D&D 5E Defining Traits of the D&D classes

[Obryn]

That's not entirely true, I don't think. They didn't have Charm, Sleep or Hold (though I guess they could get Charm or Sleep at 14th level with their weird "1st level MU spells" option). But they had their own Paralsysis and Blindness spells, plus Confusion (and Chaos, a superior version of Confusion at 5th level that MUs couldn't learn), plus Hypnotism, Hypnotic Pattern and Suggestion.

Apropos of nothing, if you used Unearthed Arcana, they also had Color Orb.

I mean, it's no enchantment spell. What I'm saying is, illusionists won the spell battle.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Apropos of nothing, if you used Unearthed Arcana, they also had Color Orb.

I mean, it's no enchantment spell. What I'm saying is, illusionists won the spell battle.

-O

That was one broken little spell once your illusionist had enough levels under his belt.

 

[GameDoc]

ON VANCIAN MAGIC:

I hate it. At least, I hate it as the core spell casting mechanic.

Each fantasy setting usually has its own story about the nature of magic and how one comes to wield it. I feel the Vancian system imposes too much narrative on what should be a very generic archetype (the caster of magical spells) for fantasy settings. Players and DMs should be able to make up their own narrative about what magic is in their setting and have an underlying core mechanic that supports it.

That said, I respect that others like Vancian magic and that taking it away from them is me accusing them of having "wrongbadfun." I also know its a D&D tradition that will never go away.

So here is a compromise that came to me. What if this is one of those "dials" in the core rules that each DM or group can determine for themselves (like they have done with healing in the current play test)?

SIMPLE SPELLCASTING: Use the 3E sorcerer mechanic - cast any spell you know as long as you have enough resources (i.e., spell slots) left to cast a spell of that magnitude.

MODERATE: Use the current DDN mechanic for clerics - prepare a limited number of spells, but then use your slots to cast any you have prepared in whatever combination as long as you have slots left.

COMPLEX: Classic Vancian Spellcasting.
​

I like the idea of spell slots as the core resource because it avoids any clunky or confusing shifts in paradigm you'd get from switching back and forth between spell points or mana.

If you wanted to really let each player have the option of setting the bar for his or her own character (and thus allow a simple and a complex caster to exist in the same campaign) you'd have to balance it out with some sort of trade off.

I don't like the idea that there would be two casters of the same class and level knowing a different number of spells per level or having different progressions based on the casting option they use (like was done with the wizard v. sorcerer in 3E).

Would the trade off be that as you got more restrictive, you would get additional slots, or perhaps your spells became more empowered with maybe different ranges, durations, areas of effect, or damage bonuses?

I would think this is best for wizards, clerics, and perhaps druids so you can play your old school classes on the core spellcasting mechanic. Newer additions (warlocks, sorcerers) could still have unique mechanics.



​

​

 

[Tony Vargas]

Each fantasy setting usually has its own story about the nature of magic and how one comes to wield it. I feel the Vancian system imposes too much narrative on what should be a very generic archetype (the caster of magical spells) for fantasy settings. Players and DMs should be able to make up their own narrative about what magic is in their setting and have an underlying core mechanic that supports it.

A good point. It would be nice to have a core casting mechanic that worked for all magic-using classes, and worked for them from one campaign to the next even if the DM varied the particulars on how magic worked. I don't think that's as impossible as it sounds, but it'd have to be more than just a spell-casting mechanic...

Say you divided all class abilities into two buckets: at-will, and limited. You balance them on the assumption that 'limited' means useable roughly once per encounter, and that an 'encounter' is one in which they'll all get used - a very tough, all-in, death-or-glory sort of encounter, not a speed-bump. You then give the DM one of those lovely 'dials,' which adjusts how often all limited powers re-charge. He can crank it up to 'daily' or even 'chapter' or 'story' (basically, when the DM says so), or just tweak it a bit to a so-many-minute rest between encounters or an arbitrary but potentially more than 1/day 'milestone' or whatever. Whatever the setting, hps and limited powers re-charge at that pace, thus setting a basic pace for the campaign. Since everyone has hps, the dial impacts everyone. To keep that dial from disrupting class balance, you'd tone down encounters as you dial up the recharge interval. At 'daily,' you might average 4 moderate encounters rather than one overwhelming one, for instance.

(If you really want to be a stickler for balance, you can give each class the same ratio of at-will to limited. Perhaps, since there are already going to be regular and multi-class version of each class, there could even be a such a 'standardized' version of each class for those who are willing to sacrifice a little mechanical distinctiveness for a hope of class balance).

 

[Lanefan]

Another question is how could you make the Druid mechanically distinct from the Cleric and the Illusionist mechanically distinct from the Wizard?

For casting purposes, in terms of how they cast, I'm not sure you need to make them different from each other at all. Druids and Clerics can work the same without problem, as can MUs and Illusionists (and Necromancers, etc.).

Other things would differentiate them: Druid gets shapeshift and a very different spell list from Cleric; Illusionist (and Necromancer) get very different spells from MU and only go to 7th level spells rather than 9th.

SIMPLE SPELLCASTING: Use the 3E sorcerer mechanic - cast any spell you know as long as you have enough resources (i.e., spell slots) left to cast a spell of that magnitude.

I've flipped all casters* in my current 1e-style game to this system. 4+ years in and the jury's still out on whether it works, the only thing that's clear so far is I think next time I'll have to slightly dial back the number of slots they get.

The upside of it is I get to see spells cast that otherwise would never see the light of day. And it makes designing opponent casters way easier too, I don't have to determine whether they've memorized a given spell that day.

* - Bards are an exception, but they're an exception to everything so this is no different. Their casting mechanics are unique to them alone.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

For casting purposes, in terms of how they cast, I'm not sure you need to make them different from each other at all.

Nod. 5e does have this thing about making each class mechanically distinct. While I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually abandoned it, maybe having each 'source' be distinct, or simply making sure that casters and non-casters are distinct, since it's their current policy...

Other things would differentiate them: Druid gets shapeshift and a very different spell list from Cleric; Illusionist (and Necromancer) get very different spells from MU and only go to 7th level spells rather than 9th.

Sure, classes can share the same basic mechanics, and be differentiated by different class features and different lists. It had always been enough prior to 4e. But, right now, it's not - each class has that mechanical distinction mandate hanging over it's class-hood. Hopefull that pendulum-swing doesn't mess 5e up too much. Maybe we'll get over it in the course of this extended playtest?