Casting Style - Throwing the Gauntlet Down

223 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok. I know many people would want WotC to pull the casting systems into optional modules so that each player can choose the casting style for their favorite casting class.

So I'm calling for people to post in this thread if you would want WotC to separate out the casting mechanics from class.

Please don't discuss the pros and cons there are many threads for that. This thread is to get an idea of how many people could live with it and how many people would purchase the game if they made this change.

Vancian can remain default for Wizard as long as players can choose to swap Vancian out for another casting system such as Spell Points, AEDU, or Skill check. Same for Sorcerer and Warlock.

Please post if you are for this or against it...

Edit: Please post clearly one of these three at the top or bottom of your post on a separate line so it will be easy to count: For, undecided, against.

Feel free to explain why you are for or against, but please don't get into long discussions about it, there are several other threads for the dicussion part.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I am for this.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Against

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

Yes, I would prefer mechanics separated from class.  I doubt it will happen, because WotC will want the game ready for play by young 'uns and noobies, and that's a little more advanced than a grab and go, first time character builder will want do.  I guess it might be a fun way to build your caster?  But it might be hard to do with the omnipresent onboarding consideration.  I think if they can lick that issue, it would be my preference to have options for each class.  I can live if that comes later though.  I might actually even prefer the in a mega magic splat book so the context of each can be better evaluated and advised on.  A PHB by necessity will be a flyover of the concepts.

My vote: It's not a dealbreak if they don't, but it would be cooler if they did separate them.



I vote for.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
If you're suggesting that wizards, sorcerers and warlocks all be vancian by default, but all three classes have the option to use spell points or AEDU instead, then no.

Against. Strongly against.
Yes, I would prefer mechanics separated from class.  I doubt it will happen, because WotC will want the game ready for play by young 'uns and noobies, and that's a little more advanced than a grab and go, first time character builder will want do.  I guess it might be a fun way to build your caster?  But it might be hard to do with the omnipresent onboarding consideration.  I think if they can lick that issue, it would be my preference to have options for each class.  I can live if that comes later though.  I might actually even prefer the in a mega magic splat book so the context of each can be better evaluated and advised on.  A PHB by necessity will be a flyover of the concepts.




This, minus the crossed out part is my attitude.
Imho giving three classes with three different casting styles in the corebook is enough of a compromise between pro and anti-vancian, and trying to make everything modular right there in the phb would make the game unwieldy for beginners and casuals.
However I do think that option for other casting styles should be presented in a soon to follow splatbook on magic.

So my vote is: Not in the corebook, Yes, in a splatbook.
Against, I'm afraid.
If you're suggesting that wizards, sorcerers and warlocks all be vancian by default, but all three classes have the option to use spell points or AEDU instead, then no.

Against. Strongly against.



No. He is suggesting something like: Wizard is Vancian by default. Sorcerer is Spell-Point by default. Warlock is AEDU by default. By with any of these (an the other) casting classes, there is the possibility of swapping the default casting mechanic by another, and this possibility is endorsed by the game rules (not just through houseruling). Like, a sidebar somewhere that states how you could do it, the benefits from doing it, and the problems someone might encounter.

And I'm completely in favor with this idea. I mean, I'll buy the game even if they don't implement it, but it would be super cool to actually create a character the way you like.

TL;DR: I am for this.
Modularity in casting systems is absolutely crucial if I'm even going to look at this once it drops.  I'm never DMing a Vancian game ever again.  And don't even get me started on *brrrrr* spellpoints.

I'm in.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
I've pretty much given up all hope of DDN being something I'd willingly buy, but being able to play a non-Vancian wizard would at least get me to look at the system again.
I am for this:

Whether the game was 3.5 or 4E or a spellpoint game I could come up with a fluff reason for why magic worked the way the book said it did, no approach seems more inherently magical then another.

Giving everybody all options is the best possible approach because it's not denying one single person the right to play as they like.

That said on the whole AEDU vs Vancian thing on the issue of casters itself I am neutral, on the issue of not casters where the problem  was AEDU vs a bunch of things that can't even make a difference I am of course on the side of AEDU, so my end point is don't let this debate of 4E Wizard vs 3.5 Wizard distract designers from working on the other people who will be sharing the field with Wizards they also need love.
Mike Mearlsdisdain say yesterday in the dm panel that if they got enough feedback in favor of it, that hey would include rules for swapping out the casting styles of the wizards with that of the warlock or sorcerer.  So give lots of feedback!
  Very much for giving all the spellcasters various forms of casting.

  It's just silly that we have two systems for martial characters, one for divine, and then three different kinds of arcane casters. In most settings and most games, they make up the smallest portion of any character classes.
I'm also in favor of swappable casting systems.
For soo much.

For the sake of discussion, would people who are against this mind posting their reasonings?
Mike Mearlsdisdain say yesterday in the dm panel that if they got enough feedback in favor of it, that hey would include rules for swapping out the casting styles of the wizards with that of the warlock or sorcerer.  So give lots of feedback!



Is this for real? Is there a video, or a transcript? Man, you just made my morning a lot more shinny! :D
I'm for.

We were promised a gamed that would be modulized to suit taste and complexity. So far they are not really keeping this premise.
I absolutely, 100%, think that there should be rules for alternate magic systems other than Vancian.

However, if they go that route, I think the idea of "core" classes being split between different systems of magic is a mistake. It adds complication where there doesn't need to be any. Player A wants to be a core Sorcerer, but Player B wants to be a point-based Wizard. How do you make those two characters feel different enough to warrant having separate classes? Sure, it's possible, but it adds complication where there doesn't need to be any.

Personally, I'm of the opinion, "Give me a basic arcane caster, and then give me the tools to make him/her unique to my vision." For example, let's call the base arcane caster a Wizard. If I want him to feel more like a traditional "Sorcerer" then maybe I'll swap his magic system to something less "learned" and something more "natural" and call him a Sorcerer.
No need for wholy seperate classes. This game needs more tool-box, not more "we already built it for you."




Also, I totally agree with EnglishLanguage, but one step further. Regardless if you are for or against, can you please say why? "Yes/no, because yes/no" doesn't really add to a discussion in a constructive way.
lokiare's intention with this thread was to get votes so the devs can know the percentage of people who want this to happen. There are a lot of different threads where the discussions of "why yes / why no" are happening.
Against.

I'd mo more for  trying to pack more into flavor and make the flavor swappable. (Spellbook, Patron Pack, Innate Power etc..) I think it'd be simpler than trying to make all Spellcasting methoids into every class. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Mike Mearlsdisdain say yesterday in the dm panel that if they got enough feedback in favor of it, that hey would include rules for swapping out the casting styles of the wizards with that of the warlock or sorcerer.  So give lots of feedback!



Is this for real? Is there a video, or a transcript? Man, you just made my morning a lot more shinny! :D



It is for real.  I was the one that asked the question.

I don't quite remember the answer the same way, however.

I asked whether, as DMs, we would be given the latitude and direction to allow our casters to choose which type of casting to use: Vancian, AEDU, Spell Points, etc.

Their initial response was that you could just scratch out the word "Sorcerer" and write "Wizard", and use spell points.  By taking appropriate Background and Specialty choices, your "Sorcerer" becomes very close to a Wizard.

One of the panel pointed out that there were other differences.  That was when the "Aha!" light bulb seemed to go one over their heads, and they seemed to get it.  They then said that they couldn't think of a technical reason against doing it, and said that it certainly was possible.

I could have just forgotten the part about getting enough feeback.  At that point I was just standing there incredulous at the over change in WotC's attitude toward these sorts of suggestions.

When I came to GenCon I was still lamenting the imminent passing of my favorite game since 1978.

Now I'm very hopeful that 5e will indeed be a rebirth of D&D.

I know that sounds pretty much like I'm a plant, or that I'm a shill.  I am neither.  It is my heartfelt opinion after seeing the completely refreshing attitude displayed by the D&D team this time around at GenCon.

Now I have hope, and I will continue to participate in the playtesting to do my part.

-Thomas
 
Very much for making the casting system a choice not tied to class.
Against. I enjoy having unique and recognizable mechanical identities associated with each class and wish to preserve this as a hallmark of the game.

However, a Player's Option supplement that offered more in the way of customizable plug and play is something I fully support.

Danny

Against. I like the idea of classes which each have a unique rule system. 
If WotC thinks they can pull it off, then I am strongly in favor of this. It would be great. But I just don't know if WotC can make this work without muddling classes together. I'm not going to list the reasons why. So unless WotC says (we could do this", I am against.
Thank you, tpkurilla. I was as shocked as you by their apparent willfulness to implement this posibility. Let's hope they listen!

Man, I really wish I could go to these conventions. Living so far away sucks
As long as vancian (ie casting very similar to pre-3rd edition) exists as a fully equal option as-is (ie I don't have to jump hoops, take time, or suffer consequences others don't) then I don't care how or what they do. I'd prefer that people that want a different option available receive equal treatment as well since that increases the marketability of the game

This except I'm looking at it from the other side. I'd say. "As long as vancian (ie casting very similar to pre-3rd edition) can be replaced and therefor doesn't have to exist in my game with a fully equal option as-is (ie I don't have to jump hoops, take time, or suffer consequences others don't) then I don't care how or what they do.
I like classes with different mechanics as well. So the default option for me is: keep it simple and no.

Such things should stay away from phb imo, a new player reading this stuff would think of them as a waste of space and time at best. A module covering them? Yes pls I'd like that very much.
It can be a module. I think no one argues that it should be in a module. As long as such module is released early in the edition (let's say, in the DMG, or in a splatbook two months after release) and not after three years of me being stuck with Vancian Wizards, then I see no reason to argue against it appearing in a module.
I would like to see casting styles removed from the classes.

have:

Book learned vancian.
Spell points.
Gains spells from a supernatural being.
aedu.

Define "class" by the "spell schools" you use.

 
I like classes with different mechanics as well. So the default option for me is: keep it simple and no.

Such things should stay away from phb imo, a new player reading this stuff would think of them as a waste of space and time at best. A module covering them? Yes pls I'd like that very much.


My preferences exactly.

I would like to see the module (giving rules for hot-swapping casting methods) in the first release of the D&DNext equivalent of the Arcane Power rulebook. 
I'm ok with having each casting style be a different class, but if I ever encounter some kind of flavor-nazi GM, I'd prefer to be able to choose casting style.

Because honestly, the only type of spellcaster I'd ever really want to play, is an all at-will one, like the 3rd edition Warlock/Dragon Adept, but I super hate the idea of making deals with evil things.  And while I'd tolerate the Next Warlock, I don't love the encounter powers (both the fact that they are encounter powers and the powers themselves, which disappoint me) and I hate the idea that every ten minutes I'm off pleading with some evil being to help me more.
Why am I against?

1) I think it would make the game bewilderingly complicated for a beginner. In order to make a character, you would need to understand all the different systems and decide which one you liked best, and then come up with a story explaining the in game way and reason your character does what he does. You could try to avoid this by offering defaults, but if three-fourths of the rules are non-default options, it will be hard to pick out what is important for a beginner to know.

2) I think that mechanics and flavor are both stronger when they work together, not when they are divorced from each other. This is a lesson I learned from 4e. I want the rules to form a cohesive story, where people who study magic from books can learn to do one kind of thing, while people who make pacts with powerful entities can do related things but with clear differences. This is why I favor a more-or-less universal arcane spell list, too: fundamentally, all these classes should be tapping the same power source or in-game physics. If you move away from this, the game starts to feel arbitrary and abstract, not cohesive and real.

3) I want the game to feel like dnd. Dnd is a class-based game where your character mechanics are largely set by your class. I think that is a more central tradition than any particular mechanics, like wizards being Vancian etc.

4) I fear the slippery slope. Why should this type of flexibility be limited to arcane casters? What if someone wants a fighter who uses a Vancian mechanic for maneuvers? Or a spell-book wizard who uses the rogue mechanics to describe his magic? I'm afraid people who like this really want a system where the rules present a handful of entirely neutral mechanics to which you add flavor as desired. This could be done, and might make a fine game, but it would not be anything like dnd. (And I doubt that I personally would like it very much.)

I would be fine with optional modules explaining how to customize the game however you want. I just think that the core game needs to decide what it is and go with it.
To add to my post.

For, however, I am fine with a default casting system for each class(like how Wizard, Sorceror, and Warlock are now), as long as I have an option to swap casting styles with each class, and that option is supported by core, in case of "by the books" DMs.
I think Sorceror, Warlocks, and Wizards should each have a unique class styling as their "base".

Sorceror's have this with their Sorcerous Origin

Warlocks have this with their Pact

Wizards don't have this, they'd need one created.

Then each should have their generalized spell list. This could be shared amongst all 3, shared between the wizard and sorc with the Warlock being unique, or all three unique, I don't care.

Then there should be a side bar giving you rules on how to utilize either a Vancian system, a Spell Point system, or a ADEU system on each class utilizing their spell list. 

This way all three "arcane" type magic classes have a unique and different base mechanic that works in its own way....but all three have the ability to function with its spells in the method preferred by the individual player. Each option should attempt to be relatively balanced against the others as best as possible.

So in short...YES, I do approve of allowing modules to be used, as long as each class has something somewhat unique to them in terms of class abilities to seperate clearly a Vancian Wizard from a Vancian Sorc or a ADEU Wizard from an ADEU Warlock.
I leaning towards against.  It is a hard yes/no question IMO.  I mean it kind of matters how it is pulled off.  

Will the feel of the classes be as strong if you can swap things that easily?
Will they all have the same spell lists?
If yes how can you balance it?
If no will people be satisfied?
How will other core class features balance with casting style swaps.  For example the warlock has +2 to hit with weapons if I can drop vancian on top of that how does that work, or am I just wizard+.  


From what I can tell you can insanely easily swap the flavor of the classes, I can toss the name wizard on the warlock reflavor pacts with book learning, a short rest to commune with your dark master becomes a short rest to hit the books a few other easy swaps and we are good to go.  So I really don't see the issue as is even.
I am not sure how easily this would be to balance, but I would like it as it would give you all kinds of options.  Could you have Vancian and AEDU wizards in the same campaign?
I vote for modularity to define how classes use magic, rather than having different classes use magic differently.

This would be so incredibly easy to build into DDI Character Builder which already manages rule choice and character options very very well.

And there is no reason why you can't use this modularity to print a red box that has different classes use magic differently, then print an advanced magic book with examples and how to for making your own playable classes using these modular building blocks.

It is up to the DM to dictate how this modularity will be used.  They need books for understanding pros and cons for balancing  different choices, and how to easily assemble something that makes it easy for PCs to choose.   


Absolutely for having the "default" classes as they are now, with alternate class features to bring flexibility into casting mechanics.  If you want your single-target blaster to be a book guy instead of a devil guy, the mechanics should be able to support that.

Incidentally, as some people have alluded to, there's no reason you couldn't also have a "subterfuge fighter" with amped-up sneak attack, or "tactical rogue" with weaker CS die progression.

If the theme of D&DN is modularity, they need to do more than just pay lip service to it. 
Ok. I know many people would want WotC to pull the casting systems into optional modules so that each player can choose the casting style for their favorite casting class.

So I'm calling for people to post in this thread if you would want WotC to separate out the casting mechanics from class.

Please don't discuss the pros and cons there are many threads for that. This thread is to get an idea of how many people could live with it and how many people would purchase the game if they made this change.

Vancian can remain default for Wizard as long as players can choose to swap Vancian out for another casting system such as Spell Points, AEDU, or Skill check. Same for Sorcerer and Warlock.

Please post if you are for this or against it...

I'm generally against divorcing mechanics from classes.  In my opinion, it presents an unnecessary level of complexity for new players.  That added compexity would server as a barrier to keeping new players.  I would rather see the generic text associated with a class be more generic.  That would allow a class to fill the perceived role of another class.  In other words, a generic description would allow a sorceror and wizard to interchange the societal roles within a campaign world. 

Amplifying text could be added to other class features (like pacts and bloodlines) to give a different feel for the class, but I do think a generic bloodline and pact need to be included to facilitate those worlds that want a AEDU or spell point wizard.