D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03.10.2014: Full-spellcasting Bard

[Zardnaar]

But now it's "magic", and so it is acceptable to the playerbase.

I wish that the playerbase had been more accepting of "mundane" powers, but we weren't. So WotC is taking the only option open to them.

And some of us do not even want that. Turning everey class that is not a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue into a spellcaster is lame duck sauce.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

And some of us do not even want that. Turning everey class that is not a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue into a spellcaster is lame duck sauce.

Though no edition of D&D has done this, so you seem to be making a complaint that's looking for a problem.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Though no edition of D&D has done this, so you seem to be making a complaint that's looking for a problem.

Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Druid, and Cleric.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Sorry, I misread that, I assumed Zard was complaining about martial classes being spellcasters again.

 

[TwoSix]

You actually continue to miss the point. Nobody has said that spells act like powers. What we are saying, well at least I can speak for myself, is that the designers are trying to use spells to instead of powers to give us the same style of play. What's the difference between a list of powers and a list of spells? Nothing to be honest, it's writing the same thing but using different words.

Just so I'm clear, since 4e powers are like spells, any class that gains any spell prowess is therefore a sign of encroaching 4e-ism?

Seems a low bar to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Really one issue is the fact that the designers have not created many high level abilities without falling back to high level spells.



Let's look at the the non fullspellcaters.

Barbarians and fighter just get more attacks and can save to not die.
Rangers get advantage to all checks in the wild and deal triple damage when surprising.
Paladins become fake angels.
And rogues do nothing special until they get their capstone to roll a 20 Once per short rest.
Somewhat powerful but not matching high magic.

Kinda feels like bards are getting full magic because they could not think of a high level bard ability.

 

[Mistwell]

You actually continue to miss the point. Nobody has said that spells act like powers. What we are saying, well at least I can speak for myself, is that the designers are trying to use spells to instead of powers to give us the same style of play. What's the difference between a list of powers and a list of spells? Nothing to be honest, it's writing the same thing but using different words.

There is a big difference.

Powers were frequently control based, or had a control element to them. Push, pull, shift, immobilize, stun, etc.. They were often tactical manipulation, focusing on a gameboard and set piece encounters.

Spells are usually not like that.

Spells are switched out using an entirely different mechanic, regained using a different mechanic, learned using a different mechanic, resisted using a different mechanic, and even prevented through a type of immunity that functions different than it did with powers. The interaction with other classes, with multiclassing, their relationship to hit points and defenses, none of it matches well most of the time.

Spells are not the same game space as powers. It's not the same style of play, and it's not even a very similar thing. You're trying to force that square peg into a round hole, and it doesn't work.

And again, all you've done is merely assert it. I keep asking for an example, and you keep responding with "you don't get it" and then failing to actually support your claim with anything more than a re-worded blanket assertion.

And this isn't just a matter of opinion. This disagreement isn't like you saying "I like this piece of art" and me saying "I don't like it". You're making a factual claim that element X of a game occupies the same game space as element Y. That's a claim of fact - it should be provable by you if it's accurate.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

High level magic rules the end game in 3 out of 4 editions of this game, giving more classes room to play in the end game sounds good to me.

Infact I love the idea of a roguish jack of all trades, that can do amazing things... so I'm impressed

 

[Zardnaar]

There is a big difference.

Powers were frequently control based, or had a control element to them. Push, pull, shift, immobilize, stun, etc.. They were often tactical manipulation, focusing on a gameboard and set piece encounters.

Spells are usually not like that.

Spells are switched out using an entirely different mechanic, regained using a different mechanic, learned using a different mechanic, resisted using a different mechanic, and even prevented through a type of immunity that functions different than it did with powers. The interaction with other classes, with multiclassing, their relationship to hit points and defenses, none of it matches well most of the time.

Spells are not the same game space as powers. It's not the same style of play, and it's not even a very similar thing. You're trying to force that square peg into a round hole, and it doesn't work.

And again, all you've done is merely assert it. I keep asking for an example, and you keep responding with "you don't get it" and then failing to actually support your claim with anything more than a re-worded blanket assertion.

And this isn't just a matter of opinion. This disagreement isn't like you saying "I like this piece of art" and me saying "I don't like it". You're making a factual claim that element X of a game occupies the same game space as element Y. That's a claim of fact - it should be provable by you if it's accurate.

The new spell tend to resemble 4E daily powers than ye olde classic scaling fireball and what have you. You get a lot less of them, you have scaling at wills, and they added the concentration mechanic. I supose you could argue they are trying to balance it a'la 4E again but whatever the reasons it is not ye olde classics we had in 5 editions that came out before 4th ed. There are other ways to address the caster/martial power levels.

 

[Mistwell]

The new spell tend to resemble 4E daily powers than ye olde classic scaling fireball and what have you.

I disagree that they resemble powers more.

First, most spells didn't scale historically.

Second, many powers DID scale!

But finally, that's far from the only key marker concerning spells. I listed a whole bunch of things that serve to distinguish spells from other things in the game.

You get a lot less of them, you have scaling at wills,

It's not "a lot" less, and you get very few at-wills, and they don't really scale (not nearly the same way as powers) and they become more and more useless at higher levels. They are much more similar to....spells.

and they added the concentration mechanic. I supose you could argue they are trying to balance it a'la 4E again but whatever the reasons it is not ye olde classics we had in 5 editions that came out before 4th ed. There are other ways to address the caster/martial power levels.

They have much much more in common with the spells from the TSR era of spells than they do with the 4e era of powers. And I've made that comparison already. I keep asking you, and ForeverSlayer, to break down a list of common spells from 5e and compare them to common powers from 4e and show how they are more similar to those powers than they are to prior versions of those spells. You've yet to do it - again, if your claim has merit, why not back it up'?