Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7629933" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>Yep, that would be one possibility, though I think that you still run the risk of presenting a singular lore that becomes a new canon with your approach (i.e., these are the multiple different subspecies of kobolds) as opposed to presenting alternatives (i.e., you may prefer your kobolds like this instead). </p><p></p><p>My own preference, though I respect yours differs, is that druids are distinct from clerics. Why play a druid when its just a nature cleric? This seems to be an implict concession in your decision to convert druids to nature clerics. For your 1e homebrew system, that may be what they are because that is what they were. But I don't necessarily think that is what they have to be or should be. And in 4e, for example, I liked that they made Druids draw from the Primal source of power that represented the magic of the Material plane produced from mixing the Divine Order and Elemental Chaos. </p><p></p><p>To elucidate a bit on the problem that you pick up below, I think the problem I have with a simple divine/arcane divide is that when there are two sources, my instincts feel like it's not reduced enough, and that a singular magic type would work better. OR at times I feel that the divide is not enough (depending upon what I want for a game), and that there should additional magic types. Furthermore, I tend to dislike binaries, which is why I prefer either unified magic systems (see below) or 3+ types (e.g., Runequest, 4e, PF2, etc.). That's why I liked how 4e divided classes into more than just two types of magic: martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic. Pathfinder 2 is also doing something similar by having four spell lists (instead of class specific ones): divine, arcane, primal, and occult. (Bards use the Occult spell list in PF2. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />) I appreciate the PF2 approach because it streamlines spell lists and makes those differences in power sources more meaningful. Overall though, there is just something about the divine/arcane divide that persistently rubs me the wrong way. So, as per your statement below, creating a unified spell/magic system that gets rid of an arcane/divine divide can conflict with what I said about primal magic druids, but it largely depends on which direction you go. And when I talk a bit more about AU/AE, then I can also use their "nature mage" as an example for how druids could also work under such a system while still preserving a universal spell system. </p><p></p><p>I don't have too much of an opinion either way on this. Profound, I know. </p><p></p><p>I suggested modularity so that they can be optional, so we don't need to debate the appropriateness of minion mechanics here. </p><p></p><p>And that is a question worth asking or considering for any future edition. </p><p></p><p>I moved this next portion down a bit so I could have a bit more room to write. </p><p>Monte Cook wrote Arcana Unearthed (and later updated it as Arcana Evolved) based on the 3.X d20 system. AU went up to level 20 and 9th level spells, but AE increased levels to 25th level and added 10th level spells. (Because Monte Cook could, so he did.) </p><p></p><p>It used a system of magic similar to what we find in 5e where casters could spontaneously cast spells that they had prepared each day using their spell slots. These spells could also be cast using a lower spell slot for a diminished effect or at a higher spell slot for a heightened effect. You could also sacrifice a higher level slot for two spell slots of a spell level lower or sacrifice three spell slots of a level for a single spell slot above. There were also Spell Templates that could be added atop spells to change their appearance, effects, or requirements. But this isn't necessarily what I was talking about. </p><p></p><p>There was a singular magic spell list for everyone who used spells; however, the spells you could cast from this list would still vary based upon your class. That's because access to this universal spell list still had a number of filters. Spells range from level 0 cantrips to level 10 spells. Some classes had up to 10th level spells at 25th level, while others only gained a max of level 8th level spells. For each level of spells, spells were organized into three categories: simple, complex, and exotic. Simple spells were spells that everyone who could cast at that level would have access to cast. Less classes got access to complex spells (and not necessarily even all). Exotic spells are spells that were far less common, representing either old spells that had been forgotten or newer ones that were not yet widely disseminated. Additionally, spells also had various descriptor tags (e.g., fire, dragon, giant, positive energy, negative energy, plant, etc.) that could be used for filtering what classes got what spells. So for example, one class was the Greenbond, which represented both the healer and nature mage. The Greenbond could cast simple spells up to 10th level and <em>all spells</em> that had either the plant or positive energy descriptor, which I believe includes even Exotic spells. The Magister could cast all simple and complex spells up to 10th level. The Mage Blade could cast all simple spells up to 8th level. </p><p></p><p>In effect, this meant that even your "wizard" (the Magister) and "gish" (the Mage Blade) had easy access to healing magic. The Magister could cast healing spells (if they had been readied or prepared), but your Greenbond will probably be better at it, because they had more features to support it and access to exotic positive energy spells. Likewise, even your healer could cast blasting magic. Your niche was primarily reinforced by your class features designed around playstyles: e.g., lightly-armored fighter, heavily-armored fighter, skill monkey, champion for a cause, unarmored combatant, master of magic, innate mage, gish, etc. </p><p></p><p>Balance was a bit out-of-whack for AU/AE. Monte Cook is notorious for his spellcaster favoritism. Nevertheless, I think that this is a pretty neat and elegant system that could easily be adjusted for most d20 D&D-based games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7629933, member: 5142"] Yep, that would be one possibility, though I think that you still run the risk of presenting a singular lore that becomes a new canon with your approach (i.e., these are the multiple different subspecies of kobolds) as opposed to presenting alternatives (i.e., you may prefer your kobolds like this instead). My own preference, though I respect yours differs, is that druids are distinct from clerics. Why play a druid when its just a nature cleric? This seems to be an implict concession in your decision to convert druids to nature clerics. For your 1e homebrew system, that may be what they are because that is what they were. But I don't necessarily think that is what they have to be or should be. And in 4e, for example, I liked that they made Druids draw from the Primal source of power that represented the magic of the Material plane produced from mixing the Divine Order and Elemental Chaos. To elucidate a bit on the problem that you pick up below, I think the problem I have with a simple divine/arcane divide is that when there are two sources, my instincts feel like it's not reduced enough, and that a singular magic type would work better. OR at times I feel that the divide is not enough (depending upon what I want for a game), and that there should additional magic types. Furthermore, I tend to dislike binaries, which is why I prefer either unified magic systems (see below) or 3+ types (e.g., Runequest, 4e, PF2, etc.). That's why I liked how 4e divided classes into more than just two types of magic: martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic. Pathfinder 2 is also doing something similar by having four spell lists (instead of class specific ones): divine, arcane, primal, and occult. (Bards use the Occult spell list in PF2. ;)) I appreciate the PF2 approach because it streamlines spell lists and makes those differences in power sources more meaningful. Overall though, there is just something about the divine/arcane divide that persistently rubs me the wrong way. So, as per your statement below, creating a unified spell/magic system that gets rid of an arcane/divine divide can conflict with what I said about primal magic druids, but it largely depends on which direction you go. And when I talk a bit more about AU/AE, then I can also use their "nature mage" as an example for how druids could also work under such a system while still preserving a universal spell system. I don't have too much of an opinion either way on this. Profound, I know. I suggested modularity so that they can be optional, so we don't need to debate the appropriateness of minion mechanics here. And that is a question worth asking or considering for any future edition. I moved this next portion down a bit so I could have a bit more room to write. Monte Cook wrote Arcana Unearthed (and later updated it as Arcana Evolved) based on the 3.X d20 system. AU went up to level 20 and 9th level spells, but AE increased levels to 25th level and added 10th level spells. (Because Monte Cook could, so he did.) It used a system of magic similar to what we find in 5e where casters could spontaneously cast spells that they had prepared each day using their spell slots. These spells could also be cast using a lower spell slot for a diminished effect or at a higher spell slot for a heightened effect. You could also sacrifice a higher level slot for two spell slots of a spell level lower or sacrifice three spell slots of a level for a single spell slot above. There were also Spell Templates that could be added atop spells to change their appearance, effects, or requirements. But this isn't necessarily what I was talking about. There was a singular magic spell list for everyone who used spells; however, the spells you could cast from this list would still vary based upon your class. That's because access to this universal spell list still had a number of filters. Spells range from level 0 cantrips to level 10 spells. Some classes had up to 10th level spells at 25th level, while others only gained a max of level 8th level spells. For each level of spells, spells were organized into three categories: simple, complex, and exotic. Simple spells were spells that everyone who could cast at that level would have access to cast. Less classes got access to complex spells (and not necessarily even all). Exotic spells are spells that were far less common, representing either old spells that had been forgotten or newer ones that were not yet widely disseminated. Additionally, spells also had various descriptor tags (e.g., fire, dragon, giant, positive energy, negative energy, plant, etc.) that could be used for filtering what classes got what spells. So for example, one class was the Greenbond, which represented both the healer and nature mage. The Greenbond could cast simple spells up to 10th level and [I]all spells[/I] that had either the plant or positive energy descriptor, which I believe includes even Exotic spells. The Magister could cast all simple and complex spells up to 10th level. The Mage Blade could cast all simple spells up to 8th level. In effect, this meant that even your "wizard" (the Magister) and "gish" (the Mage Blade) had easy access to healing magic. The Magister could cast healing spells (if they had been readied or prepared), but your Greenbond will probably be better at it, because they had more features to support it and access to exotic positive energy spells. Likewise, even your healer could cast blasting magic. Your niche was primarily reinforced by your class features designed around playstyles: e.g., lightly-armored fighter, heavily-armored fighter, skill monkey, champion for a cause, unarmored combatant, master of magic, innate mage, gish, etc. Balance was a bit out-of-whack for AU/AE. Monte Cook is notorious for his spellcaster favoritism. Nevertheless, I think that this is a pretty neat and elegant system that could easily be adjusted for most d20 D&D-based games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
Top