But not as a "Caster" as in the suggested class for all spellcasters.
Is there really such a difference? They all use mostly the same spells. They all use the same spell slots. They all use the same rules for components and foci. What’s the specific distinction?
Spell types. They use separate types of spell (the cleric has weak attacking spells, but a sorcerer has nothing to heal, but excpetional damaging spells). Also, the features that give the flavour (of, say an enchantment wizard) and define how they cast.
I still think that the classes are there for a reason. There's a huge difference between a cleric and a wizard, but they would both be classed as "spellcasters" and this is an issue for me.
I agree with you completely here. I'm just entertaining their line of thought as it's interesting to see it fleshed out.
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
I mean what would be your solution to making half martials half casters feel like their own thing and be able to mix magic into their other abilities? Rather than just half a caster glued to half a fighter.
I'd actually like to see the magic type separated more, and not less. It's one thing I don't like about 5e. Divine, primal, arcane, occult, and psionic should have their own quirks even if they use the same base template.
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
I mean what would be your solution to making half martials half casters feel like their own thing and be able to mix magic into their other abilities? Rather than just half a caster glued to half a fighter.
I wouldn’t. Under this system a half-caster would just be half a caster glued onto half a martial. The differences would have to come from their subclasses and whatever other specialized trees are included.
Under a system like that, one presumes that some of the potential caster features would be lackluster without levels in something else, and vice versa. So a “Full Caster” would steer away from those choices, while people who want those choices would have to naturally gravitate toward Multiclassing to get the most out of them.
Yall are thinking way to specifically for a system like that. For that system, Caster =/= Wizard (or Cleric) and Fighter =/= “Fighter.” For a system like that: Caster = Spellcasting + Subclass. Martial = Extra Attacks & Fighting Style + Subclass. etc.
These classes would have to be stripped down shells of a class, think less of a “class” as you know it and more of an umbrella category under which the “subclasses” (like Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Barbarian, etc.) would have to look more like the base classes we have now. What you are used to as “subclasses” would have to cease existing entirely to be replaced with Feats or feature trees.
Ahh. But under this new system, stuff like that would not be attached to the class. Wizard and Cleric would be subclasses of “Spellcaster.”
But then what happens to subclasses like the Trickery Domain and the like? You would sacrifice a lot of flavour.
Those would no longer exist. They would have to be replaced with Feats or generic feature trees that every player would customize for themselves. It could theoretically lead to more flavor since your “trickery” cleric could look very different from mine. The flavor just wouldn’t be intrinsic or narrowly predefined bu WotC.
That just sounds overcomplicated. The simplicity of a class, subclass system is elegant and usable. This concept of a "base class" seems to have no point to it, if the majority of features come from feature trees and "subclasses" that function more like classes.
You may as well just keep certain features from the "base class" in all the typical classes and leave it as normal.
That just sounds overcomplicated. The simplicity of a class, subclass system is elegant and usable. This concept of a "base class" seems to have no point to it, if the majority of features come from feature trees and "subclasses" that function more like classes.
Yes and no. Think of the base classes like meals. One is breakfast, one is lunch, and muliclassing would be like brunch. The “subclasses” would be more specific meals, a hamburger for instance. The specific trees and options would be like custom toppings and sides.
To continue the analogy, if “Spellcaster” = “Lunch,” and “Wizard” = “Hamburger,” and the trees and feats allowed customization, then you could conceivably have hundreds of different varieties of Hamburgers, whereas now we only have exactly 13 varieties of Hamburger, “NO CHANGES OR SUBSTITUTIONS!”
Just make subclasses features run at the same levels for every class and then let players take any subclass. That works better than complicated feature trees.
Just make subclasses features run at the same levels for every class and then let players take any subclass. That works better than complicated feature trees.
For some people. For others, not so much. 🤷♂️
I agree with you that D&D should always be a Race/Class system. I’m just explaining how a system like that would have to work.
I would like to see a class without a subclass return for 6e. I don't like how in 5e you can't be just a fighter or rogue. You have to be a champion fighter, or a assassin rogue, or some other subclass.
There the option for a straight line progression without touching a subclass at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is there really such a difference? They all use mostly the same spells. They all use the same spell slots. They all use the same rules for components and foci. What’s the specific distinction?
I’m not arguing, just curious.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Spell types. They use separate types of spell (the cleric has weak attacking spells, but a sorcerer has nothing to heal, but excpetional damaging spells). Also, the features that give the flavour (of, say an enchantment wizard) and define how they cast.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I agree with you completely here. I'm just entertaining their line of thought as it's interesting to see it fleshed out.
Ahh. But under this new system, stuff like that would not be attached to the class. Wizard and Cleric would be subclasses of “Spellcaster.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean what would be your solution to making half martials half casters feel like their own thing and be able to mix magic into their other abilities? Rather than just half a caster glued to half a fighter.
I'd actually like to see the magic type separated more, and not less. It's one thing I don't like about 5e. Divine, primal, arcane, occult, and psionic should have their own quirks even if they use the same base template.
Yeah, I can get on board with this. Personally though, I'm going to continue to refine my homebrew class system.
Chilling kinda vibe.
But then what happens to subclasses like the Trickery Domain and the like? You would sacrifice a lot of flavour.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I wouldn’t. Under this system a half-caster would just be half a caster glued onto half a martial. The differences would have to come from their subclasses and whatever other specialized trees are included.
Under a system like that, one presumes that some of the potential caster features would be lackluster without levels in something else, and vice versa. So a “Full Caster” would steer away from those choices, while people who want those choices would have to naturally gravitate toward Multiclassing to get the most out of them.
Yall are thinking way to specifically for a system like that. For that system, Caster =/= Wizard (or Cleric) and Fighter =/= “Fighter.” For a system like that:
Caster = Spellcasting + Subclass.
Martial = Extra Attacks & Fighting Style + Subclass.
etc.
These classes would have to be stripped down shells of a class, think less of a “class” as you know it and more of an umbrella category under which the “subclasses” (like Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Barbarian, etc.) would have to look more like the base classes we have now. What you are used to as “subclasses” would have to cease existing entirely to be replaced with Feats or feature trees.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Those would no longer exist. They would have to be replaced with Feats or generic feature trees that every player would customize for themselves. It could theoretically lead to more flavor since your “trickery” cleric could look very different from mine. The flavor just wouldn’t be intrinsic or narrowly predefined bu WotC.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That just sounds overcomplicated. The simplicity of a class, subclass system is elegant and usable. This concept of a "base class" seems to have no point to it, if the majority of features come from feature trees and "subclasses" that function more like classes.
You may as well just keep certain features from the "base class" in all the typical classes and leave it as normal.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Basically, 5e is a 21st century version of AD&D. What they are describing would be more like a 21st century version of OD&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes and no. Think of the base classes like meals. One is breakfast, one is lunch, and muliclassing would be like brunch. The “subclasses” would be more specific meals, a hamburger for instance. The specific trees and options would be like custom toppings and sides.
To continue the analogy, if “Spellcaster” = “Lunch,” and “Wizard” = “Hamburger,” and the trees and feats allowed customization, then you could conceivably have hundreds of different varieties of Hamburgers, whereas now we only have exactly 13 varieties of Hamburger, “NO CHANGES OR SUBSTITUTIONS!”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
With only 20 levels?
Chilling kinda vibe.
I added to my last post, it might explain it better.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You presume that there would be a 20 level cap. In AD&D the cap was 36 if I recall. Before that there was no cap whatsoever if I remember correctly.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just make subclasses features run at the same levels for every class and then let players take any subclass. That works better than complicated feature trees.
Chilling kinda vibe.
For some people. For others, not so much. 🤷♂️
I agree with you that D&D should always be a Race/Class system. I’m just explaining how a system like that would have to work.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Mmm. Well, when I'm finished with my homebrew system, I'll show it to you to give it a look over.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I would like to see a class without a subclass return for 6e. I don't like how in 5e you can't be just a fighter or rogue. You have to be a champion fighter, or a assassin rogue, or some other subclass.
There the option for a straight line progression without touching a subclass at all.