OneD&D UA - THE DRUID AND PALADIN

[False God]

Linear growth is way better than factorial growth. And factorial growth is what you get with global systems because now you have to consider all possible interactions when making any change.

You literally said you didn't want to have "two guys do fundamentally the same thing, but we needed entirely different systems to represent it." My point is that they shouldn't do fundamentally the same thing. They should do different things.
Probably because we're arguing perpendicular to each other. I'm saying "A lot of D&D is the same, how to we make it more interesting and engaging?" You're saying "Everything in D&D should be done differently." I'm suggesting the game be redesigned to give people more variety and options, you're suggesting that everyone should be put in a corner that only they can stand in.
We're not even talking apples and oranges, I'm talking about engineering and you're talking about astrophysics. There's a shared underlying mathematics to what we're both saying, but they're otherwise completely different.


And systems? I think we have radically divergent understandings of what that word means.

Spellcasting is a system. It has its own set of unique rules and then sub-elements that inherit from it. It works by completely unique rules by and large, only interfacing with the most basic resolution mechanics and then sparingly. Things that apply to spells don't apply to non-spells unless they say they do.

Attacks are a system. They have their own rules, scoped to themselves. Things that affect attacks don't affect non-attacks unless they say they do.

HP and defenses form a system. They have their own rules, etc.

My point is that by building on those very limited building blocks you can do a lot without needing an extra layer called a "system" most of the time. No one would call Lay on Hands a "system". It's a class feature with its own pool of uses. That's all you need--
a) some interaction with teh core systems of the game
b) (optional) a resource pool to throttle use.
I am, and I guess "we" if I can speak for some others in this thread, are suggesting expanding the "Attack System" by making it a much more robust subsystem that certain classes will get to leverage much more fully than they currently do.

Because quite frankly, I wouldn't even call "attacks" a system. It is a mechanic. Multiple mechanics that work together form a "system", a lone mechanic "roll a d20 to hit a thing" is not a system.

Spellcasting is a system. It has multiple integrated mechanics. Spells are a mechanic. Spell Slots are a mechanic. Metamagic is a mechanic. Combined these things create a system.

EDIT: Phoenix please read this part: I find your further arguments so loaded with logical fallacies as I am not interested in engaging with them. I will not be responding to further posts of yours on this subject. Yeah the mods gave me a warning the last time I told someone I was no longer going to reply to them in a thread, but I generally find your posts agreeable on other subjects and still think it is fair to say "I'm done here.".

[Theodoxus]

Eh, having 3, 4, or 6 base classes isn't 'build a bear' or 'lego block' or even 'point buy', it's just recognizing that the only difference between a fighter who takes the unarmed fighting style, and a monk, is, the monk has more speed and some decent defensive measures that aren't just armor. So, why not fold the two into a base class and differentiate them with subclasses?

Or, move the monk out of the Warrior sphere, throw him into the Expert sphere and give him some fun new toys (or at least better updates to his current set of toys).

I still want unique classes, I just don't think that the 13 classes in 5E are really all that unique. So, combining the ones that are using the same basic chassis is a no brainer. Once you have the 3 basic classes, you can decide if a new concept fits within one, or is unique enough to actually be a 4th class.

There aren't any currently that do that. They're all modifiers on a theme.

[Amechra]

Part of the reason why the Monk feels like it can be rolled into the Fighter is because you could argue that both of them are (large) subsets of the same class — the "Cultivator", who's what you get when you apply the same level of training and focus to fighting and personal improvement that a Wizard does to studying magic. The Fighter has the incredibly solid mechanical chassis to build off of, while the Monk has the mystical elements that would give you a justification for any "epic" techniques you might want.

...

Going back to the whole "unique spell lists vs. shared spell lists" heated argument discussion... it's hilarious to me because it's almost entirely an issue that's unique to D&D, thanks to how it handles spell lists. The "each type of spellcaster is defined by what spells they cast and how they cast them" concept works way better when spell lists are short and not the massive behemoths that D&D uses — the other systems that I can think of that do that have spell lists that are 10-12 spells long.

Why does that matter? Because it's easier to come up with 10-12 unique spells based off of a theme than 80, and short spell lists take up much less space (so you can squirrel them away in a supplement without spending too much of your page count). And it's not like that's a hard limit — borrowing from how Warhammer Fantasy RP 2e handled it, you could make it so...



There's a "universal" spell list of that has 8 spells on it. Everyone gets these effects, so that having any spellcaster on the team gives you access to Detect Magic or Magic Weapon or whatever.
Each class adds 6 "minor" spells to that list, that defines the stuff that every member of that class gets. All Clerics get to cast Cure Wound and Bless, Wizards get Magic Missile and Counterspell, whatever. Maybe Druids replace some of those spells with wildshape forms, I dunno.
Your subclass adds 10 new spells to your list that are unique to that spell list. If you find yourself wanting to put a spell on a bunch of these lists, it probably belongs to the class or universal lists instead.


Is it less flexible than the current "pick what spells you want from this list of 90+ options"? Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Going back to the whole "unique spell lists vs. shared spell lists" heated argument discussion... it's hilarious to me because it's almost entirely an issue that's unique to D&D, thanks to how it handles spell lists. The "each type of spellcaster is defined by what spells they cast and how they cast them" concept works way better when spell lists are short and not the massive behemoths that D&D uses — the other systems that I can think of that do that have spell lists that are 10-12 spells long.

Why does that matter? Because it's easier to come up with 10-12 unique spells based off of a theme than 80, and short spell lists take up much less space (so you can squirrel them away in a supplement without spending too much of your page count). And it's not like that's a hard limit — borrowing from how Warhammer Fantasy RP 2e handled it, you could make it so...



There's a "universal" spell list of that has 8 spells on it. Everyone gets these effects, so that having any spellcaster on the team gives you access to Detect Magic or Magic Weapon or whatever.
Each class adds 6 "minor" spells to that list, that defines the stuff that every member of that class gets. All Clerics get to cast Cure Wound and Bless, Wizards get Magic Missile and Counterspell, whatever. Maybe Druids replace some of those spells with wildshape forms, I dunno.
Your subclass adds 10 new spells to your list that are unique to that spell list. If you find yourself wanting to put a spell on a bunch of these lists, it probably belongs to the class or universal lists instead.


Is it less flexible than the current "pick what spells you want from this list of 90+ options"? Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing...

I'd be totally ok with this kind of setup.

[Kane0]

Yeah that sounds fine to me, though the resource breakdown would have to be adjusted I suppose

[Amechra]

Yeah that sounds fine to me, though the resource breakdown would have to be adjusted I suppose

Oh yeah, definitely. That said, it wouldn't be a complete loss if spellcasters went from what they have right now (where spellcasters have a number of spell slots apparently foretold by gyromancy) to something simpler.

Then again, I'm also one of those heretics who thinks 9 spell levels is 3 too many, so what do I know?

[Gignere]

Part of the reason why the Monk feels like it can be rolled into the Fighter is because you could argue that both of them are (large) subsets of the same class — the "Cultivator", who's what you get when you apply the same level of training and focus to fighting and personal improvement that a Wizard does to studying magic. The Fighter has the incredibly solid mechanical chassis to build off of, while the Monk has the mystical elements that would give you a justification for any "epic" techniques you might want.

The reason monks can be fitted into fighter is because what Gygax should have made was martial artists and not monk. Martial artist basically is fighter in East Asian languages. Monk as a class should be renamed and buried for good. If they are worried about calling Elves, Dwarves, Humans etc. races and changing to species. Why the hell are they still keeping this offensive “monk” class when they can just cross it off and call it martial artists? However the problem does arise that if they did that there would be very little differentiation between the “monk” class and fighter.

[Segev]

The reason monks can be fitted into fighter is because what Gygax should have made was martial artists and not monk. Martial artist basically is fighter in East Asian languages. Monk as a class should be renamed and buried for good. If they are worried about calling Elves, Dwarves, Humans etc. races and changing to species. Why the hell are they still keeping this offensive “monk” class when they can just cross it off and call it martial artists? However the problem does arise that if they did that there would be very little differentiation between the “monk” class and fighter.

OneD&D to feature benedictine pugilist monks with tonsures and sackcloth in order to be inoffensive but keep the monk mechanics alive.

[Psyren]

Monks don't need Shaolin/Far East theming at all. There are ascetics with spiritual and even martial theming in a wide variety of cultures - From western Friars and Greco-Roman wrestlers to eastern Yogi and Jains to middle-eastern Fakirs and many more. Similarly, ki/qi/chi can also be prana or manitou or even just faith, essence, soul, vitality etc.

[Gignere]

Monks don't need Shaolin/Far East theming at all. There are ascetics with spiritual and even martial theming in a wide variety of cultures - From western Friars and Greco-Roman wrestlers to eastern Yogi and Jains to middle-eastern Fakirs and many more. Similarly, ki/qi/chi can also be prana or manitou or even just faith, essence, soul, vitality etc.

They don’t but have there been even a single hint or a suggestion that OD&D is moving towards that direction. All the DEI stuff they are worried about doesn’t include not offending Asians.

[Psyren]

They don’t but have there been even a single hint or a suggestion that OD&D is moving towards that direction. All the DEI stuff they are worried about doesn’t include not offending Asians.

I have not the slightest clue what you're on about, but I suspect it's designed to get the thread locked, so I'll leave you to... whatever it is.

[Tanarii]

OneD&D to feature benedictine pugilist monks with tonsures and sackcloth in order to be inoffensive but keep the monk mechanics alive.
As a Western European I find this stereotyped portrayal of monks unacceptable. I demand you kill this Robin Hood movie version of monks!

[Amechra]

To be honest, this is a pretty good aesthetic for a Monk. (https://youtu.be/rC6WAAlNHt4?t=75) :p

[Ninja Dragon]

As someone who has only ever played the 5th edition (besides non-DnD systems) and whose only exposure to 3e is OOTS...

I don't understand why both sorcerer and wizard exist, besides legacy.

Other spellcasters I kind of can, even if they overlap a lot, but they seem to have enough unique stuff each.

But sorcerer is basically a wizard with the same spell list but a feature that apparently used to be a wizard one but became a sorcerer exclusive because WotC was out of ideas? That's... stupid.

I'd make them the same class while also introducing some kind of flexible ability system that allowed characters to have more than one option of main ability for a class (i e. a wizard can use Int, Cha or Wis depending on flavor). This way you can do both the scholar and the natural born talent. Or maybe have the sorcerer be a sublass (or more than one), with focus on the origin abilities that sorcerer subclasses already get.

Actually, I think the optimal number of classes is something between 7 and 10. So you could probably eliminate more without any big loss. Warlock could be cut too. Ranger and Paladin could be Cleric and Druid subclasses. Artificer can be one for the wizard. Monk, for the fighter.

But wizard and sorcerer are the most egregious example.

[Kane0]

As someone who has only ever played the 5th edition (besides non-DnD systems) and whose only exposure to 3e is OOTS...

I don't understand why both sorcerer and wizard exist, besides legacy.


Without getting into the weeds of it, imagine that spell points weren't an optional rule, but it was only for Sorcerers.

[Psyren]

I could see Spell Points being a sorcerer-only default as an interesting differentiator.

[Kane0]

I could see Spell Points being a sorcerer-only default as an interesting differentiator.
Yeah it was one of those ideas that i came across within the first 3 years of the release of the core books. I had a working version in like 2017 and refined from there, been a great addition to my table the entire time.

[Corran]

As someone who has only ever played the 5th edition (besides non-DnD systems) and whose only exposure to 3e is OOTS...

I don't understand why both sorcerer and wizard exist, besides legacy.
The play very differently once the game starts. With the wizard you've got to plan ahead a lot, with the sorcerer you need to spot good opportunities.

[Amechra]

apparently used to be a wizard one

Metamagic was universal in 3.X, since you accessed it through feats. Wizards were better at it than Sorcerers, though, since using metamagic extended casting times as a spontaneous caster (which I always felt was backwards, but you do you, WotC).

Sadly, we almost got a really interesting Sorcerer class, but the playtesters said no :smallmad:.

(For anyone who's unaware: the initial sketch for the Sorcerer was basically a spell point based half-caster that got gish-y buffs reflecting your heritage as you burnt through your resources.)

EDIT: Part of the problem with the Sorcerer in 5e is that it and the Warlock are a bit too similar thematically. I wouldn't lose sleep over the Sorcerer and the Warlock becoming a single class at this point.

If I'm allowed to be really heretical, though... part of me likes the idea of making the Sorcerer the "racial" arcane caster and the Wizard the "background" arcane caster.


Some races get a smattering of innate spellcasting (Drow and Tieflings spring to mind). The Sorcerer class requires that racial casting, but hyper-charges it.
Some backgrounds could give you a smattering of magic (Scholar and Hermit are obvious candidates, but I could see, say, Sailors getting some weather-y cantrips). The Wizard takes that spellcasting and hyper-charges it.

Under this paradigm, a Tiefling Scholar would always be a little bit of a spellcaster, but a Tiefling Scholar Sorcerer and a Tiefling Scholar Wizard would end up being focused spellcasters with very different lists. Sadly, the way that D&D handles everything basically makes this impossible, but it'd be a cool way to distinguish between the two. It'd even give the Warlock it's own niche — it's what you go for if you don't have magic due to your heritage or background. The Bard would be awkward in this framework, but I'd be fine with splitting it between the Rogue and the Entertainer Wizard if push came to shove.

[Psyren]

Here's a summary of the class feedback I submitted in my survey. No real reason behind posting this except perhaps to prompt additional discussion. For the most part I only commented on things I was dissatisfied with, though there were some exceptions.

Base Druid:

Wild Shape: Obviously I'm in favor of templates here, but only if they buff the defenses (since they use your HP and remove your spellcasting and other traits) and add customizability, including things like abilities, senses, movement modes etc. In addition, I'm not in favor of them removing all your racials and proficiencies, though removing access to other class features is fine.

Channel Nature: Healing Blossoms is too weak, and Channel needs another ability for non-wildshaping druids. I proposed a form of spell recovery similar to Land Druid or Harness Divine Power from Tasha's, as more spells would benefit any kind of druid. (Land Druid can get

Sea Form: This needs the same strength as land form. Krakens, Sharks, Whales etc. shouldn't be weak. They can reduce the land speed further if they need to.

Tiny Forms: These should be available at 1st level, so that every druid can benefit from wild shape in some way - even if they need to be heavily nerfed somehow (e.g. can't attack) to address Crawford's concern regarding their battlefield utility.

Archdruid: I'm in favor of wild shape at will by this point, but assuming they're avoiding that for a reason - adding two more uses per short rest (for a total of 6) in addition to regaining 1 whenever you roll initiative and whenever you short rest should be close enough.

Moon Druid:

Combat Wild Shape: My only complaint here is that Primal abjurations are on the weak side, which pushes moon druids to other lists (multiclassing etc). I suggested making Barkskin and Stoneskin into Abjurations.

Thousand Forms: This should just be a base druid ability, moon needs a new capstone. (Maybe this can replace Tiny Forms at 11.)


Base Paladin:

Divine Smite: Reduce damage for ranged smites - either lower the dice (d6/d4), or just plain cut the damage in half. Paladins shouldn't be outdamaging Rangers and Fighters at range. (I would also add something to this ability that powers up the smite spells, Paladins should be best with those.)

Faithful Steed: As I mentioned in my other thread, I think paladins should be the best at this, if not the only class with this. If their intent truly is to put this spell on the divine list, I would recommend nerfing it for everyone else and buffing it for paladins in some way, since it's naturally stronger for classes with faster spell slot access than Paladins get.

Abjure Foes: I love this ability but the radius is WAY too huge. No-save mass daze at 60ft, with a frighten on a save, makes paladins into unparalleled controllers; at a minimum it's mass disengage / counterspell immunity for your whole party. I would reduce this drastically, down to 20 or even 15 ft.

Divine Conduit: Similar to my Archdruid feedback, getting two more CD uses per short rest would make this feel more like a capstone.

Devotion Paladin:

No notes, this subclass was great! In fact, all the subclasses should be at or around this power level.



Metamagic was universal in 3.X, since you accessed it through feats. Wizards were better at it than Sorcerers, though, since using metamagic extended casting times as a spontaneous caster (which I always felt was backwards, but you do you, WotC).

Wizard was also better at it because they got bonus feats to spend on it IIRC.


Sadly, we almost got a really interesting Sorcerer class, but the playtesters said no :smallmad:.

(For anyone who's unaware: the initial sketch for the Sorcerer was basically a spell point based half-caster that got gish-y buffs reflecting your heritage as you burnt through your resources.)

I for one am glad that got voted down. On no planet should a Bard be outcasting a Sorcerer, nor should a Warlock for that matter.

[GooeyChewie]

I for one am glad that got voted down. On no planet should a Bard be outcasting a Sorcerer, nor should a Warlock for that matter.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about a spell point-based gish-y class if it were presented as a something other than a sorcerer? Perhaps as an entirely new class?

[Psyren]

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about a spell point-based gish-y class if it were presented as a something other than a sorcerer? Perhaps as an entirely new class?

Why a different class? I'd be perfectly fine with a spell point gishy sorcerer - as a subclass, similar to Moon Druid, Valor Bard etc.

In fact, my hope is that Draconic Sorcerer will be the ready-made sorcerer gish in OneD&D.

[animorte]

In fact, my hope is that Draconic Sorcerer will be the ready-made sorcerer gish in OneD&D.
Yeah, this. I'll never understand how the Sorcerer was the only full caster not to get any gish, while the Draconic was perfect for it.

[sambojin]

The problem with spell points is that there's so many good spells to use them on. And this goes for the low, mid, and high end of things.

You could do anything from casting 19 Ice Knives a day at lvl7, all the way to casting 6 lvl4 spells (summons or conjures or fireballs or whatever, one for each combat encounter), or anything in between. Spell casting is flexible, spell points just ramps that up a couple of notches. And spell casting may already be too flexible (at least in 5e. 1DnD might be ok'ish, maybe, with its spell prep rules. You won't be able to up-level load your spell prep loadout like you can in 5e).

Limiting the spells known doesn't really work, because you'll just pick the best spells. Limiting the spell points could work, but then it feels weaker than just going full caster. But spell points can scale all-out-of-control, and it starts becoming apparent by about lvl3-5 as a full caster, let alone at later levels. God help you if there's some form of Arcane/ Natural Recovery in there as well.

Maybe it could work as a half caster (IE: half the spell points, but some cool combat tricks), but I'm not sure.


(I mean, yes, give me a spell point Druid. That's what I meant. Sorry if I make my DM cry)

[GooeyChewie]

Why a different class? I'd be perfectly fine with a spell point gishy sorcerer - as a subclass, similar to Moon Druid, Valor Bard etc.

In fact, my hope is that Draconic Sorcerer will be the ready-made sorcerer gish in OneD&D.

I enjoy theory-crafting what I might do if I made my own version of D&D, so I was curious if there was interest in that sort of class.

[Kane0]

But spell points can scale all-out-of-control, and it starts becoming apparent by about lvl3-5 as a full caster, let alone at later levels. God help you if there's some form of Arcane/ Natural Recovery in there as well.


I addressed that in my version by saying any 4th/5th/6th level spell you cast with spellpoints is once per short rest, and any 7th/8th/9th is once per long rest.
And sorcery points just got merged into spell points, without the extra +level added into the pool but instead moving the short rest recovery from the capstone down to Tier 1 (prof bonus, not a set 4 SP)

[sambojin]

Still wouldn't mind it by lvl7. 3xlvl3 + 3xlvl4 = 33pts. I've still got 5 left over. Assuming two short rests a day. So you're hugely powerful by lvl7.

I'd actually probably scale down some of those slots, 1-2 of them, for about an extra 2-4 lower level slots worth, and cantrip, skill use and RP away the rest of the time, on any given day.

Level 7 isn't a breakpoint or anything, it's just where druids get a bit bonkers on spell points due to long lasting spells (every other full caster does too, due to powerful much and many spells, even as a "normal" full caster). Lvl3-5 is where it starts to become noticeable that someone is "optimising/ breaking" something, and can easily start doing so with spell points on a full caster's allotment of them.


I'd honestly like Sorcerer to be a spell point caster. It's just, 5e's system isn't a good spell point system, so could probably use some adjustments. Other than that, it's a great idea for DnD1, or 5e/6e homebrew. Wish they'd done it well in the first place, because there'd be a good spell point system made for it already.

[Aimeryan]

Still wouldn't mind it by lvl7. 3xlvl3 + 3xlvl4 = 33pts. I've still got 5 left over. Assuming two short rests a day. So you're hugely powerful by lvl7.

I'd actually probably scale down some of those slots, 1-2 of them, for about an extra 2-4 lower level slots worth, and cantrip, skill use and RP away the rest of the time, on any given day.

Level 7 isn't a breakpoint or anything, it's just where druids get a bit bonkers on spell points due to long lasting spells (every other full caster does too, due to powerful much and many spells, even as a "normal" full caster). Lvl3-5 is where it starts to become noticeable that someone is "optimising/ breaking" something, and can easily start doing so with spell points on a full caster's allotment of them.


I'd honestly like Sorcerer to be a spell point caster. It's just, 5e's system isn't a good spell point system, so could probably use some adjustments. Other than that, it's a great idea for DnD1, or 5e/6e homebrew. Wish they'd done it well in the first place, because there'd be a good spell point system made for it already.

That is like a spell per combat encounter, if you have six in the day. So... Warlock? Not sure I consider that 'hugely powerful'. In fact, Warlock would have six Level 4 Slots, so even better.

[Theodoxus]

It's just, 5e's system isn't a good spell point system, so could probably use some adjustments.

This isn't the first I heard someone claim this, but I don't know what you mean. I've never had an issue with it, other than perhaps it's built around a universality that makes Warlocks a bit stronger than they otherwise should be. But for Sorcerers? Can you explain what the detriment is for how it's spelled out (no pun) in the DMG?

[Kane0]

In a word, fireball spam.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In a word, fireball spam.

I'd say that's less of a problem with spell points and more a problem with the underlying spell system.

[Kane0]

I'd say that's less of a problem with spell points and more a problem with the underlying spell system.

Its particularly more pronounced with spell points, since you have a perfect conversion of higher and lower level spell power to use on the spell you want, usually over and over unless for some reason it isnt the best choice. Sorcery points also provides this function at a net loss, and the same pool is used for metamagic which is your fundamental class feature which curbs the issue somewhat.
In standard play players do tend to vary their spell use because they can and it tends to be more entertaining, but under optimal play circumstances the ability to spam the best option available without hamstringing your resource pool is pretty appealing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its particularly more pronounced with spell points, since you have a perfect conversion of higher and lower level spell power to use on the spell you want, usually over and over unless for some reason it isnt the best choice. Sorcery points also provides this function at a net loss, and the same pool is used for metamagic which is your fundamental class feature which curbs the issue somewhat.
In standard play players do tend to vary their spell use because they can and it tends to be more entertaining, but under optimal play circumstances the ability to spam the best option available without hamstringing your resource pool is pretty appealing.

There should always be some question about what is "optimal". Optimal play circumstances (where those answers are clear) are boring (at least to me) because there's no real agency, no real choice other than "do the best thing or intentionally not do the best thing". So the answer is to arrange things so that there isn't a clear "best choice". But the spellcasting system, based as it is on directly-comparables with zero downsides other than resource use, doesn't give enough levers to pull to arrange that. It promotes solved-game thinking. You either have
a) a button labeled "solve that particular problem" and it just works with few, if any downsides or risks other than "you have to push it again"
b) or are dealing damage, in which case you can directly compare numbers.

Neither one is particularly useful as far as making interesting things happen. But fixing that is way more of a challenge. Spell points reveal this bad design, but they don't cause it. The existing spell system only works because it has layers of annoying cruft hiding the fact that it's deeply cracked. It's being held together like a wall with a big crack and 12 layers of wallpaper.

And fireball itself is a sign of brokenness just because it's designed to be better than other spells of its level. And even several of higher levels. So yes, if you have fireball "slots" available, fireball is usually the right answer to "more than one target that needs killing && not immune to fire".

[Segev]

There should always be some question about what is "optimal". Optimal play circumstances (where those answers are clear) are boring (at least to me) because there's no real agency, no real choice other than "do the best thing or intentionally not do the best thing". So the answer is to arrange things so that there isn't a clear "best choice". But the spellcasting system, based as it is on directly-comparables with zero downsides other than resource use, doesn't give enough levers to pull to arrange that. It promotes solved-game thinking. You either have
a) a button labeled "solve that particular problem" and it just works with few, if any downsides or risks other than "you have to push it again"
b) or are dealing damage, in which case you can directly compare numbers.

Neither one is particularly useful as far as making interesting things happen. But fixing that is way more of a challenge. Spell points reveal this bad design, but they don't cause it. The existing spell system only works because it has layers of annoying cruft hiding the fact that it's deeply cracked. It's being held together like a wall with a big crack and 12 layers of wallpaper.

And fireball itself is a sign of brokenness just because it's designed to be better than other spells of its level. And even several of higher levels. So yes, if you have fireball "slots" available, fireball is usually the right answer to "more than one target that needs killing && not immune to fire".

I disagree that spells are "push this button to solve this problem," unless the problems are super-specific.

As an example, I once used fly on a creature that needed to wriggle through a narrow passage to allow her to fly through it rather than trying to figure out how to get hands and feet together to shove through.

Polymorph does not have, anywhere in its description, "escape from a collapsed cave," but you can turn somebody into a cave badger and have them burrow you out. Now, you can claim that's "push button, get solution," but that style of reasoning means anything you do in the game is "push button, get solution."

Charming the guards into being too distracted to see your friend sneak by is different from charming the guard into letting you by. And is different still from having the assassin set up the perfect shot and take down teh guard so silently that nobody knows he's dead. And getting hired on as the guard's replacement by suggesting to him in the tavern the week before that he should sign up to guard that caravan going out of town to be with the cute merchant's daughter longer is still another solution, which may involve more magic or just pure skill.

Spells CAN be push-button solutions. So can Ability Checks. "See wall. Climb wall. Roll Athletics. Push-button." But that doesn't mean spells are only that, and don't offer something beyond that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree that spells are "push this button to solve this problem," unless the problems are super-specific.

As an example, I once used fly on a creature that needed to wriggle through a narrow passage to allow her to fly through it rather than trying to figure out how to get hands and feet together to shove through.

Polymorph does not have, anywhere in its description, "escape from a collapsed cave," but you can turn somebody into a cave badger and have them burrow you out. Now, you can claim that's "push button, get solution," but that style of reasoning means anything you do in the game is "push button, get solution."

Charming the guards into being too distracted to see your friend sneak by is different from charming the guard into letting you by. And is different still from having the assassin set up the perfect shot and take down teh guard so silently that nobody knows he's dead. And getting hired on as the guard's replacement by suggesting to him in the tavern the week before that he should sign up to guard that caravan going out of town to be with the cute merchant's daughter longer is still another solution, which may involve more magic or just pure skill.

Spells CAN be push-button solutions. So can Ability Checks. "See wall. Climb wall. Roll Athletics. Push-button." But that doesn't mean spells are only that, and don't offer something beyond that.

Those aren't "optimal play situations". There, there are options, where different paths have different consequences.

Spells tend to reduce situations to "optimal play situations". Most of the time there is either a clearly "best" spell or it's clear that no spells apply. So once you've decided "ok, I'm going to cast a spell here", usually the answer is fairly clear as to which one. And the only real downside of casting a spell is not having that slot for later. Which usually isn't enough of a cost to really matter much.

Not 100% of the time, but more than any other game element. Or more than all other game elements combined. And that's the problem I see.

[Psyren]

This isn't the first I heard someone claim this, but I don't know what you mean. I've never had an issue with it, other than perhaps it's built around a universality that makes Warlocks a bit stronger than they otherwise should be. But for Sorcerers? Can you explain what the detriment is for how it's spelled out (no pun) in the DMG?

It gives casters a level of flexibility they don't need, because you can effectively trade your lower-level slots for higher level ones. Consider a 3rd-level caster under the regular system, they get four 1st level slots and two 2nd level ones. With spell points, they can instead get four 2nd level slots and still have one 1st level one. Or if they want, they can have the exact same allotment (1-1-1-1-2-2) as the non-points caster. You can double your most powerful spells in exchange for fewer of your weakest, or you can make the exact same slots you would have had before and be no worse off.

[Theodoxus]

Spells tend to reduce situations to "optimal play situations". Most of the time there is either a clearly "best" spell or it's clear that no spells apply. So once you've decided "ok, I'm going to cast a spell here", usually the answer is fairly clear as to which one. And the only real downside of casting a spell is not having that slot for later. Which usually isn't enough of a cost to really matter much.

Not 100% of the time, but more than any other game element. Or more than all other game elements combined. And that's the problem I see.

I can see that, but the only solutions I've encountered to that problem is making magic ridiculously complicated, such that there's a better chance a failure, or you need such specificity that it won't work on most problems.

Of course, given that magic is really the only subsystem that supports robust access to the social and exploration pillars (and the lackluster skill system certainly does not cut it, but is fairly adequate for how poorly planned out those pillars are in D&D), it makes sense that anything you could possibly want to do in a combat situation has a magical 'I win' associated with it.

I am intrigued by the notion of the spell lists being massively trimmed down (I'd like to see something like no more than 2 spells per level per magic school), but make them a little more universal (like every evocation spell should be akin to Chromatic Orb, where you pick the energy type). And then allow subclasses, where appropriate, access to additional spells that match their theme, but again, probably no more than 2 per level, like the 5E Cleric, or Land Druid.

I don't think that would solve the 'I win' problem, but it would at least curtail spell bloat and analysis paralysis, which is very common at the tables I play at.

(Edited for clarity since Psyren replied before me and it wasn't clear whom I was replying to)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see that, but the only solutions I've encountered to that problem is making magic ridiculously complicated, such that there's a better chance a failure, or you need such specificity that it won't work on most problems.

Of course, given that magic is really the only subsystem that supports robust access to the social and exploration pillars (and the lackluster skill system certainly does not cut it, but is fairly adequate for how poorly planned out those pillars are in D&D), it makes sense that anything you could possibly want to do in a combat situation has a magical 'I win' associated with it.

I am intrigued by the notion of the spell lists being massively trimmed down (I'd like to see something like no more than 2 spells per level per magic school), but make them a little more universal (like every evocation spell should be akin to Chromatic Orb, where you pick the energy type). And then allow subclasses, where appropriate, access to additional spells that match their theme, but again, probably no more than 2 per level, like the 5E Cleric, or Land Druid.

I don't think that would solve the 'I win' problem, but it would at least curtail spell bloat and analysis paralysis, which is very common at the tables I play at.

(Edited for clarity since Psyren replied before me and it wasn't clear whom I was replying to)

Options (not particularly fleshed out, starting at "least work"):
1. enforce social or other less-mechanical consequences for casting spells. Such as the usual "casting a spell in front of people generally makes them angry".
2. Trimming spell lists (as you say).
3. Tiered conditions. So you don't go straight to "completely disabled" for something like hold person.
3. Remove the "it works" aspect. That means no more "save for half", no more "it just works". Everything requires some kind of roll from someone (which could be waived by the DM).
4. Spells as reinforcing existing capabilities rather than replacing them. For example knock would boost proficiency with Thieves Tools (none -> proficient -> expertise) rather than opening the locks themselves.
5. Making spells less of "white boxes" (ie nicely packaged, clear "does this one specific thing") and more descriptive. This cuts down the comparability. This would have to go along with #2 to go for fewer, broader spells. Instead of having a specific key for many locks, you'd have a lock-picking set.

[Kane0]

Options (not particularly fleshed out, starting at "least work"):
1. enforce social or other less-mechanical consequences for casting spells. Such as the usual "casting a spell in front of people generally makes them angry".
2. Trimming spell lists (as you say).
3. Tiered conditions. So you don't go straight to "completely disabled" for something like hold person.
4. Remove the "it works" aspect. That means no more "save for half", no more "it just works". Everything requires some kind of roll from someone (which could be waived by the DM).
5. Spells as reinforcing existing capabilities rather than replacing them. For example knock would boost proficiency with Thieves Tools (none -> proficient -> expertise) rather than opening the locks themselves.
6. Making spells less of "white boxes" (ie nicely packaged, clear "does this one specific thing") and more descriptive. This cuts down the comparability. This would have to go along with #2 to go for fewer, broader spells. Instead of having a specific key for many locks, you'd have a lock-picking set.

1. Oh hey, lookit that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655141-Adding-a-cost-risk-to-magic)

3 and 4 can be coupled together if you change spellcasting to be 'caster always rolls' with a measure of success of how well the spell in question works (if it works at all)

5. I remember a few 4e utility powers worked like that, Knock in this case allowing you to roll for Arcana in place of Thievery. You could improve your roll via upcasting, or add other stuff using the measure of success mechanic

6. D&D has a bad track record on this front, even with 5e being the edition of 'rulings not rules'

[Amechra]

There's another solution that probably won't work within the D&D framework: make magic a wildly inefficient way of solving problems, with the advantage being versatility (and the fact that it can solve some problems that mundane effort can't).

D&D kinda flirts with this (Knock costs a spell slot, while picking a lock is free), but it screws it up by making the spell's result better (Knock automatically works regardless of lock quality), oftentimes with negligible side effects (Knock makes a loud noise, which may or may not be relevant).

(A game I rather like handled this by having a resolution system based on invested effort instead of randomness, with magic costing more effort to use than an equivalent mundane skill. But, again, that simply isn't how D&D works.)