There would have to have some form of cost or sacrifice made so that it wouldn't unbalance classes, and making it a class of its own is NO.
While I also want to say fewer caster subclasses, it's probably just the old man in me crying about how it used to be.
There are ways to balance Psionics as a class, and honestly, if they're going to introduce them, they should be as its own class. So when that happens though, you have to make it so that other classes have meaningful ways to counter their mechanics.
There would have to have some form of cost or sacrifice made so that it wouldn't unbalance classes, and making it a class of its own is NO.
While I also want to say fewer caster subclasses, it's probably just the old man in me crying about how it used to be.
There are ways to balance Psionics as a class, and honestly, if they're going to introduce them, they should be as its own class. So when that happens though, you have to make it so that other classes have meaningful ways to counter their mechanics.
You don't understand. I want them as available to every race and class as most people consider Feats. Having them be their own class means people you are forced to multiclass into it if you're something else. For me that's a no.
Making psionics a class means it has to measure up to other classes. Meaning their powers have to have mundane and normal counters. Again, no.
It's probably because in 1e, the only people you could seriously wreck with your powers was another person with psionics. Go ahead and put up your Tower of Iron Will and blast away with Psychic Crush, but unless the other guy has psionics, it does nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Then, if there is truly no blame, there is not rebuttal. :D
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but will take it for my argument. There is no rebuttal that you can give. I'm not blaming 5e, you thought I was, I corrected you, and thus your argument is in the wrong. I hope we're done with this misunderstanding now.
ECL (Equivalent Class Level) was a fairly clever concept of 3e which said that a powerful race already provided a number of features (including hit dice) that were equivalent to a character level.
Most of the classes had an ECL of 0, meaning that if you played a dwarf, his ECL was equal to his character level. But if you were playing a Hobgoblin with a level adjustment of +1, his ECL was actually 3 at level 2. So while all the other players were level 3, you would be level 2 because of the inherent power of your race. There were much higher ECL races, for example Rakshasa with a level adjustment of +7, meaning that a rakshasa fighter Lvl 1 would have been the equivalent of a lvl 8 character.
This allowed playing very strong races like the one in your example, and it might not be that hard to translate the concept into 5e, but the balancing would still be a bit complicated because there are some features that are based on the total level, etc.
Okay, I have heard of that concept, I just needed to hear what ECL specifically stood for. I have also heard plenty of complaints about how that system worked, and wouldn't want to bring it back to 5e. It's a good idea, but given how WotC did a poor job with CR in this edition, I don't think it would work well if it were translated to 5e.
There's also the issue of deciding how many character levels are worth being able to detach body parts. That doesn't give them any boost in combat, it's just an incredibly useful utility ability. Trying to balance utility features with combat features is like comparing apples and oranges. They both are useful, but in different enough ways that it's difficult (if not impossible) to determine how worthwhile a detached hand is in comparison to a +2 damage in combat. (Side note: this is part of the issue with PHB Rangers. WotC tried to balance exploration features with the combat features that other martial classes get at the same/similar levels. Issues are created when you try to balance apples and oranges.)
Well, to be honest, you have this general attitude of criticising 5e, often because (tastes vary, nothing wrong here), one gets the impression that you really wish that the game was different.
I have a general attitude of criticizing things that I think deserve criticism. It is not specific or limited to 5e, WotC, or D&D as a whole. I do wish that certain parts of the game were different, as WotC did make some objectively bad decisions in certain parts of designing 5e (melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon, unarmed strike vs. natural weapon, etc), though the vast majority of it is well designed IMO.
You seem to think that I hate D&D, which is why you always jump at me in threads like this one that either mention things D&D 5e could be better at or at things D&D in general cannot handle due to a variety of reasons. I don't hate D&D. Criticizing something is not the same thing as hating it. Constructive criticism is a good thing (and this thread isn't even inherently intended to criticize D&D 5e, I just find myself having to defend myself from you).
Stop thinking that I hate D&D, I don't. Stop thinking that any criticism of D&D means that the person doing the criticism automatically hates it, because they don't. Stop leaping to defend things that are both not being attacked and also have no requirement from you to defend them, as you seem to enjoy leaping to conclusions when it favors your appearance. Seriously, Lyxen, I don't go out of my way to criticize every word you say in these forums, so why do you feel the need to do that to me (outside of a few outliers, like the Obscure Books Thread)?
I'm not attacking you. This thread was not meant to anger anyone, which I feel should've been apparent after reading the OP, but maybe I'm mistaken. It's just annoying to find that nearly every thread that I try to have a constructive conversation in tends to either have you going against the grain for no reason, or you create a flip thread trying to make it seem like I have no idea what I'm talking about. Dude. Just, please, knock it off. There's no reason for it, and it's frankly quite annoying.
Understood? Can we stop this nonsense?
And that is exactly why the game designers made the choices they made, to have a system which is a bit restrictive in terms of races and classes, because even though they could not achieve perfect balance, at least it was not completely unbalanced.
. . . That's precisely the point. That's exactly, precisely what I was talking about. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to balance a system where a magic user gets gradual-spell point recovery and another magic user gets rest-depended spell slot recovery. That's exactly why I mentioned it. You can stop treating me as if I'm a stupid child, because honestly, I don't think I am.
The idea of a magic user that gradually recovers magic is cool, and it works in video games, movies, tv shows, and books, but not in D&D 5e precisely because of how it would conflict with the status quo of magic. I'm not attacking how the game was designed by mentioning this, I'm just mentioning it. I'm not blaming WotC, D&D, Jack Vance, or Gary Gygax for this, I'm just saying that it's kind of disappointing that they're practically incompatible. I honestly don't prefer either over the other, I like both Vancian and non-Vancian magic, I just kind of wish that they could both exist in the same system without there having to be this huge issue of balance one against the other.
So, um, yeah. You have the point, but are also missing the point. Do you understand the point of this thread yet, and the examples I listed? It's not to attack D&D 5e, WotC, or anyone else, it's just to mention things that you wish could exist (or exist more easily) in D&D 5e, but can't due to mechanical reasons, possibly thematic overlap, and other issues. It's just a discussion. It's not an army of D&D haters.
Got it?
Fine, as you see, I've started to give ideas and examples going your way.
And that is fine. I appreciate those.
Fine, just be aware that even the title of your thread, especially considering your history of wanting to fix the game and actually make it into something else, can rub people the wrong way.
. . . It seems to have only rubbed you the wrong way, and only because you assumed the purpose of the thread instead of just going off of the OP. I recommend not assuming in the future. Assumptions are often wrong. I tried to make the title as simple as possible while also being explanatory.
"What things do you wish could exist in 5e, but can't, due to mechanical balance or thematic overlap, not in any part the fault of WotC, Gary Gygax, the hobby, Jack Vance, or anyone else, please don't attack me" doesn't have quite as good a ring to it, does it? The point of a title is to give a minor explanation of the thread's purpose. The full story is meant to be explained in the OP and sometimes later posts by the Original Poster if things weren't explained enough in the OP.
Don't always judge a book by its cover and don't always judge a thread by its name.
And as you see, it's much easier when discussing about D&D in general than 5e in particular.
About prophecies, it's not that it's impossible or even railroading that creates problems, some mature players don't care too much about railroading if it's done right, for example, but it's the fact that the best prophecies are actually built in such a way that they will happen anyhow, just not in the way that everyone expects ("he will bring balance to the Force").
The thing is that, although they can appear similar, and although roleplaying feeds itself upon fantasy genre, they are really very different activities...
To me, D&D 5e is D&D. I do apologize, but I have never played any previous editions, so in my mind, 5e and D&D often referred to as the same thing. There are suggestions that can come up in this thread that are specific to D&D 5e (non-small/medium PCs), and others are just D&D/TTRPGs as a whole (prophecies and non-Vancian magic).
Got it? This thread isn't specific to D&D 5e, but it can be, and it's not specific to general D&D/TTRPGs, but it can be. No need to get all your feathers ruffled by this. It just makes the conversation easier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There would have to have some form of cost or sacrifice made so that it wouldn't unbalance classes, and making it a class of its own is NO.
While I also want to say fewer caster subclasses, it's probably just the old man in me crying about how it used to be.
There are ways to balance Psionics as a class, and honestly, if they're going to introduce them, they should be as its own class. So when that happens though, you have to make it so that other classes have meaningful ways to counter their mechanics.
You don't understand. I want them as available to every race and class as most people consider Feats. Having them be their own class means people you are forced to multiclass into it if you're something else. For me that's a no.
I mean there are literally psionic feats like Telepathic and Telekinetic. It sounds like you want something stronger, which would require you to give something up in return. Sacrificing your class features and/or progression for other features is literally what multiclassing is. I feel like your hangup is very conceptual rather than actually about the mechanical limitations of the 5e system. Not sure why you're deathly against MC when you seem totally willing to give up features for other features.
All the stuff in the OP is absolutely doable in 5e, just not as PC classes. Monsters can follow whatever rules you want, although I'd advise some transparency though Session 0 or knowledge checks if you're tinkering with foundational mechanics.
Big changes in PC size do bring up a lot of issues when you apply them across the game. Do Tiny PCs have a reach of 0? That works weirdly - some would insist brokenly - with OAs. Where does a Tiny creature get weapons and armor? Or a gargantuan one? Some DMS can't even conceive of non-metal armor for druids, you can't just expect them to have Balfor the Blacksmith whip up some teeny tiny full plate for your Pixie Paladin without batting an eye. This introduces a wide variety of potential restriction that is incredibly hard to balance around. Monsters are designed with assumptions of the size limitations of mechanics like grappling and mounting, and size restrictions pop up all over in unexpected places - take dimension door as an example. It's not that it can't work at all, but you do run into a lot of unintended consequences.
I would like to see one (or maybe two, if we gotta bring religion into it) full caster classes, instead of the, what, 6? Then use subclasses to detail them out. One for Arcane Casters, another for divine. Give them their subclass at 1st level. Maybe another at 3rd to further specialize. I think there is a lot of room for flexibility in such a system (Hell, if it wouldn't completely destroy the game, as well as be functionally impossible to implement on D&D beyond, I'd use something like Dragon Age's 3 class system with lots of specializations/subclasses/whatever you want to call them. Why bring religion into this? Let the gods be mysterious and allow for atheists damnit! lol).
Okay, I'm going to list another thing that is very present in many book series (Beyonders, Inheritance Cycle, Adventurers Wanted, Percy Jackson) that I have read, as well as a very popular video game (the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim), the thing being a Language of Magic. When I first started D&D 5e, I was honestly surprised that Druids got their own language (Druidic), and Wizards didn't get "Arcanish" or something like that. It's a very common trope to have a language of magic, typically where the words themselves hold power. (I think this would be a cool way to view bards in comparison to wizards. Wizards would be the scholars that crack the code of the universe and Weave to unleash magic, where Bards have oral traditions where they teach words, poems, and songs containing magic that unleash their power, alas, that is not how it works in D&D.)
So, yeah. I would like a magical language in 5e, preferably a "Words of Power" language, but it just doesn't exist in D&D yet. As this would likely take a whole new system, it probably can't exist in 5e, or at least not easily. No matter how much I would like to be a Dragonborn Barbarian scream "Fus Ro Dah" at enemies to send them flying backwards, it sadly can't exist in 5e. The closest thing that could exist would be to just make spells with similar effects to the Shouts of Skyrim, which doesn't feel right to me as Shouts have cooldowns and almost none of them are limited to a specific amount of uses each day.
On a related note, I'm also going to mention True Names. The Ononmancy Wizard is sadly dead, with no replacement in sight, so it's unlikely we're going to get anything along the lines of True Naming in 5e within the foreseeable future, but boy do I wish we had more on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As this would likely take a whole new system, it probably can't exist in 5e, or at least not easily. No matter how much I would like to be a Dragonborn Barbarian scream "Fus Ro Dah" at enemies to send them flying backwards, it sadly can't exist in 5e.
Why is that? Artificers literally construct their magic, bards' artistic expressions carry power, clerics invoke their patron deities through prayer - why couldn't you reskin wizardly casting to be more centered around binding power into words? If it's the Vancian thing you don't like, sure, taking that out would obviously require creating a new magic system, but giving wizards a language that allows them to touch on the fabric of the universe is just theatrics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As this would likely take a whole new system, it probably can't exist in 5e, or at least not easily. No matter how much I would like to be a Dragonborn Barbarian scream "Fus Ro Dah" at enemies to send them flying backwards, it sadly can't exist in 5e.
Why is that? Artificers literally construct their magic, bards' artistic expressions carry power, clerics invoke their patron deities through prayer - why couldn't you reskin wizardly casting to be more centered around binding power into words? If it's the Vancian thing you don't like, sure, taking that out would obviously require creating a new magic system, but giving wizards a language that allows them to touch on the fabric of the universe is just theatrics.
First, I've got to correct your notion that I dislike Vancian spellcasting. I don't dislike it, as I mentioned in this post.
The reason why words of power can't exist in 5e as easily as Artificers making magical inventions to replicate spells is due to how vast spells are in 5e. It would make sense for a Words of Power Wizard to shout a magical word in order to fulfill the Verbal Component of Burning Hands, but it wouldn't work for spells without Verbal components (which there are quite a few of), spells with Material components (if magic requires just a word, why would it need a material component?), and so on.
Giving Wizards a language is an easy thing, I could do that with barely even thinking about it, but as Verbal components are very poorly defined in terms of what you actually say in 5e, that wouldn't work well. It'd be up to ever player on what exactly they say, not an actual list of words. (Also, like I mentioned above, I would prefer for Bards to actually speak words of power instead of Wizards, who would probably just use a magic language for documenting and communication.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As this would likely take a whole new system, it probably can't exist in 5e, or at least not easily. No matter how much I would like to be a Dragonborn Barbarian scream "Fus Ro Dah" at enemies to send them flying backwards, it sadly can't exist in 5e.
Why is that? Artificers literally construct their magic, bards' artistic expressions carry power, clerics invoke their patron deities through prayer - why couldn't you reskin wizardly casting to be more centered around binding power into words? If it's the Vancian thing you don't like, sure, taking that out would obviously require creating a new magic system, but giving wizards a language that allows them to touch on the fabric of the universe is just theatrics.
First, I've got to correct your notion that I dislike Vancian spellcasting. I don't dislike it, as I mentioned in this post.
The reason why words of power can't exist in 5e as easily as Artificers making magical inventions to replicate spells is due to how vast spells are in 5e. It would make sense for a Words of Power Wizard to shout a magical word in order to fulfill the Verbal Component of Burning Hands, but it wouldn't work for spells without Verbal components (which there are quite a few of), spells with Material components (if magic requires just a word, why would it need a material component?), and so on.
Giving Wizards a language is an easy thing, I could do that with barely even thinking about it, but as Verbal components are very poorly defined in terms of what you actually say in 5e, that wouldn't work well. It'd be up to ever player on what exactly they say, not an actual list of words. (Also, like I mentioned above, I would prefer for Bards to actually speak words of power instead of Wizards, who would probably just use a magic language for documenting and communication.)
I didn't really assume either way with regards to whether you like Vancian magic, but because you referred to the Shouts not having a specific number of uses per day I thought you might prefer not having that aspect for your words of power (in retrospect, the opposite makes more sense - my bad).
I don't think doing away with somatic components would cause a balance problem, particularly if every spell gets a verbal one. It'd be a buff, strictly speaking, and it's not like wizards are suffering anyway, but it'd be minor enough I wouldn't care. The material components on the other hand, those would be an issue - the expensive ones at least. Some compromise may need to be made, but as long as it comes down to a non-negligible cost having to be paid and maybe some exotic items needing to be sought out that should be doable. Needing to consume throat lozenges, syrups or tisanes made from rare ingredients every day (after every long rest, I suppose) could do the trick.
The only thing being large/gargantuan breaks is most dungeons, the rules themselves are fine with it.
There are ways to balance Psionics as a class, and honestly, if they're going to introduce them, they should be as its own class. So when that happens though, you have to make it so that other classes have meaningful ways to counter their mechanics.
You don't understand. I want them as available to every race and class as most people consider Feats. Having them be their own class means people you are forced to multiclass into it if you're something else. For me that's a no.
Making psionics a class means it has to measure up to other classes. Meaning their powers have to have mundane and normal counters. Again, no.
It's probably because in 1e, the only people you could seriously wreck with your powers was another person with psionics. Go ahead and put up your Tower of Iron Will and blast away with Psychic Crush, but unless the other guy has psionics, it does nothing.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but will take it for my argument. There is no rebuttal that you can give. I'm not blaming 5e, you thought I was, I corrected you, and thus your argument is in the wrong. I hope we're done with this misunderstanding now.
Okay, I have heard of that concept, I just needed to hear what ECL specifically stood for. I have also heard plenty of complaints about how that system worked, and wouldn't want to bring it back to 5e. It's a good idea, but given how WotC did a poor job with CR in this edition, I don't think it would work well if it were translated to 5e.
There's also the issue of deciding how many character levels are worth being able to detach body parts. That doesn't give them any boost in combat, it's just an incredibly useful utility ability. Trying to balance utility features with combat features is like comparing apples and oranges. They both are useful, but in different enough ways that it's difficult (if not impossible) to determine how worthwhile a detached hand is in comparison to a +2 damage in combat. (Side note: this is part of the issue with PHB Rangers. WotC tried to balance exploration features with the combat features that other martial classes get at the same/similar levels. Issues are created when you try to balance apples and oranges.)
I have a general attitude of criticizing things that I think deserve criticism. It is not specific or limited to 5e, WotC, or D&D as a whole. I do wish that certain parts of the game were different, as WotC did make some objectively bad decisions in certain parts of designing 5e (melee weapon attack vs. attack with a melee weapon, unarmed strike vs. natural weapon, etc), though the vast majority of it is well designed IMO.
You seem to think that I hate D&D, which is why you always jump at me in threads like this one that either mention things D&D 5e could be better at or at things D&D in general cannot handle due to a variety of reasons. I don't hate D&D. Criticizing something is not the same thing as hating it. Constructive criticism is a good thing (and this thread isn't even inherently intended to criticize D&D 5e, I just find myself having to defend myself from you).
Stop thinking that I hate D&D, I don't. Stop thinking that any criticism of D&D means that the person doing the criticism automatically hates it, because they don't. Stop leaping to defend things that are both not being attacked and also have no requirement from you to defend them, as you seem to enjoy leaping to conclusions when it favors your appearance. Seriously, Lyxen, I don't go out of my way to criticize every word you say in these forums, so why do you feel the need to do that to me (outside of a few outliers, like the Obscure Books Thread)?
I'm not attacking you. This thread was not meant to anger anyone, which I feel should've been apparent after reading the OP, but maybe I'm mistaken. It's just annoying to find that nearly every thread that I try to have a constructive conversation in tends to either have you going against the grain for no reason, or you create a flip thread trying to make it seem like I have no idea what I'm talking about. Dude. Just, please, knock it off. There's no reason for it, and it's frankly quite annoying.
Understood? Can we stop this nonsense?
. . . That's precisely the point. That's exactly, precisely what I was talking about. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to balance a system where a magic user gets gradual-spell point recovery and another magic user gets rest-depended spell slot recovery. That's exactly why I mentioned it. You can stop treating me as if I'm a stupid child, because honestly, I don't think I am.
The idea of a magic user that gradually recovers magic is cool, and it works in video games, movies, tv shows, and books, but not in D&D 5e precisely because of how it would conflict with the status quo of magic. I'm not attacking how the game was designed by mentioning this, I'm just mentioning it. I'm not blaming WotC, D&D, Jack Vance, or Gary Gygax for this, I'm just saying that it's kind of disappointing that they're practically incompatible. I honestly don't prefer either over the other, I like both Vancian and non-Vancian magic, I just kind of wish that they could both exist in the same system without there having to be this huge issue of balance one against the other.
So, um, yeah. You have the point, but are also missing the point. Do you understand the point of this thread yet, and the examples I listed? It's not to attack D&D 5e, WotC, or anyone else, it's just to mention things that you wish could exist (or exist more easily) in D&D 5e, but can't due to mechanical reasons, possibly thematic overlap, and other issues. It's just a discussion. It's not an army of D&D haters.
Got it?
And that is fine. I appreciate those.
. . . It seems to have only rubbed you the wrong way, and only because you assumed the purpose of the thread instead of just going off of the OP. I recommend not assuming in the future. Assumptions are often wrong. I tried to make the title as simple as possible while also being explanatory.
"What things do you wish could exist in 5e, but can't, due to mechanical balance or thematic overlap, not in any part the fault of WotC, Gary Gygax, the hobby, Jack Vance, or anyone else, please don't attack me" doesn't have quite as good a ring to it, does it? The point of a title is to give a minor explanation of the thread's purpose. The full story is meant to be explained in the OP and sometimes later posts by the Original Poster if things weren't explained enough in the OP.
Don't always judge a book by its cover and don't always judge a thread by its name.
To me, D&D 5e is D&D. I do apologize, but I have never played any previous editions, so in my mind, 5e and D&D often referred to as the same thing. There are suggestions that can come up in this thread that are specific to D&D 5e (non-small/medium PCs), and others are just D&D/TTRPGs as a whole (prophecies and non-Vancian magic).
Got it? This thread isn't specific to D&D 5e, but it can be, and it's not specific to general D&D/TTRPGs, but it can be. No need to get all your feathers ruffled by this. It just makes the conversation easier.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean there are literally psionic feats like Telepathic and Telekinetic. It sounds like you want something stronger, which would require you to give something up in return. Sacrificing your class features and/or progression for other features is literally what multiclassing is. I feel like your hangup is very conceptual rather than actually about the mechanical limitations of the 5e system. Not sure why you're deathly against MC when you seem totally willing to give up features for other features.
All the stuff in the OP is absolutely doable in 5e, just not as PC classes. Monsters can follow whatever rules you want, although I'd advise some transparency though Session 0 or knowledge checks if you're tinkering with foundational mechanics.
Big changes in PC size do bring up a lot of issues when you apply them across the game. Do Tiny PCs have a reach of 0? That works weirdly - some would insist brokenly - with OAs. Where does a Tiny creature get weapons and armor? Or a gargantuan one? Some DMS can't even conceive of non-metal armor for druids, you can't just expect them to have Balfor the Blacksmith whip up some teeny tiny full plate for your Pixie Paladin without batting an eye. This introduces a wide variety of potential restriction that is incredibly hard to balance around. Monsters are designed with assumptions of the size limitations of mechanics like grappling and mounting, and size restrictions pop up all over in unexpected places - take dimension door as an example. It's not that it can't work at all, but you do run into a lot of unintended consequences.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Traps where the room doesn't have a blatant ban on magic :\
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Total Pipe Dream here:
I would like to see one (or maybe two, if we gotta bring religion into it) full caster classes, instead of the, what, 6? Then use subclasses to detail them out. One for Arcane Casters, another for divine. Give them their subclass at 1st level. Maybe another at 3rd to further specialize. I think there is a lot of room for flexibility in such a system (Hell, if it wouldn't completely destroy the game, as well as be functionally impossible to implement on D&D beyond, I'd use something like Dragon Age's 3 class system with lots of specializations/subclasses/whatever you want to call them. Why bring religion into this? Let the gods be mysterious and allow for atheists damnit! lol).
Okay, I'm going to list another thing that is very present in many book series (Beyonders, Inheritance Cycle, Adventurers Wanted, Percy Jackson) that I have read, as well as a very popular video game (the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim), the thing being a Language of Magic. When I first started D&D 5e, I was honestly surprised that Druids got their own language (Druidic), and Wizards didn't get "Arcanish" or something like that. It's a very common trope to have a language of magic, typically where the words themselves hold power. (I think this would be a cool way to view bards in comparison to wizards. Wizards would be the scholars that crack the code of the universe and Weave to unleash magic, where Bards have oral traditions where they teach words, poems, and songs containing magic that unleash their power, alas, that is not how it works in D&D.)
So, yeah. I would like a magical language in 5e, preferably a "Words of Power" language, but it just doesn't exist in D&D yet. As this would likely take a whole new system, it probably can't exist in 5e, or at least not easily. No matter how much I would like to be a Dragonborn Barbarian scream "Fus Ro Dah" at enemies to send them flying backwards, it sadly can't exist in 5e. The closest thing that could exist would be to just make spells with similar effects to the Shouts of Skyrim, which doesn't feel right to me as Shouts have cooldowns and almost none of them are limited to a specific amount of uses each day.
On a related note, I'm also going to mention True Names. The Ononmancy Wizard is sadly dead, with no replacement in sight, so it's unlikely we're going to get anything along the lines of True Naming in 5e within the foreseeable future, but boy do I wish we had more on it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Why is that? Artificers literally construct their magic, bards' artistic expressions carry power, clerics invoke their patron deities through prayer - why couldn't you reskin wizardly casting to be more centered around binding power into words? If it's the Vancian thing you don't like, sure, taking that out would obviously require creating a new magic system, but giving wizards a language that allows them to touch on the fabric of the universe is just theatrics.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
First, I've got to correct your notion that I dislike Vancian spellcasting. I don't dislike it, as I mentioned in this post.
The reason why words of power can't exist in 5e as easily as Artificers making magical inventions to replicate spells is due to how vast spells are in 5e. It would make sense for a Words of Power Wizard to shout a magical word in order to fulfill the Verbal Component of Burning Hands, but it wouldn't work for spells without Verbal components (which there are quite a few of), spells with Material components (if magic requires just a word, why would it need a material component?), and so on.
Giving Wizards a language is an easy thing, I could do that with barely even thinking about it, but as Verbal components are very poorly defined in terms of what you actually say in 5e, that wouldn't work well. It'd be up to ever player on what exactly they say, not an actual list of words. (Also, like I mentioned above, I would prefer for Bards to actually speak words of power instead of Wizards, who would probably just use a magic language for documenting and communication.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I didn't really assume either way with regards to whether you like Vancian magic, but because you referred to the Shouts not having a specific number of uses per day I thought you might prefer not having that aspect for your words of power (in retrospect, the opposite makes more sense - my bad).
I don't think doing away with somatic components would cause a balance problem, particularly if every spell gets a verbal one. It'd be a buff, strictly speaking, and it's not like wizards are suffering anyway, but it'd be minor enough I wouldn't care. The material components on the other hand, those would be an issue - the expensive ones at least. Some compromise may need to be made, but as long as it comes down to a non-negligible cost having to be paid and maybe some exotic items needing to be sought out that should be doable. Needing to consume throat lozenges, syrups or tisanes made from rare ingredients every day (after every long rest, I suppose) could do the trick.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].