Core Classes: More magic or more abilities?

[Kaodi]

I don't want them to get rid of the Verbal, Somatic and Material components of spells, but I would like them to mix them up more. For instance, there are only 33 sorcerer/wizard spells in the Core that don't have a somatic component and strangely enough, 7 of them are at 9th level. We should see spells that have only one, spells that have a mixture of two and some that have all three, not necessarily in equal proportions but in a way that makes more sense.

Anyway, how many core classes do you really need to mimic non-spellcasters? Various combinations of fighter and rogue can yield plenty of different results.

 

[Robert Ranting]

I agree that the paladin and ranger should not have spells, but rather, a more robust set of extraordinary and supernatural abilities (or whatever their equivalent in 4E). Many of the "good" spell effects these classes can make use of in the current edition are things that might work just as well as some sort of martial maneuvers.

As for the VSM component debate, I prefer Arcana Evolved's approach of assigning these components based on class, rather than the spell itself. When a wizard casts a spell, he has verbal, somatic, and material components. When a sorceror casts a spell, she has verbal and somatic only, unless there's a hefty cost (such as many necromancy spells). When a cleric casts the same spell as a divine spell (from a domain or somesuch), it's a verbal only. This would reinforce the character archetypes. Wizards must plan ahead and work with reagents and books, sorceror spells are an innate part of them that does not require an outside crutch or reagent to work, and clerics invoke their spells as prayers to their gods.

Of course, spell components haven't been mentioned in any of the 4E stuff I've seen, so it (and spell failure) might be removed for all we know.

Robert "Put Some Twiddle in the Middle and Solve The Magic Riddle" Ranting

 

[funkysnunkulator]

well here goes...

one class for spell casters. hard to believe that was said out loud huh? how stupid is that. but that is essentially your best fix.

one class. it gets better. arcane, divine, psionic, shadow, incarnate, bardic, force... one class.

one.

basically every type of magic features the same spells by the same name or a slightly different name.

now to the system of magic itself. something like the netherese arcanist or the immortals (empyreals, eternals et al) have a power pool. this is used to cast the bulk of the spells. then there are rituals. these resemble the spells you are all used to now (sometimes called vancian casting... this term is from a book series).

rituals are much beefier. bigger. more powerful.

oh boy. can here the enraged responses now. yeah. it looks broken. unbalanced. of course. that is what you are supposed to say about this sort of thing, right? dogma and all that.

agreed. it is a bit strange, but it does provide for a relatively easy fix to the quandry at hand. too many spell casting classes.

one class, a couple checks and balances (there is that word again) and it should work fine. have used it for years. good stuff. easy. and has the built in capacity for fabulous disasters if you are so inclined (our group is)!!!

on thing hugely obvious about the gamers in general, is they tend to overthink any percieved problems. it doesn't matter how broken or unbalanced or clunky or unfun you think something is. the fix is usually something as simple as taking something that already exists in the game and applying it to the situation at hand.

example of checks an balances:

there is a thread in here about force powers and frequency of use. huge discussion. this was already solved in an earier version of the game. vitality point cost. done. use your uber power as often as you like. until you implode or pass our or pass gas... or whatever.

now. with very minor tweeking, this can certainly work with any incarnation of the game (d&d) be it v1 v2 v3 or v4.

stop overthinking every little thing. the answers are already there. many of you either already use these fixes or invented them. our gaming group has been ripping your ideas off forever!!! (thanks for that by the way).

the point is the same as it has always been. ALWAYS. if you don't like something, remove it. you want something more, add it. unless you are playing tournaments (official ones) don't worry about the little things.

wotc is selling a system.

you are the ones playing the game. balancing a campaign is far easier than many of you seem to believe it to be.

 

[TerraDave]

3E spellcasting classes: cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, bard, ranger, paladin

1E spellcasting classes: cleric, druid, magic-user, illusionist, ranger, paladin

3E nonspellcasting classes: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk

1E nonspellcasting classes: fighter, thief, assassin, monk

Well, there is that.

I think a basic design problem for 25 years: if half the PHB is spells, don't we want to spread these things around? So you get not only more spell casting classes, but also monsters with spells (like-abilities). But 4ed is supposed to solve all our problems. So no worries.

 

[mmadsen]

When looking at the core 3.5 PHB, I think there are WAY too many core classes that have spellcasting ability.

I found that particularly odd when I realized the then-new 3E rules allowed such simple multi-classing. Spell-casting rangers could be rangers with levels of druid, and spell-casting paladins could be paladins with levels of cleric.

 

[Grazzt]

I don't see how 3rd edition "drifted so far from its core roots."

I think what Joe meant was because they removed ability score requirements to attain the "elite" classes. If character creation in AD&D was followed, the chance of getting a paladin or ranger was slim. That reduced the number of spellcasters in a party (because most peeps just couldnt roll good enough to qualify for the ranger or paladin class)

 

[Grazzt]

I found that particularly odd when I realized the then-new 3E rules allowed such simple multi-classing. Spell-casting rangers could be rangers with levels of druid, and spell-casting paladins could be paladins with levels of cleric.

Agreed. I like the new multi-class rules more or less (way easier than 1e). But- i do agree. A spell-less ranger could acquire spellcasting by gaining druid levels. Same with paladin + cleric as you mentioned.

 

[Jer]

I have no problem with a class having some innatie cool abilities like the monk or some of the variants of the ranger or paladin, but one of the reasons why I think D&D drifted so far from it's core roots, is that once the ability score requirements were taken out for the 'elite' classes, and they retained spellcasting ablities, it became in essence a party of four 'normal' characters (barbarian, monk, rogue and fighter) in a world of magic wielding well, freaks.

If one of D&D's goals is to reduce the reliance on magic items and perhaps to capture some of the old 'S&S' feel, reduce the amount of spellcasting and spellcasters in the core book.

One of the things about classes with spell-casting as their secondary ability (paladins, rangers, etc.) is that in older editions of the game the only "cool effect" subsystem that the game had was pretty much the spellcasting system. With 3e the feat system eliminated that hinderance, but spellcasting rangers and paladins had become "sacred cows" in the game to a large degree.

My hope is that with the addition of things like maneuvers combined with the "new" outlook by a lot of players to what in 2000 were "don't change this aspect of the game or I'm never buying it" sacred cows, we might actually get to see paladins and rangers without spellcasting ability as the default version of those classes. Heck, with the changes they're hinting at about the spellcasting mechanics, "spells" may be things that only a handful of character classes ever really use again, even if paladins still have "divinely powered" abilities that help them smite evil and heal people or bards have "arcane powered" songs that provide whatever it is that bards provide

 

[Kaodi]

Paladin and ranger spellcasting would suck only half as much if their caster levels were equal to their class levels.

 

[Green Knight]

I don't know about eliminating the Paladin's spellcasting abilities. His powers are divinely bestowed, so it makes sense for him to also have some spellcasting ability (And some of the Paladin's spells are useful. Not all, but some. Especially the ones in later supplements).

The Ranger, however, probably would be better off without spells. But I'd like the option. What I'd like is for Ranger spellcasting ability to become just one of several Talent Trees available to the Ranger. That'd be nice, IMO.

As for the number of non-spellcasting classes versus spellcasting class, there's no need to remove spellcasting abilities from existing classes to balance that out. Just add non-spellcasting classes (Like the Marshal, for instance).