Turn Undead and Wildshape Replacements

[paladinn]

I'm working on using the "sidekick" Spellcaster class (from the UA) as a possible alternative to either a cleric or druid class. The "healer" role allows the caster to use both spell lists. I really like that flexibility.

That said, the caster BtB would be lacking the cleric's ability to turn/destroy undead and the druid's wildshape ability. Does anyone know what might be good spell replacements for those? 3e had a spell called Disrupt Undead, and PF has a spell called Beast Shape that would seem to approximate those. Should I just adapt from 3e?

[Leon]

Why not just give it the respective abilities at a reduced rate?

[paladinn]

Why not just give it the respective abilities at a reduced rate?

For casters, I'm trying to do as much with spells and not so much class abilities. Originally generic casters could select from any spell list. I'm trying to approximate those iconic abilities with spells. Ideally a player could make any class concept work with the right spell choices.

[Ionathus]

I don't know the UA you're talking about, but regardless of context, I wouldn't recommend trying to replace Channel Divinity or Wildshape with "more spells."

Spellcasting is in this tricky space where it's the ultimate utility ability, but it's a severely limited resource. Not just limited in the number of times you can use it: limited in the spells you can even prepare in the first place. Even Wizard subclasses get extra class features that do something a little different than "more spells." Portent, or the Transmuter's stone, for example.

People talk a huge game about spells and how awesome and how versatile they are. But as a person who's played a Human Moon Druid, I was constantly caught in Analysis Paralysis over my spell list, because literally the only features I had to work with were WS and Spellcasting. Taking away my Wildshape, but then giving me another spell that approximates Wildshape, would have just forced me to make yet another difficult decision about which spells to prepare, and added more fuel to that fire. And if we're talking about a UA class that can choose from both cleric and druid spells? A DM might look at that and see an OP powerhouse, but a lot of players will actually struggle with so many good choices to pick from and so few they can actually prepare.

In my opinion, "just turn it into a spell" is not a good design philosophy. Players need something to fall back on that isn't their spell list and has a bit of general utility, or else the entire game becomes "did I pick the right 10 spells today? No? Well whatever, guess I cast Thorn Whip again."

[paladinn]

I don't know the UA you're talking about, but regardless of context, I wouldn't recommend trying to replace Channel Divinity or Wildshape with "more spells."

Spellcasting is in this tricky space where it's the ultimate utility ability, but it's a severely limited resource. Not just limited in the number of times you can use it: limited in the spells you can even prepare in the first place. Even Wizard subclasses get extra class features that do something a little different than "more spells." Portent, or the Transmuter's stone, for example.

People talk a huge game about spells and how awesome and how versatile they are. But as a person who's played a Human Moon Druid, I was constantly caught in Analysis Paralysis over my spell list, because literally the only features I had to work with were WS and Spellcasting. Taking away my Wildshape, but then giving me another spell that approximates Wildshape, would have just forced me to make yet another difficult decision about which spells to prepare, and added more fuel to that fire. And if we're talking about a UA class that can choose from both cleric and druid spells? A DM might look at that and see an OP powerhouse, but a lot of players will actually struggle with so many good choices to pick from and so few they can actually prepare.

In my opinion, "just turn it into a spell" is not a good design philosophy. Players need something to fall back on that isn't their spell list and has a bit of general utility, or else the entire game becomes "did I pick the right 10 spells today? No? Well whatever, guess I cast Thorn Whip again."

The sidekick/generic Spellcaster class is inherently limited by it's having spells known as opposed to spells prepared, so I don't see it as OP. Ultimately I'd love a caster to be able to choose from Any spell list, as with the 3e generic caster class. In 3e, most non-spell class features were accessible via special feats. But 5e does feats way differently. And clerics do have a vested interest in undead-turning, as druids do in wildshape.

I could see someone choosing spells from the wizard and druid lists, add wildshape and Boom! There's a witch "class". Lots of possibilities.

[Ionathus]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. It doesn't really change my opinion on this.

Creating a class that only has spells and nothing else (prepared or known, doesn't really matter) is a bad idea. I don't recommend it.

[animorte]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. It doesn't really change my opinion on this.

Creating a class that only has spells and nothing else (prepared or known, doesn't really matter) is a bad idea. I don't recommend it.

I somewhat disagree. Spells can be extremely versatile in duration, range, damage, control, support, utility… Strictly having spells is not necessarily a bad idea (especially if you consider the ever present caster vs martial disparity). Of course having additional features is what can create a theme and provide more flavor. 5e has done a good job of spoiling us with thematic subclasses and additional features.

However, there is the note up thread that I can certainly relate to about the analysis paralysis when it comes to choosing spells. BUT, if you already have a lot of bases covered from your party, you may have some more freedom to choose a thematic approach with spells, get creative, and still have fun.

I like being able to create versatile characters that can cover most everything, but I also really appreciate the opportunity to embrace a certain limitation.

[paladinn]

I somewhat disagree. Spells can be extremely versatile in duration, range, damage, control, support, utility… Strictly having spells is not necessarily a bad idea (especially if you consider the ever present caster vs martial disparity). Of course having additional features is what can create a theme and provide more flavor. 5e has done a good job of spoiling us with thematic subclasses and additional features.

However, there is the note up thread that I can certainly relate to about the analysis paralysis when it comes to choosing spells. BUT, if you already have a lot of bases covered from your party, you may have some more freedom to choose a thematic approach with spells, get creative, and still have fun.

I like being able to create versatile characters that can cover most everything, but I also really appreciate the opportunity to embrace a certain limitation.

I thought converting those 2 features into spells by definition puts a limit on them. The concept I'm going for might be easy to min/max; but the fact that it's all limited to spells known kind of keeps a lid on it.

working on converting those 2 spells. Film at 11

[Ionathus]

I somewhat disagree. Spells can be extremely versatile in duration, range, damage, control, support, utility… Strictly having spells is not necessarily a bad idea (especially if you consider the ever present caster vs martial disparity). Of course having additional features is what can create a theme and provide more flavor. 5e has done a good job of spoiling us with thematic subclasses and additional features.

However, there is the note up thread that I can certainly relate to about the analysis paralysis when it comes to choosing spells. BUT, if you already have a lot of bases covered from your party, you may have some more freedom to choose a thematic approach with spells, get creative, and still have fun.

I like being able to create versatile characters that can cover most everything, but I also really appreciate the opportunity to embrace a certain limitation.

My main concern with this has less to do with power level or versatility, and more to do with how fun the class would be to play.

By combining all of a class/subclass's main features into the Spellcasting trait, you're putting all of their competency eggs in a single basket. Instead of having the cool stuff they can do spread out across 2-4 separate resources, it's eating out of their spellcasting budget. A regular cleric, for instance, can decide whether they want to cast a spell or use Channel Divinity. If their spells are running low and they want to save some, Channel Divinity is often a useful fallback move that doesn't eat into those spells. But if Channel Divinity has been spell-ified, then it's pulling from the same resource pool and that choice is no longer a choice - instead, it becomes "well, I have to cast a spell this turn, because it's the only cool thing I can do. Which one will it be?" And in the worst case scenario, they've actually run out of spells, or they're in a Silence effect, or their enemy has the Magic Resistance feature, and now they literally can't do anything impactful with their class abilities.

Sure, you could probably give them extra spellslots to compensate for this. But I think that's just bolting on an ad hoc fix instead of actually addressing the problem. And the problem in my eyes is that a single resource pool is overall less fun to play with than several different pools. Lay on Hands, Bardic Inspiration, Wild Shape, Channel Divinity...these things could be converted into spells. But there's a design reason that they haven't been.

[paladinn]

Just like the 3.5 "generic" classes, what I have in mind is actually a replacement for the existing full-caster classes. You can basically design your own caster "class" by the spell choices you make.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.