D&D 5E (2024) What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?

[doctorbadwolf]

Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane

Terrible. Bane and heroism are…iconic.

 

[Charlaquin]

You keep talking about more variety as if I’m arguing for less, when the opposite is true. We disagree on where that variety should live, or how it’s accessed.

I don’t think you’re arguing for less variety, I think you’re arguing against different casting classes having different casting systems, and a desire for more variety is the reason I’m arguing for that.

You often seem to be replying to something completely different from what I’ve said, as is happening in this discussion. As if I were making a point wholly disconnected from the point I’m making.
It’s hard to conclude that you understand what point I’m making when you reply to a statement about individualizing choice of Spellcasting type with a unified default as if I were talking about every character having exactly the same casting features.

I’m responding to the words you write, and when you try to clarify your meaning, you don’t seem to be giving me information I hadn’t already gleaned from those words.

I disagree. I…view this statement as completely false. The wizard is the most defined by thier Spellcasting, to thier detriment, and every other full caster has either another very significant feature and a smattering of others, or just a variety of features. The cleric has nearly as much going on outside of spells as a half-caster, as does the Bard. The warlock is almost more invocations and boons and patron features than spells, and the sorcerer’s spell list is overshadowed IME by sorcery points and meta-magic, and then also has origin features.

I find the majority of those features to have far less significant impact on gameplay than spellcasting does for most full casters. The Warlock is of course the exception; it actually plays and feels meaningfully different from the other casters, and with various combinations of spell selection, patron, pact boon, and invocations, they can be made to play meaningfully differently even than other warlocks (though admittedly the sheer effectiveness of EB spam does make doing so less appealing from an optimization standpoint). It’s great and I want to see more of that kind of diverse gameplay. In comparison, every other spellcaster feels cookie-cutter. Moon Druids do feel appreciably different too, because wild shape completely alters your character and their capabilities. But sorcery points and Metamagic overshadowing their spellcasting? Really? To me they feel like the seasoning, while spellcasting is the meal. They give sorcerers a dash of their own flavor, but fundamentally they still pretty much taste like wizards.

I struggle to see how you can see the very different spells of the wizard and Druid as “not significantly different”, as someone who does see the different classes powers in 4e as significantly different.

Their spells are different, but unlike 4e powers they don’t lead to significantly different gameplay. The options you weigh as a player, both round to round and level to level, are basically the same.

and I think that very harmony is disrupted by each and every spellcaster having their own underlying system rather than only the spellcasters who are narratively “weird” having different systems.

Well maybe this is part of the problem. I think every caster should be “narratively weird.” If they aren’t doing meaningfully different forms of magic, why are they different classes?

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m 103% certain that wizards isn’t going to try to push people into digital tools like that. It would absolutely inevitably fail, and backfire. It’s just too easy to play D&D without wizard’s help.

You’re probably right, but the cynic in me isn’t totally convinced.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is it working?

No idea! But I do know the people I argue with seems to change every year, so something good must be happening. Either I'm changing minds, or they are just no longer making posts that make me feel the need to dispute them. So either way, I win!

 

[MoonSong]

You’re probably right, but the cynic in me isn’t totally convinced.

We are talking of the company that is selling a pack of random proxies for $250. Of course they'll try to push the online tools by design! It wouldn't be the first time even. The only difference is this time they aren't vaporware.

 

[tetrasodium]

Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane

I think that's probably a matter of moving those out of the base bard class & into archetypes where they fit the power budget. That has the nice secondary effect of freeing up useful amounts of power budget for bars archetypes to strongly lean into their own niche without being able to wear a mantle of "I'm totally just as good at magic as the Wizard" when that niche is not casting or its some other flavor of casting.
Bard archetypes that fit those things might be even better at using those spells. That's going to be especially true if a lot of spells get dialed down & draw more from relevant archetypes.

 

[Mephista]

I think that's probably a matter of moving those out of the base bard class & into archetypes where they fit the power budget.

Maybe, but then why are they absent from Lore? That's the perfect place for them to appear.

I'm not really married to where they appear, but their appearance somewhere needs to happen.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe, but then why are they absent from Lore? That's the perfect place for them to appear.

I'm not really married to where they appear, but their appearance somewhere needs to happen.

Lore is more generalist caster bard than specialized niche caster. It also has two sets of magical secrets to draw upon if they want the arcane spells not under divination enchantment illusion or transmutation enough to eat some opportunity cost on them.

I think that bard also has too much of its power budget sunk into the combo of magical secrets & inspiration to really justify all of those spells in the base class without using either of those. The mage group can't exactly excel as mages if the full weight of their own spell list is too easily wielded by expert classes who themselves are carrying a bunch of expert class features on top of that weight either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well maybe this is part of the problem. I think every caster should be “narratively weird.” If they aren’t doing meaningfully different forms of magic, why are they different classes?

Certainly. To me, there should be some elements of magic that are the same regardless of what magic you do, but also where I’d want to deviate further would be to have more exclusive spells, more genuine variety in spell effects, and to maybe let the sorcerer do something very different instead of even using spells at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

Certainly. To me, there should be some elements of magic that are the same regardless of what magic you do,

Certain elements, sure. I keep pointing to the warlock and the Next sorcerer, both of which operate under the same fundamental spellcasting system - they cast spells from the same superset as everyone else, which follow all the same rules governing spells. It’s only how they access and cast them that changes.

but also where I’d want to deviate further would be to have more exclusive spells, more genuine variety in spell effects, and to maybe let the sorcerer do something very different instead of even using spells at all.

Yeah, I’m up for that too.