D&D 5E Boop

[Undrave]

Considering just the PH1? The 'A' classes, wizard included, were just better-done than the 'V's.

But, yes, the 4e wizard's Vancian-ness and spellbook, among other things, could've seemed grandfathered-in.

I dunno... it didn't start to show until they began pumping out additional options. Out of the book they could do their job well... The Wizard... nobody knew what a Controller was supposed to look like for the longest time and I wonder if they ever really got it right, my group almost never played Controllers.

The 5e Wizard feels almost solely defined by mechanic: preparing spells from the spell book, adding spells to the book, and specializing in a one of the School (because that was how it was in 3e...). The only thing fluff-wise is "they learn magic from studying really really REALLY hard you guys!"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

So, in fairness, there is a serious divide between those who pick classes because of fluff, and those who pick classes because of mechanics (let's assume a Manichean duoverse, and ignore the vast majority of people who are like, "Eh, whatever.")

Go to any thread involving 5e classes that are a little bit more fluff/lore involved (such as Druids, for example) and you begin to see this immediately.

Heck, just start a new "Hey, what's up with Druids and armor, anyway?" if you want to see it played out.

Arguably, 5e's classes are more mechanics-defined than not, and the interesting thing is that 5e has mostly papered it over with lore so you don't notice it that much.

I'm more of a mechanics kind of guy, I like the crunch, so I do notice... but I also like to see what they 'paper over' with... and I find the stuff they used for the Wizard to be way too thin. If fluff was paint on top of the wooden structure of mechanics, the Wizard would need a second coat badly.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

I dunno... it didn't start to show until they began pumping out additional options. Out of the book they could do their job well... The Wizard... nobody knew what a Controller was supposed to look like for the longest time and I wonder if they ever really got it right, my group almost never played Controllers.

Structurally the Wizard put too much into the spells instead of allowing class features to enhance them in a controller (battlefield manipulation) fashion. As to the controller role being not yet solidified hmmm I think tradition interfered even in 4e. I they could have grabbed the bull by the horns and allowed classic spells controller effects even if they weren't necessarily done that way originally. A fireball that leaves dangerous/difficult terrain over an area one square radius larger than its strike zone for instance.

(could bring tradition in with fluff... it smells of bat quano)

 

[Undrave]

Eh, for the most part, it's mechanics all the way down (h/t turtles).

The only way to look at the "lore" or "fluff" of the needless multiplicity and plethora of spellcasters is as follows:

Bard: I get spells from music, and stuff. Dance dance DJ Lance!

Cleric: I get spells from my GOD! When God hands you lemons, better cast Lemon Strike!

Druid: I get spells from Nature. But really, I'm all about the shapeshifting. {Insert joke about furries here} RAWR!

Sorcerer: My spells come from within. My blood is boilin'!

Warlock: My spells come from some dude. Dude wants my soul!

Wizard: My spells come from book learnin'. Reading is FUNdamental.

Yeah but some of them just have more interesting paints than others. Bards, Druids and Wizards being generally the worse off IMO.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eh, think you have to read all of them in pari materia (that's fancy talk for "all together"), at which point the following becomes pretty, pretty, pretty clear-

1. There are too many spellcasters in general.

2. There are too many FULL spellcasters. Seriously, I've done this before, but there are 12 base classes. Of those-
1/2 of them are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock)
Two more (Ranger and that crud class) are 1/2 casters.

That means that 8/12 (75%) of all classes in 5e are either full or half-casters. That's ... insane. Add in the 1/3 casters as subclasses, feats, and so on ... argh. Heck, the latest class (the artificer) is either yet another full caster, or a 2/3 caster. Whatever.

The point is, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

When all you have are spells, there's not that much differentiation you can do. Where you get your spells from, the ability you use to cast your spell, and the spell mechanics ... that's about it. And those three things are intertwined.

That’s where mechanics come in, though, because those full casters absolutely play totally differently from each other.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

Eh, think you have to read all of them in pari materia (that's fancy talk for "all together"), at which point the following becomes pretty, pretty, pretty clear-

1. There are too many spellcasters in general.

2. There are too many FULL spellcasters. Seriously, I've done this before, but there are 12 base classes. Of those-
1/2 of them are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock)
Two more (Ranger and that crud class) are 1/2 casters.

That means that 8/12 (75%) of all classes in 5e are either full or half-casters. That's ... insane. Add in the 1/3 casters as subclasses, feats, and so on ... argh. Heck, the latest class (the artificer) is either yet another full caster, or a 2/3 caster. Whatever.

The point is, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

When all you have are spells, there's not that much differentiation you can do. Where you get your spells from, the ability you use to cast your spell, and the spell mechanics ... that's about it. And those three things are intertwined.

agreed.

But when you talk of adding more Martial classes, suddenly everything needs to be folded into the fighter... >>