D&D (2024) Abilities as Spells: splitting your abilities between class section and spell section

[Neonchameleon]

Spellcasters cast spells.

Other classes use abilities.

Making all (or most) abilities simply spells does two things- it makes all classes "spellcasters," and it makes spellcasting less cool.

In other words, it is the worst of both worlds. Simplifying things does not always make things better.

The big question is why should spellcasters get a near monopoly on cool? About 40% of the PHB of most editions is dedicated to spells, that is to fluffing up the spellcasters and making them more cool than everyone else. Meanwhile the non-casters might only get a couple of pages - and of that something like the current Indomitable is not very cool at all.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The big question is why should spellcasters get a near monopoly on cool? About 40% of the PHB of most editions is dedicated to spells, that is to fluffing up the spellcasters and making them more cool than everyone else. Meanwhile the non-casters might only get a couple of pages - and of that something like the current Indomitable is not very cool at all.

I disagree with the premise. Spellcasters don't have a monopoly on cool.

I almost exclusively play martial characters when I play - although I do have a soft spot for 5e warlocks.

It's a game design issue- in OD&D and 1e, for various reasons, martial were more than able to hold their own.

I mean ... except the Thief. I don't know what Gygax had against Thieves, but I'm guessing one them killed his mom or something.

 

[Horwath]

The big question is why should spellcasters get a near monopoly on cool? About 40% of the PHB of most editions is dedicated to spells, that is to fluffing up the spellcasters and making them more cool than everyone else. Meanwhile the non-casters might only get a couple of pages - and of that something like the current Indomitable is not very cool at all.

it gets so much page count because it's magical.
Martials are mostly based on real world physics, spells are not, so everything that removes laws of physics that we all know must be described in detail in what way and how exactly that effect does that.

 

[Gorck]

spell is a spell. unless it is written directly into spell description, all spells have same volume of components cast by anyone, except with Subtle metamagic.

If they only put in that rangers ignore Verbal components of their spells. Ranger spells only, no multiclass cheese here.

Except, nowhere in the entry for Verbal spell components (PHB, page 203) does it mention how loud the verbal component must be. You said, "most DMs I played with say that the voice must be loud enough to be heard in battle" but that's not an official rule. That's just an arbitrary parameter your DMs have created.

Also, I never said that the Ranger could ignore verbal components. I said they could mutter a simple line like, "You are mine" or "Now I have you" as the verbal component.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I couldn't see anything in the PHB that says a caster needs to "yell . . . from top of his lungs." I see no reason why the Ranger in question can't just whisper or mutter under their breath.

On the other hand, it's a bit hard to reckon why the Ranger in question (our heroic master tracker, warrior of the wilderness archetype) needs to say anything out loud at all, to manipulate the magical weave underpinning all existence...

..to track something (and do a little more damage with its weapon attacks).


There is nothing inherently magical or supernatural about either of these abilities.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree with the premise. Spellcasters don't have a monopoly on cool.

I almost exclusively play martial characters when I play - although I do have a soft spot for 5e warlocks.

It's a game design issue- in OD&D and 1e, for various reasons, martial were more than able to hold their own.

I mean ... except the Thief. I don't know what Gygax had against Thieves, but I'm guessing one them killed his mom or something.

I'm guessing one robbed him.

And yes it is a game design issue. With one of the biggest parts of the design being that the oD&D/1e classes being soft-capped at level 10-ish. Meanwhile 3.0, 3.5, and 5e continue on to level 20 with the fighter getting very little at the higher levels they couldn't at the lower ones, and the casters getting an entire new level of spells every two levels. Getting your own castle and landings was very cool but fighters now have nothing of the sort.

(I was not joking when I suggested on another thread fighters should be able to spend their feats on Warrior Epic Boons from level 12, Expert Epic Boons from level 16 and any epic boon at levels 19 and 20).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm guessing one robbed him.

And yes it is a game design issue. With one of the biggest parts of the design being that the oD&D/1e classes being soft-capped at level 10-ish. Meanwhile 3.0, 3.5, and 5e continue on to level 20 with the fighter getting very little at the higher levels they couldn't at the lower ones, and the casters getting an entire new level of spells every two levels. Getting your own castle and landings was very cool but fighters now have nothing of the sort.

(I was not joking when I suggested on another thread fighters should be able to spend their feats on Warrior Epic Boons from level 12, Expert Epic Boons from level 16 and any epic boon at levels 19 and 20).

It depends on how you look at it.

From my POV, instead of making martials much more powerful, I prefer to make magic more rare- I think that making spellcasting much less common makes both spellcasting and regular ol' abilities better. But I also know that my preferences on that are the distinct minority.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It depends on how you look at it.

From my POV, instead of making martials much more powerful, I prefer to make magic more rare- I think that making spellcasting much less common makes both spellcasting and regular ol' abilities better. But I also know that my preferences on that are the distinct minority.

I can sympathise, but that's a case of getting the genie back into the bottle

And it still doesn't solve the "what even is a tier 3 or 4 fighter?" problem.

 

[Gorck]

It depends on how you look at it.

From my POV, instead of making martials much more powerful, I prefer to make magic more rare- I think that making spellcasting much less common makes both spellcasting and regular ol' abilities better. But I also know that my preferences on that are the distinct minority.

Or just make spellcasting harder - by getting rid of the Spell Casting Focus and Component Pouch, and forcing spellcasters to keep track of all material components.

I suspect that would be equally poorly received by the community.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But everyone said "No, that doesn't count". Why? Usually because of the arguments of 'spell components' and 'anti-magic fields' thrown up as the reasons why a Warlord made off of a Cleric chassis wouldn't be "non-magical". As though the idea of just ignoring components and anti-magic fields for this Warlord (two things that almost all of us already do) was impossible.

Because you had to roll the dice that your empowered DM would just let that happen as opposed to having the official backing of the books.

Remember, another part of the 4e backlash was anti-reskinning and anti-player agency.