PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Difficulty making customizable spellcasting with stacking classes



Greywander
2020-12-23, 06:38 PM
For the fuller context, see this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612077-5-5e-idea-for-stacking-caster-classes-but-how-to-handle-different-types-of-casting). I think I've found a solution to the question posed in that thread, but I've stumbled onto a new issue. I'll try to summarize the most relevant parts so I can get to the issue more quickly.

I have this idea for a big overhaul of 5e that will, among other things, make some changes to the class system. Classes are going to be cut down to just four levels, and you'll chain together several classes as you level up. This allows for a lot more customization, and it also obviates the need for subclasses, most of which will probably be reworked into full classes.

Since each class is just four levels, it's pretty easy to find a model to standardize what type of feature you get at each level. So, every class will always give you a "progressive" feature at 1st level, i.e. a feature that gets stronger (i.e. progresses) as you level up. Or rather, it gets stronger the more times you get that feature. If, for example, you want to be a full caster, you would chain together several spellcasting classes.

Spellcasting, specifically, is causing me some headaches, because there's more than one kind of spellcasting. Let's say we have a necromancer class; it's a more advanced class, so you can't start as a necromancer, you would need to take it as a 2nd class (i.e. 5th level at the earliest). Now, we know the necromancer is a spellcaster, but what kind of spellcasting do they use? It seems like it might depend on what our starter class was. For example, if we go wizard -> necromancer, then necromancer would advance our wizard spellcasting. If we go sorcerer -> necromancer, it would advance our sorcerer spellcasting. Cleric -> necromancer would advance cleric spellcasting, etc. So far, this seems pretty intuitive; the necromancer just advances whatever spellcasting we already have.

However, it's not hard to conceive of less obvious situations. Say we go fighter -> necromancer, what kind of spellcasting do we get? The fighter doesn't have spells, so the necromancer would need to give us some kind of spellcasting in case we didn't already have any. But now things take a turn for the weird. What if we go fighter -> necromancer -> wizard? We should get wizard spellcasting from wizard, but we've already got some other type of spellcasting from necromancer. If we want to get really weird, we could go wizard -> sorcerer -> cleric; do we have three different types of spellcasting, or do sorcerer and cleric simply advance our wizard spellcasting?

I think I've found a solution to this: Whenever you reach 1st level in a class, you have the option of either (a) taking that class's progressive feature, or (b) advancing one progressive feature you already have, from any class. This can lead to some new weirdness; for example, if you go fighter -> wizard, you have the option of advancing your fighter feature instead of getting spellcasting, allowing you to be a "spell-less wizard". You could, however, use a later class to advance your wizard spellcasting, since you technically "have" it, it's just at "0th level", so to speak.

Okay, so this seems like a pretty good solution. Now all I have to do is make sure that there's at least one starter class for each progressive ability. This means that if I have different types of spellcasting, I need to make sure that there's a class of each type available from 1st level. Wizard casting is different from cleric casting, for example, so I need both of those as starter classes.

Now, I have a homebrew wild magic system that I'd like to use in this mod, so it makes sense that I might want to add a wild mage class. Here's the thing, though: the wild magic system is designed so that it can apply to any class. It allows you to cast spells without using spell slots; you roll some dice trying to beat a DC, and if you roll doubles, you trigger a wild magic surge. It only changes how spells are cast, not how you prepare spells. So this wild mage class, how does it prepare spells? What if I want a character who prepares spells like a wizard, but casts them through wild magic? Or a spells-known caster like a sorcerer? And here's my current dilemma: spellcasting has multiple parts, so how do I offer a "complete" set of starter classes that give you full access to every possible combination without just having a huge number of very similar classes?

Here are, as I see it, the three parts to spellcasting:

What's on your spell list.
How you prepare spells.
How you cast spells.

The first is pretty easily dealt with. Every class (possibly including non-caster classes, like fighter), has their own spell list, and your personal spell list is all of your class lists added together. This can create incentive to take a specific class because of the spells it gives you, rather than any of its features. Anyway, this isn't a problem because it's handled separately from the progressive feature. It is intended design for spell lists to add together.

The problem is the second two, because they both seem to be collectively rolled into the spellcasting feature. Either (a) I need to create a starter class for every possible combination, or (b) I need to separate one of these out. In vanilla 5e, every caster except the warlock uses regular spell slots, so the only thing that really makes them different are how they prepare spells. But the warlock prepares spells the same way a sorcerer or bard does, but casts them differently (using pact magic slots). It seems to me that the "how you cast spells" is the more interesting one, and thus should be the focus of the progressive ability. This would mean that all spellcasters would, by default, prepare spells the same way (likely as spells known, like a sorcerer), and one of their class features might allow them to prepare additional spells a different way (e.g. the wizard's spellbook might be a completely separate, non-progressive class feature).

So now our wild mage is a spells known caster, but uses special wild magic to cast spells without ever getting spell slots. If we want to also be a wizard, we just take wizard as our second class, which will give us a spellbook feature that lets us prepare extra spells from our spellbook. Of course, now the problem is that we have a bunch of classes that previously cast spells the same way and were only differentiated by how they prepared them, and now they all prepare them the same way. So now I need to create new ways for each class to cast their spells in order to make them unique.

Alternatively, I suppose I could just have a generic Spellcasting feature that allows you to freely pick one method of preparing spells and one method of casting spells. Or maybe there's another option I'm not seeing.

This is where I'm currently stuck. I'm open to any ideas on how to possibly handle this. Also, I apologize for how lengthy this got.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-12-23, 06:59 PM
I'm not sure there is a clean solution as such. You're messing with core assumptions here, which means that the knock-on effects are a doozy.

One avenue to explore would be to consider breaking up the Spellcasting feature into chunks [preparation | slots | casting] and pulling a "select one from each category" trick. But then you're opening yourself up to rife abuse, tons of edge cases, and at-table headaches.

Or you might consider making wild magic not a core class. Instead, it's a modifier you add (like an ACF) when you take a level in a spellcasting class. Or make it a class that can only be taken after a different spellcasting class and which progresses that class's spellcasting instead, modified by the wild magic.

Mando Knight
2020-12-24, 01:38 AM
I think having a single "generic" Spellcasting framework that all of the caster classes hook modular features onto is a better approach for your setup than having a multitude of little similar-but-separate spellcasting systems that have to be coaxed into working together at all.

Giving "how you cast and prepare spells" a mechanical priority runs directly counter to the modularity you're looking for. If you want a more modular system, then "being a caster" should be just as modular as "being a melee fighter". Why should Wizards and Sorcerers and Warlocks be fractured into a half-dozen dissonant subsystems when Fighters and Paladins and Barbarians can just run up the same "swing sword better" feature? If you want every single mini-class to have its own little subsystem, why?

MoiMagnus
2020-12-24, 04:34 AM
Without counting cantrips, every spellcaster has :

1) A set of available spells he gets from his source of magic.
=> For the Wizard it's is spellbook. For the divine classes it is the full list of spells granted by their god. For the warlock/sorcerer/... it is their known spells.

2) A set of prepared spells, containing "Class Level + Spellcasting modifier" spells.
=> Known spell classes usually know less spell than that, so while this restriction is technically absent from the rules, up to some corner cases it's as if it was a general rule.

3) One or multiple way to obtain spell slots. Most get per-long-rests spell slots. Pact magic gives per-short-rest until spell level 5, then per-long-rest.

noob
2020-12-24, 05:42 AM
I think having a single "generic" Spellcasting framework that all of the caster classes hook modular features onto is a better approach for your setup than having a multitude of little similar-but-separate spellcasting systems that have to be coaxed into working together at all.

Giving "how you cast and prepare spells" a mechanical priority runs directly counter to the modularity you're looking for. If you want a more modular system, then "being a caster" should be just as modular as "being a melee fighter". Why should Wizards and Sorcerers and Warlocks be fractured into a half-dozen dissonant subsystems when Fighters and Paladins and Barbarians can just run up the same "swing sword better" feature? If you want every single mini-class to have its own little subsystem, why?

I think fighters, barbarians and paladins should swing swords better differently.
Paladin is a bit different in the way of having smite which is "I swing my sword better by using smite slots"
Fighters and barbarians are a bit too similar for sword swinging.
Maybe all the fighters should get special effects on hitting(like tripping, disarming and the like) and barbarians should be the ones that hits reliably with high damage?

As for necromancers I think fighters branching into necromancer that decides to progress their sword skills should get necromancy by swinging swords at people(Maybe reanimate people as undead when killing them(animate dead) and interrogate corpses by bashing them while asking questions(speak with dead) and resurrect people by being very angry at their death and punching them back to life)
Spellcasting class multiclassing is quite odd in base 5E but I think it is possible to just make spellcasting slots and maximum spell level level based(thus streamlining it) and "prepared casting" would be a feature from wizard that grants the ability to prepare some spells from a source depending on class and stacking wizard and cleric for example would just grant more sources.
Known spells would be another class feature and allows you to pick a list of specific spells from the class granting the feature that are basically always prepared.
So if you have a sorcerer wizard cleric for example you would have some known spells(number depending on how many spells known casters level you get and spells known obtained from a given class are spells of that class) and prepared spells you pick from the divine source or your spellbook(total number of spells prepared is based on the sum of the levels of prepared spell classes).
Necromancer should probably be a spells known class that grants some necromancy spells.

Silly Name
2020-12-24, 07:47 AM
I think fighters, barbarians and paladins should swing swords better differently.
Paladin is a bit different in the way of having smite which is "I swing my sword better by using smite slots"
Fighters and barbarians are a bit too similar for sword swinging.
Maybe all the fighters should get special effects on hitting(like tripping, disarming and the like) and barbarians should be the ones that hits reliably with high damage?

Just give every fighter access to Battlemaster maneuvers and superiority dice, making them part of the core class. Rage+Reckless Attack already make Barbarian good at doing reliably high damage at the cost of lowered defense.

Mando Knight
2020-12-25, 12:06 AM
I think fighters, barbarians and paladins should swing swords better differently.

Sure, but taking a few levels of each doesn't mean you have separate proficiencies for "Longsword: Fighter" and "Longsword: Paladin", it's just one sword that you consistently get a little better at using in general and then pick up some extra class-specific features along the way.

What I'm suggesting is to make "casting spells" as much a base mechanic to the game as "swing a sword": it's part of the general character progression rather than specific classes, but Caster Classes get the same kinds of features and bonuses to casting spells that Fighter Classes get to swinging swords and wearing armor.

The concept of different classes having discontinuous (but otherwise near-identical) spellcasting systems is a pretty uniquely D&D-and-clones problem, one that I think doesn't needs to exist at all.

noob
2020-12-25, 11:19 AM
Sure, but taking a few levels of each doesn't mean you have separate proficiencies for "Longsword: Fighter" and "Longsword: Paladin", it's just one sword that you consistently get a little better at using in general and then pick up some extra class-specific features along the way.

What I'm suggesting is to make "casting spells" as much a base mechanic to the game as "swing a sword": it's part of the general character progression rather than specific classes, but Caster Classes get the same kinds of features and bonuses to casting spells that Fighter Classes get to swinging swords and wearing armor.

The concept of different classes having discontinuous (but otherwise near-identical) spellcasting systems is a pretty uniquely D&D-and-clones problem, one that I think doesn't needs to exist at all.

You do have extra attack that works like casting: you essentially have "extra attack fighter"(not written that way) and "extra attack barbarian" and you can not use both of them at once.
And I think that like casting not mixing extra attack not mixing is a weird design idea(creating a "multiclass breakdown" phenomenon at high level for extra attack characters: stacking multiclassing will make your attack action(that is or is not an attack because rules are confusing) based character lack attacks relatively to a single classed one and you will end up weaker).

Dienekes
2020-12-25, 06:20 PM
Hmm, honestly with the base idea of the modular 4 level classes id make magic work a lot closer to something like Star Wars Saga Edition than D&D.

Basically spellcasting is a skill, which does next to nothing on its own, but your class/prestige class has optional talents that allow you to use your magic skill to cast different spells. With more powerful effects having either higher DCs or require prerequisite talents.

Some may have a limit of once per encounter or day. And that’s it.

Slap that framework and it’s really easy to allow different spell caster classes. They all roll from the same skill that the character may or may not be trained in. And the rest of their spells are just the abilities they get as part of the class.

I'd just say that upon being trained in the Use Magic skill you have to choose which attribute to base it on with a bit of fluff of what they're supposed to do.

So, for your system. Let's say as starting classes you have:

Mage, Healer, Druid, Influencer

Mages focus on aggressive magic, Healers on healing/buffing, Druids on plan and animal abilities, and Influencers on mind control and illusions.

As part of picking the class you can get trained in the Use Magic skill. And you get to choose if you want to be a Scholarly (Int focused), Enlightened (Wisdom), or Natural (Charisma) and that is how you do magic for the rest of your career.

The issue is that this system would negate the need for spell slots and therefore your wild magic system would not work.

Greywander
2020-12-29, 05:08 PM
Basically spellcasting is a skill, which does next to nothing on its own, but your class/prestige class has optional talents that allow you to use your magic skill to cast different spells. With more powerful effects having either higher DCs or require prerequisite talents.

Some may have a limit of once per encounter or day. And that’s it.
I was thinking about this and had a kind of crazy idea: What if there was no progressive features at all? As it is, I would have trouble thinking of what to do for martial classes, as while things like Sneak Attack or Ki exist as a feature that gets progressively stronger as you level up, they're not really on the same level as spellcasting. But then how would spellcasting work if it didn't "progress" by stacking several spellcasting classes?

Well, let's say we're using a spell point system instead of spell slots. Let's also say that when we get the spellcasting feature, we're given a fixed number of spell points. As you level up, you gain the ability to cast the spell at higher levels, but you don't get any more spell points. So you have the option to channel everything into one single big spell, but that's not necessarily an efficient use of your spellcasting. The benefit, then, of getting several caster classes is getting more spell points.

Now, lets say we want to figure out where wild magic would fit into this. One idea I have is that at the end of a long rest (where you regain all of your spell points), you'd have the option of converting spell points into wild magic dice. The more spell points you spend, the larger the dice become. If you're only interested in using wild magic, rather than mixing it with regular spellcasting, then you can just by default convert all spell points into wild magic dice. Essentially, what we're doing is using spell points as a generic resource that can be converted into class-specific resources for classes with nonstandard spellcasting.

Not sure how you'd do this with spell slots, which is why I used spell points in the example. It would probably make sense to use spell points as the generic spellcasting feature, and then have a specific class that allows you to convert spell points into spell slots (in a way that is more economical than simply using the spell points), sort of like an inverted Font of Magic.

Martials would probably be simpler to handle, since a lot of simple combat features naturally stack with one another. For example, stacking things like Extra Attack with Improved Smite gives a multiplicative effect. You'd be encouraged to combine classes that give additional attacks with classes that give additional effects per attack, or classes that increase the crit chance with classes that give additional effects on a crit. And so on. Speaking of, I was thinking about giving fighters combat maneuvers at 1st level, and then Extra Attack as their capstone at 4th level.