D&D 5E Spell-paths

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I mean, you can just choose to do that, so I might be making it more complex than I need to.

Just split all the spells up into themed lists, plus one general list of spells all mages might learn, and each specialized mage can only use one themed list and the general list. Then maybe make a Feat that allows a mage to learn a second themed list, with the Feat only being able to be taken once. Multi-classing, if allowed, will also not let a mage get around this, as they just can't use any magic not of their chosen type, regardless of class or being arcane or divine.

 

[gyor]

Clerics are Specialty Priests.

I am a big advocate of this style. Give each spell one or more Facet designations, and you can eliminate class lists all together.

Yeah, no they aren't, 2e speciality priests were distinctly different from 2e clerics (although I think 2e Druids were a type of speciality priest I think). There were alot of diferences between clerics and speciality priests.

5e clerics are a blend between 3.5e and 4e clerics, with the Miracle spell turned into a class feature instead of a spell.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, the really interesting thing about the path system was that if you had a spell shared by two paths you could jump between those paths.

So let's imagine two paths. Fire magic and Light magic. They share Continual Flame as a spell. You could start with as a fire mage and then pick up Continual Flame to progress on the Light path, which would allow you to pick up Invisibility (assuming it is a Light spell). But you wouldn't be able to pick up Mage Armor, because it's not on either of those paths (you'd need to first learn a spell on one of your paths that was also shared by the Force magic path). Maybe not a perfect example, since Continual Flame is an illusion and arguably wouldn't constitute fire magic per se, but if that's the issue just substitute an imaginary spell called Everburning Flame that meets those criteria.

That's what really appealed to me about the path system. It built on itself in a logical progression. The principles of one spell allowed you to branch out to related spells.

There are some challenges to the path magic approach, particularly when it comes to distinctions between Arcane & Divine magic (as well as subtler class spell list distinctions) that are baked into D&D. For example, running with your Fire (Pyromancy) path example...

We see 3 cantrips that fit – control flames (druid, sorcerer, wizard), fire bolt (artificer, sorcerer, wizard), produce flame (druid).

Clearly control flames fits a multitude of class archetypes, but what about fire bolt vs. produce flame? Does the path offer both cantrips? In that case, the distinction about "druid-fire" being able to be used to illuminate like a torch becomes shared by other arcane casters.

What about the cleric's flame strike which deals both fire and radiant damage? Would that be included in the path, thus being equally accessible to Arcane and Divine casters?

Similar identity question about the druid's flame blade...

That raises the question would this approach include two separate Fire-themed paths, one for Arcane Fire and one for Divine Fire (speaking conceptually, not saying those are good names)? If so, does the Divine Fire get called "Radiance"? But then you have light & produce flame competing for the same design space. And would flame blade (which does exclusively fire damage) be included in the Radiance?

 

[Fanaelialae]

There are some challenges to the path magic approach, particularly when it comes to distinctions between Arcane & Divine magic (as well as subtler class spell list distinctions) that are baked into D&D. For example, running with your Fire (Pyromancy) path example...

We see 3 cantrips that fit – control flames (druid, sorcerer, wizard), fire bolt (artificer, sorcerer, wizard), produce flame (druid).

Clearly control flames fits a multitude of class archetypes, but what about fire bolt vs. produce flame? Does the path offer both cantrips? In that case, the distinction about "druid-fire" being able to be used to illuminate like a torch becomes shared by other arcane casters.

What about the cleric's flame strike which deals both fire and radiant damage? Would that be included in the path, thus being equally accessible to Arcane and Divine casters?

Similar identity question about the druid's flame blade...

That raises the question would this approach include two separate Fire-themed paths, one for Arcane Fire and one for Divine Fire (speaking conceptually, not saying those are good names)? If so, does the Divine Fire get called "Radiance"? But then you have light & produce flame competing for the same design space. And would flame blade (which does exclusively fire damage) be included in the Radiance?

You're not wrong, but in an ideal implementation of this system (as I see it) you wouldn't really have the arcane/divine divide.

Rather, the divine parhs would be distanced from the arcane paths by a number of intermediary jumps (probably metamagic shared by both, like a tree based on detect magic). So a wizard could learn healing magic, but not at first level. Similar with a cleric and, say, magic missile (combat magic).

Obviously that's not a necessity for this type of system, just my ideal. If you want an arcane/divine divide (or arcane/divine/primal) just create paths for those classifications and restrict jumps within your magic type.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not sure the divide means much anymore anyway. Clerics can already get lots of offensive wizard spells and neglect melee, sorcerers can already cast healing spells if they wish.

 

[Todd Roybark]

5e clerics are a blend between 3.5e and 4e clerics, with the Miracle spell turned into a class feature instead of a spell.

Specialty Priests had custom: Armor/Weapon Proficiencies, Access to Extra spells,
Extra powers, based off their god/theme.

5e Clerics have custom: Armor/Weapon Proficiencies, Access to Extra spells,
Extra powers, based off their god/theme.

5e is more regimented as a system, so it might feel less customized, but the influence of Specialty Priests on the current class, isn't subtle.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You have to be careful with the spell selection, though. I'm playing a storm-themed storm sorcerer (well,duh!), and I've been trying to select thematic spells. We do use several house-rules to make sorcerer slightly more versatile (spellpoint variant from the DMG, does wonders for the class), but as we're advancing through the levels, the lack of versatility becomes more and more pronounced.

Even though I like the character, I've really come to believe that 5E sorcerer really isn't on par with (most?) other classes.

I played a lizardman storm sorcerer and stuck to only thunder, lightning, and storm name spells only.

Not having a good or even any long range damage cantrip was....tough. Sleet Storm and Catapult (wind making things fly I themed it) were my workhorses until I got the thunderstorm cyclone spell (forgot the name, from Xanathars) at 4th or 5th.

 

[Don Durito]

If you're theming things then there needs to be a basic generic attack cantrip.

And then you choose during charcter creation the form of cantrip -eg. fire, lightining, ice etc.

 

[Tonguez]

There are some challenges to the path magic approach, particularly when it comes to distinctions between Arcane & Divine magic (as well as subtler class spell list distinctions) that are baked into D&D. For example, running with your Fire (Pyromancy) path example...

We see 3 cantrips that fit – control flames (druid, sorcerer, wizard), fire bolt (artificer, sorcerer, wizard), produce flame (druid).

Clearly control flames fits a multitude of class archetypes, but what about fire bolt vs. produce flame? Does the path offer both cantrips? In that case, the distinction about "druid-fire" being able to be used to illuminate like a torch becomes shared by other arcane casters.

What about the cleric's flame strike which deals both fire and radiant damage? Would that be included in the path, thus being equally accessible to Arcane and Divine casters?

Similar identity question about the druid's flame blade...

That raises the question would this approach include two separate Fire-themed paths, one for Arcane Fire and one for Divine Fire (speaking conceptually, not saying those are good names)? If so, does the Divine Fire get called "Radiance"? But then you have light & produce flame competing for the same design space. And would flame blade (which does exclusively fire damage) be included in the Radiance?

I onced tried a homebrew system using a Skill based system of “Magic Traditions” which were essentially Feats that allowed a PC to customise a spells ‘energy’. The Skills were also defined according to School (Evoker, Conjurer, Mystic (Illusin/Diviner), Enchanter, Transmuter).
As an example a Druid Conjurer could cast Black Tentacles but the visuals would be “strong tree roots and vines boost from the ground ...” even a Storm Wizard could use Black Tentacles via “a field of static to spread across the ground in a 20ft square” - the effect is the same)

So a Wizard following a Pyromancy Traditon would be able to use any Spell that could be explained as manipulating ‘fire’, but they’d need to have the evocation skill to use Fire Bolt and the Conjuration skill to use Produce flame. Sure a Pyromantic Evoker would be able to do something like Flame Strike but they would NOT be able to cause Radiance damage unless they also had a Radiance/Divine Tradition (which they might do via the “Flamewalker of Kossuth Tradition”.

 

[Li Shenron]

I remember an old Dragon article which had spell paths in it, which I assume were inspired by Rolemaster/MERP etc. I was thinking about how that would work in 5E.

So this is just random musings -- but if say "fire mage" was a sub-class for the wizard, and you get access to all fire-themed spells in the core rules (whatever class the spell was originally intended for).

Alternatively, you get access to paths as feats, and each of those feats opens up an entire spell-path to you (fire, ice, plants, whatever).

Very, very rough musings!

To me, the idea of a spellcasting theme has always seemed very nice. It has to be obviously assumed that a player is interested and doesn't start complaining about what she can't do because she chose a "fire" theme and then she's missing tens of tactical abilities from other themes. Because of this, I would want the path/theme not to be the only source of magic, and I would certainly NOT want to introduce the idea of banned schools as a cost for the path.

That said, I think the idea of feats is intriguing because it could be more beneficial to non-Wizards.