|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 4:44PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2011
|
EDIT: After hearing some thoughts on this, here's some refined points to this.
- Ala Backgrounds, a small benefit can offset the "packaging" of spells' lessened powergamability.
- Using feats, 4E and 3E both kinda enforced this powergame-wise (ew, less flavor), rather than this system, which enforces it flavor/efficiency wise. You'd game your stats to get the feat that added damage to Fire and Radiant damage, and when you leveled up you'd have to take Fire/Radiant spells or the feat was a waste.
- Ala Backgrounds (instead of skills) and Specialties (instead of feats), this can be the norm to speed up chargen and DM-approval. Then, if you DO want modularity, DMs and Players still have the option to go backward. Don't like Backgrounds? Fine, choose 3 skills. Don't like Specialties? Fine, they work like feats with prerequisites. Don't like Spell Trees? Fine, choose spells modularly. But packages are there as a starting chargen technique, and if you DON'T like modularity you can tear it into smaller chunks, which you will probably be doing with specialties and backgrounds at the same time.
- Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting turning Burning Hands/Flaming Sphere/ Fireball into one scaling superspell that grows with the character. There's mechanical changes in these that make them a lot more unique than just extra D6's. I'm saying you choose 'em in a packaged fashion, so making characters is less time-consuming. As an example of this, go make a 17th level Wizard in 3E, or a 17th level anything in 4E. Because there's so much crap to choose from, it takes forever. Back when I was playing 3E, if I had to make a character for an inexperienced player, I'd automatically shoehorn them into Barbarian or Rogue. DEFINITELY not a spellcaster, and the feat-bloated fighter also sucked. Sure, I mightt book an evening to make a wizard I was gonna play, but not someone else. Spell packages mean this would not suck nearly as bad.
As I've been outlining on another thread thread ( community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...) the things I'm liking about 5E is that it often pushes less bloat and more flavor. Some examples:
- You don't get a complex pile of skill points that take forever to distribute, DM-approve, level up, and figure out right before the roll. You instead use abilities, and get a story-rich package that makes your skills into flavor rather than a bin of unsorted legos.
- You don't get a convoluted pile of modular feats, taking forever to plan at 11th level and causing a giant pile of bonuses that are hard to keep track with increased chances to make a broken character, or make a n00b selection mistake that kills your gaming experience. Instead you get a Specialty. More flavorful and descriptive, and it packs your feat advancement into a tree.
- No more giant modular library of powers with a giant modular set of Standard/Move/Minor/Free actions to distribute over a turn, creating a vortex of yawntastic 20 minute intervals for a single player to finish a turn.
So on and so forth.
EXCEPT. Spells.
5E's got this beautiful, shiny idea of simplicity, speed, less bloat, and more flavor. But in the coveted arena of the caster's spellbook, you see the final bastion of the Old Ways. A 1st level wizard chooses 5 spells. If you're making a 15th level wizard, will you once again have to devote all afternoon to listing your 80 spells? Will reviewing such a character just drive a DM to say "screw it, cheat"?
I propose spells get put into the similar anti-bloat, pro-flavor model that Specialties did with Feats. Here's how:
Spell Trees
Most spells are growing versions of each other. What if casters chose spells as Specialty-esque, 5 character level spell packages that lasted over 3 levels of spells? Less bloaty modularity, less powergaming modularity, and MORE flavor modularity.
Alt Wizard Spells: At 1st level, choose 5 Novice spell trees. You add the 1st level spells of those spell trees to your spellbook. At every level, add a number of spells to your spellbook equal to your INT mod. To gain a higher level spell, you must meet its level requirement and have its prerequisite spell. You can also acquire new spells in your spellbook through traditional means, although now you must have a spell's prerequisites to put it into your spellbook.
Alt Sorcerer Spells: At 1st level, choose two Novice spell trees. You gain the 1st level spells in those spell trees. You gain additional spells based on the Sorcerer progression. As you level up, gain additional spells ala the class list, limited by max spell, etc. You must have a prerequisite spell to advance down its tree.
Novice Spell Trees
Burning hands > Flaming Sphere > Fireball
Charm Person > Hold Person > Suggestion
Thunder Wave > Arc Lightning > Lightning Bolt
Ray of Enfeeblement > Ghoul Touch > Vampiric Touch
Grease > Melf's Acid Arrow > Stinking Cloud (bit of a stretch)
Shield > Counterspell > Dispel Magic
In this system, you choose a tree rather than a modular pile of spells all the time. It's less modular choices, and you become defined more as a "fire wizard", AKA more flavor. This could also easily be turned into Schools now. And since you can still buy spells at markets and crap, it's not that limiting. This also means you have a setup for higher level Specialties, prestige classes, etc. Trees like this also give a chance to include some minor flavor benefit if, say, the Fire tree is your "Signature Spell Tree".
Your wizard spell choice now matters in a longer term, AND colors you more directly as a "pyromancer." One thing that's a little different in this mentality is that it's a Spell Tree you're focused into, rather than a school of magic.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 5:02PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Hrmm, if they did that, the "it's like an MMO" faction will crow it to the highest rooftops
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 5:31PM
#3
|
|
|
*Crow*
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 5:35PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
No thanks.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 8:26PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
so basically, it is highly restrictive skill trees... yeah, i can totally see variation in spell casters then -_-
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 9:51PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The basic concept is a good idea. It really is a hell of a lot less railroady than it sounds.
Instead of making it mandatory (or appear to be mandatory), just bundle spells together in thematic packages, to facilitate quick character creation, and rapid levelup. Note that this is more or less being done already, with the "Level One Spell Pack" ("A wizard typically learns alarm, comprehend languages, burning hands, shield, and sleep.").
As 5E becomes more and more complete, it's not unreasonable to assume several hundred spells are going to exist. Not every player is going to want to take the time to go spelunking through piles of spell descriptions when all he wants is a new "lightning" spell for his brand new 4th-level spellslots.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:10PM
#7
|
|
|
I think that you bring up an important issue here. One of my players in our last game asked, "why aren't there different levels of the same spell, so that the spell continues to be good over time?" I think he has a good point. Perhaps a variation on the spell trees could be advanced versions of spells (therewere certainly a few versions of fireball in 3.5). Burning hands minor, burning hands major, burning hands advanced or some such. Each new version hits a larger area and even does a little more damage. That way a signature spell doesn't become useless later?
And I understand the anti-MMO emotions being hefted about, but the core issue is noteworthy, I think.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:14PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Perhaps a variation on the spell trees could be advanced versions of spells (therewere certainly a few versions of fireball in 3.5). Burning hands minor, burning hands major, burning hands advanced or some such. Each new version hits a larger area and even does a little more damage. That way a signature spell doesn't become useless later?
This seems to have been overlooked when level-scaling disappeared.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:25PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
I think that you bring up an important issue here. One of my players in our last game asked, "why aren't there different levels of the same spell, so that the spell continues to be good over time?" I think he has a good point. Perhaps a variation on the spell trees could be advanced versions of spells (therewere certainly a few versions of fireball in 3.5). Burning hands minor, burning hands major, burning hands advanced or some such. Each new version hits a larger area and even does a little more damage. That way a signature spell doesn't become useless later?
And I understand the anti-MMO emotions being hefted about, but the core issue is noteworthy, I think.
i remember a while ago they mentioned allowing auto escalation on spells used in higher slots.
I have houseruled this in my games, players have enjoyed it, and it is not overpowered
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 10:36PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
i remember a while ago they mentioned allowing auto escalation on spells used in higher slots.
And that begs the question: Why can't spells scale down? Why should Fireball always be a level-3 spell, when 1d6 10' radius "fireball" as a 1st-level spell is neither unreasonable nor game-breaking.
|
|
|
