Everyone is a Wizard! Well, Mage!

[Limited Gish]

Just wiped my party again, six level-four characters on Yester Hill in Strahd. Anyway! Looking to start a new campaign and was wondering the ramifications of adding Half-Casting as an extra bonus to make it feel like magic is very common in the world.

The slots would scale as a ranger equal to your characters total level and have spells know as a ranger of that level.

You would choose a class(excluding Ranger and Paladin) to draw spells from and to base your spell casting modifier off of. (Ex. Choosing Sorcerer would get you spells off the sorcerer spell list and use CHA as a spell casting Modifier)

Not a Ritual Caster.

I'm sure there's some obvious problems I'm missing. The biggest problem I've thought of is a lot of Paladin Fuel. But I'm not sure if that's really tha much of a problem or not. Maybe just limiting it so it doesn't cross with other class features, similar to how racial spell casting works. Just a very raw thought that I had and felt the Playground might be able to help refine. Or tell me I'm crazy.

Thoughts?

[NNescio]

Just wiped my party again, six level-four characters on Yester Hill in Strahd. Anyway! Looking to start a new campaign and was wondering the ramifications of adding Half-Casting as an extra bonus to make it feel like magic is very common in the world.

The slots would scale as a ranger equal to your characters total level and have spells know as a ranger of that level.

You would choose a class(excluding Ranger and Paladin) to draw spells from and to base your spell casting modifier off of. (Ex. Choosing Sorcerer would get you spells off the sorcerer spell list and use CHA as a spell casting Modifier)

Not a Ritual Caster.

I'm sure there's some obvious problems I'm missing. The biggest problem I've thought of is a lot of Paladin Fuel. But I'm not sure if that's really tha much of a problem or not. Maybe just limiting it so it doesn't cross with other class features, similar to how racial spell casting works. Just a very raw thought that I had and felt the Playground might be able to help refine. Or tell me I'm crazy.

Thoughts?

How 'bout this?



Magic Adept
(All PCs in Limited Gish's new campaign gains this feature)
Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class’s spell list. In addition, choose one 1st-level spell from that same list. You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again.

You learn additional spells from the same list at higher levels: one 2nd-level spell at level 5, one 3rd-level spell at level 9, one 4th-level spell at level 13, and one 5th-level spell at level 17. For each of these spells, you can cast it at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again.

Whenever you learn a new spell from this feature, you can choose one of the spells you previously gained from the same feature and replace it with another spell from the same list, which must also be of the same spell level.

Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends on the class you chose: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid: or Intelligence for wizard.


Basically a buffed-up Magic Initiate. (And yes, it's intentionally written in such a way that you can choose to swap-out cantrips).

[R.Shackleford]

I would just Gestalt the warlock casting progression onto every non-caster class. Then allow each player to pick a list (Ranger list gives druid cantrips, paladin list gives cleric cantrips).

Refluff the patron to be whatever, and call it a day.

Edit

Gain cantrips, scaling spell slots, and maybe the 6th level 1/day slot.

I absolutely hate the 1/3 and 1/2 casters, warlock casting is much nicer, and I'm not a huge fan of the Ranger spell list (too reliant on dex/bow attacks to be awesome).

[MrStabby]

Well if everyone can cast sanctuary it may help avoid a TPK again...

It's an interesting idea and I think it might work if you want to pump up the characters. I would limit the classes you can poach spells from to sorcerer, cleric and druid and might skip cantrips.

Given every character potentially has an attack action they can use the spells to watch out for are the ones that can be cast prior to a fight and reaction/bonus action spells.

At lower levels bless, shield, mirror image, blur, absorb elements, sanctuary, hellish rebuke are the spells I think are going to be the most powerful.

I am not sure how you see this interacting with other casting classes though. If you can take a wizard and have spell-slots at 1.5x progression then you will be able to cast higher level spells much more often than expected for your level. Taking a cleric and getting access to wizard spells is also a pretty big shift. For these, you have to worry about the spells that can be most effectively upcast out of a spell slot.

[Shining Wrath]

Give everyone Magic Initiate feat for free at first level? Even Wizards might not mind picking up some Cleric cantrips.

[Sir cryosin]

So a lv 20 archer battle master is can take on a army. And any monster in the book by him self. On the opening round if he gos nova he's rapid firing 18 shoots with swift quiver up. Now he will most likely have sharp shooter, and crossbow expert, with archery style and + magic iteams. 18d8+180+180 that's with 10 to every hit sjarpshooter, +5 form mod, 2 from fighting style, +3 magic bow. That's numbers that are scary as hell

[R.Shackleford]

So a lv 20 archer battle master is can take on a army. And any monster in the book by him self. On the opening round if he gos nova he's rapid firing 18 shoots with swift quiver up. Now he will most likely have sharp shooter, and crossbow expert, with archery style and + magic iteams. 18d8+180+180 that's with 10 to every hit sjarpshooter, +5 form mod, 2 from fighting style, +3 magic bow. That's numbers that are scary as hell

Only if said army is in an open field and deployed by a 3 Int Warlord.

[Shining Wrath]

Only if said army is in an open field and deployed by a 3 Int Warlord.

As a rule armies deploy in open fields because they can't maintain formation and unit cohesion otherwise. Read about the Wilderness battle during the Civil War as one example of just how bad things can get when they don't.

Adventuring parties are a lot different than armies. The point of the army is to stay together with your friends because combat is scary and having friends helps.

[R.Shackleford]

As a rule armies deploy in open fields because they can't maintain formation and unit cohesion otherwise. Read about the Wilderness battle during the Civil War as one example of just how bad things can get when they don't.

Adventuring parties are a lot different than armies. The point of the army is to stay together with your friends because combat is scary and having friends helps.

In the real world? Sure, but only maybe.

But in a magical world where you have walkie talkies (Message for short range chaining, Sending for long range, Animal Messenger if time isn't of the essence) there is no need for deploying in an open field. Especially when people know that the enemy may have weapons of mass destruction on their side.

No. It will be more like how "freedom fighters" and other "armies" fight in the jungles and mountains. You do not stack up like colonial times and attack the (insert world power military), that will get you destroyed instantly.

No, your army will use guerrilla warfare, unless your army is lead by a Warlord (or whoever) with the Int of 3.

[Sir cryosin]

Even in a city, forest, tunnels or any close quarters Battlefield or Terrain. Your not mobilizing the army because an army is a sheer number of soldiers. And those type of areas in Guerrilla tactics is used by smaller groups platoons or squads of soldiers but they are not a army. Will be part of a army but they are not a army.

Edited: the top 3 definitions of the word Army are following.
1. A organized military force equipped to fight on land
2. The branch of a nation's military Armed Forces.
3. A large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose.

[Shining Wrath]

In the real world? Sure, but only maybe.

But in a magical world where you have walkie talkies (Message for short range chaining, Sending for long range, Animal Messenger if time isn't of the essence) there is no need for deploying in an open field. Especially when people know that the enemy may have weapons of mass destruction on their side.

No. It will be more like how "freedom fighters" and other "armies" fight in the jungles and mountains. You do not stack up like colonial times and attack the (insert world power military), that will get you destroyed instantly.

No, your army will use guerrilla warfare, unless your army is lead by a Warlord (or whoever) with the Int of 3.

Unless everyone's a PC, units will stick together, because combat is scary and no one wants to do it alone, regardless of magic or technology. Even Navy SEALS work in teams, and they are as close to a band of adventurers you're likely to see in our world. Even the history of Eberron features armies with units maintaining formation. Even the fluff text for Wizards in the PHB mentions casting a fireball at the enemy ranks. So long as death is bad and pain is bad soldiers will always every time without exception stay with their friends. And that's just not possible in extremely difficult terrain.

Warlord INT is irrelevant to basic psychology. Technology and magic help make soldiers more effective, but the idea of an army will always be "stick together". Because:

No one wants to be the '1' in a 1 vs 5 fight
No one wants to be the '10' in a 10 vs 50 fight
No one wants to be the '100' in a 100 versus 500 fight
No one wants to be the 'X' in an X versus 5X fight, for all X

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah... You all can keep pretending like kings and queens have no clue what PCs can do and just throw XP at your players... But as a DM, and a player, I prefer my enemies to work with an intelligence greater than 4.

[Shining Wrath]

Yeah... You all can keep pretending like kings and queens have no clue what PCs can do and just throw XP at your players... But as a DM, and a player, I prefer my enemies to work with an intelligence greater than 4.

A king who keeps his army together and advances swiftly will destroy utterly a king who spreads his army out over many times as much terrain, even in a world with fireballs. This is not entirely theoretical; a cannon loaded with grapeshot is a pretty good imitation of a lightning bolt spell, and yet guys whose IQ as generals were rather high, like Napoleon, kept their armies in formation and maneuvered in brigade strength. Napoleon lost Waterloo because he divided his army and had no counter for Blucher's troops arriving on the field (that, and the Middle Guard retreating without orders for the first time ever).

But go ahead; tell me how much better generals you are than Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, Grant, and that lot.

[Limited Gish]

Thanks everyone who replied with feedback! Gonna take some time to look it over some more.


I am not sure how you see this interacting with other casting classes though. If you can take a wizard and have spell-slots at 1.5x progression then you will be able to cast higher level spells much more often than expected for your level. Taking a cleric and getting access to wizard spells is also a pretty big shift. For these, you have to worry about the spells that can be most effectively upcast out of a spell slot.

The idea would be that they wouldn't. That was what I meant by treating them like racial spells. I probably should have been more clear on the intention there, but it was late/early.

But yeah, they wouldn't be able to throw their Special List spells into slots they get from their actual classes and the same for trying it the opposite. Similar to how 3.5 does their separate class spell casting.

[Lord_Jord]

Yeah... You all can keep pretending like kings and queens have no clue what PCs can do and just throw XP at your players... But as a DM, and a player, I prefer my enemies to work with an intelligence greater than 4.

I think your biggest misconception is that PCs are everywhere. They are not. In fact, there are only the amount sitting in front of you in any particular session. Every NPC has a stat block, not a character sheet. PCs are supposed to be better than your run-of-the-mill NPC, thats what makes DND exciting for players, they're better than ordinary, they're extraordinary. PCs are the exception not the rule.
Side note: That doesn't mean you shouldn't provide a challenge.

[longshotist]

i think every class has some spellcasting potential except barbarian, no? Just make barbarians the ones who are distrustful of magic (a classic D&D trope) and everyone else is either a primary caster or arcane trickster, eldritch knight, etc.