OneD&D UA - THE DRUID AND PALADIN

[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

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.)