D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe the Ranger would be a better "battle wildeshaper" while the Druid can keep utility wildshape.

I'd rather have one class do both because the goal of a shapeshifting class for me is Beast Boy.

 

[Alzrius]

If I were ever to run 5e again, I would use the Warlock for all of the spellcasters. That would just be the way magic worked in my homebrew for that campaign. I would also spread out the spells to make those differences larger (between a celestial patron versus an undead one, for example).

I'm reminded of how, back on the Paizo forums during the PF1 era, a lot of people were hyped about the Spheres of Power magic system, which was characterized by how it was so much more limited, and less powerful, than standard Vancian magic. You essentially picked a thematic area of magic (e.g. teleportation, summoning, etc.) and got some basic effects at-will, but had to use feats to "buy" higher-level powers. People loved it, and I think that there are still compatible materials for the Spheres system being produced.

 

[TwoSix]

If I were ever to run 5e again, I would use the Warlock for all of the spellcasters. That would just be the way magic worked in my homebrew for that campaign. I would also spread out the spells to make those differences larger (between a celestial patron versus an undead one, for example).

I'm running an OSE/Beyond the Wall game in Greyhawk at the moment, and we're using the Beyond the Wall magic system. All spellcasters are Mages. All spellcasters can cast any spell, assuming they learn it or discover or research it. So, your "wizard" wants to heal? Sure. "Cleric" wants to cast fireball, have at it. The magic though, is split into Cantrips (casting roll required), Spells (safe to use, cast one per level), and Rituals (long casting time, but powerful). Once we get/got over the DnD hangover related to magic, its been a lot of fun, and much more interesting.

I was actually thinking about an "all pact magic" setting the other day, in combination with gritty short rest rules. Just add a bunch of invocations, and some invocations or a class feature to learn spells into a "spellbook" via scrolls and then to make scrolls from the spellbook, so you also get that "classic wizard" feel.

And the Beyond the Wall system is legitimately excellent. I was also thinking that if there's one thing that published adventures could really use, it's specific playbooks. The only adventure I know that ever really did something like that was 4e's Neverwinter, which was a combination adventure/setting book. Imagine writing a Baldur's Gate 3 adventure, and having "Infernal Engine" and "Vampire Spawn" and "Rejected Wizard" as playbooks.

 

[Kurotowa]

Thinking on this just made me realize how weird it is that insistence on this sort of thing crops up with people who also prefer zero to hero as the progression style. Because that implies that the farmboy that gets roped into adventure and learns fighting from his doomed mentor... somehow learns to be proficient with every weapon ever made.

Because that's what the fighter class says. All weapons.

It's a learned skill to know how to start a story in the right place. Too often, people write their character backstory and end it too early or too late. Too early and it's what you're describing, where the character is still in their "training neophyte" phase and not at the "ready for adventure" point. Too late and it's the infamous "If you have such a long list of legendary deeds to your name, why are you 1st Level?" situation.

Zeroing in on the right point to end the backstory and launch the play career takes both finesse and experience.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm reminded of how, back on the Paizo forums during the PF1 era, a lot of people were hyped about the Spheres of Power magic system, which was characterized by how it was so much more limited, and less powerful, than standard Vancian magic. You essentially picked a thematic area of magic (e.g. teleportation, summoning, etc.) and got some basic effects at-will, but had to use feats to "buy" higher-level powers. People loved it, and I think that there are still compatible materials for the Spheres system being produced.

There's also a 5e conversion for the Spheres system, which is very good, although (obviously) very crunchy.

 

[TwoSix]

It's a learned skill to know how to start a story in the right place. Too often, people write their character backstory and end it too early or too late. Too early and it's what you're describing, where the character is still in their "training neophyte" phase and not at the "ready for adventure" point. Too late and it's the infamous "If you have such a long list of legendary deeds to your name, why are you 1st Level?" situation.

Zeroing in on the right point to end the backstory and launch the play career takes both finesse and experience.

Absolutely. One of the weaknesses of a class system is that some of your abilities are, by necessity, going to be bundled (like the mentioned fighter class and weapon proficiencies). You always have to rationalize your backstory backwards from the end point of your 1st level class abilities, you can't build up your character by just telling his early story.

One of the many reasons I think D&D would be enhanced with playbooks.

 

[Alzrius]

It's a learned skill to know how to start a story in the right place. Too often, people write their character backstory and end it too early or too late. Too early and it's what you're describing, where the character is still in their "training neophyte" phase and not at the "ready for adventure" point. Too late and it's the infamous "If you have such a long list of legendary deeds to your name, why are you 1st Level?" situation.

Zeroing in on the right point to end the backstory and launch the play career takes both finesse and experience.

That's why I've always been a fan of the idea that "your first three levels are your backstory" (though obviously, the number of levels can vary).

 

[Kurotowa]

Absolutely. One of the weaknesses of a class system is that some of your abilities are, by necessity, going to be bundled (like the mentioned fighter class and weapon proficiencies). You always have to rationalize your backstory backwards from the end point of your 1st level class abilities, you can't build up your character by just telling his early story.

One of the many reasons I think D&D would be enhanced with playbooks.

Hah, that gets into another divergence in playstyle I've come across. Do you create a character by writing their story first and then trying to find suitable mechanics second? Or do you sketch out a skeleton of mechanics first and then write a story around them second?

I don't think either is objectively right or wrong, even if I'm usually in the latter camp. But I do feel that for a class based RPG, at least some degree of the latter approach is advisable. The more freeform and point buy RPGs are open to that "story first" style, but when you're boxed into a class package it helps to give at least some consideration to it with your character design.

 

[TwoSix]

Hah, that gets into another divergence in playstyle I've come across. Do you create a character by writing their story first and then trying to find suitable mechanics second? Or do you sketch out a skeleton of mechanics first and then write a story around them second?

I don't think either is objectively right or wrong, even if I'm usually in the latter camp. But I do feel that for a class based RPG, at least some degree of the latter approach is advisable. The more freeform and point buy RPGs are open to that "story first" style, but when you're boxed into a class package it helps to give at least some consideration to it with your character design.

Oh, I'm absolutely in the latter camp (for D&D). I don't even know how you'd start with the former approach, it would just feel weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine, nothing wrong with that. But that's doesn't mean everyone should have to play that way. I think Hawaiian Pizza is a crime against god, but I wouldn't knock a person who enjoys it.

I'm not advocating for one right way to play. But it feels like there are some people here that are, or at least disparaging those with different play philosophies.

Its not about disparaging playstyles. Its about insisting that D&D specifically isn't allowed to have one in the book, even though just about every other RPG does.