D&D (2024) What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?

[Charlaquin]

Only if spell point casting is the default system used by all spellcasters.

Not at all. You could have a slot caster and a point caster in the same party without problems because both are built on the same underlying system. Spell slots and levels matter just as much to 5e’s point-based casting the way it’s built.

Idk how my point is being missed, so I’ll try again.

My contention is not that 5e prepared spells caster is inherently better than other models as a baseline. It is my preferred one, but what my contention actually is, is that it is better for the game for all spellcasters to have things in common by default, and keep alternate systems as options that any class can switch to.

I understand that point, and disagree with it. I would rather each class have its own mechanical identity.

Rather than a spell points class, fully think out the spell points system so that it is fairly balanced on any spellcaster.

I mean, I think that’s a good alternative option to have in the DMG or something, as we do now.

I also hate spell points outside of video games, so there is that. The only way I’d be down is if it were simply 1-1 spell slots to spell points, and even then I’d rather use the current spell slot system.

Sure. Again, spell slots are one example of a casting system a class might have; I’m not advocating for it specifically, so much as the idea of having multiple different casters that work multiple different ways.

 

[Mephista]

I mostly don't care about the spell preparation vs known, nor everyone preparing the same amount. I'm cool with it.

Not so thrilled about the spell school thing on bards, mostly because of the lack of thematic spells. Couldn't care less about it on the ranger.

Whether you have a hand-picked selection of spells available to you, or a list of spells from only certain schools, there's no real difference (except for those individuals who think "X class HAS to have spells A, B & C, otherwise THEY AREN'T TRULY THAT CLASS!).

Like, this is a major misrepresentation of what's going on with the bard. Imagine if you took everything about exploring the wild from the ranger list. Or all healing magicks from the cleric.

The iconic bard is a party buffer and enemy debuffer, but they have only super limited BI as a tool to do it. That feeling of being unable to fulfill the class fantasy is striking

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not at all. You could have a slot caster and a point caster in the same party without problems because both are built on the same underlying system.

The point has nothing to do with how easy or hard to understand and use spell slots or spell points are, or the math not matching up, or whatever you’re alluding to here.

The point is that the game is better off with a player being able to pick up a Druid and know how Spellcasting works, and not have to learn a new way of doing spells on top of everything else that Is different about the Druid.

Spell slots and levels matter just as much to 5e’s point-based casting the way it’s built.

I understand that point, and disagree with it. I would rather each class have its own mechanical identity.

Okay, several statements seemed to not be getting that this was my point, so…it didn’t seem like it.
Also, what I’m saying isn’t contradictory to the goal of individual mechanical identity for each class, because even the wizard isn’t just Spellcasting, and even choice of spells creates a different play experience.

I mean, I think that’s a good alternative option to have in the DMG or something, as we do now.

Better in the PHB, so a player can just choose to deviate with an equally balanced casting system regardless of which class their playing.

 

[Eric V]

It's to try and get people to lighten up.

Is it working?

 

[Charlaquin]

The point has nothing to do with how easy or hard to understand and use spell slots or spell points are, or the math not matching up, or whatever you’re alluding to here.

I don’t know what you think I’m alluding to. It was not my intention to allude to anything. I said what I did because it was what I meant.

The point is that the game is better off with a player being able to pick up a Druid and know how Spellcasting works, and not have to learn a new way of doing spells on top of everything else that Is different about the Druid.

I disagree. I think the game would be better off with more variety in how characters of different classes play.

Okay, several statements seemed to not be getting that this was my point, so…it didn’t seem like it.

we often seem to have this problem where you think I don’t understand you.

Also, what I’m saying isn’t contradictory to the goal of individual mechanical identity for each class, because even the wizard isn’t just Spellcasting, and even choice of spells creates a different play experience.

Sure, but wizards are mostly spellcasting, as are pretty much all full-casters. I don’t find the differences in how they play to be all that significant. Since their identities primarily revolve around casting spells, I think it would be better if they did that in significantly different ways. I’m big on ludonarrative harmony, and I think if there’s narratively a bunch of different kinds of spellcasters, the gameplay should feel like they’re doing different kinds of magic. I think the Warlock achieves that very well, as did the Next sorcerer. I don’t think the other 5e casters do, and I think what we’ve seen of 1D&D casters indicates a possibility that they will feel even less different in the revised rules, which is something I find undesirable.

Better in the PHB, so a player can just choose to deviate with an equally balanced casting system regardless of which class their playing.

Sure, I don’t particularly care which book such rules are housed in.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mostly don't care about the spell preparation vs known, nor everyone preparing the same amount. I'm cool with it.

Not so thrilled about the spell school thing on bards, mostly because of the lack of thematic spells. Couldn't care less about it on the ranger.

Like, this is a major misrepresentation of what's going on with the bard. Imagine if you took everything about exploring the wild from the ranger list. Or all healing magicks from the cleric.

The iconic bard is a party buffer and enemy debuffer, but they have only super limited BI as a tool to do it. That feeling of being unable to fulfill the class fantasy is striking

I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing?

I think it probably would work better to let the bard select spells from any spell list but from limited schools, myself, if they are gonna go this way.

I did see that Faerie Fire is not on the arcane list, and it’s an evocation, which means that….only Druids can cast it? That seems…bad.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t know what you think I’m alluding to. It was not my intention to allude to anything. I said what I did because it was what I meant.

I disagree. I think the game would be better off with more variety in how characters of different classes play.

You keep talking about more variety as if I’m arguing for less, when the opposite is true. We disagree on where that variety should live, or how it’s accessed.

we often seem to have this problem where you think I don’t understand you.

You often seem to be replying to something completely different from what I’ve said, as is happening in this discussion. As if I were making a point wholly disconnected from the point I’m making.
It’s hard to conclude that you understand what point I’m making when you reply to a statement about individualizing choice of Spellcasting type with a unified default as if I were talking about every character having exactly the same casting features.

Sure, but wizards are mostly spellcasting, as are pretty much all full-casters.

I disagree. I…view this statement as completely false. The wizard is the most defined by thier Spellcasting, to thier detriment, and every other full caster has either another very significant feature and a smattering of others, or just a variety of features. The cleric has nearly as much going on outside of spells as a half-caster, as does the Bard. The warlock is almost more invocations and boons and patron features than spells, and the sorcerer’s spell list is overshadowed IME by sorcery points and meta-magic, and then also has origin features.

I don’t find the differences in how they play to be all that significant. Since their identities primarily revolve around casting spells, I think it would be better if they did that in significantly different ways.

I struggle to see how you can see the very different spells of the wizard and Druid as “not significantly different”, as someone who does see the different classes powers in 4e as significantly different.

I’m big on ludonarrative harmony, and I think if there’s narratively a bunch of different kinds of spellcasters, the gameplay should feel like they’re doing different kinds of magic. I think the Warlock achieves that very well, as did the Next sorcerer. I don’t think the other 5e casters do, and I think what we’ve seen of 1D&D casters indicates a possibility that they will feel even less different in the revised rules, which is something I find undesirable.

and I think that very harmony is disrupted by each and every spellcaster having their own underlying system rather than only the spellcasters who are narratively “weird” having different systems.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing?

I think it probably would work better to let the bard select spells from any spell list but from limited schools, myself, if they are gonna go this way.

I did see that Faerie Fire is not on the arcane list, and it’s an evocation, which means that….only Druids can cast it? That seems…bad.

One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation even more of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One of these days I’m gonna have to sit down and make a spreadsheet of the spells the classes get in these UAs compared to their classic 5e spell lists, cause I’m in the same boat, not really clear on what they’re gaining or losing. I will say, this new method is going to make spell preparation even more of a PITA because you don’t just have a handy dandy list of the spells your character can learn. If the revised PHB organizes spells alphabetically, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare to do without digital tools. Though it’s possible that’s a feature not a bug in WotC’s eyes.

I’m 103% certain that wizards isn’t going to try to push people into digital tools like that. It would absolutely inevitably fail, and backfire. It’s just too easy to play D&D without wizard’s help.

 

[MoonSong]

I’m having trouble focusing on the task for long enough to finish. Which spells are the Bard losing?

Almost all buffs/debuffs. No heroism or bane