PDA

View Full Version : What if most class features ran off of "spell slots"?



Greywander
2021-11-01, 12:44 AM
Well, sort of but not really. Perhaps this is a natural evolution of 4e's "everyone is actually a caster but we're going to pretend they're not". (Disclaimer: I've never played 4e and am not familiar with its rules.) More correctly, what if you had a more generic set of resources that could fuel both spellcasting and other class features?

This might take a bit of 'splainin' (apologies in advance for the wall of text). I don't know that this could be applied (easily) to vanilla, but it's probably relevant to more than one homebrew.

I've been putting some more thought into a major overhaul that I've posted about before; specifically, stacking classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?632498-Stacking-class-mod-for-5e-(brainstorming)) (2 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624980-Let-s-make-some-stacking-classes)) (3 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624437-Difficulty-making-customizable-spellcasting-with-stacking-classes)) (4 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612077-5-5e-idea-for-stacking-caster-classes-but-how-to-handle-different-types-of-casting)) (geez, I've really made four threads on this?). Don't worry, I'll summarize the relevant bits here:

Basically, each class is cut down to just four levels, and each time you finish one class you'll start a new one. By 20th level, you would have completed five classes (hence the "stacking"). My plan at the moment is to convert existing base classes into two classes, and existing subclasses into full classes. This gives you a lot more freedom to mix'n'match in order to build your own character.

Now, immediately, this presented an issue for spellcasters specifically, although you might already be able to see how this could apply more generally as well. Most casters in 5e only have minor differences in their spellcasting, but the warlock stands out as running on a truly different system. And besides, I would want to add my own alternative spellcasting methods, such as an entire wild magic system I wrote up that doesn't use spell slots at all.

The problem is that your progression isn't really fixed, and classes need to be able to be combined in any fashion. In vanilla, a necromancer is specifically a type of wizard, but here a necromancer could start off as a cleric, or bard, or warlock, or even a fighter or barbarian. What kind of spellcasting does the necromancer use if you didn't start off with a caster class? What if you go fighter -> necromancer -> warlock? I think I've come up with a workable solution to this specific issue, and I think this solution might also be able to be more generalized, with some tweaking.

The solution I'm considering for the caster-specific problem is that each caster class contributes to your caster level, and some casters unlock access to specialized types of casting. Whenever you gain a level, you can reallocate your accrued caster levels between different casting methods you've unlocked. So in the case of fighter -> necromancer -> warlock, you wouldn't even get casting until you started into necromancer, where you would probably just use the generic, default method. Once you take your first warlock level, though, you would immediately be able to reallocate all your caster levels to pact magic. Or you could do a split between the two, but that might not be advisable. Likewise, if you unlocked access to, say, wild magic, or blood magic, or whatever, you'd be able to reallocate caster levels to those specific spellcasting methods, or you could ignore them if you're just picking up those classes for their spell lists and other features.

Now here's where things get interesting. "Multiclassing" doesn't really make sense in this system, since you're already taking multiple classes. No, once you start a class, you are required to finish it before you can start a new class. But, we can come up with a comparable alternative. Another aspect of this overhaul are some big changes to the tier system. The relevant parts are that each tier is exactly four levels, and thus each class exactly fills one tier, and also that the XP required to level up a class depends on which tier you are in. So, my idea for a multiclassing alternative is to give you the option to "repeat a tier". Basically, you get to start a new class, but don't advance in tier. The XP cost to level up the new class stays what it was instead of increasing, but you have to delay some significant upgrades. Imagine delaying Extra Attack and not getting any more HP/hit dice and not increasing your proficiency bonus, for four more levels, albeit at a cheaper XP rate.

Anyway, the point of this is that you might find yourself in a situation where you have full caster progression and a few martial classes. So this might mean you have a full complement of spells slots and ki and superiority dice and... you get the idea. (We can cap our caster level according to which tier we're in, so already there's no double-dipping for caster levels.) Now, we could just ban this alternative multiclassing, so you can't build up two or more independent resource pools. But... what if we just generalized our solution to the caster-specific problem to apply here as well? For example, taking monk would give you a "caster level" and give you access to ki as a spellcasting method. So... you could actually use ki to cast spells, or use spell slots to power your ki features. You can't double dip, since you have to allocate caster levels to get ki, but you could use either ki or spell slots for both spells and ki features.

Where that finally brings us is each character has a default progression according to which tier they're in (rather than how many classes they have). This default progression gives them a pool of resources that are expended to use certain class features, including casting spells. Certain classes unlock access to alternative progression systems, e.g. spell slots, spell points, pact magic, blood magic, wild magic, ki, etc., and each time you gain a level you can reallocate your progression levels to any of the progression systems you've unlocked, but your total progression level is determined by your current tier. The resources granted by each progression system can still be used to power the features of any class, the progression system just influences the nature of those resources, how many of them you have, and how you replenish them. (For example, wild magic doesn't have any resources, instead you have to make a roll to beat a DC dependent on what spell you're casting, and the roll can also trigger a wild magic surge in a variety of severities ranging from "temporary inconvenience" to "roll a new character". Many of the lesser surge effects disappear after resting, making them equivalent to regaining a resource.)

The natural conclusion of this is that every such class feature needs to be configured as if it were a spell. You can still have class features that aren't fueled by such resources, so it's not strictly required. But if so, that means that you need a way of figuring out which level of spell slot (or equivalent) needs to be expended to use a particular feature, as well as what the effect might be if you expend a higher level slot. Which... at some point, doesn't this just mean that every class is now a caster? But you can fluff them as being a non-caster, and even use one of the martial progressions instead. Weirdly, this also applies to caster classes. You could play a monk/wizard who uses full monk progression and uses ki to cast their wizard spells.

Even without the multiclassing alternative, there's still a bit of weirdness. I've decided that in such a system, a class would either be a caster or not; no half casters (remember, each class is only four levels). So, for example, paladin: caster or not? If not a caster, how do you fuel your smites? What about iconic paladin-specific spells? This system also seems to address that as well: it doesn't matter if paladins are "casters" or not, they still get progression, even if it's the default progression, and thus can still have access to paladin spells and smites.

I'm not sure what to make of this, or if it's a good idea to pursue for the overhaul I've been considering. Would it make sense for, say, a fighter to learn certain specialized martial techniques that are treated the same as spells, and can be refluffed to such? This then leads back to an idea from the original thread on stacking classes, where spellcasting was just a more specific type of "supernatural ability", which could also include thing like superpowers or psionics or other non-magical forms of supernatural abilities, except now it's being generalized to include non-supernaturals as well. Part of me worries this will make martials feel too similar to casters, but another part of me thinks, "Yeah, this could work."

Toadkiller
2021-11-01, 01:14 AM
I play with a guy who loves D&D. He also tends to work 10-12 hour days 5-6 days a week in a very physical job. He’s always really up for a complex character those weeks, despite very good system understanding. He’s been loving playing a rogue in a current campaign I think, in part, because mostly he doesn’t have to keep track of anything. He can just kick back and have fun while still “doing his part” for the party.

Having classes that work differently gives space for different ways of playing.

OldTrees1
2021-11-01, 02:28 AM
What about the players that don't like limited use amnesiac resources? In 3E the Warlock was an At-Will caster. Letting the player choose between multiple models is a good thing. It allows the system to support different people within the playgroup/target audience. Multiple models is a way of saying "I like Apples, but I know my neighbor likes Oranges, and I want my neighbor to be happy, so I want the market to have both Apples and Oranges".

Now you mentioned maybe these are not spell slots. Maybe they are some generic resource that can be used to have spell slots. In that case describe how they make an At-Will caster like 3E Warlock or an At-Will martial. I want the market to have both Apples and Oranges.


Of course, if the affected playgroup/target audience is small enough, then you can ask them their preferences and satisfy those preferences.

Greywander
2021-11-01, 03:12 AM
What about the players that don't like limited use amnesiac resources? In 3E the Warlock was an At-Will caster. Letting the player choose between multiple models is a good thing. It allows the system to support different people within the playgroup/target audience. Multiple models is a way of saying "I like Apples, but I know my neighbor likes Oranges, and I want my neighbor to be happy, so I want the market to have both Apples and Oranges".
The specific implementation I was thinking of does exactly that: you start with a generic progression system, and some classes unlock access to alternate progressions. You can then swap your progression from one track to another, and use the resources from any track to fuel your abilities. This allows a player to choose between multiple progression models and apply them to all their classes.


Now you mentioned maybe these are not spell slots. Maybe they are some generic resource that can be used to have spell slots. In that case describe how they make an At-Will caster like 3E Warlock or an At-Will martial. I want the market to have both Apples and Oranges.
Sure, I've got one such system that is basically complete, and a second one that is mostly done but needs a bit more work to finalize it.

First, I mentioned wild magic in the OP, but let me go over it again in a bit more detail. When you cast a spell, you roll one to four dice, adding them up to try and beat the DC to cast that spell. Higher level spells have higher DCs. If you fail, the spell does not cast. So you always want to roll more dice, right? Wrong. Because if you roll doubles, triples, or quadruples, you trigger a wild magic surge. Rolling doubles generally means a temporary inconvenience, usually one that ends on a rest (depends on the specific effect). Triples is usually permanent and/or directly harmful. Quadruples means there's a good chance you'll need to roll a new character. That's the price of infinite spellcasting. I've actually playtested this at lower levels, and it was really fun. I gave a guy I was chasing one of those chest-burster aliens, which allowed me to catch him (he lived, it was a minor effect so no real damage), made myself puke rainbows, later made myself talk only in animal noises while trying to cast Invisibility, and then later I destroyed my right arm while trying to Misty Step to a gnoll chieftain that was running away. It was great.

Second, is channeling. I have a WIP homebrew class for 5e called the channeler. Their schtick is that they cast their spells at will, but are limited by how many spells they can have active at the same time. Most of their spells have a duration of at least a minute, with very few instantaneous spells. A lot of their spells are also concentration. This also only applies to spells up to 5th level; they currently use a copypasta of Mystic Arcanum, but I'm not very happy with that so I'll probably redo it if I ever finish that class.

For at will martials, you could easily just restrict them to 2nd, or maybe 3rd level "spells", unlocking access to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells at, say, 5th, 11th, and 17th level, respectively. Their martial abilities can then be spammed at will, but are limited in their "upcasting". There's also nothing stopping you from adding features to the class that are already usable at will. For example, rogues could still get things like Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge on top of whatever "spells" they get.

Right now, full casters lean pretty heavily on their spellcasting, to the point that they have a lot of "empty" levels where the only thing they get is access to a new spell level. If I'm rewriting all the classes anyway, I could adjust the power level of the default progression to be closer to martial progression, and then give full casters more features to make up for it. This might even make them more interesting instead of just being a walking pile of spells. Alternatively, I could use this to raise martials up to have closer to a caster progression. "Casting" something like a "cleaving attack" at 9th level might be able to chop the tops off of mountains or something.

OldTrees1
2021-11-01, 11:50 AM
The specific implementation I was thinking of does exactly that: you start with a generic progression system, and some classes unlock access to alternate progressions. You can then swap your progression from one track to another, and use the resources from any track to fuel your abilities. This allows a player to choose between multiple progression models and apply them to all their classes.

For at will martials, you could easily just restrict them to 2nd, or maybe 3rd level "spells", unlocking access to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells at, say, 5th, 11th, and 17th level, respectively. Their martial abilities can then be spammed at will, but are limited in their "upcasting". There's also nothing stopping you from adding features to the class that are already usable at will. For example, rogues could still get things like Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge on top of whatever "spells" they get.

Right now, full casters lean pretty heavily on their spellcasting, to the point that they have a lot of "empty" levels where the only thing they get is access to a new spell level. If I'm rewriting all the classes anyway, I could adjust the power level of the default progression to be closer to martial progression, and then give full casters more features to make up for it. This might even make them more interesting instead of just being a walking pile of spells.

It sounds like your specific implementation would work for multiple different models of classes built around activated abilities (including at-will activated abilities). You will want some variation in the specific models to create a texture of them being different*

* For example a Fighter might "upcast" with a "build your own" sort of like 3E metamagic. This would be in contrast to the Barbarian with fixed impressive abilities or the Monk with slightly weaker abilities that have a chance to chain into another ability. until a comb ends.

I am not sure this handles classes built around passive/static abilities or with differing ratios of activated : passive feature points.


Since you explicitly can handle the different recharge preferences, and I assume you can handle variation between models, it sounds like a reasonable approach that would address scaling issues. The classes would feel a bit more similar unless you can handle variation of passive vs activated ratios, but that would be a stretch goal.

dafrca
2021-11-01, 11:54 AM
I think I understand your first post Greywander. I admit I am unsure how to feel about the idea. on the one hand it sounds interesting, but on the other, I would want to play it out a little to see first. Maybe do a few games where characters are pushed up the latter faster so I could experience the full effect without taking months to do so. :smallsmile:

KorvinStarmast
2021-11-01, 02:29 PM
OP asks:

What if most class features ran off of "spell slots"?
I answer: Didn't they already try that? I think they called it D&D 4e. :smallwink:

Having classes that work differently gives space for different ways of playing. Give that poster a cigar. :smallsmile:

OldTrees1
2021-11-01, 03:26 PM
OP asks:

I answer: Didn't they already try that? I think they called it D&D 4e. :smallwink:
Give that poster a cigar. :smallsmile:

Honestly it sounds like we are all underestimating the OP. It actual opening post (and clarifying posts) do not sound very similar to 4E. It does have a focus on activated abilities but not necessarily daily abilities. See the at-will martial comments.

Amechra
2021-11-01, 05:37 PM
First, I mentioned wild magic in the OP, but let me go over it again in a bit more detail. [...]

So far, so Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. :p (Actually, each time I look at one of these threads, I keep thinking that you're reinventing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e's Career system from scratch, which is an interesting kind of convergent evolution.)

In general, I think you're keeping too many sacred cows here — you're going to have rewrite the classes anyway, so why go "oh, I need D&D-style Vancian casting, and should force everything to fit that mold"? I think your Wild Magic system is a much more natural fit for this kind of system — you can set it up so that you're able to cast any spell you want semi-reliably after 2-3 Tiers of magic classes, with further Tiers reducing your risk of Wild Surges and giving you thematic extras.

Like, imagine the following set-up (only listing relevant class features):

Wizard
Wild Magic: You can roll up to 2 Wild Magic dice when casting a Wild Magic spell, +1 for every time you gain this feature, to a maximum of 4 dice
Ritual Caster: You can add a bunch of ritual trappings to casting a spell (longer casting times, expensive components, etc). If you do, you get to ignore one die when determining whether or not you trigger a Wild Surge.

Necromancer
Wild Magic: You can roll up to 2 Wild Magic dice when casting a Wild Magic spell, +1 for every time you gain this feature, to a maximum of 4 dice
Master Necromancer: You roll an additional die when casting Necromancy spells (ignoring the cap), and get to ignore one die when determining whether or not you trigger a Wild Surge when you do so
Create Undead: You can make cool zombie servants.

Now the big difference between going into Necromancer from the Wizard class vs. the Fighter class is that the Wizard is going to have an extra die to play with when casting spells. A Fighter//Necromancer is still going to be able to do the important parts of being a necromancer (the whole "throw corpses at problems" thing), they'll just be worse at utility magic, cursing people, and the like.

EDIT: Heck, you could make it so that mechanics built around rolling a die (like, say, casting Wild Magic spells or using Maneuvers) use the same die size. So your Fighter//Necromancer is using d8s to cast spells and adds a d8 when using maneuvers. This would cut down on having to remember a bunch of different progressions.

FabulousFizban
2021-11-02, 03:55 PM
then you would be playing 4e