Thoughts on the "Everybody Gets Spells" idea

[PoliteNewb]

So I'm really intrigued by Erik's recent idea (on the IMOI board) about simply making all classes casters of a sort, having a spell list for each class. I had 2 ideas, and was curious what others thought:

1.) Erik, if I get you right, you're giving each class it's own list, but also it's own casting progression, correct? This still bones multiclassing, though, and I LIKE free multiclassing.

Would it be feasible to just have a spell slot progression based on character level, and then have your class dictate what options you had available to fill those slots? 2 possibilities from here:

a.) If you have 1 level in a class, you can use that class's list...so if you're a Wiz9/Ftr1, you can use even your 5th level spell slots for Fighter spells. Granted, this makes dipping attractive, but if classes are getting class features worth a damn, you'll have reasons to take several levels in a class.
b.) You only have access to spells based on your class level (i.e. a Wiz9/Ftr1 can use up to 5th lvl Wiz spells, but only 1st lvl Ftr spells). This is less than ideal, but by giving the universal progression, you COULD at least fill your higher level slots with metamagicked versions of your lower level spells...and dipping doesn't put as much of a crimp in your power, since you are still advancing your base spellcasting.


2.) Not sure anyone else gives a damn about Magic of Incarnum, but I found the idea interesting...just underwhelming in play.
To go along with this universal magic concept, what if instead of having an entirely separate system (essentia), you just tied soulmelds (and "blue" feats, for that matter) to spell slots? 1 spell level = 1 essentia. So if you shape a soulmeld in a 4th level spell slot, it's as if you invested 4 points of essentia.

I'm aware this is a lot more essentia than MoI intends, but considering how shitty some of those options are, would this really be overpowering? If you're tying up a 7th level slot, it should give you pretty strong return.


Thoughts?

[TheFlatline]

Wait... isn't 4th edition D&D basically "everyone is a caster"?

[erik]

@ PoliteNewb

1) I don't know if multiclassing is boned, per se. There's just not as much point to it since you can mostly do all the cool stuff you want with either just 1 class or just 1 dip to get the list of one class and the abilities of another.

I tried to make it actually much harder to screw up multiclassing since no matter what you have full casting progression from your first class. I'm trying to make the class abilities and spell lists synergistic enough that people don't feel compelled to dip in such a way that they would start one class for the list and then dump it for another class. It will probably happen anyway.

Spell progressions are only in two flavors. Spontaneous or Preparation. All spontaneous casters get spells known and spell slots at the same rate. Likewise all preparation casters get their spell slots and spells freely learned at the same rate. Preparation casters however can buy and trade spells as wizards and are intended to build much more complete spell lists. Wizards will still be able to poach other lists and create their own spells with DM approval.

I'm not wild about granting lists via multiclassing since it's tricky to create class abilities better than adding entire spell lists without going crazy.

2) I never read the Magic of Incarnum book, so I don't know much about it. Given my willful ignorance, I'm probably not gonna incorporate essentia into the spellcasting paradigm. =-(

@TheFlatline

[Princess]

TheFlatline, 4E is about "everyone is ToB".

[Roy]

TheFlatline, 4E is about "everyone is ToB".

Nope.

4E = Everyone is a 3.5 Monk.

You see, 3.5 casters get many new and different and interesting abilities.

ToB characters are a toned down and melee only version of this, but it's still giving you variety and function.

3.5 Monks are the classes who you think do all kinds of different things but really just do the same thing repeatedly and fail at it often as there is either no real difference between their abilities or most of them simply don't work.

Now which of these accurately describes 4.Fail?

[Juton]

I think if you are going to have multiclassing you should have one universal chart of spells per day based on character level. The class levels should affect what spells become available to use, even if you have 5th level slots and 3rd level spells, you can either use metamagic or at least you have more slots for your 3rd level spells. That's not a great solution in and of itself, but you could tack on ToB multiclassing so going Fighter 5/Wizard 5 would let you still use 4th level spells and you'd have the same spells per day as a pure Wizard.

[erik]

If metamagic weren't balls and boring, I might be more tempted by that possibility.

Instead I think I am gonna remain adamant on my notion that all characters get new spells & spell levels at the same time.

Do any characters really need two spell lists? With 11 different choices there's plenty of variety (actually 10 sorc and wiz will have the same).

[Princess]

sorc and wiz have minor differences - mnemonic enhancer is wiz only, and arcane fusions and some spells from another-one-dragon-bastards book are sorc only.

[Username17]

If everyone gets spells, then the spells that a Barbarian gets will define what a Barbarian is. That means that if you multiclass in to Barbarian and you don't get those spells, you will not feel like a Barbarian.

Repeat for all classes.

-Username17

[Princess]

And also why to go sorcerer if there will be straight BAB good saves classes?

[JonSetanta]

And also why to go sorcerer if there will be straight BAB good saves classes?

Number of total spells, perhaps

Its all in vague theory so I can't tell what PoliteNewb and erik have in mind.

[PoliteNewb]

@ PoliteNewb

I tried to make it actually much harder to screw up multiclassing since no matter what you have full casting progression from your first class. I'm trying to make the class abilities and spell lists synergistic enough that people don't feel compelled to dip in such a way that they would start one class for the list and then dump it for another class. It will probably happen anyway.

Okay, first off I owe you an apology, because I misunderstood the basis of what you're doing. Your method should work okay, as far as keeping people on an even keel power-wise...I just feel it almost makes things too general, and makes the choice of your first class VERY important. If I'm understanding you properly NOW, if you take your first 2 levels of wizard, it doesn't matter if you then multiclass and take the next 18 levels of Fighter...you still have your wizard progression and your wizard spell list to build on. Is that correct?

2) I never read the Magic of Incarnum book, so I don't know much about it. Given my willful ignorance, I'm probably not gonna incorporate essentia into the spellcasting paradigm.

Fair enough.

you could tack on ToB multiclassing so going Fighter 5/Wizard 5 would let you still use 4th level spells and you'd have the same spells per day as a pure Wizard.

That's actually a 3rd option I missed, and not a terrible one. I kinda like it, as it does what multiclassing SHOULD do...broadens your options by lowering your ability to specialize (but not your overall power level).

Do any characters really need two spell lists? With 11 different choices there's plenty of variety

Multiclassing does 3 things:
1.) alters your base chassis (you can get d12s instead of d6s for HD, you get a full point of BAB instead of a half point, etc)
2.) alters your class abilities, which are gained at class levels
3.) alters your spells available, because you can draw off a new list (the degree to which you have access to new spells can vary). If classes are all going to have their own lists, while I expect some overlap, the overall feel should be that they have Different spells. If you want a wizard-warrior, you might want Haste and Righteous Might off the fighter list and Fireball and Fly off the wizard list, and you should be able to do that by multiclassing.

So I want multiclassing that does all those things, without boning you, or making your choices irrelevant.

And also why to go sorcerer if there will be straight BAB good saves classes?

This is an excellent question, and a good reason why you shouldn't automatically get the full spell list of the first class you take. If you go Sor1/Barb9, you should feel much more like a barbarian than a sorcerer...which means you should mainly be casting barbarian spells, not sorcerer spells.

That said, I want a Ftr4/Wiz4/Rog4 to feel like a polymath, not a douchebag who can't do anything level appropriate. So we need a fix of some kind.

[erik]

@ Princess:
Yes there are minor differences between Sorc and Wiz spell lists. In core it mostly comes down to the mnemonic enhancer spells... which I never ever see get used anyway and was strongly considering just getting rid of. Sorcerer non-core spells... well I imagine if someone wanted to use them then they're free to learn them and add them to the list just like with any expansion. I'll name the lists differently just for future technicalities such as that, but for core, I intend to keep Sorc and Wiz lists them same.

As for "why would someone choose to be a sorcerer instead of say a monk with full BAB and good saves"? The sorcerer will have a different, and arguably much better spell list. If the question was "why would someone choose to be a 20 sorcerer instead of 1 sorcerer/19 monk to get the good list and the good class", well I hope some of the sorcerer schtick will be worthwhile, and also the sorcerer won't have all the spells that a monk would have. I won't be giving a lot of the self-buffs to sorc/wiz. Mostly they'll be enjoying the "I win" variety spells instead. Battlefield control, save or sucks, and other game changers.

@ Frank:
I don't think the spells are the only thing that defines a class. I figure all the classes will be a sort of two-part combo. Spells make up half the feel for the class, and the BAB/armor/special abilities make up the other half. Maybe it is more like 70/30, but meh. If someone wants to go 70/30 Ranger/Rogue for a wilderness rogue who has more nature oriented spells than stealth, but deals out sneak attack damage, then that can work.

If I go with beastform class features for the druid (which I hope to be writing up tonight so I can wrap up that class and move on to the next) to make it a bit more redeemable, then a character might well want to multi between barbarian and druid so that they get stat bonuses from each class along with either self-buffs or elemental attacks depending upon which spell list they fancied more. Ideally when they multiclass they don't define themselves as just one class any longer, but something between the two (or three or four, etc).

For the most part, yeah, multiclassing isn't going to be as sexy as it was in 3e- largely because nobody with any sense would ever multiclass a full caster. It's tricky to make it a sensible option without making it the only sensible option.

Multiclassing will either ruin/slow your casting progression, or it won't. If it does ruin casting progression then I've failed in what I set out to do. If it doesn't then we have to be very careful not to make it a no-brainer such that everyone will multiclass. My still favorite option I have in mind is to set your casting class in stone at character creation largely because it is simple and this was supposed to be a simple mod.

I could make an alternate ruleset compilation in the second post I set aside I reckon, and include other multiclass rules that people enjoy.

[edit]@PoliteNewb. Looks like you posted whilst I was writing this post. I gotta chase after my son at the moment but I'll try and get back to most stuff tonight.

For the short answer though, yeah, if a character took Wizard as their first level, then they are stuck with that spell list, casting stat, spell progression and method of spell acquisition (if any) no matter how many levels they take in a different class afterward. So the 2 Wiz/18 Fighter essentially has the BAB/hardiness and boatload of feats and features of a Fighter, but the battlefield control list of a Wizard and missing some of the self-buffs a fighter would enjoy. Since he will also need a high Int to make use of those spells so he has a little extra MAD.

[Princess]

you could tack on ToB multiclassing so going Fighter 5/Wizard 5 would let you still use 4th level spells and you'd have the same spells per day as a pure Wizard.

Hell yeah, as if StraightBAB 8, Warblade 1, Swordsage 1 were cool and interesting.

@ erik
Without self-buffs sorwiz with they puny hp and saves tend to suck unless they start using cheezy tricks.

[ubernoob]

Idea: If you're multiclassed (at all), only half of your spells prepared/known can be from each class. Basically, you can do Wizard 1/ Fighter 19, but half your level 9 spells are off the fighter list, so you're not as potent offensively.

Or even better: Ban multiclassing. Since writing classes is so fucking easy, just offer to write up a unique class for anyone that thinks their concept isn't covered already.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If you're going to the trouble of writing up new class spell lists for everyone anyway, you could just make every class a sphere (or similar) user.

Then the spheres available to a particular class would do a lot to determine its flavor, but even classes like the wizard would have half of their class abilities not be spheres.

[erik]

@ PoliteNewb:
I suppose as I have it planned currently, a level 18 barbarian or whatever would have pretty much no reason to take another class unless it was incredibly front-loaded. That feels like a design failure to me.

If I popped in a feat that allowed a multiclass character to pick up a couple spells from their other classes, would that be enough to quench the thirst for a X-fighter/1-wizard who can fly and fireball? And would it also allow a meaningful reason to take another class later in life when the class abilities aren't nearly up to par compared to the spells?

@Princess:
I've never really had any problems of wizards not being awesome even when they weren't buffing themselves. I guess I should clarify that I when I meant no self-buffs I was referring to wizards hulking out. I do intend for Wizards to have defensive options (invisibility, mirror image, globe of invulnerability, etc.).

[Dean]

Two points addressing two separate issues

Should everyone cast spells

In my opinion no. I think giving everyone spells is a very very lazy way of designing the game. In fact it's that exact idea that made 4E what it is in my opinion. The problem with the everyone gets spells ideology is that even if you make Barbarian spells feel good and balanced it doesn't matter because maybe the best way to set up the Barbarians abilities ISNT a spell format. Maybe the best way to set up a Monk ISNT a spell format. And even if it is you are castrating your game's variety by saying that every class is going to have the same exact method of advancement and be balanced across each classes abilities. What you've got there is so much similarity across HUGE quantities of material that your book will look like, well, 4E.

The trick I think is to think like spells but allow different ability gaining and usage formats for different classes. For instance look at the Tome Monk. His abilities are like spells really but they are flavoured to him AND he gets to use a particular one every round (that he has designed himself from a conglomerate list) and occasionally stack two on top of each other in a continuous attempt to make the most synergy within abilities and within the parameters of whatever combat he is in.

The Tome Monk uses abilities that are balanced like spells but that he gains, uses, and interacts with in a wholly different way. He doesn't have a first level "Flying fist" spell to be the equal of the Wizards "Magic bolt" spell. That would be lame.

Continue this idea. Make classes with different ability chassis but similar balance to their abilities.

Perhaps have most of the Barbarians abilities running ALL THE TIME as constant awesome buffs. Making them generally amazing but with a smaller list of situational powers. Maybe Warlocks get a single relatively small spell list they have access to from levels 1-20 but they get abilities to modify the basic properties of those spells as they go up in level. While Wizards might get one spell per round from a list they add onto each level with possibly a drain mechanic making them occasionally desire to use lower level abilities to avoid penalties.

Make different engines for different classes but use "spells" as your balance idea for all abilities.

Multiclassing

I think multiclassing should be automatic. Everyone is a Something(something). So Fighter/rogue, or Rogue/fighter, or whatever. I think that having access to two classes abilities as the norm would be good for the game. And I don't honestly think there's a concept that couldn't be done acceptably with "only" two classes. As an additional note to that however I think it should be universally possible to "purchase" abilities from other classes with a "feat" or whatever. So if you want to be a Fighter/rogue but you really really want "Evards Black Tentacles" you should be able to get it. One feat, done.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The Tome Monk uses abilities that are balanced like spells but that he gains, uses, and interacts with in a wholly different way. He doesn't have a first level "Flying fist" spell to be the equal of the Wizards "Magic bolt" spell. That would be lame.

You can't have open multiclassing without this, sorry. We've tried doing this for 3E and all that it's done is make the multiclassing system grossly unbalanced, even at low levels.

I think multiclassing should be automatic. Everyone is a Something(something). So Fighter/rogue, or Rogue/fighter, or whatever.

This in conjunction with your first premise is completely unworkable. If you don't believe me, look at the 3E gestalt system. It was already broken as hell even when you restrict it to thoroughly uninteresting classes like barbarian/paladin/rogue. Now imagine trying to apply that to something as complex as Tome Classes. In order to have a balanced class system with non-uniform ability gain, you can't have Fighter/Rogues and Rogue/Fighters be a mash-up of two classes; you'd have to specifically make a Fighter/Rogue and Rogue/Fighter class. As in, each one gets their own separate power list.

If you keep the number of classes in your game low and do your damnedest not to create any more, sure it's workable, but the unworkability number spirals out of control at more than six classes.

[erik]

I think giving everyone spells is a very very lazy way of designing the game.

That was quite the plan. A relatively easy adaptation that I, an amateur game designer, could implement over the course of a couple weeks, while getting only ~3hrs of sleep a day taking care of a toddler, an infant and a recuperating wife on a time budget of maybe 1-3 hours a day. You say lazy, I say... efficient. So I will take this as a compliment that is unintended.

Having some non-casting classes balanced with spellcasters would be lovely and a more satisfying solution. It is also a lot more work. It is really easy to put all characters in the same ballpark if they are all capable of casting spells at the same level. Then for the most part any other factors are just background noise variations in power level.

What you've got there is so much similarity across HUGE quantities of material that your book will look like, well, 4E.

Honestly, if 4e gave powers that were as awesome as 3e spells, and they actually were somewhat thematic to their classes rather than shit like "weapon+attribute damage, slide opponent 1 square" which doesn't indicate to me that it belongs to any class... then I could have been crazy in love with 4e.



One thing I am still on the fence about for all the classes I'm working on is that I might want to cut down their lists and their amount of spells known. That leaves me a lot more wiggle room to make classes different. I don't want to cut em down so far that they get neutered though. I'll probably make a decision once all the classes are done. At that point I'll have a pretty good lay of the land, and it's far easier to strip stuff away than add more.

I think I'm gonna pass out now (if the infant lets me!). Maybe I'll wake up later in time to work on the Druid some more. I would up using my allotted writing time to read and compose responses today, but that's alright since it helps me brainstorm.

[Caedrus]

Honestly, if 4e gave powers that were as awesome as 3e spells, and they actually were somewhat thematic to their classes rather than shit like "weapon+attribute damage, slide opponent 1 square" which doesn't indicate to me that it belongs to any class... then I could have been crazy in love with 4e.

Wait... isn't 4th edition D&D basically "everyone is a caster"?

Yeah, but just because something happened in 4e doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Just like if something happened in WoW it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad thing. Or any of the other silly guilt by association targets.

4e's powers aren't lame because "everyone is a caster" (e.g. everyone gets a variety of specific powers, etc etc). They're lame because the the powers you got were boring, dissociative/metagamey effects were everywhere, the actual "casting" structure wasn't really attractive, and various other things.

[PoliteNewb]

Two points addressing two separate issues

Should everyone cast spells

In my opinion no. I think giving everyone spells is a very very lazy way of designing the game.

Your opinion is noted. It is also completely irrelevant, since the topic at hand is "a system where everybody uses spells".

With all due respect, I don't give a shit what you think is lazy. This thread is ABOUT discussing an alternate way of designing classes. Coming here just to say "I hate this, you should talk about something else" is the definition of thread-crapping. Please stop.

Multiclassing

I think multiclassing should be automatic. Everyone is a Something(something). So Fighter/rogue, or Rogue/fighter, or whatever. I think that having access to two classes abilities as the norm would be good for the game. And I don't honestly think there's a concept that couldn't be done acceptably with "only" two classes.

This is a decent idea, which I do not object to. Hell, that's why I badly want a robust multiclassing system. I have no problem if multiclassing is a superior option and everyone wants to do it (in fact, if you design that way, you don't NEED to enforce multiclassing, it will be self-enforcing. I know some people object to a game that allows people to gimp themselves, but I'm not one of them).

As an additional note to that however I think it should be universally possible to "purchase" abilities from other classes with a "feat" or whatever. So if you want to be a Fighter/rogue but you really really want "Evards Black Tentacles" you should be able to get it. One feat, done.

This is a shitty idea, which I do object to. Didn't you accuse US of trying to replicate 4E earlier? And then you suggest what is essentially 4E's entire multiclassing system?

[Caedrus]

As an additional note to that however I think it should be universally possible to "purchase" abilities from other classes with a "feat" or whatever. So if you want to be a Fighter/rogue but you really really want "Evards Black Tentacles" you should be able to get it. One feat, done.

This is a shitty idea, which I do object to. Didn't you accuse US of trying to replicate 4E earlier? And then you suggest what is essentially 4E's entire multiclassing system?

More like the ToB feats, I'd think. Martial Study.

Do you have any reason you think it's a shitty idea other than "I associate the general concept with the entire implementation of 4e"? Because I'm really sick of seeing comments in that vein around here. Yes, 4e isn't cool. No, that doesn't mean that everything that can be at all compared to it in any way is horrible. For example, rolling a d20 will not send you straight to hell.

[PoliteNewb]

@ PoliteNewb:
I suppose as I have it planned currently, a level 18 barbarian or whatever would have pretty much no reason to take another class unless it was incredibly front-loaded. That feels like a design failure to me.

Not necessarily. If class features have effects that scale with character level, they can be appropriate at lvl1 and lvl20. So raising levels in a given class is just acquiring new options, not necessarily better options.

Granted, that is easier said than done.


An unrelated addition: Juton suggested ToB style "caster level", where your access to any given class's spells = your level in that class + 1/2 your levels in all other classes.

How about a slight alternate, where your caster level in any given class = your level in that class + 1/2 total character level (to a max of character level).

Results:
--even going into 3-4 classes doesn't put you too far behind...a Ftr4/Wiz4/Rog4 has 10th level access to each of those (1 spell level behind).
--you can take 2 class equally, and have full access to both of them...a Ftr5/Wiz5 has 10th level access to both.
--you can dip and still get a reasonable chunk of spell access...a Wiz10/Ftr1 immediately gets 6th level access to fighter spells.

All of the above assume you have one pool of spell slots for all classes, based on character level, and class levels just determine what you can put in them.

[For Valor]

Wait, isn't there HP in 4e?

OH MY GOD EVERYONE, WE NEED TO GET RID OF HP FOREVER