Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 8581088" data-attributes="member: 92511">I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels.It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the &quot;greatest hits&quot; of different spells D&amp;D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of &quot;known spells&quot; diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible.But I don't think it would really work for a D&amp;D flavor of magic.First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, &quot;White&quot; witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players.That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the &quot;specialist school&quot; structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different. In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our &quot;simplified/back to basics&quot; D&amp;D sensibilities have been for this past edition.&nbsp; The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of &quot;divine spheres&quot; -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of &quot;Nature spells,&quot; that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of &quot;Plant&quot; and &quot;Animal&quot; and &quot;Elemental?&quot; NO WAIT, no &quot;Elemental&quot; (that includes weather), but &quot;Fire&quot; and &quot;Air&quot; and &quot;Water&quot; and &quot;Earth&quot; and, then, a separate &quot;Weather,&quot; and ya know, some people count &quot;Spirit/Soul/Aether&quot; as a fifth element, do them too! Some use &quot;Stone&quot; and &quot;Metal&quot; and &quot;Wood&quot; as individual &quot;Earth&quot; spheres/flavors....and...and...and... You see how this goes?&nbsp; I think it would be more palatable for a new iteration to have a more defined and distinct breakdown of Magical &quot;sources&quot; and types/ways of making magic, beyond Divine/Arcane with VSM components. I've seen the breakdowns used by some homebrewers as : Arcane, Divine, Nature (&quot;Primal&quot;), Psychic, and Occult. I think that really covers/provides umbrellas for pretty much any flavor of magic-user we would traditionally need.Then, you need to decide on the right distinctions of flavor and [flavorful] mechanics for the kinds of casters. Then, the rest of the ballgame are the actual lists of spells [and/or supernatural powers] for specific casters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 8581088, member: 92511"] I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels. It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the "greatest hits" of different spells D&D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of "known spells" diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible. But I don't think it would really work for a D&D flavor of magic. First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, "White" witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players. That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the "specialist school" structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different. In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our "simplified/back to basics" D&D sensibilities have been for this past edition. The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of "divine spheres" -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of "Nature spells," that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of "Plant" and "Animal" and "Elemental?" NO WAIT, no "Elemental" (that includes weather), but "Fire" and "Air" and "Water" and "Earth" and, then, a separate "Weather," and ya know, some people count "Spirit/Soul/Aether" as a fifth element, do them too! Some use "Stone" and "Metal" and "Wood" as individual "Earth" spheres/flavors....and...and...and... You see how this goes? I think it would be more palatable for a new iteration to have a more defined and distinct breakdown of Magical "sources" and types/ways of making magic, beyond Divine/Arcane with VSM components. I've seen the breakdowns used by some homebrewers as : Arcane, Divine, Nature ("Primal"), Psychic, and Occult. I think that really covers/provides umbrellas for pretty much any flavor of magic-user we would traditionally need. Then, you need to decide on the right distinctions of flavor and [flavorful] mechanics for the kinds of casters. Then, the rest of the ballgame are the actual lists of spells [and/or supernatural powers] for specific casters. [/QUOTE]

Verification