GX.Sigma
Adventurer
It's generally poor game design to give the player tons and tons of choices that individually mean very little. It makes for a very inelegant, confusing game.
D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A 9/20
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
I think it goes without saying that any choice should be meaningful. But having more choice doesn't necessarily make an individual choice less meaningful.
In principle I agree with you that things shouldn't get too complicated, but I have my doubts Next will end up that way if the current trend is any indication.
RedShirtNo5.1
Explorer
I like the idea the specialists getting a "kicker" on some spells. For example
-charm person does normally not affect a creature in combat, but that is waived for an enchanter
-magic missile requires a to hit roll, but is auto-hit for an evoker
-phantasmal force is level 2 spell, but level 1 for an illusionist
This can be balanced against more limited spell selection.
-charm person does normally not affect a creature in combat, but that is waived for an enchanter
-magic missile requires a to hit roll, but is auto-hit for an evoker
-phantasmal force is level 2 spell, but level 1 for an illusionist
This can be balanced against more limited spell selection.
It sounds to me like most spells will need some augmented abilities, and I doubt they can be one-size-fits-all. In no universe is Weird a cantrip, for example. Maybe a level reduction, but that is both fairly flavorless and still has to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe every spell should have at least one specialist ability, and every time a specialist learns an appropriate spell it learns one of these specialties as a matter of course. I'd keep the decision of which augmentation to learn at the character-build level so that spells that eventually accumulate many possible special effects don't impose the extra choice on every action, and so that adding new augmentations to the spell in a splat doesn't automatically make every specialist in that spell even more flexible. If a character learns multiple augmentations (say via a feat) then they'll have more flexibility in at-the-table usage.
For example, I could imagine a spell like minor image having the following special effects:
1) Use minor image as a cantrip
2) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast an illusion, you also cast minor image.
3) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast any spell, you can also expend minor image. For the next 5 minutes you may cast minor image whenever you cast a spell, and if desired the minor image may apply the illusion to modify the appearance/sound/etc. of the cast spell.
The first use is great for exploration and basic utility, the second use amps up pretty much every other illusion cast, and the third is great for tricky concealment and misdirection with other spells. For example, one could describe a fireball as a fiery zebra breathing across the battlefield, as an image of an apparently mundane exploding keg, or as a crystal sphere with a zillion lasers that reflect within the sphere many times in just a few moments.
If a PC eventually gained the ability to add another specialization agument to a spell they might choose both 1 and 3. Then they would always have the at-will use, but the option to trade it out at any moment for the alternate use.
It might also provide a route for "generalist" wizards, if those exist, to dabble in specialties very gently. For example, a generalist might take feat(s) to learn every specialization augment for magic missile and dimension door. Those are effectively signature spell for him, but it is still a far cry from the multitude of special augments a dedicated evoker or conjurer might gain.
Of course, I'm speaking as a person who really likes spell augmentations in general, and thinks something like delayed blast fireball should simply be a modification of fireball and not an independent spell. This cuts down on the number of the separate spells in the game (and mitigates the ever-expanding spell list of past editions), draws a strong tie between spells that share a fundamental story, and creates some useful structure for things like spell research. For example, perhaps classes generally choose to learn k new spells per level *or* 2k augmentations among all known spells. For some classes it may even make sense to trade some spells to learn a single specialization augment instead, since the specialization abilities will tend to be pretty good. Plus, I like the idea that developing a spell from scratch is generally a qualitatively different task to modifying a known one. In any case, that would give characters a chance to guide the sort of flexibility they gain.
It might also promote a bit more similarity between games where the wizard is drowning in found scrolls and one where a new scroll is a rare and awesome thing. In the latter game the wizard can sometimes feel a bit stunted by comparison. This kind of change to learning spells may allow wizards to function more consistently regardless of the scroll-finding environment, while still letting them have this iconic, but traditionally very campaign-dependent, ability for learning spells.
Maybe every spell should have at least one specialist ability, and every time a specialist learns an appropriate spell it learns one of these specialties as a matter of course. I'd keep the decision of which augmentation to learn at the character-build level so that spells that eventually accumulate many possible special effects don't impose the extra choice on every action, and so that adding new augmentations to the spell in a splat doesn't automatically make every specialist in that spell even more flexible. If a character learns multiple augmentations (say via a feat) then they'll have more flexibility in at-the-table usage.
For example, I could imagine a spell like minor image having the following special effects:
1) Use minor image as a cantrip
2) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast an illusion, you also cast minor image.
3) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast any spell, you can also expend minor image. For the next 5 minutes you may cast minor image whenever you cast a spell, and if desired the minor image may apply the illusion to modify the appearance/sound/etc. of the cast spell.
The first use is great for exploration and basic utility, the second use amps up pretty much every other illusion cast, and the third is great for tricky concealment and misdirection with other spells. For example, one could describe a fireball as a fiery zebra breathing across the battlefield, as an image of an apparently mundane exploding keg, or as a crystal sphere with a zillion lasers that reflect within the sphere many times in just a few moments.
If a PC eventually gained the ability to add another specialization agument to a spell they might choose both 1 and 3. Then they would always have the at-will use, but the option to trade it out at any moment for the alternate use.
It might also provide a route for "generalist" wizards, if those exist, to dabble in specialties very gently. For example, a generalist might take feat(s) to learn every specialization augment for magic missile and dimension door. Those are effectively signature spell for him, but it is still a far cry from the multitude of special augments a dedicated evoker or conjurer might gain.
Of course, I'm speaking as a person who really likes spell augmentations in general, and thinks something like delayed blast fireball should simply be a modification of fireball and not an independent spell. This cuts down on the number of the separate spells in the game (and mitigates the ever-expanding spell list of past editions), draws a strong tie between spells that share a fundamental story, and creates some useful structure for things like spell research. For example, perhaps classes generally choose to learn k new spells per level *or* 2k augmentations among all known spells. For some classes it may even make sense to trade some spells to learn a single specialization augment instead, since the specialization abilities will tend to be pretty good. Plus, I like the idea that developing a spell from scratch is generally a qualitatively different task to modifying a known one. In any case, that would give characters a chance to guide the sort of flexibility they gain.
It might also promote a bit more similarity between games where the wizard is drowning in found scrolls and one where a new scroll is a rare and awesome thing. In the latter game the wizard can sometimes feel a bit stunted by comparison. This kind of change to learning spells may allow wizards to function more consistently regardless of the scroll-finding environment, while still letting them have this iconic, but traditionally very campaign-dependent, ability for learning spells.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
I think it does. The more choices you have to make, the less significant each of them is.
Not "running away", but figuring out how to avoid fighting an active ecology of 30 hobgoblins in a cave... I'd say that's been there longer than ten years. "Sometimes" or "all the time" jumping into combat is the DMs call ultimately, but I don't see anything in the article making a case for either, only that all combats should always be meaningful, resource-wise.
It's a tough call design wise. They've also said they want to keep the base system simple. So they have walk a tightrope of making enough options to support different playstyles, without making the buy in to the game way too complicated and confusing.
Modular options, for the most part, shouldn't be in how a class works; it should be in extra classes. That's the easiest solution for most problems. Of course it's a little more complicated for say, the wizard, which is why we have the specialty considerations.
I wouldn't hold out too much hope for an AEDU system for the fighter, as there isn't quite the demand for it, outside a subset of 4e players.
Ultimately as I see it, they can't design unlimited options for the base mechanics of a class, that just creates bloat and too much complexity. Options for added complexity shouldn't be in how a class functions, just in the complexity of choices made in the leveling process.
Depends on what you mean by "significant." I don't think being able to choose a feat for my DnD Next fighter makes the choice of fighting style less significant, nor its choice of background.
In theory, yes, if you have a class that is defined purely by a single choice, then yes, that would be a more significant choice than a class that is defined by three choices, from a certain point of view. But I'd also never want to see a class that is wholly defined by a single choice. In fact I'd say the choice is less interesting, because while it defines the class, it at the same time sacrifices a lot of potential for variability. It's one of the reasons that, at some point, I hope the Next fighter is allowed to pick maneuvers on an individual basis rather than being confined to "fighting styles," though I don't have a problem with the styles existing.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
So how is a specialist wizard not stealing the warlock's mechanical thunder?
I thought that if you wanted to play a 4e style caster, the idea was to make the warlock fill that role.
I thought that if you wanted to play a 4e style caster, the idea was to make the warlock fill that role.
gweinel
Explorer
I don't like where wizards tradition are going for a couple of reasons.
I don't like the idea and the fluff behind it. "If you are illusionist you can cast more often invisibility (or any other illusion spell)". A specialist is compared to the general wizard only by the number and the frequency of the spells? That is that makes you special? For me is not enough.
I would love to see each tradition to have more unique things to do. Exclusive spells and maybe powers. A summoner is the person who has contacts to other planes, he knows names of monsters and unique beings and the secrets behind these names. He knows its strength and weakness and can bind a creature until that creature complete his quest. For a summoner to call a creature is not only to dispatch enemies in combat as the limited knowledge of a generalist wizard might be. For a summoner the summoned creature could help in all three pillars of the game from the 1st lvl.
I know my example is not perfect, but i think this kind approach would make a tradition more unique and not just a simple (bad imho) mechanic to rise or low the frequency and number of spells.
Another issue that bothers me in this kind of approach is that if you want to have both the 4e and 1-3e players happy you will have augmented versions of each spell. I don't know if this is exactly a good design approach. Too many infos for different mechanics in the same text will cause a good amount of confusion.
Having said that i would like to say that i don't mind at will and encounter based spells, but i don't want em in my game. This playstyle is not for me and probably for any low magic campaign. The long awaited wizards tradition go to this kind of play style. I hope at least to present some different options for ppl who don't like high magic and high fantasy games.
I don't like the idea and the fluff behind it. "If you are illusionist you can cast more often invisibility (or any other illusion spell)". A specialist is compared to the general wizard only by the number and the frequency of the spells? That is that makes you special? For me is not enough.
I would love to see each tradition to have more unique things to do. Exclusive spells and maybe powers. A summoner is the person who has contacts to other planes, he knows names of monsters and unique beings and the secrets behind these names. He knows its strength and weakness and can bind a creature until that creature complete his quest. For a summoner to call a creature is not only to dispatch enemies in combat as the limited knowledge of a generalist wizard might be. For a summoner the summoned creature could help in all three pillars of the game from the 1st lvl.
I know my example is not perfect, but i think this kind approach would make a tradition more unique and not just a simple (bad imho) mechanic to rise or low the frequency and number of spells.
Another issue that bothers me in this kind of approach is that if you want to have both the 4e and 1-3e players happy you will have augmented versions of each spell. I don't know if this is exactly a good design approach. Too many infos for different mechanics in the same text will cause a good amount of confusion.
Having said that i would like to say that i don't mind at will and encounter based spells, but i don't want em in my game. This playstyle is not for me and probably for any low magic campaign. The long awaited wizards tradition go to this kind of play style. I hope at least to present some different options for ppl who don't like high magic and high fantasy games.
