D&D 5E Is It Time To Not Assign Spellcasting Classes ANY Casting Mechanics?

[Ahnehnois]

Yes, of course you need to figure out how the rules work for casting a spell or swinging a sword, but that's a very different thing than having the core mechanics of a class located across three separate chapters (Classes, Spellcasting Mechanics, and Spells).

I thought the core mechanics for casting a spell were under discussion.

To wit, I'd give a wizard a "base magic bonus" or some magic skills or something, plus knowledge bonuses, crafting bonuses, a familiar option, etc. Then you'd look at the magic chapter to find out what you can do with your basic magical ability (this is the way it is with any class, really).

 

[Li Shenron]

Both.

The game should assume a default, but it should allow a variety of optional settings as well. However, a "if you don't know/no preference, use X" option should be included.

It might be best, for those proverbial beginners who really don't have a clue. Everybody else of us already has a strong opinion on everything.

But the big deal might really be published adventures... if they are all designed against the default array of settings, then the default itself will have strong dominance, because every group which doesn't use those default will have extra work to do in order to adapt each adventure, hence more groups will be effectively encouraged to comply with the default.

But I don't see how it can be better done than this...

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

To wit, I'd give a wizard a "base magic bonus" or some magic skills or something, plus knowledge bonuses, crafting bonuses, a familiar option, etc. Then you'd look at the magic chapter to find out what you can do with your basic magical ability (this is the way it is with any class, really).

Well, that sounds like 3e for sure. But so far in 5e it looks like each class does have fairly unique mechanics, which are covered in that class's writeup. "Combat superiority," expertise dice, and maneuvers are all listed right along with the fighter class. Domains and channel divinity are listed with the cleric. And so on. The only thing they've separated out again is the spell list for clerics and wizards/sorcerers, which I guess is a necessary evil.

This is a pretty minor point overall, I guess - however they format the book, I think we can at least agree that adding this additional degree of modularity would make it somewhat more complex to build a spellcasting character. You get some additional options, but that comes at the cost of reduced or more complex class abilities. (For example, the sorcerer effects you get when you spend a portion of your willpower would be trickier to figure out mechanically with a Vancian system, and understanding what a wizard uses his spellbook for would be trickier if he was casting like a sorcerer and therefore learned a fixed number of spells each level and couldn't learn from scrolls or spellbooks.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, that sounds like 3e for sure. But so far in 5e it looks like each class does have fairly unique mechanics, which are covered in that class's writeup. "Combat superiority," expertise dice, and maneuvers are all listed right along with the fighter class. Domains and channel divinity are listed with the cleric. And so on. The only thing they've separated out again is the spell list for clerics and wizards/sorcerers, which I guess is a necessary evil.

Yep, looks as if they are going to over react again. They are going to get so hot about the "everything in 4E is the same" crowd that they make everything in Next different to be different, rather than--I don't know--making things the same that are working well the same and making things different when they don't work well the same or because they want a little variety.

Maybe the playtest will catch this before it gets too embedded, but right now I'm not terribly hopeful.

 

[Animal]

Defcon1, that's a brilliant idea. It can solve so many problems with casters in my games, that i can foresee as a DM.
Someone please give him some xp, because i can't.

 

[jrowland]

Ask and you shall receive.

WotC Legend and Lore

The O.P. is Psychic...or psycho...psy-something.

 

[Kavon]

Both.

The game should assume a default, but it should allow a variety of optional settings as well. However, a "if you don't know/no preference, use X" option should be included.

I agree. I also think that the default option should be the most simple to grog option they have for new players/DMs.

(the following is more directed [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] )
As such, Vancian magic should not be the default, in my opinion. It's not easy for a new player to understand the exact workings of the Vancian way. It would be much better if the default says "here, pick some spells, you can use these every fight", since every new player will have no issues understanding how that will work.

What I'm saying is.. the default should not cater to the experts that can change everything to their preferences with ease anyway.
Instead it should be intended for those that have no idea what it all means and would get overwhelmed by everything.

 

[Sadras]

As such, Vancian magic should not be the default, in my opinion. It's not easy for a new player to understand the exact workings of the Vancian way. It would be much better if the default says "here, pick some spells, you can use these every fight", since every new player will have no issues understanding how that will work.

What I'm saying is.. the default should not cater to the experts that can change everything to their preferences with ease anyway.
Instead it should be intended for those that have no idea what it all means and would get overwhelmed by everything.

Yes, because 1E, BECMI, 2E, 3.X and Pathfinder's Vancian could only be understood by expert players. C'mon lets get real!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ask and you shall receive.

WotC Legend and Lore

The O.P. is Psychic...or psycho...psy-something.

Rather than being psychic... it sounds more like perhaps Mearls and/or some WotC folks might've just read my post and then decided to try and run with it. I have no idea if it indeed was my post that sparked the idea, but I did read what Mearls posted on Twitter this past Wednesday:

"Love it when people say, "That's an awesome idea, but they'll never do that with D&D," and I did that very thing like on Monday."

At the time, I had a flash of hubris that perhaps he was referring to my post, since pretty much all my XP comments were "great idea but it'll never happen!"... but then I put it out of my head since those guys read hundreds of different things from probably a half-dozen different forums and it'd be the height of arrogance to assume he was talking about me.

But maybe he did after all.

 

[Kavon]

Yes, because 1E, BECMI, 2E, 3.X and Pathfinder's Vancian could only be understood by expert players. C'mon lets get real!

Nice way to twist my words there.

I didn't say Vancian could only be understood by expert players.
I said that Vancian magic tends to be overwhelming for new players and that it would be better to give them something simple to begin with (if they want to play a spellcaster).

I'm not sure how it goes with the rest of you, but when we have a new player that has absolutely no concept on how a game like D&D is played, we generally don't advice them to take a spellcasting class. We'd be more likely to say "here, play a Fighter, that's nice and easy to understand. Once you get used to things you can try out some of the other ones" or something of the sort.

I was saying that experts have the base understanding of the game down, and have no problems with looking beyond the default to check out what other options are available.
People that are completely new to the game have a high chance to be turned off by such things, and if the default options are too complex, they often go into *nods and smiles and rolls some dice* mode, not understanding one bit what's really going on, because it's too much at once.