D&D (2024) Should bring back diverse spellcaster level design.

[Minigiant]

Since Resurrection is 7th level. If you want diverse casters.

Noncaster don't rely on spells: Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, They might get some magic from subclasses to be third casters. Their offense comes from their strong base weapon attacks.

Half casters are Magic Warriors: Ranger, Paladin, Gish. They have spells up to the 5th level and get the most mileage out of attack buffs. Their offense comes from magically buffed weapon attacks.

3/4 casters are Support Healers: Bard, Artificer, Shaman, Archivist. They have access to spells up to level 7 and have a lot of slots to heal and buff. Their offense comes from cantrips.

Full casters are Primary Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid. They have access to spells of the 9th level. Their offense is based on using their top 4 levels of spell slots.

The question is where to put Warlock.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The question is where to put Warlock.

On the bus home.

 

[Steampunkette]

So, it seems to me that you bury the lede by putting (3) at the end, because it looks to me that (1) and (2) are specific desired solutions for (3).

Fair.

This sounds self-contradictory to me.

Everyone still gets the same 1-20, everyone gets the same overall power level, not everyone takes the same route to get there (9 discrete levels of spellcasting)

Maintain the overall leveling scheme (Not changing the rate of XP gain or significant power differences between the classes) while changing the leveling scheme (loss of specific spell levels in favor of class-mechanics and benefits that are more thematic).

It was a weird way to phrase it.

There's a problem with increasing design space - larger design space means more rules. The larger the design space, the more your rules bloat to fill that space. Given how common a criticism bloat was for 3.x, I am not sure ensconcing that in the core rules is really a great plan, given that 5e isn't really a lightweight game as it is.

For a 3rd party publisher to work up variations would be fine. But having a goodly amount of regularity or simplicity in the core rules of the base product does have advantages, and you'd have to weigh the improvements against those losses, as well as the issues of balance already mentioned.

Design space in classes means more -abilities-. Whether that creates more rules or more exceptions to rules is up to the designers. But every spell you create is no less "More Rules" than any class ability that you create. Same thing with every Subclass and every Race. WotC is clearly not afraid of complicating their game further and is releasing 5.5e as a way to codify the changes they've made over the past decade.

Unless their intention is to strip out complexity that already exists in 5e, we're going to have a more rules-heavy game after it comes out.

It's only going to be a question of which rules are added, or removed, and whether people think those changes are 'too complicated'. Which, as previously established, is going to be a very subjective and personal threshold that is, ultimately, arbitrary.

Part of why I asked what actual problem needed solving is that there may already be solutions that could be applied without increasing the complexity much.

I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?

Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)

But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.

It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.

Very frustrating.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think one of the things I'd hate about this system is going back to the old "Same spell, different level" that classes had. One of the things that I think was an improvement in 5e was the decision to make spells like animate dead a 3rd level spell instead of 3rd level for a priest, 4th level for a wizard. I far prefer that spells have a set level and that level is the same for each class, no matter when they gain access to those spell slots.

The question is why should Animate Dead be on more than one spell list?

having unique spell lists would go a long way to making different casters feel more unique.

 

[steeldragons]

I am 100% behind making classes feel different.

I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.

I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.

AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.

Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.

I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.

For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.

And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.

In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.

I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.

For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.

The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).

"Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.

The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.

The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.

They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.

And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.

So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.

I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.

I'm really liking this direction.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I am 100% behind making classes feel different.

I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.

I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.

AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.

Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.

I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.

For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.

And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.

In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.

I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.

For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.

The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).

"Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.

The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.

The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.

They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.

And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.

So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.

I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.

I'm really liking this direction.

Wouldn’t it be nice if bards actually used the skill performance to cast their spells? Instead of it being secondary to the class as a whole.

 

[Faolyn]

I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?

Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)

But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.

It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.

Very frustrating.

I think what Umbran is asking is, what problem do you have with the way it is now?

And also, he's pointing out that there's a difference between "I have a problem" and "I have a problem, and from what I've seen, at least some other people have the same problem as well."

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.

I agree with 25% of this post.

 

[le Redoutable]

just to add material :
in Ad&d 1st end 2nd Ed, after the name level, Clerics were climbing every 225.000 xp , while Magic-users would require 375.000 xp;

also good Clerics should have beneficial Necromantic spells, while Wizards had Energy Drain or the like ( ?? )