This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
The feat represents specific training, which should make you better at doing this (but not as good as someone who multiclasses). This post is about letting everyone do it by default.
Which is a rotten idea that should die a death in a game with character classes. If you want a classless game then that's cool, I play and enjoy a few of those as well, but there's a reason I keep going back to character classes and that's basically that not everyone can do everything by default.
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells? (Just talking basic four, for now.)
Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells? (Just talking basic four, for now.)
Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.
Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.
The monk and the fighter are the only classes that actually have a comparison point at this time. When we see a sorcerer or warlock make another entrance on the scene we'll have a comparison point for the wizard. When the favoured soul or somesuch shows up, we'll have something to compare the cleric to and when a scout or assassin type character shows up we'll have something to compare the rogue to.
We simply have no information to base any claims about who's better or worse as an arcane caster any more than we did about who was better or worse at martial combat before the monk showed up. We can make some situational claims about the wizard vs the cleric and the rogue vs the fighter, but on the whole we can't say anything about who's the better arcane caster 'cause we only have one to look at.
Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.
Not true. Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).
The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists. The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.
The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.
(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)
Not true. Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).
In a campaign setting that is a white room with a loot tray on one side and a big red button labelled "monster" that opens a hatch with a monster behind it to fight, I guess you're right. Anywhere else this is totally semantic nonsense.
The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists. The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.
And this is a problem how? In any practical sense, the casters aren't useful in the capacity of the non casters without their spells which means it's working as intended. It allows us to account for the fact that human beings in real life do try to sneak around and will occasionally punch people without training, but the guys with training are the only ones that are actually effective with it.
The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.
Actually what you're seeing is the fact that good fantasy is based enough on reality that we can relate to it. Magic in the D&D sense is outside of the human experience in the real world, so a fantasy setting where every normal person is throwing around magic in the D&D sense is too far outside our assumptions about what's real for us to relate to it. Of course, that varies from person to person, but it's easier to make things more fanciful from the writing than it is to strip things back. I don't entirely understand why that is but it's something I've noticed over the years. As a campaign-specific decision I'd be all for letting everyone have spells but as a general rule of thumb I don't think so.
Really, a better way to do what you're describing is to allow everyone to be marginally aware of magic, so people tend to know when it's around and they might even be able to influence its ebb and flow through ability checks but the ability to actually initiate something totally new they need the training. So in this case if someone encounters a charmed person, they'll know something's wrong but they won't know what, exactly or where it's coming from. Some exposure will reveal that it's the person and some intervention on their part might lenghten or shorten the duration of the charm or maybe loosen the restrictions of the charmed dude's instructions. The stronger the caster, the harder it is to manipulate the spell instinctively. They could then hone their skills (take a feat) which would let them get into ritual casting or maybe learn a spell or two.
That way, you reflect the latent magical talent without actually giving them spells, same way you reflect latent fighting ability without actually giving them maneuvers.
(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)
How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters do anyway. The skill use magic device gives some wiggle room here.
You know, this is possible in 4e. It's called ritual casting. And it doesn't break the game or anything.
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.
I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int guy, in our game.
