D&D 5E Simplified 5e, Maneuvers n' stuff

[Crazy Jerome]

It seems like it boils down to "Divine spellcasters are given their magical ability from another being... Arcane spellcasters are everybody else." And I have to question why exactly THAT distinction matters in the slightest? What difference does it make? What is gained by putting some classes into the "granted ability" bin, and all the others in the other one? Mayyyyyyybe if you actually got MORE power for being in the "granted ability" bin (because you had the chance to have that ability stripped from you) it might mean something... but we all know that Clerics/Paladins/Druids etc. AREN'T more powerful than their Arcane counterparts and that the number of them who have EVER had their power stripped out by the DM for violating their patron's tenets I'm willing to bet has been infinitesimally small. So there's no actual PRACTICAL reason for splitting all the spellcasting classes up into two arbitrary bins except for history's sake.

Within the limitations of traditional D&D, maybe so. There could, however, be a practical difference between magic granted via another being and then "channeled" by the caster versus magic that is invoke through one's on (carefully applied) power versus magic that pulls power from a neutral source--i.e. ley lines, elemental forces, etc. Plenty of games have made those distinctions. The problem in D&D is that all casters have done all three of those things to a certain extent, at least as far as the flavor is concerned. It's just that clerics have leaned more heavily towards the "channeled" version.

Actually, it might be possible to keep those distinctions, mix in with rituals, apply the likely consequences, and then have certain classes lean more heavily. So, for example, powerful cure spells are perhaps channeled from an appropriate deity. Tick off that deity, you can't channel from him anymore--regardless of whether you are cleric, druid, or even a wizard with some kind of oddball specialty. Clerics tend to get lots of channeled spells from a particular deity--and their best spells at that--so that they are particuarly invested in keeping their noses clean. But a cleric can have other self-powered or neutral source spells that aren't related directly to the deity at all. Might be easier to do specialty priests that way, too.

 

[Stalker0]

The only thing I'd say at this point is that I think I'd prefer if we no longer even bothered to categorize "magic" into groups. IE no more Divine magic, Arcane magic, Nature magic etc. Instead, we just have the Cleric's miracles, the Wizard's spells, the Druid's nature magic, the Bard's musical incantations, the Warlock's pact magic, the Paladin and Ranger's respective magical abilities, etc. etc.

This is what Monte did in his alternative system, Arcana Evolved.

Every caster class had access to the core spells, and classes got access to additional spells based on their specific class (aka the "cleric" class, called the greenbond, got all the fancy healing spells). Casting styles were differentiated based on class as well ("Wizards" had Somatic, Verbal components for everything and had to use a staff, the witch class could cast using no components at all if they took the time to do so.

While the balance was a bit off (the magister aka the wizard was simply too good compared to other spellcasters) the flavor tone worked very well imo.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My whole issue with this whole thing usually plays out because of the whole "sub-class" concept that bunches of people keep throwing out there. The premise that Warlocks and Sorcerers are "sub-classes" of the Wizard. And it's this idea that makes me reflexively say "Uh... no, they're not. They're NOTHING like the Wizard and how the wizard acquires magic and uses magic." They are each completely separate concepts, they each acquire and use magic in completely different ways, and the only reason they get put into "Wizard sub-class" box is because the Wizard appeared first, and that the magical "stuff" that they manipulate got called "Arcane Magic".

But the truth be told... all three of those classes are ON PAR with each other. None of them are subservient or "lesser" casting methods than another. And it's the same with with the Cleric and Druid. Druidic magic is its own thing and in no way a sub-set of what Clerics are.

To me... its the School Specialization and the Specialty Priests that are the true "sub-classes" of the Wizard and Cleric... because they actually use the form of the primary class-- how they acquire magic, manipulate magic, and look when using it. An Illusionist is a Wizard sub-class, because they basically ARE Wizards, except that they only use one small sub-set of a Wizard's abilities (and as a result are more powerful in those abilities because they focused on them).

Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Psion. Each of them individual classes, each of them equal in terms of power, each of them use "magic" in their own particular way that is different and separate from any other-- described by the person using it with terms like divine, primal, arcane, pact, origin, or psionic.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

My whole issue with this whole thing usually plays out because of the whole "sub-class" concept that bunches of people keep throwing out there. The premise that Warlocks and Sorcerers are "sub-classes" of the Wizard. And it's this idea that makes me reflexively say "Uh... no, they're not. They're NOTHING like the Wizard and how the wizard acquires magic and uses magic." They are each completely separate concepts, they each acquire and use magic in completely different ways, and the only reason they get put into "Wizard sub-class" box is because the Wizard appeared first, and that the magical "stuff" that they manipulate got called "Arcane Magic".

But the truth be told... all three of those classes are ON PAR with each other. None of them are subservient or "lesser" casting methods than another. And it's the same with with the Cleric and Druid. Druidic magic is its own thing and in no way a sub-set of what Clerics are.

Just to clarify, if you're referring to my mention of druid being a subclass of cleric in my last post, that was because in AD&D it was a cleric subclass, and both the cleric and druid shared the features I was talking about. I'm not saying 5e should have the classic four and then make the other classes subclasses of them.

Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Psion. Each of them individual classes, each of them equal in terms of power, each of them use "magic" in their own particular way that is different and separate from any other-- described by the person using it with terms like divine, primal, arcane, pact, origin, or psionic.

But should they all be different and separate when it comes to what their magic does? Yes, it's important that classes feel and play differently, but if you look at the sorcerer and warlock in the playtest packet they shared several spells with the wizard, would likely share spells with several future classes despite accessing and using them in different ways, and were differentiated far more by their resource systems than the actual effects they used.

There are basically three choices for sharing spell lists. Option one is having all spells shared between a group of casting classes, with any differentiation being on a per-character basis; this is how the 3e wizard specialties work since even very different specialist wizards draw from the same list and the wizard needs things like Extra Spell or Wyrm Wizard to branch out, and how the Arcana Evolved classes work with exotic spells. Option two is having a shared list of some size and then individual classes (or parts of classes) give access to exclusive lists; this is how the 3e cleric works with a shared list plus domains, and how the Arcana Evolved classes mentioned above work with simple vs. complex spells and descriptors. Option three is having entirely separate lists with no overlap whatsoever; this is how 4e classes work, or how the 3e cleric and psion compare.

So you can either have complete, partial, or no overlap. If you have complete overlap between the wizard, sorcerer, warlock, etc., then obviously they should have something like the "arcane" label grouping them together because sharing spells defines their capabilities in that way. If you have partial overlap between them, then the "arcane" label still works because some spells are wizard-only, some are sorcerer-only, some are warlock-only, etc. and then some are for "any arcane class." If you have no overlap between them, then whenever you want to give multiple classes a "set things on fire in an area" spell or a "summon a big bruiser" spell or whatever, you need to come up with multiple slightly-different variations, which I think is a bad idea because (A) it clutters book space, since you could achieve the same thing with either a note like "When a warlock casts this spell..." in a spell block or a class feature that modifies all spells of a certain type, and (B) it clutters mental space, since players have to remember how fireball is different from fireburst is different from firesphere and which class gets which spell.

And if you want to reserve fire-blasting or critter-summoning or whatever to a single class instead of creating spell variations, that impacts player choice on a PC level ("I want to burn things, but only sorcerers do that and I'd rather be a wizard") and a party level ("Only clerics can heal, so we need a cleric. Bob, it's your turn" "Aw, man! I hate clerics!"). Far better, I think, to differentiate different classes by their casting methods and resource management and not reinvent the wheel when it comes to individual spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mentioned the Druid/cleric sub-class thing not in reference to your post specifically... but just because that's one of the examples when people talk about putting things into a "sub-class" category.

But as far as overlap... I don't think any of that is indicative of needing to create a bin to put certain classes in. After all... if you take a look at the 3E spell lists... there's quite a bit of overlap between the Wizard and Cleric spell lists. And no one would say that they are in the same bin. And you can add Druid, Paladin, and Bard to those lists too. Cleric, Paladin and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Protection From Evil on their spell list. Bard, Cleric and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Hold Person. Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Obscuring Mist. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger all have Cure Light Wounds.

Which there again tells me that magic is magic. One big lump of energy that is accessed in a myriad of ways. And just because you can cast certain spells does not mean you are an Arcane class or a Divine class or anything like that. Because many spells cut across Arcane and Divine. So again... I don't see the point in trying to divide classes up when there's no actual logical binds that tie them together. It's only artificial ones that we keep in our heads from previous editions under the belief we someone need to have them in the game.

But I don't believe that's true.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

But as far as overlap... I don't think any of that is indicative of needing to create a bin to put certain classes in. After all... if you take a look at the 3E spell lists... there's quite a bit of overlap between the Wizard and Cleric spell lists. And no one would say that they are in the same bin. And you can add Druid, Paladin, and Bard to those lists too. Cleric, Paladin and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Protection From Evil on their spell list. Bard, Cleric and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Hold Person. Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer/Wizard all have Obscuring Mist. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger all have Cure Light Wounds.

First off, the arcane/divine split doesn't prevent you from having spells open to everyone, because most effects are not arcane- or divine-only; as I mentioned, there are several things that arcane and divine casters have traditionally had in common but have excelled at in different ways. You can have a wizard-only list, an arcane-only list, and an "everyone" list, and in fact having that "everyone" list only serves to highlight the differences better. Having some spells open to everyone doesn't negate the fact that fireball is a very "arcane" spell and restoration a very "divine" spell while animate dead is both--and I'd argue that having the cleric be a better animator because he has both animate dead and Rebuke Undead is a better strategy than giving him a different version of animate dead.

Second, the hybrid classes' blurring of power source lines is part of their point. The bard gets some healing because it used to be divine and is now arcane; the ranger has some arcane and some divine spells because it started off with both magic-user and druid spells; the shugenja has some arcane spells because it was the primary caster in Rokugan (a setting without the traditional full casters) before being integrated into "normal" D&D. Those hybrid classes are exactly the ones with different "feels" in different editions: the 1e ranger is an Aragorn-like fighter-plus-magical-training type, the 2e and 3e rangers are a Drizzt-like champion-of-nature type, and the 4e ranger is a Legolas-like archer without magic. The 1e bard is a Celtic warrior-poet who uses druidic magic, the 2e bard is a wandering scholar who uses wizard magic, the 3e bard is a jack-of-all-trades who uses a little bit of both types of magic, and the 4e bard is an inspiring performer who is back to arcane-only but has his own list.

If 5e is going to appeal to everyone and make all class concepts possible, they can't really try to cram all of those concepts into the same class. Conceptually, you add magical music on top of a druid/fighter to remake the 1e bard, on top of a rogue/wizard to remake the 2e or 3e bard, or on top of a fighter/wizard to remake the 4e bard; similarly, the 1e ranger is basically a fighter with minor arcane and divine casting, the 2e and 3e rangers are basically a fighter/druid, and the 4e ranger is basically a fighter. Any of those individual classes either fits pretty squarely in one of the arcane or divine camp or is explicitly a hybrid/jack-of-all-trades, and if WotC is going to follow through on its promise to have ways to make every core class from every edition in the first PHB, they're going to have to either do a multiclassing+specialty approach like that, make different versions of a class for each, make big unwieldy classes than can do any version but none of them well, or disappoint a segment of the player base.

And finally, regarding "magic is magic":

Which there again tells me that magic is magic. One big lump of energy that is accessed in a myriad of ways. And just because you can cast certain spells does not mean you are an Arcane class or a Divine class or anything like that. Because many spells cut across Arcane and Divine. So again... I don't see the point in trying to divide classes up when there's no actual logical binds that tie them together. It's only artificial ones that we keep in our heads from previous editions under the belief we someone need to have them in the game.

But I don't believe that's true.

By that reasoning, a fighter is the same as a rogue, really, because there's plenty of overlap between them and they basically do the same thing (stab things in combat and use skills outside of combat). Alternatively, the fighter, rogue, monk, ranger, and all other classes shouldn't share expertise dice, common maneuvers, or any other similar mechanics because they all do their own different thing in their own different ways. Yes, you can boil things down to either "either you're magical or nonmagical, pick one" or "no two classes share things in common" but the former is basically point buy, the latter is very hard on customization, and neither is really D&D-ish.

If they're going to both come up with "iconic" versions of each class that satisfy fans of different editions, particularly AD&D, and also follow through on the "modularity" buzzword they keep throwing out there, then those classes do have logical binds that tie them together and there are benefits to categorizing things as arcane or divine. Neither the "every class has a completely different list" approach of 4e or your suggestion, or the "everyone can access everything, it's just the resource systems that are different" approach that has been suggested in some of the 5e columns, will satisfy either of their design goals. They need both some common spells (to cut down on redundancy and improve consistency) and some unique spells (to help define classes and to add variety), and the existing arcane/divine split is the most traditional and (I think) best way to do that.

 

[steeldragons]

-snip- Any of those individual classes either fits pretty squarely in one of the arcane or divine camp or is explicitly a hybrid/jack-of-all-trades, and if WotC is going to follow through on its promise to have ways to make every core class from every edition in the first PHB, they're going to have to either do a multiclassing+specialty approach like that, make different versions of a class for each, make big unwieldy classes than can do any version but none of them well, or disappoint a segment of the player base.

emphasis mine.

Now, I could be wrong about this and if I am, well...ignore me. ...but I don't believe that WotC ever made this "promise." What they said was that each class that has been in a first PHB would be on the list of classes...But I haven't sen any explicit guarantee for each individual edition's version of each class.

I'm sure you'll have leeway to bend the presented archetypes in various directions in the game. But that's [I'm assuming] going to be through player choices and options at character creation (again, I assume and very much HOPE as opposed to "let me take a level of this here, then a level of that, then some overpowered prestige class when I'm 5th level and be super-demi-god-adventurer by 7th level" which I despise with burning flames).

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

emphasis mine.

Now, I could be wrong about this and if I am, well...ignore me. ...but I don't believe that WotC ever made this "promise." What they said was that each class that has been in a first PHB would be on the list of classes...But I haven't sen any explicit guarantee for each individual edition's version of each class.

They've said in a few places that "every core class in the PHB" doesn't necessarily mean there will be one class called Rogue, one called Assassin, one called Sorcerer, etc., but that some of the lighter-weight classes might be specialties and some of the broader classes will have several different ways to make them. I lost my subscribed threads with the forum upgrade so I don't have a lot of quotes at hand, but I was able to find this here:

Greg: Are there any classes that you're now interested in because of the design work you've been doing?

Rob: They're all awesome, but I think I would have to pick the Ranger. There's so much stuff going on that I'm excited for each version. You could make up a beast ranger, or an Aragorn stye ranger or a Drizzt style ranger and they all feel awesome and iconic.

Two takeaways from that:

1) He's talking about design work for the ranger class, not "And if you add the X specialty to the ranger you can make Y."

2) Beastmaster ranger/Aragorn ranger/Drizzt ranger read to me as basically shorthand for 4e ranger/1e ranger/2e-3e ranger, since those are terms the forums use for each variety and he didn't mention more generic terms like "a beast ranger or archer ranger or undead-slayer ranger" or similar.

From that and similar articles, and their overall focus on making 5e the modular edition to please everyone, I'd say that making any edition's version of a class playable is a priority, and well it should be given the arguments that break out about certain class versions in the edition wars.

I'm sure you'll have leeway to bend the presented archetypes in various directions in the game. But that's [I'm assuming] going to be through player choices and options at character creation (again, I assume and very much HOPE as opposed to "let me take a level of this here, then a level of that, then some overpowered prestige class when I'm 5th level and be super-demi-god-adventurer by 7th level" which I despise with burning flames).

Well, first, most prestige classes aren't overpowered, and you don't hit superhero power levels until 15th level in 3e.

Snark aside, feats and specialties will certainly open a lot of options at character creation, but they don't go far enough to let you turn, say, the 4e ranger (one powerful animal companion, no magic, dozens of archery-related powers, hunter's quarry) into the 3e ranger (list of less-powerful animal companions, lots of nature magic and archery magic, favored enemy) except at the most superficial level where you have a bow, an animal companion, and entangle.

 

[Timmoth]

If manuevers are options for hand-to-hand combat, I really don't see that vancian casters would gain any advantage from them. On top of that, spellcasters already have plenty of options via spells.

I could think of couple useful defensive manuevers with that staff.