Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 8392221" data-attributes="member: 83242">After perusing the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/bards-should-be-half-casters-in-5-5e-6e.682477/post-8391143" target="_blank">Bards Should Be Half-Casters</a> thread, it got me thinking about magic in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Traditionally (I think) most magic was expressed by spells (or magic items).&nbsp; However, at some point classes began to get more and more magical features that were magical but not spells. Reflecting on this I thought that maybe that would be a better way to distinguish magical classes than different spell lists.&nbsp; I get the ease of a spell list, but I think it might be interesting if we severely reduced caster classes, but not necessarily magic classes.&nbsp; So my first thought is:Option A:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Only Magic-Users (AKA Wizards, and their subclasses) have traditional spells and lists.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">All other magic using classes have bespoke magical features (like turn undead or bardic inspiration or whatever).</li>
</ol>Option B<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Only Magic-Users (AKA Wizards, and their subclasses) and Clerics (and their subclasses) have traditional spell lists. This is just for tradition really. I personally prefer option A.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">All other magic using classes have bespoke magical features (like turn undead or bardic inspiration or whatever).</li>
</ol>So warlocks and witches, sorcerers and eldritch knights, and everything in-between would have magical features, but not spells.&nbsp; I realize this is a lot more design work, but I think it could be really interesting if done well and you could still establish a general format for these magical features so softens the learning curve between classes.Anyway, that is my simple proposal.&nbsp; What do you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 8392221, member: 83242"] After perusing the [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/bards-should-be-half-casters-in-5-5e-6e.682477/post-8391143']Bards Should Be Half-Casters[/URL] thread, it got me thinking about magic in D&D. Traditionally (I think) most magic was expressed by spells (or magic items). However, at some point classes began to get more and more magical features that were magical but not spells. Reflecting on this I thought that maybe that would be a better way to distinguish magical classes than different spell lists. I get the ease of a spell list, but I think it might be interesting if we severely reduced caster classes, but not necessarily magic classes. So my first thought is: [B]Option A:[/B] [LIST=1] [*]Only Magic-Users (AKA Wizards, and their subclasses) have traditional spells and lists. [*]All other magic using classes have bespoke magical features (like turn undead or bardic inspiration or whatever). [/LIST] [B]Option B[/B] [LIST=1] [*]Only Magic-Users (AKA Wizards, and their subclasses) and Clerics (and their subclasses) have traditional spell lists. This is just for tradition really. I personally prefer option A. [*]All other magic using classes have bespoke magical features (like turn undead or bardic inspiration or whatever). [/LIST] So warlocks and witches, sorcerers and eldritch knights, and everything in-between would have magical features, but not spells. I realize this is a lot more design work, but I think it could be really interesting if done well and you could still establish a general format for these magical features so softens the learning curve between classes. Anyway, that is my simple proposal. What do you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification