no thematic reason. I do think classic Vancian is thematically fitting for D&D wizards. And anything that can be said of classic Vancian being more frustrating to play than neo-Vancian can also be said of prepared casting being more frustrating to play than known casting. And for that matter, can be said of all forms of Vancian being more frustrating to play than AEDU. But anyway, classic Vancian was just an example, I’m not specifically advocating for Wizards to go back to that. What I’m advocating for is different classes to cast spells in meaningfully different ways, as suits their narrative and themes. The 5e warlock is a great example of this, as was the Next playtest sorcerer. The 5e sorcerer less so, and the 1D&D sorcerer much less so if this “flex Vancian” spell preparation style we see in the Expert classes ends up being shared by all 1D&D casters (which I’ll reiterate I’m not yet convinced will be the case).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess it depends on how much leeway you give “things that modify their spellcasting.” I mean, personally I would file something like classic Vancian under that description, but it seems you wouldn’t.

Sure, sure, variant rules are a thing, but I’m more concerned with the base class design.

Ok?

I agree!

Well that’s not something I’m trying to convince you to be ok with. Again, I’m not suggesting doing it for no thematic reason. I do think classic Vancian is thematically fitting for D&D wizards. And anything that can be said of classic Vancian being more frustrating to play than neo-Vancian can also be said of prepared casting being more frustrating to play than known casting. And for that matter, can be said of all forms of Vancian being more frustrating to play than AEDU. But anyway, classic Vancian was just an example, I’m not specifically advocating for Wizards to go back to that. What I’m advocating for is different classes to cast spells in meaningfully different ways, as suits their narrative and themes. The 5e warlock is a great example of this, as was the Next playtest sorcerer. The 5e sorcerer less so, and the 1D&D sorcerer much less so if this “flex Vancian” spell preparation style we see in the Expert classes ends up being shared by all 1D&D casters (which I’ll reiterate I’m not yet convinced will be the case).

The Next sorcerer being on an entirely different resource model was, IMO, terrible. The current 5e version is good, other than being too limited. I’d prefer it get more spells known and the ability to do meta magic much more, but it’s otherwise very well designed.

But part of spellcasting being well designed in 5e is that even with the warlock you know what spell levels are and what a spell slot is and why it matters that you’re casting at a higher level, and how spells known works, because all Spellcasting has the same fundamentals with occasional exceptions, rather than each class reinventing the wheel.

 

[fuindordm]

Just tossing out an idea, although I think it would be too far astray from mainstream 5E:

Why not have 4 spellcasting classes that are organized around how they access magic, not the spell lists? For example:

1. Hermetic magician: "wizard-like" mechanics: Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Access to all schools. Highest number of prepared spells, needs a spellbook (prayer book, collection of fetishes...), good at researching new spells and ritual magic. VSM components can be replaced with others appropriate to the tradition.
2. Natural magician: "sorcerer-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Access to all schools but half of spells known come from theme/bloodline/other justification. Lots of flexibility via metamagic and class abilities.
3. Pact magician: "warlock-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Prepares spells with help of patron (e.g. familiar, communing with patron...). Half-caster in terms of spell slots. Invocations make up the power difference with respect to full casters.
4. Hedge magician: "ranger-like" mechanics. Pick one list from Arcane, Divine, Primal. Known spells because not enough theoretical knowledge to generalize the tricks they have picked up. Half-caster in terms of spell slots. Various class abilities make up the power difference.

 

[Yaarel]

What if, it is a seemless choice?

Any class can choose how they cast its spells:
• 5e spontanteous slots
• 1e vancian slots
• spell point system



The short-rest spell point system balances robustly.

Here are the basic features for the spell point system that refreshes per short rest.

• Spell point pool = level + 1 points
• Cost of spell = slot
• Max points per casting = highest spell available
• Short Rest refreshes pool to max

For example.

A level 5 Wizard has 6 spell points.
Fireball is a 3-slot spell, so costs 3 points to cast.
The 3rd slot is the highest spell available to a level 5 Wizard.
So each casting cannot exceed 3 points.
A level 5 Wizard can cast two Fireballs, but then needs to refresh.
After each short rest, the spell point pool returns to 6 points.

This spell point system is so balanced, it even works for the highest slots of 6th-, 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-slot spells.

The spell point system is so balanced and so simple, it can be the default for all full caster classes.

I am skeptical about a balanced long-rest spell point system, because the excess of spell points allows overpowered novas. But the short-rest spell point system works great.

Since points and slots turn out to be the same thing, such as a 3-slot Fireball is a 3-point Fireball, one can use the term "slot" to mean spell points. A Fireball costs 3 slots to cast.

 

[Pauln6]

2e tried limits to spells based on spheres and it was sloppily implemented with unforeseen weird combos, such as clerics getting access to reincarnation and druids not. I'm generally not a fan but if they pick a number of core baseline spells that are always available (even if from a non-standard list) it might work out ok.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I feel like they could’ve just said ‘all classes can either be known or memorised casters, known gets more spells accessed but is locked into them between levels, memorised has less spells accessed but can switch them up between every day, these classes are typically known casters and these casters are typically memorised.’

 

[Charlaquin]

The Next sorcerer being on an entirely different resource model was, IMO, terrible. The current 5e version is good, other than being too limited. I’d prefer it get more spells known and the ability to do meta magic much more, but it’s otherwise very well designed.

Oh, I couldn’t disagree more.

But part of spellcasting being well designed in 5e is that even with the warlock you know what spell levels are and what a spell slot is and why it matters that you’re casting at a higher level, and how spells known works, because all Spellcasting has the same fundamentals with occasional exceptions, rather than each class reinventing the wheel.

That’s all also true of spell point based casting…