Cleric = Druid = Wizard

[Dannyalcatraz]

Go far enough down this path, you'll find it's called HERO or GURPS.l

And while HERO is my favorite system, I don't want D&D to look too much like it.

 

[Minigiant]

I like the idea but it doesn't like D&D to me. To me, the pure casters of each D&D power source are too different to be branched of the same class.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think you are missing (like your 'what sort of magic poll') the main selling point of DnDNext: Inclusiveness. I love the idea that you have but it is not in anyway inclusive of any previous edition of DnD. We are not going to see just one way of casting spells nor are we going to see no cleric druid wizard class- only mage colours. They are great ideas but you cannot make a version of DnD that appeals to previous editioners that drops vancian magic (it maybe optional) or drops the cleric for White Mages. That is just not "the soul of what D&D is" (Mearls)
Classes will be the traditional ones, magic will be available in all flavours to suit taste, Opportunity Attacks will be an option, gridled combat will be an option... it is going to be a very basic core rules with a ton of pick and mix options IMO. Whether it will work reamins to be seen!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is a solved problem in 4e though. You have a single basic mechanical approach to casting but each class is quite distinct in terms of what its spells do.

Yeah, this reminds me of another reason I wouldn't like it. I do appreciate my characters being very mechanically distinct, and this is too constant of reminder that ultimately the numbers are meaningless and the distinction is flavor-based, and all that rot -- vastly unappealing to me personally.

Again, it certainly sounds possible, but I don't know what it would accomplish. It's a "solved problem," but what problem is it solving? That clerics and druids and wizards and fighters and thieves feel distinct doesn't seem to be a problem for me.

 

[Aramax]

D&D is at its core a class based game and turning it into GURPS is not going to happen.The classes stay .Period.
(If by some far fetched chance I was wrong on this,Ill save a lot of money.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, this reminds me of another reason I wouldn't like it. I do appreciate my characters being very mechanically distinct, and this is too constant of reminder that ultimately the numbers are meaningless and the distinction is flavor-based, and all that rot -- vastly unappealing to me personally.

Again, it certainly sounds possible, but I don't know what it would accomplish. It's a "solved problem," but what problem is it solving? That clerics and druids and wizards and fighters and thieves feel distinct doesn't seem to be a problem for me.

I think you might find it is useful to separate out what actually you like and dislike. After all there was no real difference in the casting mechanics of druids and clerics in AD&D. They were in fact no more distinct mechanically than druids and clerics are in 4e, nor were wizards all that different either, again perhaps marginally less similar than 4e wizards are from other 4e casters.

So maybe it isn't the mechanical similarities you're really getting that off feeling from. It is well worth considering at least, lest we reject the wrong thing and end up right back where we started from.

 

[Elf Witch]

I do and don't like it.

In Shadowrun Shamans and Hermetic Mages have the same spell list. The differences come in with mages needing a library and shamans needing a lodge dedicated to their totem. Right there is a flavor difference.

The big mechanical difference is mages control powerful elementals, shamans control friendly spirits. Elementals are more powerful than spirits and can go anywhere, spirits are limited to their area. The balancing factor is that mages have to summon and bind the elementals which is expensive and cannot be done on the spur of the moment and if the mage fails it can kill them. Shamans can summon spirits in the middle of combat and they don't try and kill the shaman.

One of the reasons I dislike fourth edition Shadowrun as much as I dislike fourth edition DnD is that it in making the game more balanced and easier to play took out all the flavor that made the game Shadowrun.

The issue I feel with a white, green, gray mage is that they have the possibility to be very bland. Also I hate the names, sorry ,a white mage assumes a goodness and gray a neutrality at leas that is how it comes across.

I really hope that 5E is not going to continue on this trend of fairness and balance to the point that every character is the same and boring as hell.

 

[Rechan]

Anything called "White Mage" would harken calls of videogamey.

Also, if you're going to do that, why even bother with differentiating spell books/power sources/bla? Just have one big list of spells that everyone can pick from. The only reason why not is because a wizard casting heal spells would enrage a certain segment of the fanbase.

This does seem to be the trend in RPGs, e

IIRC the Elder Scrolls series has always been mono-classed (no actual class, just skills). Skyrim is just the latest iteration of the Elder Scrolls series.

 

[Wormwood]

A wizard casting heals would send a certain segment of D&D fans into a conniption fit.

True enough. While I personally love the idea (and its on my 'house rules I want to try' list) it shouldn't be core if we want to bring D&D back to its roots.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is well worth considering at least, lest we reject the wrong thing and end up right back where we started from.

I think, for me, the idea isn't so much looking for reasons to reject, as looking for reasons to accept.

If this is a "solved problem," what's the problem? How does the design's intent help the game? It's not clear from where I'm standing that it accomplishes something that my D&D would benefit from.

Not that it wouldn't work for some others maybe? Just that I don't see what is gained.