D&D (2024) Less (and different) spellcasting?

[UngeheuerLich]

While there are good ideas for a 6th edition, twe should remember that we want to keep the game simple.

Instead of removing options, we should try to enhance existing ones.

I think smite spells should mainly go away in favour of modifying the existing smite spell.
I could see divine smite as the generic option and using a bonus action to prepare one of the new smite spells, so in the case of a hit, you cam expend a slot and do a little extra effect (at the cost of a bonus action).

Sorceres should really embrace the metamagic side of spellcasting. Only having a very limited number of known spells, but being very free in mixing it up. Iceball? No problem. Thunderball? Also no problem. Instead of just changing the die, add a little extra effect.
There are games with mix and match spellcasting, I want to see that in the sorcerer playtest.

Ranger? Ritual casting all the way. Alarm? Shelter? Goodberries? I can do it if I have time.

 

[Remathilis]

I am always befuddled by how many people want less magic in D&D. I mean, there are dozens if not hundreds of RPGs with magic systems that range from "none" to "gonzo" and D&D is very much on the latter side of scale. It's like complaining about D&D's lack of spaceships and lazer weapons: there are RPGs that do that better. Let D&D be high-magic wahoo.

On to the suggestions at hand: I dislike the vast majority of them. I could MAYBE tolerate paladin's losing spellcasting in exchange for more magical class-features. But giving each class their own mini-game of resource juggling is just a headache. It makes it so that its hard to switch classes (if you learn sorcerer's system well, what incentive is there to try wizard and have to learn that?) and its a major headache on DMs who need to be vaguely aware their players aren't abusing their resource system (be in intentionally or innocently) and has to adjudicate all the different effects. Giving rangers, paladins, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, etc all unique magic systems just seems different for the sake of difference.

 

[Incenjucar]

I want magic to be roughly equal in frequency to wit and brawn, rather than a replacement for both. Magic should be doing things that can't be done without magic. Otherwise things start turning into Naruto.

 

[JohnSnow]

I am always befuddled by how many people want less magic in D&D. I mean, there are dozens if not hundreds of RPGs with magic systems that range from "none" to "gonzo" and D&D is very much on the latter side of scale. It's like complaining about D&D's lack of spaceships and lazer weapons: there are RPGs that do that better. Let D&D be high-magic wahoo.

On to the suggestions at hand: I dislike the vast majority of them. I could MAYBE tolerate paladin's losing spellcasting in exchange for more magical class-features. But giving each class their own mini-game of resource juggling is just a headache. It makes it so that its hard to switch classes (if you learn sorcerer's system well, what incentive is there to try wizard and have to learn that?) and its a major headache on DMs who need to be vaguely aware their players aren't abusing their resource system (be in intentionally or innocently) and has to adjudicate all the different effects. Giving rangers, paladins, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, etc all unique magic systems just seems different for the sake of difference.

I’ll respond to this one.

I like D&D because I really like the d20 as a resolution mechanic. It’s simple, and just swingy enough to be fun.

And D&D didn’t used to be nearly as gonzo as it is now. Druid Wildshape came much later. Paladin and Ranger didn’t get spells until 9th level. Slow XP meant most campaigns rarely reached 12th level, much less 17th (or 30th!). Then along came settings like Planescape and similar, and PCs battling creatures like the Tarraaque. 3e did a lot to clean up the system, in some very good ways, but it also made all of that normal, and it was nuts. If your fantasy inspirations came from Howard, Leiber, or Tolkien, D&D was no longer supporting your fantasy without a lot of tinkering.

5e has largely dialed us back to a 1-20 game, and making it so that it’s not an “all spellcasters, all the time,” but it did so in part by making PCs start with more gonzo powers. And rather then figuring out some way to bring spellcasters under control, the solution was mostly just “Spells for (almost) Everyone!!”

And that isn’t how D&D used to be.

 

[Incenjucar]

I will say that I like gonzo all magical party at level 1 being an option - I adore Fairy Tale and its bunch of crazy wizards of all types - but the option to just be a bunch of knights and knaves on a quest should be equally viable.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ll respond to this one.

I like D&D because I really like the d20 as a resolution mechanic. It’s simple, and just swingy enough to be fun.

And D&D didn’t used to be nearly as gonzo as it is now. Druid Wildshape came much later. Paladin and Ranger didn’t get spells until 9th level. Slow XP meant most campaigns rarely reached 12th level, much less 17th (or 30th!). Then along came settings like Planescape and similar, and PCs battling creatures like the Tarraaque. 3e did a lot to clean up the system, in some very good ways, but it also made all of that normal, and it was nuts. If your fantasy inspirations came from Howard, Leiber, or Tolkien, D&D was no longer supporting your fantasy without a lot of tinkering.

5e has largely dialed us back to a 1-20 game, and making it so that it’s not an “all spellcasters, all the time,” but it did so in part by making PCs start with more gonzo powers. And rather then figuring out some way to bring spellcasters under control, the solution was mostly just “Spells for (almost) Everyone!!”

And that isn’t how D&D used to be.

Which I suspect is one reason Shadowdark is resonating with so many people, including me.

 

[JohnSnow]

Which I suspect is one reason Shadowdark is resonating with so many people, including me.

Same.

I'm really digging Shadowdark. I may want a slightly more developed Skill System for my home game but that's a minor tweak. I'm glancing through my old 1e Survival Guides (Dungeoneer's & Wilderness) for inspiration on how it might work.

 

[Remathilis]

I’ll respond to this one.

I like D&D because I really like the d20 as a resolution mechanic. It’s simple, and just swingy enough to be fun.

And D&D didn’t used to be nearly as gonzo as it is now. Druid Wildshape came much later. Paladin and Ranger didn’t get spells until 9th level. Slow XP meant most campaigns rarely reached 12th level, much less 17th (or 30th!). Then along came settings like Planescape and similar, and PCs battling creatures like the Tarraaque. 3e did a lot to clean up the system, in some very good ways, but it also made all of that normal, and it was nuts. If your fantasy inspirations came from Howard, Leiber, or Tolkien, D&D was no longer supporting your fantasy without a lot of tinkering.

5e has largely dialed us back to a 1-20 game, and making it so that it’s not an “all spellcasters, all the time,” but it did so in part by making PCs start with more gonzo powers. And rather then figuring out some way to bring spellcasters under control, the solution was mostly just “Spells for (almost) Everyone!!”

And that isn’t how D&D used to be.

I was there in 2nd edition. I remember all the mages that died to a kobold, but I also remember those that survived became God's. I also remember the magic items that were generously placed in every module. Low magic was true of games under 4th level, but any game that made it to 5th or higher was using the stuff pretty regularly.

But you know what? Magic is popular. There are grognards who lament the days of wizards with one spell per day, but high magic has been popular with someone for the last 30 years. The two biggest fantasy RPGs (D&D and Pathfinder) are positively dripping in the stuff. No low magic fantasy game, even ones with names like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, has made a dent against D&D. Every Fantasy video game from Final Fantasy to World of Warcraft is soaked in magic. Magic sells, and having it go back to paying lip service to 50 year old pulp novels isn't going to help.

Let people cast spells. They like it.

 

[Incenjucar]

People also like swinging swords and defeating wizards with cunning and elbow grease. Not all things must be magic.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah I’m not one of the people who wants to nerf Wizards. Or Clerics. And I don’t want to weaken Sorcerers, either, I just want their mechanics to be more interestingly different from Wizards. So for people who really like magic that would make three 100% full spellcasters.

I just don’t think that the solution to every class concept that is slightly supernatural is to go full Vancian.