probably wrong but off the top of my head
a Wizard practices magic growing more powerful of his own accord
a Sorceror has some trick that enables their magic use
a Warlock seemingly always gets magic power from a demonic force
dont even ask me about a Witch, they're always just going to be enemies in my games.
Warlock doesn't make any sense as a base class, probably should just be a background for Wizards.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric are a perfect trio and compliment Rogue, Fighting Man, and Monk.
Bard being a unique magic caster is arbitrary nonsense, it should be in its own mixed utility role like Ranger. Vancian Magic being generally complex is probably why Bard just gets normal magic so there's just one system to remember, same as Ranger.
>probably should just be a background for Wizards
Or a prestige class for Magic casters, rather. Get to a high enough level and fulfill some other requirements, and you might warrant having an Elder God give you a smidgeon of their power.
typically it's a character class you cannot start the game with, and can only be opted into later into a campaign when prerequisites are met, which is usually have certain abilities or levels in different classes. I think the first one ever made was a Bard, and those eventually became a standard class instead.
How I would go with it >Mage
Trained in magic, can learn any type of magic. The magical jack-of-all trades. >Sorcerer
Was born with specific magic types, but is stupidly good at them. >Witch
Uses a form of lore of magic that is a mix of various other lores (including forbidden arts and unique hermetic lore). >Warlock
Gets powers from contracting various beings that grant him unique powers based on their type and alignment.
A unique class that a player can unlock later and after gaining levels in specific stats, skills and so on and meeting the proper requirements for your initial class to start leveling up in a prestige class. They modify your character or change the way you play them completely.
Like if you choose Dragon Disciple for a Sorcerer, then your character over time becomes as half-dragon and stops being squishy over time. Thus you end up with a spellcaster that is more survivable, immune to stuff like diseases and gets draconic elements like wings and such.
there isn't, and there shouldn't be
the magic-user was all that was needed
it represented the wizard, the warlock, the sorcerer, the witch, and all other kinds of wise men
What's the difference between berserkers, cavaliers, infantry, gladiators, archers, assassins, duelists...? Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially just hitting people?
Unironically correct. These are all simply fighters, minus the assassin, but even then they're just a fighter-lite with some poison knowledge and thief skills.
>Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially using magic?
Picrel, it's just general vs specific. Simply put if you want to be specific with archetypes make sense having wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, artificers, etc... on pair with other specific archetypes for other niches, like barbarians, gladiators, knights, burglars, acrobats, swashbucklers, etc... Conversely if you want to stay generic mages will suffice on pair with fighters and rogues.
In short d&d classes don't make sense because are a mix of generic and specific ones.
Not necessarily, a mixed approach of generic and specific is definitely viable but has to be highlighted in some way both in game terms and in-worlds. In SotDL characters start generic (warriors, rogues, mages and priests) and become more and more specific as they advance, in AD&D generic classes have low SAD requirements while more specific ones have high MAD requirements, making being part of one an achievement of regard that is self-evident in-world.
The way I see it, when development a class based system, you first come up with the concepts for the different kinds of spellcasters then you assign or create a name that makes sense for it.
As far as D&D and adjacent goes, I like that there's a difference between wizard and sorcerer, the difference between magic from learning and magic from natural latent abilities sounds cool.
Warlock being a dude that makes pacts higher order beings also sounds cool, but the implementation has always been iffy, I think.
The binder from 3.5e was a much better implementation of the idea, I think.
I suppose one could also find a niche for Mage and Witch, but then you'd be getting in pathfinder 1e territory with its extremely granular choices of base class+archetypes.
Also, I agree with
I never played SotDL, but the way paths work sounds like the best way to do a class system.
It also tickles my multiclassing bone, so there's that.
Absolutely wrong. Every single word of that. You need to grow up and get away from fricking D&D garbage.
"Mage" is a derivative form of "sage". It means someone who is wise both in terms of education and enlightenment. "Wizard" is just a generic term for someone who does incredible things by bizarre methods, allegedly supernatural methods but mere chicanery cannot be ruled out. "Sorcerer" means the same thing as wizard, but more strongly claims supernatural provenance.
Witches are rustic wizards, but explicitly in communion with spiritual beings and ancient lineages of esoteric lore or idiosyncratic genius. Warlock is the word for witches who have betrayed the bond of the coven. It's a religious term like "kafir" or "heretic" or "apostate", except that it doesn't imply atheism, it instead declares that the warlock's use of magic is unsanctioned by the consecration of a covenant.
>Mage" is a derivative form of "sage
No it isn't. Sage is from the old Latin for 'to drink' or 'to have a taste', and sagacious men or sages were those that attended Symposiums. It's a roundabout, poetic way of saying Philosopher. Mage/Magi/Magus is from the old Persian Magus and means someone who practices fire worship/magic.
Try having a single clue about what you're talking about before you post.
What's the difference between berserkers, cavaliers, infantry, gladiators, archers, assassins, duelists...? Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially just hitting people?
>berserkers, gladiators
Little to no armor, pure muscle warriors? Barbarian >Infantry, Cavaliers
Medium to heavy armor professional soldiers?
Fighter >assassins, duelists
Rogue
Archer could go anywhere in between the above, but there are endless contextual uses for archery.
>we really need that many classes for what is essentially just hitting people?
Yes, you can see a tangible difference in their weapons, equipment and combat styles.
Meanwhile magic users just have different origins to cast the same fireball.
Martials get warrior who is good with weapons, warrior who is really angry, and sneaky pos warrior. Having different flavors of Arcane magic users isn't a bad thing.
Where does your magic come from?
Years of careful study/practice? Wizard.
Inherently magical bloodline? Sorcerer.
Made a pact with a powerful magical entity? Warlock.
Even ignoring the mechanical differences in systems with those archetypes they each add their own distinct flavor.
The issue honestly is that despite allegedly having different sources of power, all of them are fairly Interchangeable due to pulling from the same spell list. They might as well be subclasses or background options of a Mage at that point.
Either make every class do something actually unique at their core of just design the system around point-buy, man.
It's not a problem with the magic system or spell lists, it's a problem with the stat system. INT is a dump stat for everyone but Wizards and Charisma casting is too uniform (and also just mechanically stupid).
Clerics, Paladins, Druids should cast on Wisdom.
Wizards, Rogues (Arcane Tricksters), Rangers and Bards should cast on Intelligence.
Sorcerers, Monks and Warlocks should cast on Constitution.
I think this would make the casting classes not feel so same-y since there are actual opportunity costs for taking Intelligence, and if you make actual hard stat requirements for Spells then taking Constitution points as a Con caster is a tradeoff between getting more ammo for the spells you know and being able to learn new ones.
>Do we really need classes?
They are helpful conceptually, they are a grab bag of many ideas and details.
Like imagine, how would you reference a party member in a classless system who specializes in certain leaning/aligning abilities and skills?
Whatever you come up with, well that's essentially a class system.
It's entirely mechanical differences, with in-setting differences desperately pasted on top to disguise the shame of a developer who clearly didn't like Vancian spellcasting, but was too much of a coward to actually pull the trigger.
Wizards: Wizard
Mage: npc Wizard
Sorcerer: Magical X men mutant and products of incest and shitty Wizards overall
Bard: Music Wizard and cosplay class
Cleric: Wizard that wears a miter
Warlock: !Cleric that is totally different guys I swear
Druid: Cleric that specifically dedicates themselves to shapeshifting into and having sex with animals
Witch: apply to Druid, Warlock, Cleric, Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard as necessary
No prestige class for monk because it inherently conflicts with the aesthetic of every other class. Almost like fricking kung fu fighters didn't exist in medieval europe, or something.
And Artificer should just be Alchemist but I'm sticking with the 5E classes. He could maybe get Warlock as a Prestige.
The cool thing about fantastical concepts like the supernatural is that they can be whatever the game designer wants, as they don't exist in our world.
A supernatural power like magic can be all of the powers in the game, merely one power, or none of the powers.
But you'll never get it, because it's always about fallacious reduction of concepts to faulty "essentiallies" and "basicallies" with shitheads like you.
The idea is that by having separate classes, the chassis for each class can be better designed to meet each fantasy archetype. Whether it's actually working properly in D&D is up for debate. But that's the theory.
If you're Hasbro, no, if you're Paizo, or another company that actually explores the differences between the classes to the point where the *only* thing they have in common in spellcasting, then yes.
The "how" of it is just as important as the "what" of it, and good design reflects this.
All magic users are the same but what their job is usually defines what they are called. A magic user employed to the king will be called a wizard. An evil magic user will be called a witch. Someone who summons demons or the dead will be called a sorcerer and a magic user employed by an army is called a warlock.
>Anyone who can do magic can do all magic,
No, this sucks and destroys all the mystique of magic by turning into science with a layer of interpretive dance on top. It isn't cool to be able to cast Fireball in a setting where every shmuck can cast Fireball. It also runs you into the logistical problems of high fantasy worlds at an even more alarming rate than normal settings >Why don't the mages run everything >Why is there any scarcity of goods >Why does anyone ever die of illness >Why is there not instantaneous communication and globalized government >Why isn't technology a thousand years more advanced thanks to breaking fundamental physics
And I'm not saying it's impossible to build a setting where magic is extremely ubiquitous and have these problems resolved logically, but most people can't, and having separated or totally exclusive magic systems that aren't fully understood and ubiquitous solves this problem for you.
Your reading comprehension is shit. I didn't say "anyone can do magic", I said "anyone who can do magic". Anyone WHO can. Their is no fundamental difference between and person who can shoot a fireball and someone who can raise the dead. Magic is magic to anyone who can't do magic So most names for a magic user will be based on what job they have.
>Their is no fundamental difference between and person who can shoot a fireball and someone who can raise the dead
There is a ton of fundamental difference. There is nothing BUT fumdamental difference in the two things you just described.
And even if exactly one person in the setting has access to magic, you still have to answer the above questions because you've just said they can do ALL magic.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Then explain the fundamental differences seeing as how you have ample experience with magic.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Fireball blows shit up.
Revive Dead does not blow shit up and, in fact, unblows shit up.
These are diametrically opposed events. You'd actually need a great deal more explanation for how the same system achieves both of them without any evident different requirements or processes, like the whole magic system being genie wishes or something.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>fireballs blow shit up
No tit doesn't, it set things on fire. You seem to take something so simple and trying to complicate it for no reason. There is no need for an explanation for someone using magic. A wizard can raise ethe dead just like a witch can use a fireball.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well you're just wrong about Fireball in the context of D&D, but that aside, lighting things on fire and bringing things back to life are self-evidently polar opposites. You haven't addressed any of the basic logistical questions I posed earlier and you are desperately trying to avoid actually defending your terrible system in any depth, so I'll just save us both the trouble and accept your concession.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>DnD
And you say my system is terrible. As for the "logistical questions", is that there is no logistics because it's magic. You know, like DnD. Or is the Revive Dead to complex a spell? Is that why wizards need to use a book?
This is how I see it. >Mage: I can do shit with my mind! I don't specialize, I generalize! >Wizard: I can do shit with my mind too! I specialize into one field! >Sorcerer: I do shit with my mind but in a different manner! Sometimes my power comes from an outside source! >Witch: I can do what the Wizard can do but I've got a pussy! >Warlock: I'm an evil Wizard that can do stuff with my mind!
probably wrong but off the top of my head
a Wizard practices magic growing more powerful of his own accord
a Sorceror has some trick that enables their magic use
a Warlock seemingly always gets magic power from a demonic force
dont even ask me about a Witch, they're always just going to be enemies in my games.
Warlock doesn't make any sense as a base class, probably should just be a background for Wizards.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric are a perfect trio and compliment Rogue, Fighting Man, and Monk.
Bard being a unique magic caster is arbitrary nonsense, it should be in its own mixed utility role like Ranger. Vancian Magic being generally complex is probably why Bard just gets normal magic so there's just one system to remember, same as Ranger.
>probably should just be a background for Wizards
Or a prestige class for Magic casters, rather. Get to a high enough level and fulfill some other requirements, and you might warrant having an Elder God give you a smidgeon of their power.
What's a prestige class?
typically it's a character class you cannot start the game with, and can only be opted into later into a campaign when prerequisites are met, which is usually have certain abilities or levels in different classes. I think the first one ever made was a Bard, and those eventually became a standard class instead.
How I would go with it
>Mage
Trained in magic, can learn any type of magic. The magical jack-of-all trades.
>Sorcerer
Was born with specific magic types, but is stupidly good at them.
>Witch
Uses a form of lore of magic that is a mix of various other lores (including forbidden arts and unique hermetic lore).
>Warlock
Gets powers from contracting various beings that grant him unique powers based on their type and alignment.
A unique class that a player can unlock later and after gaining levels in specific stats, skills and so on and meeting the proper requirements for your initial class to start leveling up in a prestige class. They modify your character or change the way you play them completely.
Like if you choose Dragon Disciple for a Sorcerer, then your character over time becomes as half-dragon and stops being squishy over time. Thus you end up with a spellcaster that is more survivable, immune to stuff like diseases and gets draconic elements like wings and such.
It's because Bard used to be a prestige class. Originally, they used druidic magic
you guys forgot cleric: the power of prayer
and bard: the power of rock
>Warlock
8th level magic user
>Sorcerer
9th level magic user
>Wizard
11th level magic user
there isn't, and there shouldn't be
the magic-user was all that was needed
it represented the wizard, the warlock, the sorcerer, the witch, and all other kinds of wise men
>everyone who uses Magic should be totally frail and bound to transcribing spells into a tome from scrolls
Hmmm
Yes. Such is the price for meddling with forces beyond the comprehension of mortal men.
How do you explain Elves and other inherently magical races then
Elves aren't men, and neither are the inherently magical races.
Right but Elves are player characters. Or even Helves which still have a touch of magic.
Less pondering orbs and more lifting orbs.
Elves (assuming od&d) aren't frail and can use many weapons so what's your point
That IS my point
Correct.
Unironically correct. These are all simply fighters, minus the assassin, but even then they're just a fighter-lite with some poison knowledge and thief skills.
Wizards learn there magic in books.
Sorcerer are naturals.
Warlock get their powers from an otherwordly entity.
>Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially using magic?
Picrel, it's just general vs specific. Simply put if you want to be specific with archetypes make sense having wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, artificers, etc... on pair with other specific archetypes for other niches, like barbarians, gladiators, knights, burglars, acrobats, swashbucklers, etc... Conversely if you want to stay generic mages will suffice on pair with fighters and rogues.
In short d&d classes don't make sense because are a mix of generic and specific ones.
Pretty much this. When what should have been entire character life stories became classes everything started to get too mixed up.
Not necessarily, a mixed approach of generic and specific is definitely viable but has to be highlighted in some way both in game terms and in-worlds. In SotDL characters start generic (warriors, rogues, mages and priests) and become more and more specific as they advance, in AD&D generic classes have low SAD requirements while more specific ones have high MAD requirements, making being part of one an achievement of regard that is self-evident in-world.
The way I see it, when development a class based system, you first come up with the concepts for the different kinds of spellcasters then you assign or create a name that makes sense for it.
As far as D&D and adjacent goes, I like that there's a difference between wizard and sorcerer, the difference between magic from learning and magic from natural latent abilities sounds cool.
Warlock being a dude that makes pacts higher order beings also sounds cool, but the implementation has always been iffy, I think.
The binder from 3.5e was a much better implementation of the idea, I think.
I suppose one could also find a niche for Mage and Witch, but then you'd be getting in pathfinder 1e territory with its extremely granular choices of base class+archetypes.
Also, I agree with
I never played SotDL, but the way paths work sounds like the best way to do a class system.
It also tickles my multiclassing bone, so there's that.
>Mage, Wizard
Fundamentally the same concept
>Sorcerer
Magic version of born different
>Witch
Like a sorcerer but hexy and weird
>Warlock
Otherworldly sugar daddy
>born different
built different I mean
You were right the first time anon
Absolutely wrong. Every single word of that. You need to grow up and get away from fricking D&D garbage.
"Mage" is a derivative form of "sage". It means someone who is wise both in terms of education and enlightenment. "Wizard" is just a generic term for someone who does incredible things by bizarre methods, allegedly supernatural methods but mere chicanery cannot be ruled out. "Sorcerer" means the same thing as wizard, but more strongly claims supernatural provenance.
Witches are rustic wizards, but explicitly in communion with spiritual beings and ancient lineages of esoteric lore or idiosyncratic genius. Warlock is the word for witches who have betrayed the bond of the coven. It's a religious term like "kafir" or "heretic" or "apostate", except that it doesn't imply atheism, it instead declares that the warlock's use of magic is unsanctioned by the consecration of a covenant.
>Mage" is a derivative form of "sage
No it isn't. Sage is from the old Latin for 'to drink' or 'to have a taste', and sagacious men or sages were those that attended Symposiums. It's a roundabout, poetic way of saying Philosopher. Mage/Magi/Magus is from the old Persian Magus and means someone who practices fire worship/magic.
Try having a single clue about what you're talking about before you post.
I don't care about whatever spiritualistic pseudointellectual garbage it is you use to seem slightly less boring, white and western
Sorceror is from the Latin Sors, for fate, and sorcery was the practice of divination by casting lots
>"Mage" is a derivative form of "sage".
American education strikes again!
What profession were Caspar, Balthazar and Melchior?
What's the difference between berserkers, cavaliers, infantry, gladiators, archers, assassins, duelists...? Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially just hitting people?
>berserkers, gladiators
Little to no armor, pure muscle warriors? Barbarian
>Infantry, Cavaliers
Medium to heavy armor professional soldiers?
Fighter
>assassins, duelists
Rogue
Archer could go anywhere in between the above, but there are endless contextual uses for archery.
They hit things. They all hit things. They're all just "hitters". End of discussion.
The distinguishing factor between all three of those classes is how they avoid (or don't avoid) getting hit themselves, though.
And also what they do after they've hit someone, or if they don't hit them
>we really need that many classes for what is essentially just hitting people?
Yes, you can see a tangible difference in their weapons, equipment and combat styles.
Meanwhile magic users just have different origins to cast the same fireball.
magic-user
magician
mage
etc
it all means the same thing
Martials get warrior who is good with weapons, warrior who is really angry, and sneaky pos warrior. Having different flavors of Arcane magic users isn't a bad thing.
Where does your magic come from?
Years of careful study/practice? Wizard.
Inherently magical bloodline? Sorcerer.
Made a pact with a powerful magical entity? Warlock.
Even ignoring the mechanical differences in systems with those archetypes they each add their own distinct flavor.
Everyone knows that the only one who really matters is the witcher.
because the male version is always better than the female version.
Sorcerers are notoriously lazy.
They are doing the same thing:magic.
What's matters is how they are doing it.
If you don't care about classifications and details then just ignore it and use terms interchangeable/as you see fit.
The issue honestly is that despite allegedly having different sources of power, all of them are fairly Interchangeable due to pulling from the same spell list. They might as well be subclasses or background options of a Mage at that point.
Either make every class do something actually unique at their core of just design the system around point-buy, man.
It's not a problem with the magic system or spell lists, it's a problem with the stat system. INT is a dump stat for everyone but Wizards and Charisma casting is too uniform (and also just mechanically stupid).
Clerics, Paladins, Druids should cast on Wisdom.
Wizards, Rogues (Arcane Tricksters), Rangers and Bards should cast on Intelligence.
Sorcerers, Monks and Warlocks should cast on Constitution.
I think this would make the casting classes not feel so same-y since there are actual opportunity costs for taking Intelligence, and if you make actual hard stat requirements for Spells then taking Constitution points as a Con caster is a tradeoff between getting more ammo for the spells you know and being able to learn new ones.
Do we really need classes?
>Do we really need classes?
They are helpful conceptually, they are a grab bag of many ideas and details.
Like imagine, how would you reference a party member in a classless system who specializes in certain leaning/aligning abilities and skills?
Whatever you come up with, well that's essentially a class system.
they do speed up character creation and prevent players from overlapping, but naming a build archetype is not at all a class system
They slow down character creation, and there's nothing wrong with overlap.
classes speed up character creation and nobody said there is anything wrong with overlap - both are things some games embrace and some avoid
no
homies really be complaining about "have you tried not playing D&D" posters and then make threads like this
It's entirely mechanical differences, with in-setting differences desperately pasted on top to disguise the shame of a developer who clearly didn't like Vancian spellcasting, but was too much of a coward to actually pull the trigger.
Wizards: Wizard
Mage: npc Wizard
Sorcerer: Magical X men mutant and products of incest and shitty Wizards overall
Bard: Music Wizard and cosplay class
Cleric: Wizard that wears a miter
Warlock: !Cleric that is totally different guys I swear
Druid: Cleric that specifically dedicates themselves to shapeshifting into and having sex with animals
Witch: apply to Druid, Warlock, Cleric, Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard as necessary
Behold my unquestionably perfect revamped D&D class system featuring Prestige classes.
You're free to disagree with my system, but you're wrong.
Why no future for Monk or Artificer?
also wtf is an artificer?
No prestige class for monk because it inherently conflicts with the aesthetic of every other class. Almost like fricking kung fu fighters didn't exist in medieval europe, or something.
And Artificer should just be Alchemist but I'm sticking with the 5E classes. He could maybe get Warlock as a Prestige.
>Wizard
>Sorcerer
>Warlock
>Cleric
>Druid
>Bard
>Illusionist
>Mage
>Priest
>Shaman
>Witch
>Magician
>Arcanist
>Necromancer
>Adept
>Magus
>"The Fighter"
>he is everyone that fights
The cool thing about fantastical concepts like the supernatural is that they can be whatever the game designer wants, as they don't exist in our world.
A supernatural power like magic can be all of the powers in the game, merely one power, or none of the powers.
But you'll never get it, because it's always about fallacious reduction of concepts to faulty "essentiallies" and "basicallies" with shitheads like you.
The idea is that by having separate classes, the chassis for each class can be better designed to meet each fantasy archetype. Whether it's actually working properly in D&D is up for debate. But that's the theory.
boomp
Do we really need classes?
>What's the difference?
Degree of homosexuality.
From
>Wizard
Not gay at all, but probably an incel
to
>Warlock
Exclusively homosexual bawd
How would you call a class of all magic users?
wizard
magic user
It's "what would you call". Not "how would you call".
It's its own hell for translators. To keep checking which one was which.
>classes
>Mage
Umbrella term for arcane magic user
>Wizard
Magic is a wonder art of codices and languages that I learn through the study of books and scrolls
>Sorcerer
Magic is a wonder art of willing things to happen my way through birthright as a magic-blooded chosen one
>Warlock
Magic is the raw power I got as part of my soul-biding bargain with otherworldly beings from beyond
>Witch
I am a woman who happen to weigh the same as a duck, because I am made of wood, and therefore a witch.
She turned me into a newt!
...
...
I got better.
If you're Hasbro, no, if you're Paizo, or another company that actually explores the differences between the classes to the point where the *only* thing they have in common in spellcasting, then yes.
The "how" of it is just as important as the "what" of it, and good design reflects this.
All magic users are the same but what their job is usually defines what they are called. A magic user employed to the king will be called a wizard. An evil magic user will be called a witch. Someone who summons demons or the dead will be called a sorcerer and a magic user employed by an army is called a warlock.
This is a terrible system and you should feel ashamed.
It makes perfect sense. Anyone who can do magic can do all magic, but having a specific job to do narrows what you'll study and be proficient at.
>Anyone who can do magic can do all magic,
No, this sucks and destroys all the mystique of magic by turning into science with a layer of interpretive dance on top. It isn't cool to be able to cast Fireball in a setting where every shmuck can cast Fireball. It also runs you into the logistical problems of high fantasy worlds at an even more alarming rate than normal settings
>Why don't the mages run everything
>Why is there any scarcity of goods
>Why does anyone ever die of illness
>Why is there not instantaneous communication and globalized government
>Why isn't technology a thousand years more advanced thanks to breaking fundamental physics
And I'm not saying it's impossible to build a setting where magic is extremely ubiquitous and have these problems resolved logically, but most people can't, and having separated or totally exclusive magic systems that aren't fully understood and ubiquitous solves this problem for you.
Your reading comprehension is shit. I didn't say "anyone can do magic", I said "anyone who can do magic". Anyone WHO can. Their is no fundamental difference between and person who can shoot a fireball and someone who can raise the dead. Magic is magic to anyone who can't do magic So most names for a magic user will be based on what job they have.
>Their is no fundamental difference between and person who can shoot a fireball and someone who can raise the dead
There is a ton of fundamental difference. There is nothing BUT fumdamental difference in the two things you just described.
And even if exactly one person in the setting has access to magic, you still have to answer the above questions because you've just said they can do ALL magic.
Then explain the fundamental differences seeing as how you have ample experience with magic.
Fireball blows shit up.
Revive Dead does not blow shit up and, in fact, unblows shit up.
These are diametrically opposed events. You'd actually need a great deal more explanation for how the same system achieves both of them without any evident different requirements or processes, like the whole magic system being genie wishes or something.
>fireballs blow shit up
No tit doesn't, it set things on fire. You seem to take something so simple and trying to complicate it for no reason. There is no need for an explanation for someone using magic. A wizard can raise ethe dead just like a witch can use a fireball.
Well you're just wrong about Fireball in the context of D&D, but that aside, lighting things on fire and bringing things back to life are self-evidently polar opposites. You haven't addressed any of the basic logistical questions I posed earlier and you are desperately trying to avoid actually defending your terrible system in any depth, so I'll just save us both the trouble and accept your concession.
>DnD
And you say my system is terrible. As for the "logistical questions", is that there is no logistics because it's magic. You know, like DnD. Or is the Revive Dead to complex a spell? Is that why wizards need to use a book?
This is how I see it.
>Mage: I can do shit with my mind! I don't specialize, I generalize!
>Wizard: I can do shit with my mind too! I specialize into one field!
>Sorcerer: I do shit with my mind but in a different manner! Sometimes my power comes from an outside source!
>Witch: I can do what the Wizard can do but I've got a pussy!
>Warlock: I'm an evil Wizard that can do stuff with my mind!
Fighter, rogue, monk, barbarian. Do we really need that many classes for what is essentially hitting things with a stick?