Another "What if?" thread : Arcane magic

[DanyBallon]

Disclaimer: the object of this thread is to have a discussion of an hypothetical scenario. It's not a thread looking to find a fix to a problem or to implement an houserule. It's just a thread to talk about the impact of the proposed scenario

Recently I stumbled on a blog where the author is trying to create a 5e adaptation of the Red Box. In his class conversion, there is the Magic User, which was the ancestor to the wizard, sorcerer and warlock. With the idea to simplify the class, he made all three, an aspect of the magic user, giving you as small boon related to the aspect you choose.

Reading this adaptation got me thinking, what if sorcerers and warlock where arcane tradition of the wizard instead of full blown classes? What feature from the warlock and sorcerers would be good features to port in an arcane tradition? Should arcane recovery be available to all? If so, sorcerer's font of magic redundant?


Definitely there are pros and cons, what do you believe will be the benefits and problems that would come up from such a scenario?

edit: Here's the blog link for those interested Mythlands of Erce - Magic User and Priest (http://mythlands-erce.blogspot.ca/2017/03/magic-user-priest-write-ups-for-into.html)

[Unoriginal]

Pros:

-A simpler magic system, maybe? Perhaps?

-...

Cons:

-Less options for the classes

-Less diverse casters

-Class flavor with less mechanical impact

-Less possibilities for optimization (if it's a con)

[DanyBallon]

Forgot to post my pros and cons...

Pros:
- A single magic system, so more simple to learn.
- Warlock and sorcerers have access to more spells and/or spell slots

Cons:
- Lack of diversity for sorcerers and warlock (at least mechanically, fluff can still be applied)


As for features, I'd say that when you choose the warlock or sorcerer arcane tradition, you have the choice to use Int or Cha as your casting stat. Warlock would get Eldritch Blast for free (or it could be restricted to this arcane tradition, but I'm not too found about that). Maybe we could make both sorcerer and warlock pick an origin/patron and give them a small boon related to that, but no origin/patron features later on...

[Kite474]

Pros-

Simpler magic system

Con-

-Much less character customization

-Less depth concerning the maechanica of the sorcerer and Warlock

-Wizard takes a huge amount of the flavor of magic

-Depending on implementation it may put the other schools to shame

[Millstone85]

What I would do is turn each sorcerous origin and otherworldly patron into its own arcane tradition, with a comment on whether such power is most commonly studied, bought or inherited.

Some characters might really blur the line between the current classes. Consider an elf who has been exceptionally in touch with her fey ancestry ever since her youth. Growing up, she decides to study her powers with wizarding rigour. Eventually, she discovers her ancestors once made a pact with the Queen of Air and Darkness, and that the debt isn't fully paid.

[8wGremlin]

slightly off topic: What if you took this further.

Magic is the same whether you're a Cleric/Druid/Bard/Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock or a half caster.
All spells are available to all magic users.

Class features dictate what you can do with it, and how you interact with it.

for instance
Wizard - you learn from books, and rote - academic magic
Cleric - you made a pact with a 'god' for the power
Druid - you made a pact with spirits of nature
Warlock - you made a pact with not 'god'/spirit of nature
Bard - you pick up bits and learn a little like a wizard, but more free form
Sorcerer - magic is literally in your blood, careful of vampires!

each one has mechanics in what they can do with it -
abjuration wizard get x benefit with casting spells with the #abjuration tag

Cleric:
Major Benefit: if the cleric has 1 or more people with the same religion using the help action when they cast their spells, they get a bigger benefit (treat as sorcerer points?) or this could be set up in advance when they Pray at the end of a long rest
A cleric of a healing god, get a benefit when they cast a #healing tag spell.
Clerics get to wear armour

[Mith]

slightly off topic: What if you took this further.

Magic is the same whether you're a Cleric/Druid/Bard/Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock or a half caster.
All spells are available to all magic users.

Class features dictate what you can do with it, and how you interact with it.

for instance
Wizard - you learn from books, and rote - academic magic
Cleric - you made a pact with a 'god' for the power
Druid - you made a pact with spirits of nature
Warlock - you made a pact with not 'god'/spirit of nature
Bard - you pick up bits and learn a little like a wizard, but more free form
Sorcerer - magic is literally in your blood, careful of vampires!

each one has mechanics in what they can do with it -
abjuration wizard get x benefit with casting spells with the #abjuration tag

Cleric:
Major Benefit: if the cleric has 1 or more people with the same religion using the help action when they cast their spells, they get a bigger benefit (treat as sorcerer points?) or this could be set up in advance when they Pray at the end of a long rest
A cleric of a healing god, get a benefit when they cast a #healing tag spell.
Clerics get to wear armour

Would the Warlock mechanic be like the Cleric, but as a pyramid scheme?

[DanyBallon]

slightly off topic: What if you took this further.

Magic is the same whether you're a Cleric/Druid/Bard/Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock or a half caster.
All spells are available to all magic users.

Class features dictate what you can do with it, and how you interact with it.

for instance
Wizard - you learn from books, and rote - academic magic
Cleric - you made a pact with a 'god' for the power
Druid - you made a pact with spirits of nature
Warlock - you made a pact with not 'god'/spirit of nature
Bard - you pick up bits and learn a little like a wizard, but more free form
Sorcerer - magic is literally in your blood, careful of vampires!

each one has mechanics in what they can do with it -
abjuration wizard get x benefit with casting spells with the #abjuration tag

Cleric:
Major Benefit: if the cleric has 1 or more people with the same religion using the help action when they cast their spells, they get a bigger benefit (treat as sorcerer points?) or this could be set up in advance when they Pray at the end of a long rest
A cleric of a healing god, get a benefit when they cast a #healing tag spell.
Clerics get to wear armour

Quite an interesting idea you got there! It's worth taking time to see how it could work :smallsmile:

[Millstone85]

I often think about a system that wouldn't so much have classes as it would have magical and martial paths.

It would encourage gish builds, such as a character who shoots arrows while hiding behind illusions.

But then I don't know if it would be recognizable as D&D.

[DanyBallon]

I often think about a system that wouldn't so much have classes as it would have magical and martial paths.

It would encourage gish builds, such as a character who shoots arrows while hiding behind illusions.

But then I don't know if it would be recognizable as D&D.

This brings up a question; what defines D&D? Is it the class system? The d20? The fantasy? Thhe vancian magic? The combat system? The roleplaying and exploration?

I for one believe that D&D is best defined by the ability to simulate the character growing up as they get more experienced, that there are path you choose to follow, that magic feels mystical. And also a part of nostalgia, D&D being one of the first RPGs.

[Naanomi]

In an ideal world, a system with four 'base classes' (fighting man, magic-user, (Cleric rename), (thief rename)); that branch into subclasses and sub-subclasses would be a perfectly viable system; and could likely 'feel like DnD' if done right

I'd split them into:
(Fighter, Barbarian, paladin)
(Cleric, Druid, warlock)
(Rogue, ranger, monk)
(Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard)

Though the specific placement of Bard and Ranger (and maybe warlock) are up for debate, mostly based on historical precedent

[DanyBallon]

In an ideal world, a system with four 'base classes' (fighting man, magic-user, (Cleric rename), (thief rename)); that branch into subclasses and sub-subclasses would be a perfectly viable system; and could likely 'feel like DnD' if done right

I'd split them into:
(Fighter, Barbarian, paladin)
(Cleric, Druid, warlock)
(Rogue, ranger, monk)
(Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard)

Though the specific placement of Bard and Ranger (and maybe warlock) are up for debate, mostly based on historical precedent

I like what you did with Warlock, Ranger and Bard. It's bold in term of D&D canon, yet perfectly makes sense!

How would you treat sub-subclasses? Would you go as detailed as actual archetypes, or would it just be a slight difference within the same feature?

[Unoriginal]

In an ideal world, a system with four 'base classes' (fighting man, magic-user, (Cleric rename), (thief rename)); that branch into subclasses and sub-subclasses would be a perfectly viable system; and could likely 'feel like DnD' if done right

I'd split them into:
(Fighter, Barbarian, paladin)
(Cleric, Druid, warlock)
(Rogue, ranger, monk)
(Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard)

Though the specific placement of Bard and Ranger (and maybe warlock) are up for debate, mostly based on historical precedent

Isn't this how 4e did it? Then added stuff like Arcane/Divine/Primal to differenciate between the classes?

[Naanomi]

Isn't this how 4e did it? Then added stuff like Arcane/Divine/Primal to differenciate between the classes?
Kind of? Except without base mechanics really just 'thematically connected' power sources in most cases and a myriad of classes. I'm not advocating 'roles' in the way 4e conceptualized the concept.

I would maintain the subclass system somewhat how it is... a branching 'tree' of options. I'd also standardize it to some degree, perhaps picking a 'class' at level 3 and a 'subclass' at level 5; and provide the options to start at level 3-5 for people looking at a more 'traditional' game while still benefiting from underlying mechanics?

[Millstone85]

I'd split them into:
(Fighter, Barbarian, paladin)
(Cleric, Druid, warlock)
(Rogue, ranger, monk)
(Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard)
Isn't this how 4e did it? Then added stuff like Arcane/Divine/Primal to differenciate between the classes?It doesn't perfectly line up.




Arcane
Divine
Martial
Primal
Psionic


Controller
Wizard
Invoker

Druid, Seeker
Psion


Defender
Swordmage
Paladin
Fighter
Warden
Battlemind


Leader
Artificer, Bard
Cleric, Runepriest
Warlord
Shaman
Ardent


Striker
Sorcerer, Warlock
Avenger
Ranger, Rogue
Barbarian
Monk

[Millstone85]

I would rather see the classes organized somewhat like this:



Swordsman





Spellcaster



Fighter
---- Paladin
---- Gish ----
Cleric ----
Wizard





---- Ranger
---- Bard ----
Warlock ----







---- Rogue ----








Skill-monkey

[8wGremlin]

Further to my post above:

I've been looking at there only being 3 core pillars of character pillars

Combat - fighting in general, armour use, physical combat manoeuvres, dodging, extended weapon use
Caster - spell casting in general, magical attacks, extended magic item use
Skills - skills, proficiencies, tricks, traps.

I was looking at having three levels for each pillar basic, half, full

you can have full in one pillar, or 2 halves the rest have to be basic

basic combat - would give you no armour, simple weapons only, and nothing else
half combat - would give you medium armour, a few martial weapons, a few manoeuvres (like TOB:B9S)
Full combat - would give you full armour, all weapons, access to manoeuvres (like TOB:B9S)

Similar for Caster and Skills, the type of caster would extend the base levels, so that war clerics would get added medium armour, and stuff like that...

not full thought out, so these are just concepts at the moment

[Naanomi]

I think there is value in separating arcane (battle and direct utility) and divine (support and control) magic... if for nothing else it would be the hardest to separate them and still 'feel' like DnD. A system from scratch, without needing to (benefitting from in my opinion) that sense of history could do away with it, but to call it DnD I'd maintain the distinction at a fundamental level

[pwykersotz]

I think there is value in separating arcane (battle and direct utility) and divine (support and control) magic... if for nothing else it would be the hardest to separate them and still 'feel' like DnD. A system from scratch, without needing to (benefitting from in my opinion) that sense of history could do away with it, but to call it DnD I'd maintain the distinction at a fundamental level

What if the magic were divided by simple cause and effect versus opinionated magic? For example, a fireball would be arcane. It requires no interpretation, has no opinion, it just creates a burning explosion. Geas requires that the magic monitor the target and activate if they go outside certain guidelines. Spirit Guardians won't attack your allies, so Divine. Lightning Bolt will, so Arcane.

It could be fun to redraw the lines on spells and rule on the corner cases, like Chain Lightning. Does the fact that you pick the targets make it simple cause and effect and thus Arcane? Or does the fact that it doesn't jump to the nearest target make it opinionated and thus Divine?

[8wGremlin]

What if the magic were divided by simple cause and effect versus opinionated magic? For example, a fireball would be arcane. It requires no interpretation, has no opinion, it just creates a burning explosion. Geas requires that the magic monitor the target and activate if they go outside certain guidelines. Spirit Guardians won't attack your allies, so Divine. Lightning Bolt will, so Arcane.

It could be fun to redraw the lines on spells and rule on the corner cases, like Chain Lightning. Does the fact that you pick the targets make it simple cause and effect and thus Arcane? Or does the fact that it doesn't jump to the nearest target make it opinionated and thus Divine?

interesting concept...
I've not thought about that concept before...
interesting..
We'd need to list all spells and tag them appropriately.

[Naanomi]

What if the magic were divided by simple cause and effect versus opinionated magic? For example, a fireball would be arcane. It requires no interpretation, has no opinion, it just creates a burning explosion. Geas requires that the magic monitor the target and activate if they go outside certain guidelines. Spirit Guardians won't attack your allies, so Divine. Lightning Bolt will, so Arcane.

It could be fun to redraw the lines on spells and rule on the corner cases, like Chain Lightning. Does the fact that you pick the targets make it simple cause and effect and thus Arcane? Or does the fact that it doesn't jump to the nearest target make it opinionated and thus Divine?
We might struggle placing the traditional 'bard', who tends to be party-friendly 'smart' magic by this system, yet tends to traditionally fall on the Arcane side of things

[NNescio]

What if the magic were divided by simple cause and effect versus opinionated magic? For example, a fireball would be arcane. It requires no interpretation, has no opinion, it just creates a burning explosion. Geas requires that the magic monitor the target and activate if they go outside certain guidelines. Spirit Guardians won't attack your allies, so Divine. Lightning Bolt will, so Arcane.

It could be fun to redraw the lines on spells and rule on the corner cases, like Chain Lightning. Does the fact that you pick the targets make it simple cause and effect and thus Arcane? Or does the fact that it doesn't jump to the nearest target make it opinionated and thus Divine?

What about Fireball cast by a Light Cleric and Lightning Bolt cast by a Mountain Land Druid?

Or really, traditionally 'divine' spells (in previous editions) like Flame Strike, Call Lightning, Blade Barrier, Fire Storm and Earthquake?

Heck, even Spirit Guardians can cause friendly fire if you're unable to designate your allies to exclude them (usually because they happen to be out of LoS when you cast it).

Corner cases are more common than you think.

On the other side of the table, Geas is also a Wizard spell (and in past editions considered either Arcane or Divine depending on whether it's a Wizard/Bard or Cleric casting it [or splatbook class/prestige class]), and the Wizard's spell list is also chock full of 'smart' spells like Alarm, Magic Mouth, Suggestion, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Glyph of Warding, Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Bigby's Hand (the tracking effect of Forceful), Legend Lore (other Divination spells might not count as it can be argued that the spell just provides you a channel to ask someone or spy on someone to get information, but Legend Lore flat out finds information for you without further input), Contingency (the ultimate 'smart' spell, spawning endless discussion on how 'smart' it is and what kind of triggers it can recognize), Guards and Wards, Mass Suggestion, Programmed Illusion, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Sequester, Symbol, Imprisonment and Wish. Most of these are even Wizard exclusives.

[Rowan Wolf]

Warlock would get Eldritch Blast for free (or it could be restricted to this arcane tradition, but I'm not too found about that).

Why are you not fond of the option of limiting eldritch blast to warlock? I am just curious, as have seen a lot of discussion about that particular cantrip and tendency for it to be desirable (though that may be more because of the heavy focus on Charisma focused spell casters in 5e, and the odd design of Eldritch Blast when placed outside of a single classed warlock).

[DanyBallon]

Why are you not fond of the option of limiting eldritch blast to warlock? I am just curious, as have seen a lot of discussion about that particular cantrip and tendency for it to be desirable (though that may be more because of the heavy focus on Charisma focused spell casters in 5e, and the odd design of Eldritch Blast when placed outside of a single classed warlock).

Simply because in a "unified" arcane spellcasting system, I find it odd to limit a single spell to a specific class.
The downside would be to see almost magic-users picking it at 1st level as it is as strong as Firebolt and deal Force damage which is less often resisted (and later can cast against more than one targe contrary to other cantrips).

[pwykersotz]

What about Fireball cast by a Light Cleric and Lightning Bolt cast by a Mountain Land Druid?

Or really, traditionally 'divine' spells (in previous editions) like Flame Strike, Call Lightning, Blade Barrier, Fire Storm and Earthquake?

Heck, even Spirit Guardians can cause friendly fire if you're unable to designate your allies to exclude them (usually because they happen to be out of LoS when you cast it).

Corner cases are more common than you think.

On the other side of the table, Geas is also a Wizard spell (and in past editions considered either Arcane or Divine depending on whether it's a Wizard/Bard or Cleric casting it [or splatbook class/prestige class]), and the Wizard's spell list is also chock full of 'smart' spells like Alarm, Magic Mouth, Suggestion, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Glyph of Warding, Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Bigby's Hand (the tracking effect of Forceful), Legend Lore (other Divination spells might not count as it can be argued that the spell just provides you a channel to ask someone or spy on someone to get information, but Legend Lore flat out finds information for you without further input), Contingency (the ultimate 'smart' spell, spawning endless discussion on how 'smart' it is and what kind of triggers it can recognize), Guards and Wards, Mass Suggestion, Programmed Illusion, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Sequester, Symbol, Imprisonment and Wish. Most of these are even Wizard exclusives.

You misunderstand. My thought is not Descriptive, it would have to be Prescriptive to at least some degree. It was a fun idea to explore, not a statement to be disproved. Though I suppose I'm gratified you put so much thought into it. :smallwink:

[Rowan Wolf]

Simply because in a "unified" arcane spellcasting system, I find it odd to limit a single spell to a specific class.
The downside would be to see almost magic-users picking it at 1st level as it is as strong as Firebolt and deal Force damage which is less often resisted (and later can cast against more than one targe contrary to other cantrips).

Would it be simpler to just remove it from play if to allow for more choices in the "unified" system. Wizards (of the Coast) built Eldritch Blast into the warlock without just making in a class feature instead of a cantrip. Though there are a few addition single class limited spells (reincarnate, find steed, among a few others) so it isn't quite unheard of though most of them are niche and not the bread and butter at-will choice if you are playing Charisma focused character.

[DanyBallon]

Would it be simpler to just remove it from play if to allow for more choices in the "unified" system. Wizards (of the Coast) built Eldritch Blast into the warlock without just making in a class feature instead of a cantrip. Though there are a few addition single class limited spells (reincarnate, find steed, among a few others) so it isn't quite unheard of though most of them are niche and not the bread and butter at-will choice if you are playing Charisma focused character.

The appeal for EB is being 1d10 force damage and at later level add a number of attack roll instead of being a single attack with larger damage like any other cantrip.

The Charisma bonus come from the invocation Agonizing Blast, which is why many dip Warlock for two level.

The more I think about it, I find that EB in itself is not that bad, it's a bit better than Fire Bolt, but add diversity to the cantrips.

On the other hand, removing Agonizing Blast from the Invocation list, in the "unified" magic system of the scenario, might lower the auto pick appeal.

[Millstone85]

the odd design of Eldritch Blast when placed outside of a single classed warlock
removing Agonizing Blast from the Invocation list, in the "unified" magic system of the scenario, might lower the auto pick appealI know this has been debated a lot already, but I would call it the odd design of cantrips. Why is a barbarian 16 / wizard 1 just as good with Fire Bolt as a 17th-level wizard? Eldritch Blast just gets the worst of it because it is the best cantrip, as the warlock's signature move should be. I would fix that before I look into invocations. Either make cantrips scale with class level or make Eldritch Blast a class feature.

In an "unified" magic system, Eldritch Blast should either not exist or scale with spellcaster level.

[DanyBallon]

I know this has been debated a lot already, but I would call it the odd design of cantrips. Why is a barbarian 16 / wizard 1 just as good with Fire Bolt as a 17th-level wizard? Eldritch Blast just gets the worst of it because it is the best cantrip, as the warlock's signature move should be. I would fix that before I look into invocations. Either make cantrips scale with class level or make Eldritch Blast a class feature.

In an "unified" magic system, Eldritch Blast should either not exist or scale with spellcaster level.

What make EB so desirable compared to other cantrips? Is it the ability to have multiple target/attack roll? Is it the Force damage? Or is it because withe Agonizing Blast you can add your CHA mod to damage?

[Millstone85]

What make EB so desirable compared to other cantrips? Is it the ability to have multiple target/attack roll? Is it the Force damage? Or is it because withe Agonizing Blast you can add your CHA mod to damage?It is all of these things together, especially how you can add your Cha mod to damage on multiple targets/hits.

But you shouldn't be looking for a way to nerf Eldritch Blast. Crazy at-will damage is part of the warlock's identity.

The problem is strictly a multiclassing one. Either Agonizing Blast should require a higher warlock level, or Eldritch Blast should only scale with warlock level. I prefer the second solution.

Of course, it gets more complicated if you make warlock a wizard subclass.

[DanyBallon]

It is all of these things together, especially how you can add your Cha mod to damage on multiple targets/hits.

But you shouldn't be looking for a way to nerf Eldritch Blast. Crazy at-will damage is part of the warlock's identity.

The problem is strictly a multiclassing one. Either Agonizing Blast should require a higher warlock level, or Eldritch Blast should only scale with warlock level. I prefer the second solution.

Of course, it gets more complicated if you make warlock a wizard subclass.

The idea is not about nerfing EB, it's was about allowing it to all sub-classes in a "unified" magic-user class, or restrict it to Warlock only.

And in order to do so, we need to determine if EB is way too good to allow it for everyone, or if it's good only because of Agonizing Blast which is strictly for Warlock. As far as EB goes, it's pretty much the same as an heavy crossbow bolt fired by a crossbow expert fighter of the same level, without the damage boost from the related ability modifier. I don't see any problem with this, other have voiced some concerns, hence why I asked what define EB