Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
logic and reasoning do apply to most fantasy settings. But even that aside.
Its fine to have discussions based on "i think" especially in something like DnD, because dnd isnt about just one person's understanding or one person's take on the rules. Every table is going to involve a meeting of the minds bewteen various people. And even though we may do a lot of circular talking in this forum, i think people are trying to understand how other people see things, and maybe learn, or figure out something they can take back into their RPG games. Reality is dnd isnt just whats in the book, its how people choose to play it as well.
As per this topic. Looking at the various ways in which they have applied the mental stats, and how people interpret them, or what parts stayed with them and what they forgot.for the most part, i can See what the designers were thinking ,kind of. The thread is a thought experiment anyway, the rules are what they are. The only class they seem to be even thinking about altering the spellcasting stat for is warlock.
To be perfectly honest, i think the feedback on the stat switching warlock was negative because they felt it would be too powerful with other classes. i dont think it was because wisdom or int clashed too heavily with warlock concepts, or their own ideas for mental casting stats.
Also, i would say for the most part, The rules are for creating a baseline experience. Most of the classes are linked to stat because that stat is linked to the fantasy or charachter concept they are going for. For most of them, the stat chosen fits for casting. I think the problem is, for people who want to get more creative, the overall stat system can be limiting. But thats not something they can fix much with this system, without kind of destroying its appeal for people who like that they can get charachters close to some fantasy they wanted to play without being very experienced.
While most cases I agree we can have “I think” discussions, on these threads the stakes are a little raised. Maybe it’s because these are the UA threads and people (in general including myself sometimes) are trying to persuade others to conform to their “I think” in hopes that through this 5eR UA process their “I think” becomes objective in book truth. I typically try to separate my “I thinks” from what’s in the book. I don’t like when other present their “I thinks” as supported by the book truths. This is a fantasy game and everyone is free to interpret and play however they like, but if we aren’t grounded by the books then everyone’s “I think” is correct. There is no discussion, no rebuttals, no reason to reply to anyone, it’s simply opinions. A lot of people myself included have cited the books in rebuttals. Sometimes you get a proper response, “oh I missed that section,” and someone learns something. Others times you get, “the book is wrong because I think.” It is hard to accept the second answer.
Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
logic and reasoning do apply to most fantasy settings. But even that aside.
Its fine to have discussions based on "i think" especially in something like DnD, because dnd isnt about just one person's understanding or one person's take on the rules. Every table is going to involve a meeting of the minds bewteen various people. And even though we may do a lot of circular talking in this forum, i think people are trying to understand how other people see things, and maybe learn, or figure out something they can take back into their RPG games. Reality is dnd isnt just whats in the book, its how people choose to play it as well.
As per this topic. Looking at the various ways in which they have applied the mental stats, and how people interpret them, or what parts stayed with them and what they forgot.for the most part, i can See what the designers were thinking ,kind of. The thread is a thought experiment anyway, the rules are what they are. The only class they seem to be even thinking about altering the spellcasting stat for is warlock.
To be perfectly honest, i think the feedback on the stat switching warlock was negative because they felt it would be too powerful with other classes. i dont think it was because wisdom or int clashed too heavily with warlock concepts, or their own ideas for mental casting stats.
Also, i would say for the most part, The rules are for creating a baseline experience. Most of the classes are linked to stat because that stat is linked to the fantasy or charachter concept they are going for. For most of them, the stat chosen fits for casting. I think the problem is, for people who want to get more creative, the overall stat system can be limiting. But thats not something they can fix much with this system, without kind of destroying its appeal for people who like that they can get charachters close to some fantasy they wanted to play without being very experienced.
While most cases I agree we can have “I think” discussions, on these threads the stakes are a little raised. Maybe it’s because these are the UA threads and people (in general including myself sometimes) are trying to persuade others to conform to their “I think” in hopes that through this 5eR UA process their “I think” becomes objective in book truth. I typically try to separate my “I thinks” from what’s in the book. I don’t like when other present their “I thinks” as supported by the book truths. This is a fantasy game and everyone is free to interpret and play however they like, but if we aren’t grounded by the books then everyone’s “I think” is correct. There is no discussion, no rebuttals, no reason to reply to anyone, it’s simply opinions. A lot of people myself included have cited the books in rebuttals. Sometimes you get a proper response, “oh I missed that section,” and someone learns something. Others times you get, “the book is wrong because I think.” It is hard to accept the second answer.
the time when things are in Flux is the perfect time for I think discussions. This is literally the best time to challenge the books.
I was going to do a Spellcasting Poll to continue the conversation and gather more information following the Warlock Poll thread. The flaw is without a perspective to ground the poll I have too many questions I could include in the poll and my personal biases keep flavoring the questions and possible answers. I believe a more open discussion is needed before I could create a poll that incapsulates the ideas of most of the people replying on these threads allowing them to honestly have a good options to vote.
Do you think that the casting stats are well defined in the PHB or DMG? What is the actual difference from between casting with Int or Wis or Cha?
Do you believe the the Classes all have their appropriate casting stat(s) based on your understanding of the casting stats?
Which Casting Stat(s) would you assign each Class?
Would another class having a stat that differs from your assignment make you dislike the class? Which one(s)? Why?
What other general spell casting questions would you like polled?
Also, people have different understandings of the books, and the books aren't perfect, they have inconsistencies, and sometimes invite multiple interpretations. Not surprising, language itself is imperfect
Also you, in the op of this poll ask for opinions on what players think, what they want, and what they might change. It doesnt make sense to say they should follow a specific understanding of the books. The people are very on topic, and its totally fair to say the books are inconsistent in phb versus dmg, so I must make a judgement call. Or straight up say I don't like X it should change. Or the books are great and don't need change. The OP specifically incites this type of discussion.
No offense, but I think certain lines of thinking irk you, however that alone doesnt mean they are wrong lines of thinking, or have no value with respect to the OP. You seem concerned about the possible end results, when that is unknowable, and not really up to anyone in this thread. Its highly possible nothing we discuss here will impact the final version at all.
All these words and still a failure to admit you were wrong.
Because I'm not, which you'd know if you read what people said instead of attacking them for things they didn't.
It doesn't matter how spells are gained, the spellcasting ability score is supposed to be about how they're cast. Bards cast using music/performance, Clerics intuitively channel their deity's power, Wizards cast by manipulating magical formulae.
Everything you said about memorization doesn’t change that they haven’t described how a Wizard cast spells. Also you definitely did some cherry picking but it’s okay. No one has time to reprint the whole book.
I didn't cherry pick anything; I literally produced the same line for every single spellcaster in the game and added the corresponding lines from the preparation sections.
Wizards cast by performing incantations they've memorised, the memorisation is the critical part as everyone has been trying in vain to point out to you because they cast from memory; that's why they're Intelligence spellcasters, your own quote literally tells you this.
For someone who keeps insisting you be told why Wizards are Intelligence casters, you're remarkably unwilling to listen to anyone who answers, in a thread where you asked for opinions on spellcasting scores yet seem to keep attacking anyone who has one?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Gwar you can’t actually use logic when discussing fantasy unless you have something solid to measure it against. The only measure we have is the books. Attempting to just use logic to discuss fantasy without something acting as a measure is illogical. It becomes a game of “I think,” and their is no conclusion to that except people getting tired of playing. It’s honestly never ending since someone else can chime in at any point with another “I think.”
logic and reasoning do apply to most fantasy settings. But even that aside.
Its fine to have discussions based on "i think" especially in something like DnD, because dnd isnt about just one person's understanding or one person's take on the rules. Every table is going to involve a meeting of the minds bewteen various people. And even though we may do a lot of circular talking in this forum, i think people are trying to understand how other people see things, and maybe learn, or figure out something they can take back into their RPG games. Reality is dnd isnt just whats in the book, its how people choose to play it as well.
As per this topic. Looking at the various ways in which they have applied the mental stats, and how people interpret them, or what parts stayed with them and what they forgot.for the most part, i can See what the designers were thinking ,kind of. The thread is a thought experiment anyway, the rules are what they are. The only class they seem to be even thinking about altering the spellcasting stat for is warlock.
To be perfectly honest, i think the feedback on the stat switching warlock was negative because they felt it would be too powerful with other classes. i dont think it was because wisdom or int clashed too heavily with warlock concepts, or their own ideas for mental casting stats.
Also, i would say for the most part, The rules are for creating a baseline experience. Most of the classes are linked to stat because that stat is linked to the fantasy or charachter concept they are going for. For most of them, the stat chosen fits for casting. I think the problem is, for people who want to get more creative, the overall stat system can be limiting. But thats not something they can fix much with this system, without kind of destroying its appeal for people who like that they can get charachters close to some fantasy they wanted to play without being very experienced.
While most cases I agree we can have “I think” discussions, on these threads the stakes are a little raised. Maybe it’s because these are the UA threads and people (in general including myself sometimes) are trying to persuade others to conform to their “I think” in hopes that through this 5eR UA process their “I think” becomes objective in book truth. I typically try to separate my “I thinks” from what’s in the book. I don’t like when other present their “I thinks” as supported by the book truths. This is a fantasy game and everyone is free to interpret and play however they like, but if we aren’t grounded by the books then everyone’s “I think” is correct. There is no discussion, no rebuttals, no reason to reply to anyone, it’s simply opinions. A lot of people myself included have cited the books in rebuttals. Sometimes you get a proper response, “oh I missed that section,” and someone learns something. Others times you get, “the book is wrong because I think.” It is hard to accept the second answer.
the time when things are in Flux is the perfect time for I think discussions. This is literally the best time to challenge the books.
I was going to do a Spellcasting Poll to continue the conversation and gather more information following the Warlock Poll thread. The flaw is without a perspective to ground the poll I have too many questions I could include in the poll and my personal biases keep flavoring the questions and possible answers. I believe a more open discussion is needed before I could create a poll that incapsulates the ideas of most of the people replying on these threads allowing them to honestly have a good options to vote.
Do you think that the casting stats are well defined in the PHB or DMG? What is the actual difference from between casting with Int or Wis or Cha?
Do you believe the the Classes all have their appropriate casting stat(s) based on your understanding of the casting stats?
Which Casting Stat(s) would you assign each Class?
Would another class having a stat that differs from your assignment make you dislike the class? Which one(s)? Why?
What other general spell casting questions would you like polled?
Also, people have different understandings of the books, and the books aren't perfect, they have inconsistencies, and sometimes invite multiple interpretations. Not surprising, language itself is imperfect
Also you, in the op of this poll ask for opinions on what players think, what they want, and what they might change. It doesnt make sense to say they should follow a specific understanding of the books. The people are very on topic, and its totally fair to say the books are inconsistent in phb versus dmg, so I must make a judgement call. Or straight up say I don't like X it should change. Or the books are great and don't need change. The OP specifically incites this type of discussion.
No offense, but I think certain lines of thinking irk you, however that alone doesnt mean they are wrong lines of thinking, or have no value with respect to the OP. You seem concerned about the possible end results, when that is unknowable, and not really up to anyone in this thread. Its highly possible nothing we discuss here will impact the final version at all.
It’s not the certain lines of thinking that irk me, it’s the idea that those lines of thinking are supported by the books and should be the way things are. If someone shares an “I think” as just an “I think” I’m very receptive and usually want more info. When someone shares an “I think” as objective truth or claims the book, the lore, or some other thing supports their “I think” I have a problem with it. Now we have to use the book as a measure.
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your druid spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to nature.
With this in mind, I can imagine a slight adjustment to the wording…
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to the arcane.
In my opinion, this would still seem very much like a wizard in practice. Thematically, there would be very little change.
A Druid's devotion and a Wizard's devotion are going to look very different. The Druid says "nature is totally dope," and the Wizard says "I hate magic it's so complicated and there's so much stuff you have to remember" and then spends the whole day studying a spellbook. A Wizard isn't going to just say "magic is totally dope" and then start slinging spells without cracking a book open. That isn't how Wizards Wizard. That is a huge change thematically, and one that doesn't fit the standard class fantasy at that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your druid spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to nature.
With this in mind, I can imagine a slight adjustment to the wording…
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since your magic draws upon your devotion and attunement to the arcane.
In my opinion, this would still seem very much like a wizard in practice. Thematically, there would be very little change.
The big problem is for most classes the Spellcasting section doesn’t explain how they manifest magic into the world. Only the Bard and Sorcerer explicitly explain the how. The Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger only explain the source of their magic. The Wizard only says he studies and memorizes spells, and the Warlock literally says nothing. If we look at the lore sections we have cross over on how they obtain spells and cast spells. That crossover is why people are arguing about changing casting stats. The Wizards lore section does explain how they manifest their magic, but it is similar to how Bards manifest their magic. Both Bard and Wizards have to study to learn spells. So then someone will ask could their casting stats be interchangeable. Someone else will reply, “NO,” and the debate has begun. If the books codified the major differences in each of their casting stats it would be easier to avoid these debates, but these debates give us something to do between playing the game. Also your Wisdom Wizard works just fine. I would add power source and manifestation to all Spellcasting ability text. Even if every class only gets one stat having the power source and manifestations just helps in my opinion. So even if you throw away the wisdom and charisma wizard versions below the Intelligence version includes the how they cast as well.
Spellcasting Ability
Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn to manipulate the weave through dedicated study and memorization of spells. You use your Intelligence whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
Spellcasting Ability
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since your attunement to the arcane weave has aided your studies and ability to manipulate it. You use your Wisdom whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Wisdom modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
Spellcasting Ability
Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since through study you have learned to project your will to manipulate the arcane weave. You use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Charisma modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since your attunement to the arcane weave has aided your studies and ability to manipulate it. You use your Wisdom whenever a spell refers to your spellcasting ability. In addition, you use your Wisdom modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
I think I would word this first sentence as:
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you use your intuition and [metaphyical?] perception to manipulate the arcane weave.
(not sure if I want to put the word "metaphysical" into that sentence or not)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While most cases I agree we can have “I think” discussions, on these threads the stakes are a little raised. Maybe it’s because these are the UA threads and people (in general including myself sometimes) are trying to persuade others to conform to their “I think” in hopes that through this 5eR UA process their “I think” becomes objective in book truth. I typically try to separate my “I thinks” from what’s in the book. I don’t like when other present their “I thinks” as supported by the book truths.
This is a fantasy game and everyone is free to interpret and play however they like, but if we aren’t grounded by the books then everyone’s “I think” is correct. There is no discussion, no rebuttals, no reason to reply to anyone, it’s simply opinions. A lot of people myself included have cited the books in rebuttals. Sometimes you get a proper response, “oh I missed that section,” and someone learns something. Others times you get, “the book is wrong because I think.” It is hard to accept the second answer.
the time when things are in Flux is the perfect time for I think discussions. This is literally the best time to challenge the books.
Also, people have different understandings of the books, and the books aren't perfect, they have inconsistencies, and sometimes invite multiple interpretations. Not surprising, language itself is imperfect
Also you, in the op of this poll ask for opinions on what players think, what they want, and what they might change. It doesnt make sense to say they should follow a specific understanding of the books. The people are very on topic, and its totally fair to say the books are inconsistent in phb versus dmg, so I must make a judgement call. Or straight up say I don't like X it should change. Or the books are great and don't need change. The OP specifically incites this type of discussion.
No offense, but I think certain lines of thinking irk you, however that alone doesnt mean they are wrong lines of thinking, or have no value with respect to the OP. You seem concerned about the possible end results, when that is unknowable, and not really up to anyone in this thread. Its highly possible nothing we discuss here will impact the final version at all.
Because I'm not, which you'd know if you read what people said instead of attacking them for things they didn't.
I didn't cherry pick anything; I literally produced the same line for every single spellcaster in the game and added the corresponding lines from the preparation sections.
Wizards cast by performing incantations they've memorised, the memorisation is the critical part as everyone has been trying in vain to point out to you because they cast from memory; that's why they're Intelligence spellcasters, your own quote literally tells you this.
For someone who keeps insisting you be told why Wizards are Intelligence casters, you're remarkably unwilling to listen to anyone who answers, in a thread where you asked for opinions on spellcasting scores yet seem to keep attacking anyone who has one?
Either opinions are welcome, or they're not.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
For the Druid
With this in mind, I can imagine a slight adjustment to the wording…
In my opinion, this would still seem very much like a wizard in practice. Thematically, there would be very little change.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It’s not the certain lines of thinking that irk me, it’s the idea that those lines of thinking are supported by the books and should be the way things are. If someone shares an “I think” as just an “I think” I’m very receptive and usually want more info. When someone shares an “I think” as objective truth or claims the book, the lore, or some other thing supports their “I think” I have a problem with it. Now we have to use the book as a measure.
A Druid's devotion and a Wizard's devotion are going to look very different. The Druid says "nature is totally dope," and the Wizard says "I hate magic it's so complicated and there's so much stuff you have to remember" and then spends the whole day studying a spellbook. A Wizard isn't going to just say "magic is totally dope" and then start slinging spells without cracking a book open. That isn't how Wizards Wizard. That is a huge change thematically, and one that doesn't fit the standard class fantasy at that.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The big problem is for most classes the Spellcasting section doesn’t explain how they manifest magic into the world. Only the Bard and Sorcerer explicitly explain the how. The Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger only explain the source of their magic. The Wizard only says he studies and memorizes spells, and the Warlock literally says nothing. If we look at the lore sections we have cross over on how they obtain spells and cast spells. That crossover is why people are arguing about changing casting stats. The Wizards lore section does explain how they manifest their magic, but it is similar to how Bards manifest their magic. Both Bard and Wizards have to study to learn spells. So then someone will ask could their casting stats be interchangeable. Someone else will reply, “NO,” and the debate has begun. If the books codified the major differences in each of their casting stats it would be easier to avoid these debates, but these debates give us something to do between playing the game. Also your Wisdom Wizard works just fine. I would add power source and manifestation to all Spellcasting ability text. Even if every class only gets one stat having the power source and manifestations just helps in my opinion. So even if you throw away the wisdom and charisma wizard versions below the Intelligence version includes the how they cast as well.
I think I would word this first sentence as:
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you use your intuition and [metaphyical?] perception to manipulate the arcane weave.
(not sure if I want to put the word "metaphysical" into that sentence or not)