D&D 5E Magic user back?!

[Olgar Shiverstone]

LOL. I love BECMI and 1E but "magic user" was always a stupid name for a class. Mage and Wizard were both far better. I think I'd be OK with it as a category description, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But do you really need to put these classes into a cute little basket in order to tell people "select the spellcasting mechanics for this class"?

It's a useful distinction between them and other classes because they might have a shared "magic mechanic" (or not).

Great, yet another layer of obfuscation for no good reason.

I don't agree.

I think the distinction is that the DM might put a "magic system" in place for the whole world. For instance, the DM might decide to use ADEU, or Vancian, or Recharge, or Defiling/Preserving, or Artifice, or Patron, or Power Points, or whatever.

If the DM does this, than all "magic users" will use the same magical mechanics. For instance, in 2e, all magic-users were "Vancian."

A DM may differentiate in different ways by using multiple magic systems. For instance, a DM fond of dividing up the magic by class may say there's no one "magic system," but that warlocks use At-Will magic, and wizards use Vancian magic, and Sorcerers use Recharge magic, and psions use Power Points.

Or a DM may differentiate by "power source" if they'd like, so that all arcane spellcasters use Defiling/Preserving magic, all divine spellcasters use Patron magic, and all psinoic spellcasters use Power Points.

Or a DM may leave it up to the player so that of the three wizards in his game, one uses Power Points and one uses Vancian spellcasting and one uses ADEU spellcasting.

Because "magic users" may all be using the same spellcasting mechanic (or not), this needs to be a separate category from "non-magic-users," who presumably won't have to worry about that noise really.

 

[Grimmjow]

So in this week legend and lore weget alotaboutclasses (buti am sure wotc golem will startthat thread) but the big bomb shell for me was magic user as a class with wizard and sorcerer as builds :/

My knee jerk reaction was "what!?!"

we might introduce an overall class category called magic-user that features wizard, sorcerer, and other options as choices beneath it.

looks to me that it isnt going to be a class but a list of classes that use magic

 

[MoonSong]

It's a useful distinction between them and other classes because they might have a shared "magic mechanic" (or not).



I don't agree.

I think the distinction is that the DM might put a "magic system" in place for the whole world. For instance, the DM might decide to use ADEU, or Vancian, or Recharge, or Defiling/Preserving, or Artifice, or Patron, or Power Points, or whatever.

If the DM does this, than all "magic users" will use the same magical mechanics. For instance, in 2e, all magic-users were "Vancian."

A DM may differentiate in different ways by using multiple magic systems. For instance, a DM fond of dividing up the magic by class may say there's no one "magic system," but that warlocks use At-Will magic, and wizards use Vancian magic, and Sorcerers use Recharge magic, and psions use Power Points.

Or a DM may differentiate by "power source" if they'd like, so that all arcane spellcasters use Defiling/Preserving magic, all divine spellcasters use Patron magic, and all psinoic spellcasters use Power Points.

Or a DM may leave it up to the player so that of the three wizards in his game, one uses Power Points and one uses Vancian spellcasting and one uses ADEU spellcasting.

Because "magic users" may all be using the same spellcasting mechanic (or not), this needs to be a separate category from "non-magic-users," who presumably won't have to worry about that noise really.

If only half those things were true. But let's face it, the Mage-user category will only apply to Arcane casters (No psions, no divines) and has no other purpose than to be able to stick multiple casting system on the wizard. Do the sorcerer needs to be dragged down with all of this?, I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.

And let's be honest, how many people played sorcerers for the mechanics alone? a good chunk, messing with them is a bad policy and pointless. How many play it for the flavor? a good chunk too, but if you are playing a sorcerer for flavor mostly, you need mechanics that favor that flavor, not ones that go against it, the last thing any innate caster needs is a spellbook. How many play it for both? I don't really know, but at least I do, and the last thing I want is for sorcerers to become a second rate class again. It was understable back when third edition was launched -spontaneous casters were an untested concept back then and it was feared they might be overpowered- but more than a decade later that is no longer aceptable.

No matter how powerfull spontaneous casting could be, it doesn't compare with the ability to switch skillsets overnight and the sorcerer class needs to be treated as it's own thing, no longer as an extension of the wizard. Because that only hurts the sorcerer for no reason without getting any tangible benefit out of the deal. Everything you do to the wizard, the sorcerer ends up suffering it too and harder, and the chances to get any needed releif are next to zero, because the designers only consider what is good for the wizard and not what is good for the sorcerer. And a vital part of the sorcerer identity is his simplicity, having it take part on this circus will detract from it, if you really have to mess up with the sorcerer's mechanics, you are better off banning the class and using a reworked and refluffed wizard, but if you make the sorcerer part of this whole business, there is nothing that can give us back the simple caster we love and care about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But let's face it, the Mage-user category will only apply to Arcane casters (No psions, no divines) and has no other purpose than to be able to stick multiple casting system on the wizard.

That sounds remarkably cynical to me. They've mentioned a few times now that feedback is telling them that casting mechanics should rest at the system level. So I think they're going to disentangle casting mechanics from class, so that you can mix and match them.

I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.

You're assuming there's not going to be a "default." I don't think that's a safe assumption.

And let's be honest, how many people played sorcerers for the mechanics alone? a good chunk

And if they end up following the ideas I've laid out, those people will now have a lot more options for their preferred spellcasting mechanic. They could be charismatic and inspired, or bookish and academic, or dark and dangerous, or even granted blessings from their deity, all without changing the spellcasting mechanics they love.

It's actually the case for EVERYONE, not just sorcerers, but it's true for sorcs, too.

the last thing any innate caster needs is a spellbook.

When I use the term "Vancian Magic," I don't refer to spellbooks. I refer to the slot-based (and "slots per day per level") method of determining what variety of spells you can cast and how many. A Vancian sorcerer is the 3e Sorcerer. A Vancian Wizard is the 3e Wizard. A "Power Point" sorcerer would look more like a 3e psion mechanically, but they'd still probably know the same number of spells (not that many) and be able to use the same amount of spells per day (lots), regardless of the mechanics used to achieve that.

No matter how powerfull spontaneous casting could be, it doesn't compare with the ability to switch skillsets overnight and the sorcerer class needs to be treated as it's own thing, no longer as an extension of the wizard.

And placing the mechanics outside of the class actually gives them a lot more room to breathe. They're not JUST a unique spellcasting mechanic anymore -- they're a unique class, with their own unique identity apart from "casts magic."

if you make the sorcerer part of this whole business, there is nothing that can give us back the simple caster we love and care about.

A*hem....

There's probably going to be a default, if only to not paralyze newbs.

I think you'll be fine. They're looking to make the fighter even simpler. I've no doubt that they'll do the same with some spellcaster.

 

[GameDoc]

Do the sorcerer needs to be dragged down with all of this?, I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.

I can see where you are coming from and greatly appreciate the sentiment. That was actually a big disappointment for me when they presented their basic 4 classes in the playtest. Why not make the basic arcane caster operate like the 3e sorcerer and let the Vancian caster be the more complex option?

That said, the 3e sorcerer you are talking about above is not the sorcerer we have thus far been presented in the D&D Next Playtest. It was something else entirely with it's own complicated mechanic that appears to have been an effort to save some thematic concepts from the 4e sorcerer. The 3e sorcerer hasn't been around in D&D proper since, well, 3e (Pathfinder notwithstanding). I'm just glad we are getting it back in some fashion.

FWIW, the way I read the article was that "class category" meant class and that Mearls was perhaps being imprecise in his choice of phrasing. It seems consistent that the basic 4 classes all have a build option embedded within them. The fighter has a fighting style that effects his maneuvers, the rogue has the choice of schemes that impact the use of stealth and sneak attacks, and the cleric has domains (or perhaps now an actual deity or religion in the next packet). These are baked into the classes. The wizard was the only one that lacked such an option and it seemed the "arcane traditions" that were previously in the works were going to fill that design space. In other words, I read that as the core class may now actually be "Magic User" and the build options are casting methods titled wizard, sorcerer, etc. I know that leaves out the cleric, but maybe they will give the cleric a similar option, or maybe they will just wait and see how people respond to the idea with magic-users before incorporating it into the cleric.

This is of course, all speculation on my part. I won't be upset if it turns out I'm wrong. If I'm right though, I know one thing that will go in my feedback is to find a better term than "magic-user" for a class name. I know it's D&D tradition but it always struck me as awkward compared to the other class names. If it's meant to include sorcerers, wizards, and perhaps other arcane casters, I would prefer something like "Arcanist", "Adept", or "Mage".

 

[Steely_Dan]

looks to me that it isnt going to be a class but a list of classes that use magic

So, should that include Clerics and Druids (as they both use magic)?

 

[Grimmjow]

So, should that include Clerics and Druids (as they both use magic)?

nah sir, for they are not ARCANE magic users. They could (should) make one for primal and one for divine characters

 

[Ratskinner]

So, should that include Clerics and Druids (as they both use magic)?

I, for one, would be perfectly happy with this. I think there's a large sanctified bovine in the way, though.

nah sir, for they are not ARCANE magic users. They could (should) make one for primal and one for divine characters

If they're gonna save space by writing up different casting options for magic using classes, I hope they don't pull a truly stupid and do it three separate times for the different possible power sources...which may not be a concept in Next, anyway. (Different spell lists would be fine, of course. Pointless, IMO, but there's another sacred cow.) I think the Divine/Arcane/Primal thing is silly. One man's priest is another man's warlock is another man's mage is another man's druid.

 

[Grimmjow]

three separate time[/I]s for the different possible power sources...which may not be a concept in Next, anyway. (Different spell lists would be fine, of course. Pointless, IMO, but there's another sacred cow.) I think the Divine/Arcane/Primal thing is silly. One man's priest is another man's warlock is another man's mage is another man's druid.

im not saying casting options for each one, im just saying the category for classes should be separate