Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Texicles" data-source="post: 5957732" data-attributes="member: 6694608">I honestly think that a variety of spellcasting styles is one of the most important modules they can make for 5e, and I couldn't agree more with the sentiment people have expressed in this thread that a class should stand on its own, not being defined by its casting mechanic.Each class should have features that define and differentiate it, and each class should have a significant number of its own unique abilities (and I feel that this applies to magic-users and martial characters alike). That's how you prevent homogeneity. Sure, there can be some shared spells, but it should be the exception, not the rule.I almost think that using different casting systems in the core class designs is a bad idea. I'm not in love with Vancian casting, but I think that they would do well to make every caster use this system out of the gate. Making the module then becomes a matter of describing the different systems and listing the spells and noting whether they're A,E,D or U, how many points the spell costs, etc. etc. If you left out the descriptions and just gave the spell name and pertinent conversion info in table form, you're looking at a module that can change the game to suit a large variety of players and fit into an appendix of the PHB and/or DMG. Do these things and classes are unique on their own merits, and you are able to enfranchise more and more varied players from the outset. That, to me, is the whole point of modular game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Texicles, post: 5957732, member: 6694608"] I honestly think that a variety of spellcasting styles is one of [I][B]the[/B][/I] most important modules they can make for 5e, and I couldn't agree more with the sentiment people have expressed in this thread that a class should stand on its own, not being defined by its casting mechanic. Each class should have features that define and differentiate it, and each class should have a significant number of its own unique abilities (and I feel that this applies to magic-users and martial characters alike). That's how you prevent homogeneity. Sure, there can be some shared spells, but it should be the exception, not the rule. I almost think that using different casting systems in the core class designs is a bad idea. I'm not in love with Vancian casting, but I think that they would do well to make every caster use this system out of the gate. Making the module then becomes a matter of describing the different systems and listing the spells and noting whether they're A,E,D or U, how many points the spell costs, etc. etc. If you left out the descriptions and just gave the spell name and pertinent conversion info in table form, you're looking at a module that can change the game to suit a large variety of players and fit into an appendix of the PHB and/or DMG. Do these things and classes are unique on their own merits, and you are able to enfranchise more and more varied players from the outset. [I][B]That[/B][/I], to me, is the whole point of modular game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification