Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 6060418" data-attributes="member: 52073">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification