Non-Vancian Wizards and Casting Mechanics as a "Hook"

[Sadrik]

I like your ideas, but I'm not entirley sure that making the sorcerer the base would be welcome by the playerbase. But yes, sorcerers are the simplest caster possible and the best candidate to be fine-tunned via themes. Still to me the biggest differences between a wizard and a sorcerer are mechanical and fluff based, and so I wnat them both as full classes.

Well I can see two casting methods for each of the classes in the PHB out of the gates. Spontaneous and Vancian. Basically when you pick your class you choose your method. I always thought that it was weird in 3e that a multiclassed wizard/sorcerer was wacky at best and really should not have existed. At least in this case you would not have the option to do that because fundamentally you would be a wizard with spontaneous casting, or you would be a wizard with Vancian casting, not both. I could see some blending of the classes though by way of feats and what not though.

To me casting methods should be at the class levels, we cannot assume all groups will use themes and such themes would have to be too much front loaded to be satisfactory, (altough things like elemental casters and stuff work well as themes)

I agree, casting methodology should be applied at the class level as a class feature. Not as a whole new class. I dont want to see a whole new magic class for each methodology. Methodology should be be focused solely on mechanics though and not really theme or background.

To go back to my previous theme distinctions. If a fire elemental mage, is a theme, and a shadow mage is a theme... Then a song mage is a theme... Does the bard's casting methodology need to be part of the class? I say no. Opens up the bard a heck of a lot when his "song" magic is made a theme over a methodology.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think I'd have a problem with this class. If you have a wizard class and a mage class with the same spell list, access to the same special feats and magic items and different spell casting mechanics, that would be fine. That would also be effectively the same thing as having a single class with a modular spell casting mechanic.

The problem is that a separate class is supposed to be more than mechanics. It's suppose to have an in-game story identity as well. A sorcerer isn't just a wizard with different spellcasting mechanics. A sorcerer comes with all this "innate magical ability" background with a (IMO, arbitrary) focus on draconic bloodlines and the like. My concern is that pushing non-Vancian wizards into a "mage" class will also involve dumping "non-wizardly" story elements into that class as well.

In prior editions, a lot of people have mostly gotten their way that "a separate class is supposed to be more than mechanics." But who says that restriction is inherent in Next, in a modular design? Why make that limit? Instead, why not have this list of classes over here that are very much supposed to be more than mechanics, and this list of somewhat similar classes over there that are nothing but mechanics, you supply the tweaks/archetypes? Why not do that?

Now your "archetypical" classes can go nuts with the flavor, and your mechanics-only classes can go nuts with clean mechanics. Also note that the "archetypical" classes will probably have a bigger list. You've got the mechanical mage and then the archetypical wizard, sorcerer, warlock, etc.

Or if you prefer to think of it this way, since very rarely would a group use some of each, think of it as a giant "class list" module that can be swapped out for one of two thing--archetype classes or mechanical classes. I'd still name them differently, because every now and then some group that mainly prefers the archetypical classes will want some particular character that is done better by adding their own homegrown archetype on top of the pure mechanics version.

Of course, the other way to do that would be to make the mechanical, short list of classes as the base classes (not core rules, but base in the sense of "foundational in the system), then express the archetypical classes as particular options and flavor of the mechanical base class. So in that case, a wizard is a mage that's had particular options and flavor attached, while a sorcerer is a mage with a different set.

I'd be fine with that, too. I proposed it the other way, so that people that really want their wizard archetypes don't need to share the label.

 

[Kavon]

Of course, the other way to do that would be to make the mechanical, short list of classes as the base classes (not core rules, but base in the sense of "foundational in the system), then express the archetypical classes as particular options and flavor of the mechanical base class. So in that case, a wizard is a mage that's had particular options and flavor attached, while a sorcerer is a mage with a different set.

This would be pretty nice. Sort of goes back to 2nd edition with its sub-classes.

Hm, if this Mage class has all these options for which class features it can take, you could essentially make your own (Mage) class out of that, sort of like you would be able to make your own Background or Theme.

I think that would be a welcome thing for me and my group, at least (we liked the Skills & Powers Player's Options book).