I assumed that would be the case, yes. Magic systems can and should be freely exchanged between classes.
But that's exactly the rub, 'cause that will inevitably pare down the number of caster classes we've seen in the past due to the fact that many caster classes are designed around their means of access to a spell list rather than the actual spells they cast. Wizard/sorcerer are the most self evident example of this, but cleric/favoured soul and druid/spirit shaman are also good examples.
So if I were to make a campaign world were magic, regardless of source, was a gift and not a study then I can and should consider what magic systems represent that concept in my game world. Traditional vancian casting is probably not the way to go if I don't want magic to be seen as a study because that system is entirely built around the idea of magic being a form of study of some kind. Course the source is a factor as well, 'cause I as I'm writing this I could see a number of justifications for a system like that in the world I described.
Still, I could see how I might start with that assumption. For me, the real creative part comes from the players challenging my ideas and providing context beyond "I only want to play x." If they can give me a good reason then usually I'm game but not allowing a magic system isn't all that different from not allowing a class.
This could cut both ways though because the ability to bolt systems onto classes freely could mean that banning a class or a system could be less important than banning a class is now. In the published stuff to date, your only avenue into a magic system is a given class and some folks ban classes on the basis of a magic system, which means they could ban that system and leave the classes alone. Could be that by separating these out you're actually allowing the DM to get at exactly what they don't like instead of banning a whole swathe of stuff to get rid of something they can't resolve.
I assumed that would be the case, yes. Magic systems can and should be freely exchanged between classes.
But that's exactly the rub, 'cause that will inevitably pare down the number of caster classes we've seen in the past due to the fact that many caster classes are designed around their means of access to a spell list rather than the actual spells they cast. Wizard/sorcerer are the most self evident example of this, but cleric/favoured soul and druid/spirit shaman are also good examples.
So if I were to make a campaign world were magic, regardless of source, was a gift and not a study then I can and should consider what magic systems represent that concept in my game world. Traditional vancian casting is probably not the way to go if I don't want magic to be seen as a study because that system is entirely built around the idea of magic being a form of study of some kind. Course the source is a factor as well, 'cause I as I'm writing this I could see a number of justifications for a system like that in the world I described.
Still, I could see how I might start with that assumption. For me, the real creative part comes from the players challenging my ideas and providing context beyond "I only want to play x." If they can give me a good reason then usually I'm game but not allowing a magic system isn't all that different from not allowing a class.
This could cut both ways though because the ability to bolt systems onto classes freely could mean that banning a class or a system could be less important than banning a class is now. In the published stuff to date, your only avenue into a magic system is a given class and some folks ban classes on the basis of a magic system, which means they could ban that system and leave the classes alone. Could be that by separating these out you're actually allowing the DM to get at exactly what they don't like instead of banning a whole swathe of stuff to get rid of something they can't resolve.
Go back and read what I posted. I pretty much explained how each of the classes is different including the Wizard and Sorcerer. They have enough to differentiate themselves as separate classes. All of the classes you mentioned have enough to differentiate themselves besides their casting system.
I'm not an expert on the other classes you mentioned except for druid and cleric. I'm sure someone that knows more on those classes can explain the differences to you. If you can't tell the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard as presented in the play test, then there is something wrong with you...
@lokiare... your signature looks a bit wonky. The rating system is gone and seems to be replaced by a big gray rectangle with a yellow and a green bar.
So if I were to make a campaign world were magic, regardless of source, was a gift and not a study then I can and should consider what magic systems represent that concept in my game world. Traditional vancian casting is probably not the way to go if I don't want magic to be seen as a study because that system is entirely built around the idea of magic being a form of study of some kind. Course the source is a factor as well, 'cause I as I'm writing this I could see a number of justifications for a system like that in the world I described.
I am sure there is many ways to cast the mechanics with a different light... Vancian Spirit Magic....
You are able to gain magic out of the spirits and daemons you have a talisman/vessile object that is your connection to the other world and through which you send your sould to gather bound spirits doing so is something of a lesser shamanic quest which may requires you to be fully rested and focused. In order to work a magic you temporarily free the spirit and afterwards it passes back to the other world and is hard to recover immediately. Each spirit works an effect according to its nature... Discovering/encountering spirits to bind is one of the purposes of your adventuring, on your journeys you may find items with a spirit already bound in to them these are precious and valuable as you can use them to bind the spirit to your own. You can be deprived of magic by deprivation of your talisman.
It is explicitly explained in the 1st Ed PHB that the DM may delete, alter, or add spells, same goes with everything.
The problem with 3rd Ed is it started this undeserved sense of player entitlement, I am all for adding NPCs (important people in the character's life, etc), worlds , feats, etc, but anything can be vetoed by the DM of said world in question to maintain campaign integrity (not stone-walling players).
In 3e, DMs still had the power to veto what they wanted to. You're going to have to explain how 3e, or any other edition, started player entitlement if you expect people to take your claims seriously.
Wow, how personally insulting, but, after reading the type of poster such as yourself, well, it is not surprising.
3rd and 4t Ed definitely started a player entitlement attitude.
Just saying that a thing is so does not make it so. Therefore, yes, you're going to have to bring proof to the table if you expect to be taken seriously. Also, you are the one starting in on personal attacks. I was attacking your position, whereas you attacked who I am.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
It is explicitly explained in the 1st Ed PHB that the DM may delete, alter, or add spells, same goes with everything.
The problem with 3rd Ed is it started this undeserved sense of player entitlement, I am all for adding NPCs (important people in the character's life, etc), worlds , feats, etc, but anything can be vetoed by the DM of said world in question to maintain campaign integrity (not stone-walling players).
In 3e, DMs still had the power to veto what they wanted to. You're going to have to explain how 3e, or any other edition, started player entitlement if you expect people to take your claims seriously.
Wow, how personally insulting, but, after reading the type of poster such as yourself, well, it is not surprising.
3rd and 4t Ed definitely started a player entitlement attitude.
Just saying that a thing is so does not make it so. Therefore, yes, you're going to have to bring proof to the table if you expect to be taken seriously. Also, you are the one starting in on personal attacks. I was attacking your position, whereas you attacked who I am.
Mecha, Vics language came across as a slight, but I have to think it was unintentional. Actually I was shocked, someone accused you of being “personally insulting” - impossible! Heh. For me you are in the category of forumers who are unusually rational. I dont recall any of your posts ever being abusive, or ever succumbing to logical fallacies, for that matter. Vic must have meant something like, his view seems so obvious to him, he cant believe you dont take his view “seriously”. Obviously, you are innocent of a “personally insulting” him. It was just a poor choose of words on his part to convey his own surprise at what he feels should be obvious.
Humorously: as far as “player entitlement” goes. I continue to marvel how the “DM as tyrant” model - which epitomizes the most extreme form of self-entitlement possible - can accuse the cooperative sensibilities of players of “entitlement”. The naivite of such DM tyranny!
More analytically:
Maybe the difference between 1e-2e and 3e-4e is:
The earlier 1e-2e group had rules systems that were a mess. The game simply couldnt exist without the whim of DM arbitration. Hence the inescapable tyranny.
By contrast, 3e systemized these rules to a great degree, to an extent the players could understand the system, and have *expectations* for how the system should function. It was more obvious if the DM was rejecting the official system. (It would be absurd to accuse the 1e-2e DM of rejecting the official system because there was no functioning system - everything was ad hoc.) In 4e, the systemization became so precise, even the need for a DM came into doubt. For example, it is easy to hypothesize a sophisticated computer game that adjudicates all of the 4e mechanics without any human involved in to arbitrate the outcome. With such a system, the players can fully understand, fully access, and fully expect certain mechanical outcomes. 4e players (especially character optimizers who require the system to have extremely robust mechanical rules) often mention how “rules replace the DM”.
In essence, reliable rules encourage reliable expectations. Thus for the 3e-4e group, the DM is no longer “above the law”.
If 1e-2e is the thesis, and 3e-4e is the antithesis, then 5e seems to strive for the synthesis.
5e actively seeks to create design space for a DM to even exist. I see mainly two ways of shoring up the role of a DM as an authority, but there are probably other ways in play too.
One - and most dramatically. 5e returns to the authority over the narrative. A *story* has its own internal logic for how specific scenarios play out. Some scenarios setup inevitable outcomes, others lead to less certain outcomes. The DM can adjudicate outcome based on the story alone, and in this way, override the gaming mechanics. Often this happens by means of improvisation, rolling d20 to adjudicate an unconventional interaction with certain elements of a narrative scenario. Similarly, the narrative description of an element may imply regular mechanics, but with an exploitable “advantage”, a 5e mechanic to represent adhoc exploits. However, often enough, pure DM fiat overrides the 5e gaming mechanics. The DM announces the automatic success or failure, when a player describes a certain effort, without recourse to dice or mechanics. The rule for DM as a “referee” is: “Yes, no, maybe”. If “maybe”, roll the dice. Use a regular mechanic - such as an ability check with a skill bonus or with an advantage - use an ability check for an improvisation for out-of-the-box efforts where the game lacks explicit regular rules.
There is a feeling in 5e, the DM as a human, is a valuble resource because the capability to adjudicate a narrative, is something that computers still cannot do well. (Currently, computers can write books, but not yet in a spontaneous interactive way - which is probably roughly 10 years away still.) So, the 5e DM regains the authority to adjudicate the *descriptions* of story scenarios.
Two. Not only does the 5e DM authority come into play tactically sotospeak to referee the storytelling efforts by the adventurers, on a case by case basis, the DM authority also comes into play strategically to determine which mechanical systems are in play. Some “modular options” are mutually exclusive. So when the DM chooses one modular system over an other, the DM remains “legal” and “official” within the rules as written. The players cant accuse the DM of “breaking the rules”, because the rules themselves require such choices for mechanics. Thus the 5e DM regains the authority to control the “system”. This control of mechanics is reminiscent of the old 1e-2e “rule zero” mentality, but is a completely different incarnation of it. Rules as written officially exist in 5e for these kinds of system decisions, and the sophistication of the game is more advanced. The game no longer requires DM “whim”.
Now designers in their “nostalgia” seem to be longing for the “security” of the DM as a paternalistic tyrant. However, even the resurgence of “DM authority” in 5e subverts easily into a sense of a “cooperative storytelling game”. More democratic and less autocratic.
For example, the choice of which modular systems to use is necessarily a group decision. All of the players need to be on board with the proposed modular choices - including the DM and the adventurers - or else the adventurers wont play - or the DM wont play. Thus the DM functions as facilitator on behalf of the other players to iron out any possible conflicts. In this sense, the DM is democratically elected sotospeak to represent the collective desires of all the players (including the DM themself as a player) and make sure these desires are met in the most entertaining way possible.
Even the role of adjudicating the storytelling exploits that depend on narrative circumstances and descriptions, on a case by case basis, becomes an exercise in group storytelling. Adventurers who are interested in the story itself are likewise able to adjudicate whether certain scenarious are likely or unlikely to succeed. In difficult cases, the DM will welcome solid rationale from the adventurers. Even when the DM invokes the authority as a “referee” to make the final call, the DM is still serving as a facilitator for the other players to make it possible to get past a thorny issue, so the other players can continue playing the game.
An interesting development is the increasing awareness, the entire “world” is a kind of character that the DM plays. The world is analogous to the characters that the adventurers play. In this view, the DM has a “right” to express themself creatively and authoratively thru the world, in the same way the adventurers have a “right” to express themselves creatively and authoratively thru their heroes. Altho this rationale shores up the authority of the DM over the characterization of the world (its systems, setting, background characters, etcetera), it is actually a horizontalization of power. All of the D&D players - including the DM and the adventurers - are sitting at the table as equals with “equal rights” to express themselves thru their respective “characters”.
So, while 5e developers flirt with DM tyranny, dejure, the D&D tradition seems to be evolving democratically, defacto. In any case, in 5e, the role of storytellers enjoys a renaissance.
Especially because of the efforts of the WotC designers to discover and represent what the entire D&D gaming community wants, 5e represents where the community as a whole is at. In this sense, 5e authentically represents the dynamic equalibrium of the living D&D tradition. 5e is clearly a synthesis of conflicting desires. Hopefully, this synthesis will meet the needs of most D&D players - even those who gravitate toward the thesis of 1e-2e and those who gravitate to the antithesis of 3e-4e.
In sum, there is no “entitlement” in any edition. The issue seems to be whether or not the rules of the edition are coherent and reliable enough to invite objective (as opposed to subjective) expectations.
The earlier 1e-2e group had rules systems that were a mess. The game simply couldnt exist without the whim of DM arbitration. Hence the inescapable tyranny.
By contrast, 3e systemized these rules to a great degree, to an extent the players could understand the system, and have *expectations* for how the system should function. It was more obvious if the DM was rejecting the official system. (It would be absurd to accuse the 1e-2e DM of rejecting the official system because there was no functioning system - everything was ad hoc.) In 4e, the systemization became so precise, even the need for a DM came into doubt. For example, it is easy to hypothesize a sophisticated computer game that adjudicates all of the 4e mechanics without any human involved in to arbitrate the outcome. With such a system, the players can fully understand, fully access, and fully expect certain mechanical outcomes. 4e players (especially character optimizers who require the system to have extremely robust mechanical rules) often mention how “rules replace the DM”.
In essence, reliable rules encourage reliable expectations. Thus for the 3e-4e group, the DM is no longer “above the law”.
I think you may be on to something here (though I never heard anyone I played 4e with express the idea that the rules might replace the DM). In a nutshell, the rules became transparent enough from 3e on that the DM was forced to be transparent if he was changing them, creating an opportunity for the players to ask "why?" that didn't exist in the same way in previous editions.
I would add on to that by observing that, in 2e at least, players interacted with a much smaller portion of the rules set on an individual basis. A player with a Fighter character in 2e needs to know moving, attacking, and how his proficiencies (weapon and non-) work. Everything else is left up to the DM. In contrast, a 3e Fighter has to know that, plus how the various combat maneuvers (disarm, trip, grapple) work, especially in the sense of how different monster traits might affect his ability to use those, not to mention whatever interactions he gets from his (paltry) skill ranks, and so on. Not to mention the advancement concerns over what effect it will have on his character to take a multiclass level or whether he is on track to qualify for available PrCs
As player reliance on the rules system increases, players not only have to be more knowledgable about the rules system (leading back into your point), but changes to the rules system have a greater impact on their ability to play the game. A Fighter who picks up the Improved Trip feat is going to have his effectiveness radically altered if the DM changes the size modifier to trip/grapple checks in one direction or another, and so it becomes necessary to know any significant house rules from the outset.
I am sure there is many ways to cast the mechanics with a different light...
Vancian Spirit Magic....
Yeah, I could think of exceptions as I was writing it
But it does make a case for why the DM really needs to have some powers of arbitration, and why the players need to feel that they have to work with the DM to make their ideas happen in the context of a campaign world.
Haldrik pretty much summed it up when he said how that arbitration occurs and how egalitarian the decision making process is pretty much rests in the individuals playing, but the arbitration must happen. Someone's gotta take point and facilitate whatever decision is made, and that person will have more say in the game than the rest simply by accident of organisation.
