D&D General Bards & Sorcerers & Summoners & Warlocks & Witches & Wizards oh my!

[cbwjm]

I quite like the Pathfinder 2e system of arcane, divine, occult, and primal. Not 100% occult needs to exist, I feel like it is close to arcane but they've split it off into its own thing with some spells arcane doesn't share. They also have the 8 schools of magic and the 4 essences of matter, spirit, mind, and life though I'm not sure if those really have any impact on the game whereas the schools are important to specialists and the arcane, divine, occult, and primal are important for each classes (or subclasses) spell access.

 

[Cadence]

Three questions nagging at me right now...

1) How important is it to have the related classes get totally separate write ups if they follow much of the same rules and tables and share, say, 1/2ish of the fluff? How bad would it be to have a Wizard, Bloodline Wizard, Witch, and full-caster Bard all written up together as the "incanters" or "arcanists" who study spells, but then have them pick a school, bloodline powers, a patron and hexes, or songs res[ectively? If you do that, is it bad if some of the spells are lower level for one variant than the other? Would you still refer to them as four separate classes?

2) In Pathfinder, Magus fills the "1/2 fighter 1/2 wizard slot". What is the name for a 1/2 fighter 1/2 witch? Should there be a 1/2 thief 1/2 caster? What is an all caster bard?

3) Should all the caster types you find in the world actually be usefully playable as PCs? I can imagine game worlds where there should be folks who enchant items, alchemists, people doing things with runes, and full-on healers. One option is to just have separate rules for them, but then you get complaints they do things no PC could ever do. Is it bad to have them have a class... like an old NPC class... that most PCs would never choose but I guess they could multi-class into? Or does there need to be a variant like in PF where the alchemist can go all Jekyll and Hyde and throw explosives to make them combat useful but not fit the usual stereotype? If there was a full-caster non-melee cleric, 1/2 caster cleric, and minimal caster paladin in the world at large, does the full-caster non-melee cleric need to have an option to make them like a blaster or super-buffer , or is it ok that there are just some character ideas that would stay at home? (Is it ok that the stay-at-home sage with a sponsor, friends, and budget knows a ton more about things in general than the bard who spends a huge chunk of their time fighting and singing too).

 

[Steampunkette]

1) Moderately. The more distinction you create between the classes both narratively and mechanically the more your players will be able to see a purpose for the different classes.

2) Could call it a Hexblade, Dusk Knight, Spellsword, or anything else you like. And there's plenty of room for Arcane Tricksters or Shadowblades.

3) No. It's best if there are other kinds of supernatural powers and magic that just aren't that suitable for the adventuring day. You need the Oracle that stays in their cave reading the bones of goats and the entrails of chickens to predict the future just as much as you need the adventuring wizard. It's probably best not to figure out their entire class, though, and just give them the narratively-specific abilities that you want/need for the individual character at hand.

 

[Aldarc]

I have proposed this before, but I would consider having spell lists based around power sources independent of class, and then have classes built around playstyles (e.g., gish, scholar, pact-maker/summoner, blaster, etc.). So one could pick a Primal Scholar to become a Druid or pick a Divine Scholar to become a Cleric or an Arcane Scholar to become a Wizard. But that would be different from picking a Primal Gish to become a Warden, a Divine Gish to become a War Priest, or a Arcane Gish to become a Swordmage. And so on.

 

[Cadence]

1) Moderately. The more distinction you create between the classes both narratively and mechanically the more your players will be able to see a purpose for the different classes.

In my head I have 9 full-casters, which when you put in the 1/2 caster and splash-caster with each of rogue and fighter would give 27 full class write-ups (without counting straight Fighter or Rogue, or counting anything with Barbarian or Monk), which seems like a lot. Even just having 9 full-caster write-ups seems like a lot (and maybe that's the problem).

I have proposed this before, but I would consider having spell lists based around power sources independent of class, and then have classes built around playstyles (e.g., gish, scholar, pact-maker/summoner, blaster, etc.). So one could pick a Primal Scholar to become a Druid or pick a Divine Scholar to become a Cleric or an Arcane Scholar to become a Wizard. But that would be different from picking a Primal Gish to become a Warden, a Divine Gish to become a War Priest, or a Arcane Gish to become a Swordmage. And so on.

The modularity is part of what I was wondering about, but taking the "gish", a lot of the side things a, say, warpriest, magus, and bard have in PF, or a PF ranger and paladin have, feel different.

 

[Steampunkette]

In my head I have 9 full-casters, which when you put in the 1/2 caster and splash-caster with each of rogue and fighter would give 27 full class write-ups (without counting straight Fighter or Rogue, or counting anything with Barbarian or Monk), which seems like a lot. Even just having 9 full-caster write-ups seems like a lot (and maybe that's the problem).

You don't have to do a Full Caster for every concept, and you also don't have to do a half and half, either. Some of those things might best be expressed as subclasses, or variants on a given class.

Let's talk about your nine full casters and the things that make them different both Mechanically and Narratively, so we can see if there's anything to pare down, there, Mm?

 

[steeldragons]

Before I get into your "3 nagging questions" (which looks remarkably closer to 15 ) I will chime in to get on board to hear about these "nine full casters"... which sounds to me like, mmmmmayhaps, a bit much.

Three questions nagging at me right now...

1) How important is it to have the related classes get totally separate write ups if they follow much of the same rules and tables and share, say, 1/2ish of the fluff?

How "related" are we tawkin'? I mean, all classes -full, sub-, half-, whatever- deserve their own write-up. If nothing else their differences need explaining/exposing. It's just a matter of how much write-up is necessary. An "Illusionist" (even if it's its own full class, versus a "speciality school sub-class of a wizard") needs the explanation that it "functions in [all, many, some] ways as a wizard but [differences, alterations, things that are not in common]." As for "spellcasting" and preparation techniques nearly always falls under the "Magic" chapter or "Using your Magic" segment at the beginning of the Spell descriptions. Something about "How casting works in Combat" or some such. Usually there's at least some lip service paid to the difference between "Divine" and "Arcane" power sources....if you have nine full casters, I imagine that section is going to be somewhat longer but doesn't need full explication within Class descriptions.

How bad would it be to have a Wizard, Bloodline Wizard, Witch, and full-caster Bard all written up together as the "incanters" or "arcanists" who study spells, but then have them pick a school, bloodline powers, a patron and hexes, or songs res[ectively?

I don't know that it would be "bad" at all. It depends on how you set it up...and basically, your preferences of how those things work.

If you do that, is it bad if some of the spells are lower level for one variant than the other?

I wouldn't think so. My homebrew setting/game has several spells that are available to a number of different casters, who use magic [i.e. practice magic/cast spells] differently, with the same spell effect at different levels [tiers] for their class.

Again, this is a personal preference thing.

Introduced in D&D 3e or 3.5 I guess. Carried through PF1. Seems like D&D 5e did away with it. I, personally, see no problem to it. Par example: the Cleric can Cure [Light] Wounds as a 1st level spell. Obvs. MY setting/game Druids (and Bards, I think, and Witches) don't get it til a 2nd level spell. Characters with my game's "Ritualist" Theme (any caster who can use spells with the "ritual tag"), however, could perform Cure Wounds, too, as a first level spell (or higher depending on how many ranks in the theme they choose to accrue).

Would you still refer to them as four separate classes?

"Wizard, Bloodline Wizard, Witch, and [full-caster] Bard? Well, the Wizard, Witch, and Bard I certainly would expect to be three distinct classes. If all that's separating the first two is a bloodline, then that seems like the kind of thing to be handled by a background/origin/bloodline kind of decision point mechanic that is independent (and doesn't warrant) a separate "class" all its own.

2) In Pathfinder, Magus fills the "1/2 fighter 1/2 wizard slot".

Yes.

What is the name for a 1/2 fighter 1/2 witch?

In PF? That's still a Magus.

Should there be a 1/2 thief 1/2 caster?

A thief who uses magic or a caster who uses their magic to steal things? In my opinion, that's handled in D&D by what they call a Warlock. It's what the Arcane Trickster is suppsoed to be (and SHOULD have been). It could also be, in D&D, what is a Bard. Though I don't think any of them did it really quite right. Also, not necessarily a class concept, I feel, doesn't need its own base class...but an archetype that should be accomplishable via either a caster or thief base with appropriate feats/traits/themes/added options.

What is an all caster bard?

IN D&D 5e, that'd be a Bard. In PF too, I think. I'm not sure what you mean by "all caster." If all they do is use magic?...then in what way are they a Bard? "Wizard" would seem to be the proper answer.

3) Should all the caster types you find in the world actually be usefully playable as PCs?

Oh! No. Absolutely not.

I can imagine game worlds where there should be folks who enchant items, alchemists, people doing things with runes, and full-on healers.

As you should.

One option is to just have separate rules for them, but then you get complaints they do things no PC could ever do.

Which, since they are NOT "PCs" is perfectly fine and "in bounds."

Is it bad to have them have a class... like an old NPC class... that most PCs would never choose but I guess they could multi-class into?

Seems unnecessary.

Or does there need to be a variant like in PF where the alchemist can go all Jekyll and Hyde and throw explosives to make them combat useful but not fit the usual stereotype?

That is one way to go. Seems to have been quite successful for PF. But also sometimes leads to distinctions without [or with pointless] differences.

If there was a full-caster non-melee cleric, 1/2 caster cleric, and minimal caster paladin in the world at large, does the full-caster non-melee cleric need to have an option to make them like a blaster or super-buffer , or is it ok that there are just some character ideas that would stay at home?

That seems to be two separate questions. And, ultimately, again (sorry) a matter of personal taste and preference. I see no reason a full-casting cleric would have to be a "blaster" or "superbuffer" to go adventuring. It is equally valid to have full-casting clerics who DO go out into the world and those who choose/prefer to stay in their quiet cloisters meditating, praying, seeking/contemplating their deity's will, and/or serving their community and whatnot. The power granted to you as a cleric, afterall, is not for self-aggrandizement or personal pursuits (at least, usually, not from the Good or Lawful deities).

(Is it ok that the stay-at-home sage with a sponsor, friends, and budget knows a ton more about things in general than the bard who spends a huge chunk of their time fighting and singing too).

In my world/game? Absolutely. Again, your world, your preference.

 

[Cadence]

You don't have to do a Full Caster for every concept, and you also don't have to do a half and half, either. Some of those things might best be expressed as subclasses, or variants on a given class.

Let's talk about your nine full casters and the things that make them different both Mechanically and Narratively, so we can see if there's anything to pare down, there, Mm?

Before I get into your "3 nagging questions" (which looks remarkably closer to 15 ) I will chime in to get on board to hear about these "nine full casters"... which sounds to me like, mmmmmayhaps, a bit much.

Which is why I'm hoping grouping things together isn't bad! My post a few up was asking about collapsing all of group 1 below. Group 2 might go similarly... and I'm not married to any of the concepts below yet and can imagine a particular world missing some of them. Also, in case it makes a difference in thinking about what's there or missing, this is for a like e6/p6 campaign were spells go up to 3rd level and teleportation is very nerfed.


1) Full casters who choose from a range of spells each day by studying (incantation). All of these casters have access to pretty much all the spells... eventually.

1a) The wizard who may have has no special background before wizarding, and even if so eschews it and is trained in a magical tradition (even if only trained by a mentor, or is simply being a generalist). This is the class that studies the "science of magic". That gives them additional special abilities related to their tradition. Spells related to their school are learned earlier than for other casters or gotten automatically.

1b) The witch who had their incanting sparked through a pact with a supernatural being. This allows them to study and learn spells, in partnership with their familiar, and grants them hexes based on the patron. The learning of spells can range from supernatural revelation to studiousness. Spells related to their patron or are on-theme are learned earlier than for other casters or gotten automatically.

1c) The sorcerer (?) who has their spark through their bloodline. This allows them to study and learn spells, but they gain powers through their bloodline instead of school and gain auto-access to some based on the bloodline. The learning of spells can range from innate precociousness to studiousness. Spells related to their bloodline are learned earlier than for other casters or gotten automatically.

1d) The bard whose spells are presented in song. They study and memorize the songs and gain spells that naturally go with sound earlier than other casters would. They also have special abilities that come through their singing.


2) Full casters with a very limited range of spells, but able to do them more often.

2a) The warlock (?) who is able to cast spells due to a pact with a supernatural being. They are granted specific spells (chosen in character creation and as the player levels) through their pact or familiar, and grants them hexes based on the patron (at a higher power level than the witch who is focused on a wider range of spells?). Spells related to their patron (so most of them they would take) are gained earlier than for other casters.

2b) The scion (?) who is able to cast spells due to their supernatural heritage. They are able to cast specific spells (chosen in character creation and as the player levels) due to their mystic heritage and also gain other powers (at a higher power level than the sorcerer who is also focused on a wider range of spells?). Spells related to their bloodline (so most of them they would take) are gained earlier than for other casters. Most creatures that innately cast magic without studying do it through a similar mechanic.


3) Casters who gain powers by connection with the planes.

3a) The clerics who are channels for the divine beyond the realms of the world. They pray for spells each day from a list that isn't as broad as (1) but are much broader than (2). They are able to channel planar energy (positive, negative, undeath, abberration; earth, air, fire, water; lightning, thunder, corrosion, ice). They get spells based on the plane and their deities portfolio (domain) earlier than other casters.

3b) The shamans who communicate with, call on, and cajole, command, or bargain with the spirit realm adjacent to our own. The spirits carry out the magical (spell) effects, and in some cases send manifestations.

3c) The druids have an innate sense of this world Their magics manipulate what is already here (so pyrotechnics insteead of fireball; call lightning instead of lightning bolt) and transmutations and calling of animals and communicating with them. Transforming into animal shapes and animal companions would be options.

 

[Steampunkette]

Those all make sense to me, in concept and conceit. But what about -function-?

I'm going to assume that Arcane, Divine, and Probably Primal spell lists have a different range of spells on them that have some, but not massive, overlap to help create more daylight between the characters.

But what functional difference will exist between, say, Wizard and Sorcerer or Warlock and Scion? Could the "Innate Spark" be presented, instead, as a subclass function of the primary class?

Wizards probably get some sort of Spell School options for their different types of magic, but could you instead do "Draconic Ancestry Sorcerer" as an option for the Wizard class which gains Dragon-Style magics earlier?

Or will the Sorcerer have some other mechanic that sets them apart as a class like Spell Points and Metamagic Feats?

 

[Aldarc]

The modularity is part of what I was wondering about, but taking the "gish", a lot of the side things a, say, warpriest, magus, and bard have in PF, or a PF ranger and paladin have, feel different.

(1) Although it's a great sacrilege, I'm not sure if I would have rangers, paladins, or bards as gishes. The distinction between a warpriest and magus, for example, will also be a by-product of their respective spell lists in terms of what tactics they adopt, but there will be a number of similar, if not overlapping abilities that they would want as a result of some basic precepts (e.g., casting with weapons).

(2) I think that it's okay to admit that there is a lot of conceptual overlap between classes and that they could hypothetically be combined but then have that difference expressed in their subclasses. This is what Starfinder did, IMHO, quite well. There is a Technomancer (the studious wizard analogue), but then there is also the Mystic. This latter one covers a lot of things that aren't necessarily about academic study, but also mystical traditions. Through its connections/subtypes it basically provides a Healer, a Psion, a Druid, a Shaman, Crusader/War Priest, etc. FYI, the Starfinder Mystic was basically the nail in the coffin that convinced me that Psionics should be more about Wisdom than Intelligence.

(3) Another option would be to remove standard or class spell lists entirely. Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved had a universal spell list for classes. However, spells at each level were divided between Simple, Complex, and Exotic. Furthermore, spells also had keyword tags (e.g., Plant, Fire, Dragon, Radiant, etc.). So some class spell access could be distinguished between spell complexity, spell level, and key words.

The Magister (wizard analogue), for example, had up 9th level simple and complex spells.* The Mage Blade (the gish), in contrast, only received simple spells up to 7th level. The Greenbond (druidic healer analogue) had up to 9th level simple spells but also complex spells with the Plant or Positive Energy tags.

* Arcana Evolve had character levels up to 25th and went as high as 10th level spells. I'm capping this at 20th for purposes of easier comparison.