|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:14PM
#1
|
|
|
So, the latest L&L stated that different spellcasting mechanics are moving to modularity. They did this a bit with the healing and HD mechanics and it seemed to work well (though it still needs refining). I am a big fan of multiple casting mechanics, and it was a pleasant surprise in my latest playtest when my new players, my 3.5 nuts AND my 4e player each got a system that they liked. I was happy with different mechanics built into classes, but if they take it out I'm fine with that. I just have a couple of questions:
1) Invocations: are not spells. They don't function like spells (right now). They are a big class feature for the Warlock, but if they modulate (modularize...) the spellcasting then does the Warlock have enough uniqueness WITHOUT invocations to be a core class? With that in mind, if you streamline ALL casting mechanics, then do Warlocks, Rangers, Druids, Paladins, ect just become hyper specific versions of other classes?
2) Would we see modularity in the non-casting mechanics? If my thug rogue skill monkey really likes CS die and does not like whatever future rogue mechanic, then could he switch the mechanic? My fear is 'no, if he wants to play with fighter mechanics then he needs to play a fighter.' If thats the case then Why change the casting systems at all?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 1:28PM
#2
|
|
|
When I first read that bit on spellcasting, I got really worried about spellcasters becoming to homogenous like they were in 3.5 (System wise). But after a while I got to thinking about it, and it's actually kind of nice. By making the spellcasting systems modular, it allows them to focus more on the non spellcasting abilities of the caster classes (Sorcerer bloodline, Wizard Tradition, Cleric Domain, what have you). That is a good thing.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 8:29AM
#3
|
|
|
Thats fair. After chewing on it for a few days I see that it won't likely lead to stale classes. After all, Wizards are defined in D&D by study, not by their resources. Spell poins and AEDU won't change the specific abilitys of a class, just the way it does what it does. If that is the case then I very much hope to see a lot of varied complexity in the sub-classes when the 'casting system modularity' comes along.
If I can have a brand new player sit down and quickly make a simple (but effective) character at the same table where Johnny Awesome can bring every splatbook and make his idea of the 'best' character and they work together, I'll be happy.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 8:51AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2010
|
With that in mind, if you streamline ALL casting mechanics, then do Warlocks, Rangers, Druids, Paladins, ect just become hyper specific versions of other classes?
Welcome to "We really only need four customizable classes."
Or three classes, if you (like me) think that "magic is magic is magic" and that there's no real need for arcane/divine/psionic splits. When you get right down to it, the flatter math means that you can easily make a "Swordmage" with the current wizard, or a Paladin with a simple Fighter/Cleric combo. Or even just a Cleric, as I'm currently doing with my Halfling Paladin (aka War Cleric) who only uses the spells that allow an attack as part of the action. When everybody can hit just as well (save special bonuses, like the Fighter's), there's really no reason for "Class that can cast magic and hit well". The "Classes that can cast magic" can already "Hit fairly well."
Especially when they're already talking about tons of modularity, I really don't see any reason for this insistence on dozens of classes. Other than "That's what D&D was like before, so it has to stay that way." Which is ridiculous, when you realize how much D&D has changed already.
When it comes to homogeneity and modular casting mechanics, I see no problem with it. I just wish they'd admit that modularity is a good idea overall and run with it.
|
|
|
