Reimagining and Redesigning Spell Casting and Spell Casting Classes

[Talamare]

I apologize from the beginning if I find it difficult to get my point across as clearly as I wish to, just bear with it if you can.

What if the DnD Spellcasting System was roughly redesigned from the ground up with clearer intentions to what each Spellcaster is intended to do (at least their primary function) and if each Spellcasting Stat was given unique mechanics to that Stat. It has always bothered me how blurred the different Spellcasters are, and the fact that they become increasingly homogenized each edition. I worry that overtime their unique niches will begin to slip away. It has also always bothered me that the different Spellcasting stats are essentially the same thing with a different name. No consistency or rhyme for any of it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's start with the Spellcasting Stats, I was imagining that each stat would be the home to a unique brand of Casting. So if you're an INT based caster, you would function a little similarly to other INT based casters, but vastly different to a CHA based character. This would greatly assist almost blur between being a Wizard or Sorcerer besides just fluff.

If we were to keep INT based casting the same as it is now. You have a certain number of spells slot per spell level. Very restricted, but they would be classes that are known for having strict Rules to function properly. INT based casters would also have the largest pool of spell to select from.

For CHA based casting, I'm a fan of the Warlock system that currently exists. CHA based Casters would be based on the idea that they are always performing at their peak. They must have that Force of Personality to make their magic work, and it doesn't work if they are slacking. This would mean that they can cast a greater deal of powerful spells per day, but have a fairly limited amount of weaker spells and spell selection.

Finally for WIS based casting (I'm a little wavering on this one) it would be a Ki or Mana based System. As in they have a pool of resources to work with, and have a great deal of room for variability in the amount of power to use in their abilities. However they would basically be able to cast the highest amount of low level spells, but easily the worst amount of higher level spells per day.

Recap
INT = Current Spellcasting System, Strict and Balanced amount of Spells per Day
WIS = "Ki" based system, Fluid, High amount of Low Level spells, Very Low amounts of High Level spells.
CHA = "Warlock" based system, Spells are always cast at Maximum Level, Very few Casts per day. Highest amount of High Level Casts per Day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From there we can define the Classes to fit each system
Wizard - Would remain an INT based class, would be the poster Child for Control and Versatility among the INT based classes
Warlock - Would be changed to an INT based class, would specialize in Offensive based spells
Cleric - Would be changed to an INT based class, would continue to specialize in Defensive and Healing based spells.

Bard - Would remain a CHA based class, would specialize in Healing, Control, and Versatility
???

Druid - Would remain a WIS based class, would specialize in Control and Healing
???
???

Sorcerer - Could become a WIS based class or continue being a CHA based class. Regardless they would likely focus on Offensive based spells.

Wizard would require the least change since neither their system or their spellcasting style would be changing.

Warlock makes sense that they are a more restricted system. For starters they don't have power of their own, they are using someone else power. Their patron might put on the restrictions. In addition Warlocks are probably well known for studying to be able to form Contracts and Deals with these Powerful Entities. I'm thinking something akin to Faust.

Clerics are known scholars of their Religion. They have read their Holy Texts and are best known for Preaching and Teaching what they have learned. So it would make sense to retool them into INT. It honestly felt that they were WIS because historically in DND 'Holy' and 'Natural' based classes used WIS.

The Bard must pour his heart and soul into his spells. A weak performance won't motivate anyone, so it makes sense to adopt a Warlock based system. The Bard has also undergone the most changes, so it wouldn't be especially jarring to be changed a little again.

Druid with a resource based system would be able to interact in a significantly more profound way with their Animal Transformations. A more fluid system could allow us to make Druids incredibly versatile. For example, we could make it so that Wild Shape costs a # of resources equal to the Creatures CR x3, and then have Moon Druid reduce that cost to be x2 instead. We could even add that they may cast spells while Transformed for additional costs. It would play a little bit like Elemental Monk, but balanced better.

Sorcerer has long in a bit of a haze on what their purpose is. One that is establish is that they cast their spell naturally. However most of the Sorcerous origins don't actually feature a need for a powerful Force of Personality. Sorcerers have also been a little wavering on whether they want to be Nukers blasting away their foes or if they want to be able to cast more spells per day than their Wizard counterparts. Both Wis or Cha would suit the Sorcerer for different reasons... Which is why I honestly propose that... The class and it's lore becomes 2. Introduce a new class for Wis and continue the Sorcerer tradition as a CHA based class. "Arcanist" or "Elementalist" might be a decent name for the new class.

Other Classes to be added would likely be the Shaman and the Mystic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiclassing... I haven't put much thought into this yet. I would like to get the concept idea more fleshed out before diving into this dumpster.

[JackPhoenix]

I think the problem is that you're trying to base casting around an attribute, instead of the origin of their spellcasting powers. Int-based warlocks and clerics are the exact opposite of how they are fluffed... they don't learn their spells from reading tomes, they are granted them from an external entity (really, cleric should've been warlock subclass, or used warlock casting from the start... but, eh, divine bovines).

If I were to re-design casting for 6th edition, I would do it this way:

You have 3 general ways to access magic: internal, the power comes from within (sorcerers), external, the power is granted by other entity (clerics and warlocks) and learned, you study hard to learn the secrets of magic (wizards). EK and AT are learned like wizard, bard is something between internal and learned, druid is something between external and learned, paladin is internal, and ranger is like druid, something between external and learned.

It only makes sense for learned magic to be Int-based, but what about internal and external? Internal magic is based on force of personality, while external magic would rely on being able to make some sort of deal with the source of power. Both sound like Charisma... and let's be honest, "perception and insight" doesn't really sound like source of magic powers. However, that dumps too much on Cha, and leaves out Wis... it's not necessarily bad thing, wisdom has other things to go for it (perception and the most important save), but still.

Let's look at the mechanics: Internal magic fits the sorcerer model: certain amounts of spells known. The number doesn't have to be as limited as with sorcerer, but it would be harder to explain the ability to change spells daily. Metamagic fits here, as you don't have to constrain yourself to pre-defined spells or what your patron grants you. On the other hand, having firm spell list doesn't. IMO, this kind of casting should have some kind of "build your own spell effect" mechanic instead of using pre-determined spell list. You don't cast the same Magic Missile every day, you shape the magic energy to whatever form you need at the moment. Propably spell points instead of spell slots. Most versatility in a single day, but the least versatility between rests, as you can't change what you can do.

Granted magic fits the warlock model best: get granted fewer spells at a time (the patron doesn't like being annoyed too often without some appeasement in between (i.e. short rest), but those spells are as powerful as you can handle. However, like cleric, the external caster should be able to get different spells on different days (or between short rests), depending on what their patron offers. The spell list would be more restricted, depending on patron... Orcus wouldn't grant you healing spells, and Pelor won't let you create undead. Little versatility in long term (you're stuck with what your patron may grant), but lot more in a single day (you do have access to everything your patron grants).

Learned magic fits the wizard model: you learn the spells you can use. I can see both the spellbook approach (learn anything, switch as needed) and spells known approach (learn limited amount of spells, but you can't just change your memories between days). You don't have that much control over the spells... once learned, Magic Missile is always the same Magic Missile. The biggest spell list (you can learn anything you want), but fewer spells prepared (you can only keep so much in mind). Inability to upcast spells out of hand would fit... perhaps to cast level 3 Magic Missile, you need to have Level 3 Magic Missile prepared, and you can also have Magic Missile level 1 if you want to cast that. In that case, more spells prepared would be needed. Most verstaility between long rests, but the lowest versatility during one rest, as you can do different stuff every day if you know enough spells, but once commited to a selection, you can't change it if you suddenly need specific spell you haven't prepared.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not a fan of this, for several reasons.

[1] It feels "mechanics first." It feels like you wanted to stuff the classes into a particular set of pigeonholes.

[2]It's highly restrictive, especially for clerics (more on this later).

[3]Multiclassing would be a web of special cases and lost caster levels.

[2, longer]

Clerics are not inherently educated scholars. Take a few example backstories:

Barakas, tiefling Cleric of Tymora (Trickery)
Barakas grew up using his devilish looks and wits. Raised in a family of traveling con-artists, he learned the skills to cheat at cards and dice. Throughout his young life he always felt close to Tymora, Lady Luck. One day he was on the run from a failed con--caught cheating at cards. With his horns making him quite distinctive in the mostly human community, he called out in desperation to Tymora, offering his life as a wager as he ran. Catching sight of himself in a window, he realized that his form was different--his horns gone. Gingerly feeling his skull, he realized that he was magically disguised and used this to escape his pursuers. Knowing that this was a sign his wager was accepted, he began serving his Lady wherever he could.

Fyevarra, human Cleric of Ilmater (Life)
Growing up in a rural village, Fyevarra was always tough and hard working, willing to endure whatever came along. All she knew of the gods came from an itinerant priest of Ilmater who spent a few weeks in the village one summer. She felt an affinity with the Crying One and prayed to him in her troubles. It wasn't until her father injured his leg with an axe that she found her true calling, however. As she rushed to him and tried to bind his wound, she cried out to her god for aid. In a rush, she felt a sharp pain as if she had been the one who suffered the injury; at the same time her father's wound knited itself closed with miraculous speed. From then on, her village and the surrounding area came to her for healing.

Neither of these are religious experts. Neither grew up in dedicated service or preaching. One was a con-man, the other a peasant. But both were chosen for their faith. Not their knowledge, their faith. They intuitively did the will of their god and perceived their divine hand in the situation. This is the essence of a cleric, and what makes them different from a wizard or a warlock. Both wizards and warlocks use knowledge (gained from books or from pacts) to directly affect the world around them. Clerics call on an extra-planar power and channel Their power. Warlocks make deals, clerics serve. Warlocks, while in debt to their Patron, don't depend on their patron for day-to-day casting and can directly oppose their Patron and retain their power (but won't get more). Clerics pull all their power from their Deity--if they willfully break from their god they lose their power (unless they find a different god to empower them).

Restricting clerics to the learned sage only would be like restricting the backgrounds available by class. And that's not cool. The humble village priest who only knows the basics of the faith (but has a deep abiding love for his God) is a long-standing tradition--in fact, those are often the truest clerics of their God. As is the unlikely servant--the one called to the service of a god despite completely lacking training. Or the martial priest who knows that God guides his mace but couldn't care less about deep doctrines or memorizing liturgies.

I will put forward my Thematic Spell Overhaul (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AU6QqpZOSi8nrnBytp21wQmg3Ref2zI6Zu_pecVrKwE/edit?usp=sharing) as an alternative (partial) correction to the sameness and lack of theme that are frequently seen with spell-casters. It's not finished, but I think it works well (and is helpful for NPCs at the same time).

[LeonBH]

My initial reaction to this suggestion is you are being "more fair" to Wizards than to the other classes, in that every other class must change except for the Wizard.

I agree that the different spellcasting stats are just the same but named differently. You could say they were made to block certain multiclasses from existing. Wizard/Cleric becomes very MAD and so Wizards do not become healers.

But really, I don't think they thought about that aspect greatly, given Sorcadin and Sorlock exist. In my games, I just let the caster choose what mental casting stat they want to cast with and flavor it appropriately.

[Dr. Cliché]

For CHA based casting, I'm a fan of the Warlock system that currently exists. CHA based Casters would be based on the idea that they are always performing at their peak. They must have that Force of Personality to make their magic work, and it doesn't work if they are slacking. This would mean that they can cast a greater deal of powerful spells per day, but have a fairly limited amount of weaker spells and spell selection.

...

Warlock - Would be changed to an INT based class, would specialize in Offensive based spells

Does it not seem a bit odd to like the Warlock system . . . only to then deny it to the actual Warlocks? :smallconfused:


I think the problem is that you're trying to base casting around an attribute, instead of the origin of their spellcasting powers. Int-based warlocks and clerics are the exact opposite of how they are fluffed... they don't learn their spells from reading tomes, they are granted them from an external entity (really, cleric should've been warlock subclass, or used warlock casting from the start... but, eh, divine bovines).

If I were to re-design casting for 6th edition, I would do it this way:

You have 3 general ways to access magic: internal, the power comes from within (sorcerers), external, the power is granted by other entity (clerics and warlocks) and learned, you study hard to learn the secrets of magic (wizards). EK and AT are learned like wizard, bard is something between internal and learned, druid is something between external and learned, paladin is internal, and ranger is like druid, something between external and learned.

It only makes sense for learned magic to be Int-based, but what about internal and external? Internal magic is based on force of personality, while external magic would rely on being able to make some sort of deal with the source of power. Both sound like Charisma... and let's be honest, "perception and insight" doesn't really sound like source of magic powers. However, that dumps too much on Cha, and leaves out Wis... it's not necessarily bad thing, wisdom has other things to go for it (perception and the most important save), but still.

Let's look at the mechanics: Internal magic fits the sorcerer model: certain amounts of spells known. The number doesn't have to be as limited as with sorcerer, but it would be harder to explain the ability to change spells daily. Metamagic fits here, as you don't have to constrain yourself to pre-defined spells or what your patron grants you. On the other hand, having firm spell list doesn't. IMO, this kind of casting should have some kind of "build your own spell effect" mechanic instead of using pre-determined spell list. You don't cast the same Magic Missile every day, you shape the magic energy to whatever form you need at the moment. Propably spell points instead of spell slots. Most versatility in a single day, but the least versatility between rests, as you can't change what you can do.

Granted magic fits the warlock model best: get granted fewer spells at a time (the patron doesn't like being annoyed too often without some appeasement in between (i.e. short rest), but those spells are as powerful as you can handle. However, like cleric, the external caster should be able to get different spells on different days (or between short rests), depending on what their patron offers. The spell list would be more restricted, depending on patron... Orcus wouldn't grant you healing spells, and Pelor won't let you create undead. Little versatility in long term (you're stuck with what your patron may grant), but lot more in a single day (you do have access to everything your patron grants).

Learned magic fits the wizard model: you learn the spells you can use. I can see both the spellbook approach (learn anything, switch as needed) and spells known approach (learn limited amount of spells, but you can't just change your memories between days). You don't have that much control over the spells... once learned, Magic Missile is always the same Magic Missile. The biggest spell list (you can learn anything you want), but fewer spells prepared (you can only keep so much in mind). Inability to upcast spells out of hand would fit... perhaps to cast level 3 Magic Missile, you need to have Level 3 Magic Missile prepared, and you can also have Magic Missile level 1 if you want to cast that. In that case, more spells prepared would be needed. Most verstaility between long rests, but the lowest versatility during one rest, as you can do different stuff every day if you know enough spells, but once commited to a selection, you can't change it if you suddenly need specific spell you haven't prepared.

I really like this. I particularly agree when it comes to sorcery. It always seems weird that it would be so rigid/controlled.

[Lacuna Caster]

Learned magic fits the wizard model: you learn the spells you can use. I can see both the spellbook approach (learn anything, switch as needed) and spells known approach (learn limited amount of spells, but you can't just change your memories between days). You don't have that much control over the spells... once learned, Magic Missile is always the same Magic Missile. The biggest spell list (you can learn anything you want), but fewer spells prepared (you can only keep so much in mind). Inability to upcast spells out of hand would fit... perhaps to cast level 3 Magic Missile, you need to have Level 3 Magic Missile prepared, and you can also have Magic Missile level 1 if you want to cast that. In that case, more spells prepared would be needed. Most verstaility between long rests, but the lowest versatility during one rest, as you can do different stuff every day if you know enough spells, but once commited to a selection, you can't change it if you suddenly need specific spell you haven't prepared.

Neither of these are religious experts. Neither grew up in dedicated service or preaching. One was a con-man, the other a peasant. But both were chosen for their faith. Not their knowledge, their faith. They intuitively did the will of their god and perceived their divine hand in the situation.
I like both of these analyses. I'm not immensely fond of D&D's casting system in general, but while we're discussing radical modifications, I'd probably break down my preferences as follows. (A lot of this is stolen from Runequest/Heroquest.)

Clerical Casting
* Explicit numeric bonuses from alignment or some other gauge of fidelity to one's patron (which requires actual mechanics for alignment.)
* Bonuses for casting as a group and community prayer. This means that really top-tier magic like Raise Dead is usually inaccessible without institutional support.
* Animism and Warlock practices act as a supplemental source of power based on striking bargains with the spirits of nature or the lower planes. Normal rules for argument and diplomacy (such as they are) apply. Druids are counted as a cleric-variant.

Arcane Casting
* You can always attempt to cast spontaneously, but it's risky and draining. You get bonuses for casting based on (A) time taken to prepare, (B) input of material components or equipment, and (C) familiarity with the spell.
* Highly flexible metamagic and/or spell-seed rules.
* Sorcery, being based on innate talent, is taken as a series of charisma-dependent feats that improve spontaneous casting and raw power. The first such feat must be taken during character creation.

Notes on Magical Schools:
* Necromancy pairs with Healing in dealing with 'the soul and divine spark'. These are exclusive to clerics. (This also covers spells like 'purify/create food and water'. Undead are explicitly the souls of the once-living bound to the material plane.)
* Divination-Enchantment-Illusion form a continuum dealing with knowledge, lies and the mind. Wizards can take feats that specialise accordingly.
* Abjuration-Transmutation-Evocation form a continuum dealing with energy and matter. Wizards can take feats that specialise accordingly.
* Conjuration spells deal with time, space, gravity, travel and the planes. Teleporting, levitation and other effects that don't tread on the Gods' turf are much easier for wizards, and they can take related feats, but clerics have much easier access to extraplanar summons their deity approves of.

[Lacuna Caster]

Oh, also, since this came up in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546601-Lore-wise-how-do-monks-fit-into-D-amp-D)- it might be a good idea to figure out what the various secondary/hybrid 'casters' are about.


Paladins: If divine casting is based exclusively on faith, rather than study, this creates a problem. Paladins are fighter/cleric hybrids with a couple of perks and a knottier ethical code. They're presumably just as faithful to their God/s, but they don't get half the spells that clerics do. Why is that?

It seems to me that either clerics need to be subject to even tighter ethical restrictions than paladins as a test of fidelity in order to justify their greater casting abilities, or that finding time to study the liturgy and mysteries of the faith (as opposed to weapons training) does have a noticeable impact on one's ability to channel the divine. I'm not sure which of these would apply, but I think some kind of distinction has to be made there.

Rangers: These seem pretty equivalent to druid-paladins to me- the perks and restrictions are just a bit different. So again, why is the paladin tied in knots and these guys aren't?

Bards: One way to handle these guys is as arcane casters who use musical instruments like wands or staves, and music as their mnemonic- a 'folk wizard', of sorts. There's always been something of a tension between the class' druid-related origins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aois-dàna) as prestigious genealogical scholars and satirists and the very different romantic tradition of the mainland-european troubador, though. I'm fond, in principle, of the morale-boosting lyricist who specialises in lifting spirits, marching for war, making a good impression or wrecking reputations, but D&D doesn't really have robust mechanics for that kind of game. I think they might be fluffed to be mechanically interesting, though.

Monks: Are these guys just fighters that specialise in unarmed combat? Are they vagabond champions of chivalry with an abiding faith and code of conduct, a la paladins? Are they spiritual guides and community leaders, a la clerics? Do they even need to exist as something distinct from the eastern equivalent of pre-existing classes? If so, where do they draw their power from?

Barbarians: I've never been entirely clear on why semi-nomadic peoples lower on the tech scale are the only ones allowed to channel power from anger, but a potentially interesting angle here would be that specialising in Rage is antithetical to specialising in Meditation. Meditation would improve attempts at prayer, spell preparation, and other cognitive skills, and unlock the various perks associated with the monk, but requires adhesion to some significant measure of self-control. Rage would be the root of a feat-chain focused on brute physical strength coupled with a risk of going berserk and/or going on a five-day bender. That gives you the root of a mechanical Law vs. Chaos tradeoff tied in with the alignment system. I dunno, maybe.


So- that basically gives you the Fighter class, the Rogue class, the Cleric class, the Wizard class, and a bunch of variants/hybrids that extend or tweak those mechanics. I like that somehow.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Paladins: If divine casting is based exclusively on faith, rather than study, this creates a problem. Paladins are fighter/cleric hybrids with a couple of perks and a knottier ethical code. They're presumably just as faithful to their God/s, but they don't get half the spells that clerics do. Why is that?

It seems to me that either clerics need to be subject to even tighter ethical restrictions than paladins as a test of fidelity in order to justify their greater casting abilities, or that finding time to study the liturgy and mysteries of the faith (as opposed to weapons training) does have a noticeable impact on one's ability to channel the divine. I'm not sure which of these would apply, but I think some kind of distinction has to be made there.


That's old edition thinking about Paladins. In 5e, they're not "divine" casters at all. They're not tied to gods--you could have an atheistic paladin. Paladins draw power from their supernal confidence. Basically they have faith in their oath, and that faith gives them power directly. That's why they're CHA casters--they cast spells by being the irresistible force the world breaks against. They don't draw power from a god--they're not cleric-lite. Neither are druids. Paladins need those restrictions because that's what gives their confidence real bite--they know they're living right, so they have "earned" that power. Their spell selection is limited, because that's what they believe their oath expects them to do.



Rangers: These seem pretty equivalent to druid-paladins to me- the perks and restrictions are just a bit different. So again, why is the paladin tied in knots and these guys aren't?


Because you've got paladins all wrong (and druids too), so that's why it looks weird. Druids and rangers are best thought of as spiritual contractors--drawing on the spirits of nature through agreements. Druids make a bunch of temporary contracts--I'll feed you energy if you go do X (each spell). Rangers make a few, longer-lasting contracts. They're less transactional (do this and I'll feed you) and more friends or master/trained pet relationship.



Bards: One way to handle these guys is as arcane casters who use musical instruments like wands or staves, and music as their mnemonic- a 'folk wizard', of sorts. There's always been something of a tension between the class' druid-related origins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aois-dàna) as prestigious genealogical scholars and satirists and the very different romantic tradition of the mainland-european troubador, though. I'm fond, in principle, of the morale-boosting lyricist who specialises in lifting spirits, marching for war, making a good impression or wrecking reputations, but D&D doesn't really have robust mechanics for that kind of game. I think they might be fluffed to be mechanically interesting, though.


Bards convince the world that it was always bent through song/rhyme. They interact with the resonances that we call spell effects more directly than wizards (who focus on exact repetition of specific actions). That's why bards can learn spells from other lists--they aren't tied as much to specific philosophies of magic--they're trial and error types who create magical effects through harmonies and rhythms.



Monks: Are these guys just fighters that specialise in unarmed combat? Are they vagabond champions of chivalry with an abiding faith and code of conduct, a la paladins? Are they spiritual guides and community leaders, a la clerics? Do they even need to exist as something distinct from the eastern equivalent of pre-existing classes? If so, where do they draw their power from?


Monks draw on the same power (the ambient magical power) but express it in their bodies, not their spirits. Instead of resonating with the external field (except 4e monks that straddle the line), they directly manipulate the energy within themselves. Rest and meditation allows them to refill their tank--this is why they're not as flashy as spell-casters (who are only using bits of energy to resonate with the big field outside) but they refill much quicker and have more internally-focused passive benefits.



Barbarians: I've never been entirely clear on why semi-nomadic peoples lower on the tech scale are the only ones allowed to channel power from anger, but a potentially interesting angle here would be that specialising in Rage is antithetical to specialising in Meditation. Meditation would improve attempts at prayer, spell preparation, and other cognitive skills, and unlock the various perks associated with the monk, but requires adhesion to some significant measure of self-control. Rage would be the root of a feat-chain focused on brute physical strength coupled with a risk of going berserk and/or going on a five-day bender. That gives you the root of a mechanical Law vs. Chaos tradeoff tied in with the alignment system. I dunno, maybe.


Rage is similar to Ki, in that you're internalizing external energy and applying it to the body instead of the spirit. It differs in how it's expressed--they're opposite sides of a coin. One frothing and fuming, the other tightly controlled. Rage is so named because the feeling of spreading that energy into the body (and actually hardening it/strengthening it directly, hence the resistance to damage) feels like getting angry and for beginners that's how they learn to trigger that state. It's associated with the tribal peoples (but not restricted to them in 5e) because those tend to be individual fighters (the stereotype of the warrior vs the soldier). Also associations with the berserker myths and legends. But nothing prevents there from being a noble background barbarian who grew up in the city.

One of the best treatments of this sort of thing (except his was racial, not trained) is in David Weber's Oath of Swords series. The main characters are of a race that was modified centuries ago to be super soldiers. When they get angry, they draw on the ambient magic and basically Rage. For a long time it was considered to be a curse--it just happens when you get angry, and then you're an unstoppable killing machine (including hurting your friends). The main characters discover that if you intentionally bring it on and accept it, you end up with a clear head and just the good parts (fast, strong, hard to kill). I like to think of barbarians in that same way. They intentionally draw on the ambient magical field in a way that feels or looks like anger. But it's not really just "I'm angry, so I'm powerful." The anger is a side-effect, not the actual source of the power.

General thoughts
I think the designers did a decent job separating the classes. But we have to reject old-edition thinking and treat this as a new thing with new, better explanations. It harks back to 4e's power source breakdown--pulling power from nature (primal power source, barbarians, druids, and rangers in 5e) is different from pulling power from training (fighters, rogues) or from faith in something (clerics in their gods, paladins in their oath) or from manipulating reality directly (wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks). And even within each power source there are distinguishing factors between the classes that didn't exist in 4e (as much).

I'd like to see more differentiation within classes--not all clerics should be casting the same spells. Wizards shouldn't all be able to cherry-pick their spells--specialization should be meaningful. Sorcerers should be more wild and free in their magic. Etc.

[Lacuna Caster]

That's old edition thinking about Paladins. In 5e, they're not "divine" casters at all. They're not tied to gods--you could have an atheistic paladin. Paladins draw power from their supernal confidence. Basically they have faith in their oath, and that faith gives them power directly.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have been posting this specifically on a 5e forum. Maybe not even on a D&D forum.

To me, the idea of Paladins specifically having a relationship with their divine patron is so intrinsic to the concept that you can call a superficially similar class with all the same perks and hangups the same thing and I'll say "yeah, that's not a Paladin."

Part of this just comes from me not being comfortable with any supernatural power just 'coming from within'. It either needs to be drawn from an external patron (Gods, spirits, demons, draconic forbears), or another plane of reality (wizardry.) The stuff that's within is, well, regular meaty mortal abilities. And that's nifty and all, but it ain't magic. But I'm a simulationist, so my priorities might be fundamentally different here.