Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Takes on Modern Magic

This month's edition of Unearthed Arcana from WotC's Dan Helmick takes on the topic of Modern Magic! Following on from an earlier column about d20 Modern items using 5E rules, this article "presents new rules for expanding the repertoire of spellcasting characters in a modern setting."

"A few months ago, Daniel Helmick described his adaptation for d20 Modern in a Behind the Screens article. He expanded on the rules for using firearms and explosives in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Now, what if we extended the D&D rules to cover a campaign not only touched by, but actually set in a modern era? The newest iteration of D&D features various archetypes, traditions, domains, and other options for the base classes, all of which present opportunities for customization. With that in mind, this article presents new rules for expanding the repertoire of spellcasting characters in a modern setting."

Find it here!

SaveSave​

 

[Sadrik]

This is pretty neat. This can be used for all campaigns too. City domain is a missing domain, something that represents community.

A couple of things and you can shift this to any campaign. When it says electronic device instead use technological device. Technological device includes clockwork, steam powered, and alchemical devices. This is an easy way to get most of the stuff ported directly into any game.

 

[Yaarel]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], I appreciate the call for civility. It speaks well of the ENWorld.org site, where all players are welcome.

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding some of the questions from different posters.

For me and probably many others, it is easier to add flavor than to remove it.

From my experience, it is especially easy to add flavor to setting-neutral rules when the players at the table are also using a Setting Guide, such as Forgotten Realms Sword Coast, Dark Sun, Eberron, Modern, some Homebrew, etcetera.

The core rules need to be useful for almost any setting. A number of the official settings (the ones that I am most likely to use) already lack gods.

The goal of ‘modularity’ especially includes the ability to use the rules in various kinds of setting, especially in the Homebrew settings that each table imagines. The rules need to be usable for all kinds of D&D players playing in all kinds of worlds of imagination.

Divine magic lacks the need for gods. Even in 5e, the Paladin uses divine magic and is godless. The divine power of the Paladin comes from alignment oaths, and its divine power is essentially philosophical.

D&D has a long tradition of philosophical Clerics, going all the way back to 1e, when it was expected (and necessary) for the players themselves to homebrew whatever worlds they wanted to imagine. This D&D tradition of designing rules to facilitate whatever worlds that the players choose to play in, is deeply important to me. For me, it is D&D.

 

[SilentWolf]

The core rules need to be useful for almost any setting. A number of the official settings (the ones that I am most likely to use) already lack gods.

....

D&D has a long tradition of philosophical Clerics, going all the way back to 1e, when it was expected (and necessary) for the players themselves to homebrew whatever worlds they wanted to imagine. This D&D tradition of designing rules to facilitate whatever worlds that the players choose to play in, is deeply important to me. For me, it is D&D.

Yaarel, I understand your issue.
The fact is that you can find what you ask already in D&D 5e. The Dungeon master Guide, page 13, section "Forces and Philosophies", describes how to introduce in your campaign PCs tied to Forces and Philosophies. Normally a Cleric worships gods or other supernatural entities, but that's not mandatory.
If you want, you can interpret the "divine powers" as powers acquired through your PCs' sincere True Faith. Believing deeply in a force, ideal or concept could be considered enough to obtain what normally D&D calls Divine Magic (who says "divine magic" needs to be truly divine? Maybe that's only what people think about this kind of magic).

So, you want to build an Atheist Cleric? Why not? His/her powers maybe come not from a god or other supreme entity, but from his/her True Faith in his/her ideals. An Atheist, after all, is not someone who does not believe in anything. Contrariwise, an Atheist believes firmly in in the need to pursue good and right ideals, only through witch the world can become a better place. An Atheist don't believes good things come from a god will and/or actions, but from the daily actions of every man.
It is a faith not tied to a god, but it is still a faith.


I want to clarify that I'm an Atheist, so at least a little I know what I mean.

 

[Herobizkit]

[MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]: Just a quick note.

The base d20 Modern game didn't have Gods in it either. The Acolyte prestige class was offered as optional material for a specific campaign theme (one that offers Magic/FX). When Urban Arcana was released, it offered D&D Deities as it was a direct analog to the core D&D Greyhawk-themed game, as if the D&D world progressed and became a modern society like our own.

So, odds are there will be enough material to satisfy both camps.

 

[Sadrik]

For me and probably many others, it is easier to add flavor than to remove it.

From my experience, it is especially easy to add flavor to setting-neutral rules when the players at the table are also using a Setting Guide, such as Forgotten Realms Sword Coast, Dark Sun, Eberron, Modern, some Homebrew, etcetera.

The core rules need to be useful for almost any setting. A number of the official settings (the ones that I am most likely to use) already lack gods.

The goal of ‘modularity’ especially includes the ability to use the rules in various kinds of setting, especially in the Homebrew settings that each table imagines. The rules need to be usable for all kinds of D&D players playing in all kinds of worlds of imagination.

I agree, you could do really neat settings where clerics are a whole host of different things. Could be basically sorcerers - their power comes from being innately awesome. Or you could do a setting where clerics - tap into the divine ley lines that wrap the world. You could have a cleric that manipulates spirits. You could have a cleric who is attached to an otherworldly patron (ala warlock). You could have a cleric that gets power from one of the 8 celestial bodies, each celestial body representing a domain (sun and 7 moons/planets). You could even have clerics study magic just like a wizard and give them spellbooks for their blessings.

Anyone who likes coming up with different assumptions asks why flavor gets boiled into classes. The more flavor boiled in the fewer options for a creative DM/player and the more difficult it is to distil it out. I think it makes a whole lot of sense to have a base game that is pretty oatmeal. That does not mean flavor cannot be dripping off. Flavor in this instance comes from the setting. For instance, a base game might have F/M/C/R with just the to-the-bone basics but might suggest open slots in the classes for level by level abilities intended to be slotted for flavorful abilities that a setting would offer. Example for the cleric, the cleric cast divine magic and fights reasonably well and uses certain skills. Then, with a particular setting the class may be further defined as a worshiper of one of many gods and each god grants certain abilities that are plugged into the various ability slots. In this way the cleric can be redefined in a new and unique way very easily by the setting - maybe they are innately awesome like a psion or tap spirits or ghosts or ancestors. All is available then.

It takes more to pull out things a DM/player does not like than to add it. Really this concept is just a sliding scale of how much flavor - playing between not enough and too much. I always err on the side of too much - strip it out and let the setting or DM/player define it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'll second the reference to the DMG. Page 13 makes it explicit that deities aren't necessary for divine power, while another place mentions that clerics "choose Domains, not deities" and that the DM can associate deities with domains however he wants (or by implication, not at all).

 

[Yaarel]

In my experience, the section in the DMG is unsatisfactory, and cannot solve the problem of baked-in setting flavor and the need to rewrite all the rules.

If putting the magic items in the Players Handbook is too disruptive to DMs because it prejudices the expectations that the players have about the setting, then baking in gods and setting cosmology into the rules, is worse.

Currently, the 5e Players Handbook is unusable.

 

[Yaarel]

Seriously, if I have no choice but to rewrite all the rules, in order to eliminate all of the flavor of gods, then I will write up a setting-neutral 5e clone SRD. Then I can refer to it and have others refer to it.

I would rather not, because it is alot of work. But if I have to rewrite all of the rules anyway, I might as well.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What actual rules have to be changed? (I'm not challenging your perspective, I'm just having a hard time thinking of actual rules that require anything more than some sort of spiritual-ish source of power).