The whole kit and caboodle. A small number of top-level spell slots, refreshing on a short rest, combined with innate powers which are (mostly) usable at will, and cantrip damage boosted to a level which is, if not on par with martials, then close to it.As in short-rest spell recovery or invocations or both???
New Coke was basically Pepsi, but people had an emotional attachment to Coke thanks to the greatest ongoing marketing campaign of all time.The version I've heard is that New Coke won in sip tests - but was too sweet to drink an entire can.
To me the warlock feels perfect how it is. Warlock magic is literally your patron cheating the system to get you magic so it should not be Vancian or NeoVancian.
Which is ironic because the word sorcerer means what a D&D warlock is, but 3E forced the sorcerer into its current role -- which has more in common with Merlin, who has magic powers because he is half demon, not because he studied books.
Sure. As a result, I rarely pass up an opportunity to roast it for being--explicitly and implicitly--presented as the "big tent" edition when it wasn't.true I also saw a lot of inquisitor in it but that is its formulation, I equally feel 5e is not truly a big tent but that is beyond what I can do.
Give them different playstyles; give them different mechanics; provide both with interesting alternative approaches. I can only speak in generalities for two reasons. First, the design space is enormous; second, actually doing this well requires serious and sustained testing, which is something I can't do at the drop of a hat.my point is take the psion and the more tricker type wizards how given they play in the same ballpark do you make them distinct?
To be honest? You don't. Transmuter (like conjurer and most of the spell schools) is one of the reasons why Wizard is so broken. "Transmuter" is, in and of itself, too much AND too little. It's too much because a really full-throated Transmuter can do almost anything, same with Conjurer, and the more powerful versions of Enchanters and Illusionists (especially those using shadow magic.) It's too little, because what on earth does "Transmuter" even mean? What's the archetype there? Is it some kind of alchemy specialist? Then do alchemy, that's a thing! Or perhaps be an artificer, or make heavy use of magic-item crafting rules. Is it some kind of master of altering the forms of other beings? That's something that can be implemented too, in a variety of ways. Is it someone who buffs others by changing them? Again, totally doable, especially if you're okay with reskinning stuff.how do you have a transmuter wizard if everything is built for direct combat?
Or use some other scheme for spell schools, such as highly liberal interpretations of elemental magic (e.g. where Fire would include things like charm person or rage on account of inflaming emotions).Either we need to go back to 2e, where spells could have more than one school, or, we simply reduce the schools of magic to the following:
If by "not (neo-)Vancian" you mean "not using the standard spellcaster progression," then I agree*; but there are literally infinite ways to build a caster who doesn't use the standard progression. The way that was chosen for the warlock would fit the sorcerer much better IMO.To me the warlock feels perfect how it is. Warlock magic is literally your patron cheating the system to get you magic so it should not be Vancian or NeoVancian.
By NeoVancian I mean Prepared Spells + Long Rest Spell Slots + Spontaneous CastingIf by "not (neo-)Vancian" you mean "not using the standard spellcaster progression," then I agree*; but there are literally infinite ways to build a caster who doesn't use the standard progression. The way that was chosen for the warlock would fit the sorcerer much better IMO.
If it were up to me, I'd give the warlock a couple more top-level spell slots and remove the focus on at-will abilities. Then I'd give them the ability to regain spell slots by spending hit dice (or hit points if out of hit dice), supplemented with other options specific to the pact. The idea would be to center the warlock on making dangerous sacrifices for power, with the mechanics reinforcing the concept of the class.
*All spellcasters in 5E include a neo-Vancian component -- a set of spell slots, usable for any spell known/prepared, which recover after a period of rest. All of them also have non-Vancian magical abilities usable at will, including but not limited to cantrips. The warlock is the same, it just has faster recovery time, fewer spell slots, and more of its power allocated to the at-will options.
|Mage Class||Casting Stat||Spells Prepared or Known||Spell Slots Restored||Alter Cantrips||Alter Spells (Metamagic)||Arcane Access||Gimmick|
|Arcanist||Int||Subclass only||Subclass Only||Yes||No||Cantrips Only||Arcanist Boosts|
|Bloodmage||Con||Prepared||Long Rest||No||No||Almost Full||Bloodmagic|
|Sorcerer||Cha||Known||Long Rest||Yes||Yes||Partial||Sorcery, Sorcery Points|
When thinking about 5E in general and what you prefer and/or would like to see, do you want classes that are broad or ones that are more narrowly defined.
For the purposes of this discussion, by "broad" I mean lots of options as you create and level a character so that a single class can cover a lot of different archetypes or party roles. Note that I mean this in an ongoing way. That is, you continue to make those choices throughout character advancement and development and can always switch gears.
Conversely, by narrow I guess what I mean is "focused": fewer choices (at least after the initial ones) but a high degree of fidelity toward one particular expression of that class. Assume effectiveness and solid balance here. Presume a well designed focused archetype.
So I guess the question comes down to how much control do you want over progression? How much freedom versus focus?
This is largely a player facing question but GMs should feel free to discuss how such a choice might affect a campaign they run.
For my part, when I am a player it kind of depends on the nature of the campaign. If we are playing a canned campaign, I definitely prefer a focused character advancement track. But if it's a more open, unpredictable campaign i want the freedom to switch gears if the game goes in an unexpected direction.
As a GM I actually prefer if both options are available to players who have different preferences, and hope I can manage to juggle both.