Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks

New playtest material fro WoTC.

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

I think this would be my DM's nightmare if implemented.

 

[mrpopstar]

That sounds more like a PBTA game than DnD, to me.

Part of the appeal of dnd magic is that it works differently. Even in 4e, wizards, clerics, and bards, all did very different things. The actual mechanics of the spellcasters should feel different.

To be fair, it's resource management across the spellcasters that works differently. Their spells and "magic" work the same.

Personally, I think "same but different" adds needless complexity when there are opportunities to differentiate in more meaningful ways. Alternate approaches to resource management are perfectly viable variant rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To be fair, it's resource management across the spellcasters that works differently. Their spells and "magic" work the same.

Personally, I think "same but different" adds needless complexity when there are opportunities to differentiate in more meaningful ways. Alternate approaches to resource management are perfectly viable variant rules.

The resource management is different, as are the spell lists, and the class features.

 

[mrpopstar]

The resource management is different, as are the spell lists, and the class features.

Class features are how resource management is differentiated, so they're not separate considerations. As far as spell lists go, they differ, though arguably not enough.

I'm aiming for a spellcaster being a spellcaster where wizardry does not allow a spellcaster to summon fiends, but witchcraft does. Etc, etc.

 

[paladinn]

I think spells should be spells.. The type of spellcaster you are depends on what you pick. If you want a cleric, pick healing, turn undead, some protective spells. for a cleric of a god of fire, add fireball and such. If you want a druid, pick wildshape and nature-based spells. If you want a specialist wizard, pick accordingly.

I think this allows ultimate flexibility in character concept without the added complexity and constraints of "class features."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think spells should be spells.. The type of spellcaster you are depends on what you pick. If you want a cleric, pick healing, turn undead, some protective spells. for a cleric of a god of fire, add fireball and such. If you want a druid, pick wildshape and nature-based spells. If you want a specialist wizard, pick accordingly.

I think this allows ultimate flexibility in character concept without the added complexity and constraints of "class features."

The danger in this approach is that not all spells are created equally, and many spells are largely redundant. If given the option of playing a spellcaster who knows all of the most useful spells from a variety of different themes, or all spells from one theme, then it's hard to keep the two spell lists balanced.

Looking at the Light domain, for example, it grants six different fire spells; but a spellcaster who only took fireball would still be able to play that role in the party, while also covering a wide variety of other roles with their non-fire spells.

One of the major benefits of strongly codified classes and sub-classes is that you don't need every class feature to be as strong as every possible alternative, because a member of that class (or sub-class) is already locked into the package deal. If taking one fire spell locks you into taking all six, and there's no way to get any fire spells without committing to that theme, then you don't have to worry about cherry-picking.

 

[paladinn]

The danger in this approach is that not all spells are created equally, and many spells are largely redundant. If given the option of playing a spellcaster who knows all of the most useful spells from a variety of different themes, or all spells from one theme, then it's hard to keep the two spell lists balanced.

Looking at the Light domain, for example, it grants six different fire spells; but a spellcaster who only took fireball would still be able to play that role in the party, while also covering a wide variety of other roles with their non-fire spells.

One of the major benefits of strongly codified classes and sub-classes is that you don't need every class feature to be as strong as every possible alternative, because a member of that class (or sub-class) is already locked into the package deal. If taking one fire spell locks you into taking all six, and there's no way to get any fire spells without committing to that theme, then you don't have to worry about cherry-picking.

I think a lot of this needs to be left up to the player. And it's not a matter of being "locked into" anything. If a players wants to take fireball without taking burning hands or flaming sphere, why not? Of course, a fire cleric would Want to take all that (as well as flame strike and scotching ray and ???), but that should be up to the player.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Class features are how resource management is differentiated, so they're not separate considerations. As far as spell lists go, they differ, though arguably not enough.

I'm aiming for a spellcaster being a spellcaster where wizardry does not allow a spellcaster to summon fiends, but witchcraft does. Etc, etc.

It’s definately more than resource management, though. A Druid and a wizard aren’t alike. That’s good, even if all it means in a simpler DnD is that at level 1 or 2 you pick what kind of caster you are, and that gives you either wildshape, a pact boon, or a spellbook with the better ritual caster feature, or something, along with telling you what spells you can pick from then on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think a lot of this needs to be left up to the player. And it's not a matter of being "locked into" anything. If a players wants to take fireball without taking burning hands or flaming sphere, why not? Of course, a fire cleric would Want to take all that (as well as flame strike and scotching ray and ???), but that should be up to the player.

As a player, I would have a hard time choosing burning hands and fireball and flame strike over healing word and fireball and wall of force. Even if my concept is a fire mage who primarily casts fire at people, fireball is sufficient in the vast majority of situations where I'd want to do that, and picking redundant fire spells over actual increased utility feels a lot like shooting myself in the foot.

Presenting both possibilities as though they were equal, and expecting a player to self-limit on the basis of theme, seems unreasonable to me.

 

[paladinn]

As a player, I would have a hard time choosing burning hands and fireball and flame strike over healing word and fireball and wall of force. Even if my concept is a fire mage who primarily casts fire at people, fireball is sufficient in the vast majority of situations where I'd want to do that, and picking redundant fire spells over actual increased utility feels a lot like shooting myself in the foot.

Presenting both possibilities as though they were equal, and expecting a player to self-limit on the basis of theme, seems unreasonable to me.

But you are also limited by your spellcaster level. You're not eligible for fireball until level 5. Before that I should think you want burning hands, etc. And if you want to do more than throw fireballs, you Have to take something else. But what you take is Your choice. If All you want to do is blast, you should be able to do that; but don't call yourself a healing cleric.

I'd also think with this flexible spell system, the player should be able to come up with some RP reason for the spells s/he picks. If s/he tells the DM that s/he wants a fire mage, s/he should have to use that as a guide in spell choice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But you are also limited by your spellcaster level. You're not eligible for fireball until level 5. Before that I should think you want burning hands, etc.

Fair enough. I might want to take burning hands before I have access to fireball, although I would still be hard-pressed to take flaming strike after I already have fireball. Most of my experience with flexible class (and class-free) systems are also level-less, so that wasn't something I'd taken into consideration. In a game like Shadowrun, for example, all of your spells are available during character creation.

And if you want to do more than throw fireballs, you Have to take something else. But what you take is Your choice. If All you want to do is blast, you should be able to do that; but don't call yourself a healing cleric.

When it comes to game design, one thing that a lot of free-form games fail to consider is that a choice between un-equal options is not a real choice. I'm not going to choose a spell that I'm unlikely to ever use (because I already have something better, for situations where it would apply) over a spell that I might use (because it applies in a situation that I don't have covered yet); and it's kind of a cop out for them to present it as a viable option.

As a more clear example, imagine that a 5E-style warlock was given the choice between Proficiency in a new skill, or +1 to hit with daggers. Even though neither option improves the warlock's core concept, the skill proficiency is something that might actually come up, while there's no reason for the warlock to ever use a dagger (and +1 to hit would not change that). It's not even really a choice.

I'd also think with this flexible spell system, the player should be able to come up with some RP reason for the spells s/he picks. If s/he tells the DM that s/he wants a fire mage, s/he should have to use that as a guide in spell choice.

Players can come up with an RP reason for any choice they make. One very old lesson in RPG Design: don't gate mechanical benefits behind role-playing considerations, unless you're sure that the RP is a sufficient drawback to balance it.

If one player conceives of their character as an impulsive fire mage, while the other conceives of their character as a calm-and-collected Batman-style king-of-all-trades, then the game shouldn't un-duly reward the latter concept over the former. Players shouldn't have the option to play a character that's just better than another character.