#Magic Talents, Prerequisites, and Customization

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

vital bear
#

One of my few frustrations with the ToVPG is that there's no way for a non-spellcasting class to dabble in a little magic (unless you're a Spell Blade, natch). The Ritualist talent might have been one cool way to do this, but it's locked behind a prereq that you have to already be a spellcaster to take it.

I suppose my question is, what was the rationale for this restriction? Is there a design philosophy of "niche protection" or similar in ToV that expects most classes to more or less stay in their lane, or can we expect customization options to open up with future releases and the addition of an equivalent to 5e's Magic Initiate feat or similar?

(My personal wishlist would be an update that removes the restriction from Ritualist, a Magic Initiate-type talent, and/or maybe a talent not unlike PF2e's Archetypes that would let you be, say, a sorcerer but also a little bit of a bard without multiclassing, but I realize my tastes may be very idiosyncratic here!)

austere kestrel
#

I've had these same thoughts. One of my favorite 5E characters was a Thief Rogue and my goal was to learn as many spells as possible without multi classing and it was a blast to play.

ashen temple
#

All of the base 5e subclasses are still there, ready to be converted, so you can still be an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Tricksters, etc.

The ToV PG needed to be a demonstration of what ToV is, and can be, not just merely a replacement for the D&D PHB. Having the subclasses in the PG just be a 1-for-1 of the PHB subclasses wouldn't have been a very good use of page space.

vital bear
ashen temple
#

Perhaps, but it speaks to your frustration - there "no way for a non-spellecasting class to dabble in a little magic". There are ways. Those are the ways.

#

and it actually does answer your question about the rationale for not including more gish subclasses in the PG

#

Likewise, feats from base 5e can still be used in place of talents, they just might not be balanced as well as talents. There's no reason you can't give your fighter the Magic Initiate feat as a talent.

#

But just repeating 5e content would be a waste of page-space

vital bear
# ashen temple and it actually does answer your question about the rationale for not including ...

I would like a designer to speak to this, if you don't mind, rather than speculation on their behalf from a fellow poster. And I'd really like to not feel somewhat lectured at for asking the question.

ToV repeats LOTS of stuff from the 2014 PHB. I'm curious as to what was behind the rationale for porting some things but not others. I'm not interested in it being a one-to-one replacement, but I'm very much interested to see what ToV will do to transform or reinterpret some of those older ideas. And I'd like to know how the design team is thinking about some of those ideas, so I have the slightest inkling of what I might be able to expect as the line is further developed or if "port it over from 5e if you really want it" will be the answer forever. Which seems like a not unreasonable question-for-designer.

vital bear
past musk
vital bear
past musk
soft sage
#

One thing I have been wondering about is how to port feats to talents. Magic Initiate for instance could be made into a talent but what would the guidelines be around bringing feats over?

chrome cairn
#

I'd also be interested in an answer to this question from the designers. Access to magic is one of the main things that draws me to D&D, and options that give magic to those who otherwise wouldn't have it is a frequent choice for my characters.

severe robin
# vital bear I would like a designer to speak to this, if you don't mind, rather than specula...

I've played similar characters so I can appreciate what you're looking to do. I think the "If it's not in the book, you can't do it" approach to 5E by some people is exactly what they moved away from. Going off what the designers have said, they wanted to streamline everything and present a different experience. I don't think you may get an explanation on every design choice of what was included or excluded and why, but I would agree that homebrewing/converting remains your best option. Like core 5E, ToV should be considered a basic toolkit. I think the traditional approach of concept first over the "build" mentality makes for a better game and experience. If a GM and player agree that a character concept is interesting, it should be brought to the table.
I would say attempt to reach out to the Kobold team on here or directly. I'd be interested to know the answer to this and other questions.
I don't think by responding to your question it's anyone's intent to lecture, but simply to discuss and offer additional insight. 🙂 I hope you get the answer. I can also see not wanting to do the work of converting something only to see it presented later on in future releases. That was a pitfall of 3.X/D20 System, where content emulating the same thing five or more different ways would pop up in multiple books after you already ran with some option. For instance, there were probably 50 ways to make a shaman back then.🤪 5E would keep presenting options that should have been present on day one, including a core ranger class that doesn't suck.

glass cargo
#

Its a good question Dan, there's a lot of layers/nuance to this answer, but I'll give it a shot---

In the Player's Guide release specifically, since it was the core base rules of the game, we intentionally emphasized design elements that made base classes/fantasy archetypes feel clearly distinct from one another.
One of the big fears/complaints about the design directions WotC has taken 5E in over the past few years (and they continued in the 2024 PHB) is the fact that every class is suffering from a lack of individuality. If every class is a little spellcaster-y right off the bat, what does that do to the identify of fighters? What does that do to weaken the identify of what feels special about playing a caster? etc etc.

^Its a big concern I share and I had in the front of my mind specifically for the Player's Guide.

HOWEVER. When looking at releases beyond the very first player option book---we absolutely have a little more freedom to explore the mix n match fiction that more experienced players (or just fantasy lovers in general) are interested in.

All in all, you can absolutely, safely, 100% assume, there will be talents, subclasses, backgrounds, in future releases that let players grab the bit o' magic they crave, or be better at whatever specific flavor they want to mix into the base fiction of their characters.

There is no reason to fear we won't. Its all just a matter of timing and making sure we build the game out in a way/timeline that is both healthy and helpful ToVMark

#

As some more specific reasons about the 'why not Ritualist for all' question in there---
we needed to have the PCs picking it have the Spellcasting feature so they could get the benefit of receiving more rituals as they level up.

If you kill the prerequiste, you kill the fun of 'once you take this, you keep reaping rewards all through play'

So it is serving a different benefit than perhaps the ones you are pondering.

We 100% agree that totally different 'Magic Initiate' esque talent would be the best way to give non-casters a little magic. Ritualist just isn't for that though (by design)