PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerers or Wizards?



craverguy
2010-02-12, 12:15 PM
In Dungeons & Dragons v. 3.0 and 3.5, which do you feel is the better arcane spellcasting class, wizards or sorcerers? Which would you say gets the better tradeoff between their separate spellcasting systems?

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 12:16 PM
Wizards are better, because spells known > spells/day.

They also have a better casting stat, and actual class features.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 12:18 PM
I thought they had the same class features as sorcerers: spells, a familiar, and...more spells.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 12:18 PM
I thought they had the same class features as sorcerers: spells, a familiar, and...more spells.

Sorcerers don't get bonus feats.

It's not much, but it's still something.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-12, 12:20 PM
Depends on what you want to do. If you only want to do one thing and do it a lot, the sorcerer's lack of versatility isn't all that bad. Otherwise, wizard tends to be better.


I thought they had the same class features as sorcerers: spells, a familiar, and...more spells.

The difference is that the wizard can put as many spells he wants in his spellbook(s) and change his spells each day, whereas the sorcerer has to choose spells at level-up and has few opportunities to change them. If a sorcerer knows only fire blasting spells and comes across a fire-immune creature without a way to overcome immunity, he's screwed; if a wizard has prepared only fire blasting spells and comes across a fire-immune creature without a way to overcome immunity, he retreats, prepares cold blasting spells or non-blasting spells and returns to finish the fight. Quality generally beats quantity.

valadil
2010-02-12, 12:22 PM
I think wizards are better, but I have more fun with sorcerers. I'd rather react to the threat at hand than try to guess (or divine, but that depends on how much info the GM is willing to give out) and speculate.

Note that when I say sorcerer, I mean the kind that either has rapid metamagic or the phb2 variant. Without fast metamagic I wouldn't bother playing a sorc.

Zen Monkey
2010-02-12, 12:22 PM
I know it's not the popular opinion on these boards, but I like the flexibility of the sorcerer's spontaneous casting. It can be hard to predict how many uses of a particular spell you'll need on a given day. The ability to pick and choose as necessary (provided you learned a good assortment of spells) can help to find just the right answer for a surprising problem.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-02-12, 12:24 PM
Sorcerers are also one level late to getting every new spell level. On high levels, spells-per-day are rarely an issue. How often does a level 15 or 20 spellcaster of any class exhaust his spells?

And on low-to-mid-levels, specialization almost closes the gap in spells-per-day.

EDIT:

I know it's not the popular opinion on these boards, but I like the flexibility of the sorcerer's spontaneous casting.But that's the problem, isn't it - he's "flexible" among a very small number of spells. For example, a level 6 sorcerer only has 1 spell level 3 known. One! Where's the flexibility?

Defiant
2010-02-12, 12:24 PM
Wizards are better and more powerful, though sorcerers are easier to play.

Doc Roc
2010-02-12, 12:24 PM
It depends on the level of abuse you plan to level. Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, and a few others often mean that the sorcerer is better in practical terms.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-12, 12:25 PM
In Dungeons & Dragons v. 3.0 and 3.5, which do you feel is the better arcane spellcasting class, wizards or sorcerers? Which would you say gets the better tradeoff between their separate spellcasting systems?

Wizards are generally better for optimization purposes. However, a low-level wizard can run out of spells much more easily than a sorcerer. Also, if a wizard has poorly prepared spells for some event they are screwed. A sorcerer doesn't need to worry about that as much (although they then have less flexibility overall). Wizards have much more of an out-of-combat advantage than sorcerers. Wizards also get bonus feats that the sorcerer's don't and get access to a new spell level 1 level earlier. The earlier access to new spell levels also means that after 2nd level, every other level, the wizard can cast a whole new class of spells that a sorcerer cannot. Thus, on average the wizard is more powerful, and every other level, the wizard is unambiguously better. By the time one reaches 5th level and the wizard gets the bonus feat and another spell level, the sorcerer is now two feats behind the wizard (one must be Scribe Scroll but still...) and it just gets worse from there. That's even before we think about the wizard having a better skill selection or the like.

Overall, wizards are better on average although sorcerers at very low levels (levels 1 and 2) are potentially better. But starting at 3rd wizards pull ahead, and by 5th wizards are clearly ahead and the difference just gets more extreme as levels increase.

Kobold-Bard
2010-02-12, 12:25 PM
Wizards are superior because they can have the right tool for every eventuality, whereas Sorceres have to pick spells they'll use every day. Type Logicninja and Being Batman into Google for a more in depth reasoning.

I personally prefer Sorcerers though because re-preparing spells each day annoys me.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-12, 12:27 PM
Also, having a high intelligence gives you lots of skill points. Having a high charisma gives basically nothing.

And Wizards don't actually get fewer spells. Lets compare a Wizard and a Sorcerer (each with a 16 in their casting stat) at level 5:

Sorcerer: 7 first level spells, 5 second level spells
Specialist Wizard: 5 first level spells, 4 second level spells, 3 third level spells

That's exactly the same number of spells, but the wizard gets higher overall spell levels! Sorcerers catch up on the even levels, but their delayed spell progression really hurts in comparison to what the wizard gets.

And if the wizard is allowed to take the Focused Specialist variant, they will have more spells than the Sorcerer at every level.

ericgrau
2010-02-12, 12:29 PM
Sorcerers are more versatile, wizards are more powerful. The supposed spells known versatility only applies to utility spells, as different spells actually prepared is the same or less. Utility spells come up far less often, and the simple ones are best handled with scrolls for both classes.

Pyro_Azer
2010-02-12, 12:33 PM
Sorcerers are more versatile, wizards are more powerful. The supposed spells known versatility only applies to utility spells, as different spells actually prepared is the same or less. Utility spells come up far less often, and the simple ones are best handled with scrolls for both classes.

How are sorcerers more versatile when wizards get far more spells known?

craverguy
2010-02-12, 12:34 PM
He's saying it doesn't matter how many more spells you know if you don't have them prepared.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 12:35 PM
But that's the problem, isn't it - he's "flexible" among a very small number of spells. For example, a level 6 sorcerer only has 1 spell level 3 known. One! Where's the flexibility?

Obviously, he can wiggle his fingers in slightly different ways as he spams it. :smallwink:

Saph
2010-02-12, 12:36 PM
Sorcerers require a lot of skill in spell selection, but if you're good at that, they can be pretty effective. Their main drawback is always being one level behind. This becomes less of an issue as you level up. Once a sorcerer hits about level 7, they should have enough spells known to do OK in any normal situation.

Bear in mind that Wizards usually end up preparing pretty much the same spell list every day anyway, at least for combat, so the lack of spells known isn't actually as big a drawback as you might think.

Narazil
2010-02-12, 12:36 PM
He's saying it doesn't matter how many more spells you know if you don't have them prepared.
It does at higher levels, though, when you get access to Teleport and Scrying.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 12:42 PM
With enough cheese (Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, bought-off White Dragonspawn, Arcane Spellsurge, (Greater) Arcane Fusion, etc) a sorcerer can pull ahead in raw power, but they can never match a wizard's versatility. Without that kind of extreme cheese a wizard is generally better at both.

Pyro_Azer
2010-02-12, 01:04 PM
It does at higher levels, though, when you get access to Teleport and Scrying.

Or when you consider the fact it is far easier to get more spells per day than it is to get spells known (pearls of power, rings of wizardry, high casting stat, etc...).

Doc Roc
2010-02-12, 01:10 PM
Actually, spells known isn't terribly difficult.

drengnikrafe
2010-02-12, 01:12 PM
When I posted this same question, a few days after I made my account, I got the following response:

"You have no idea what can of worms you just opened."

Followed by dozens of:

"Wizards are 'better', but sorcerers are more fun to play."

Just in case you were wondering what the playground was like a few years ago. In any case, I believe wizards are better. I believe once you have a grip on magic, wizards can do a lot more, although they take a lot more thinking. Sorcerers are much easier to play, since you only need to make the decision of what you want whenever you level up, instead of every morning. Sorcerers have a slightly more difficult time with abusing metamagic. Ultimately, though, my thoughts on the matter ignore crunch in favor of fluff. Wizards work for long, hard years studying, investigating, and observing the effects of magic. They are (generically) studious and hardworking. Sorcerers woke up one morning and said "Why is my cup floating?", then had access to magic. That is my perception of the situation, and the 'easy way out' is why I don't like, and will likely never play, sorcerers.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 01:13 PM
Actually, spells known isn't terribly difficult.

You can get a couple more spells known without much trouble, but the gulf in spells known (which hurts the sorcerer) is much bigger than the gulf in spells/day (which hurts the wizard).

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 01:13 PM
Wizards are the stronger class, hands down. However, I prefer playing sorcerers, myself*. I hate having to keep track of all the spells known and prepared each day. :tongue:



*I should say, I prefer spontaneous casting over prepared casting.

Soranar
2010-02-12, 01:15 PM
Gameplay versus design

Sorcerers are harder to create, since picking your spells is a big deal, and severely limits you. But they are a lot simpler to play.

Wizards aren't very complicated to create, but are insanely complicated to play.

Sorcerers also get less feats (4 total) , which is huge imo, and they can't quicken spells unless you use a way around it. However they do tend to catch up at later levels.

At high levels,magic items and various wands can do all the tricks a wizard can do that you didn't bother with (buffing for example) and unlike a wizard you don't need to find the proper scrolls to learn your spells. Of course a wizard benefits from these too but since he often has the spell he won't get the same benefit unless it's from his barred school.

So you'll never find yourself completely unprepared for a fight since you generally use spells that just work against everything. You also concentrate on battlefield control since buff/debuff spells are usually not worth it (there are some exceptions say dispel magic and disjunction) and you're far more likely to have the perfect spell ready unlike a wizard who didn't expect a particular fight. By level 20 a sorcerer has a basic of 6 spellslots/level while a wizard only has 4. That is a huge difference. But gaining level 9 spells at level 18 instead of 17 is not a small problem.

Finally a straight wizard is just better overall at many/nearly all levels, but if you play a gish, a sorcerer tends to come out on top since a high charisma is useful for all kinds of things (saves through paladin, DMM through cleric, etc).

To me it comes down to this.

Sorcerer 1 vs wizard 1 = Sorcerer on top
level 5=wizard
level 10=roughly equal
level 15=wizard again
level 20=sorcerer (barely)

Some templates/races also benefit the sorcerer more as Charisma is considered fairly cheap compared to Int.

But obviously, playing through a campaign instead of starting level 20, I'd go wizard.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 01:19 PM
Wizards are the stronger class, hands down.

A White Dragonspawn Kobold Sorcerer with bought off LA abusing the Sorcerer-specific spells would beg to differ.

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 01:34 PM
A White Dragonspawn Kobold Sorcerer with bought off LA abusing the Sorcerer-specific spells would beg to differ.

Class vs. class, not optimization vs. optimization.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 01:38 PM
Class vs. class, not optimization vs. optimization.

I'm just saying, with high optimisation, Sorcerers get more raw power than Wizards with the same amount of optimisation.

DementedFellow
2010-02-12, 01:54 PM
Personally, given the choice, I will ALWAYS go Sorcerer. Sorcerers to me are more flavorful than wizards. "I bend reality over my knee by my sheer force of personality alone" is a lot more awesome than, "I read arcane tomes of power to fuel my spells". Another way of putting it is, the wizard can say, "I read books daily and know magic." And a Sorcerer can reply, "I AM magic."

Regardless of my personal preference, Wizards are the "better" class. Their main attribute relates to skill points, which can heavily influence some games. They get more feats, which is huge. And they get more access to prestige classes. Certain PrCs are not only more suited to wizards, but are unable to be entered by sorcerers, with a strict reading of the requirements.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 02:01 PM
People keep mentioning that Wizards get more Feats, but I can't seem to find where it says so in the PH. Any help there?

Twilight Jack
2010-02-12, 02:02 PM
People keep mentioning that Wizards get more Feats, but I can't seem to find where it says so in the PH. Any help there?

Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level. Another bonus feat at every level divisible by 5.

Sorcerers? Bupkis.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-02-12, 02:02 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard

Note the "bonus feat" entries of the table.

ericgrau
2010-02-12, 02:20 PM
How are sorcerers more versatile when wizards get far more spells known?

Absolutely worthless 95% of the time. It's on a piece of paper not their head. As said they usually prepare the same list for combat anyway. Most of the time the sorcerer knows more spells by any common sense of the word, and are more versatile. Also, I explained this in my original post, which you did not address in the slightest. Reading helps stop 50 page threads that go nowhere on hot topics.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 02:27 PM
Absolutely worthless 95% of the time. It's on a piece of paper not their head. Most of the time the sorcerer knows more spells by any common sense of the word. Also, I explained this in my original post, which you did not address in the slightest. Reading helps stop 50 page threads that go nowhere on hot topics.

A) You're being very needlessly hostile.

B) The sorcerer always knows far less spells of his highest level (the ones that matter) than the wizard, even without scrolls. When they finally get access to 3rd-level spells (a level later than wizard), they can only learn one 3rd-level spell. Meanwhile, the wizard knows 4 of them at level 6, even without scrolls.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 02:29 PM
But how many can he use during any given day before he has to rest?

Inhuman Bot
2010-02-12, 02:29 PM
Personally, I think Wizards > Sorcerers for powergameing, Sorcerers > Wizards for actually haveing fun.

That's just me, though.

Fiery Diamond
2010-02-12, 02:33 PM
I for one despise wizards. I love sorcerers (as long as you're playing with a variant that can actually use metamagic without taking longer to cast, as that was a stupid rule in the first place). Here's the rundown for me:

Wizards:
+s
New spell levels at odd class levels
Potentially infinite number of spells in spellbook
Some free feats
-s
Prepared caster
Fewer spells/day
Prepared caster
Prepared caster
Prepared caster
Prepared caster
and did I mention...
Prepared caster

Sorcerers:
+s
Spontaneous caster
Spontaneous caster
Lots of spells/day
Spontaneous caster
Lots of spells/day
Spontaneous caster
-s
New spell levels at even class levels
Relatively small number of spells known


...was it clear that I hate prepared casting and like spontaneous casting?

Gorbash
2010-02-12, 02:34 PM
Absolutely worthless 95% of the time. It's on a piece of paper not their head. Most of the time the sorcerer knows more spells by any common sense of the word.

Yes, but wizards don't usually prepare 5 times the same spell, whereas Sorcerers don't have that luxury to choose.

Here's the spell list of my 14th lvl wizard, which I don't usually change, since I don't want to be an ass by spoiling everyone's surprise with Scrying and the like. If we're aware of the nature of the encounters, I'll modifiy it a bit, but this is the spells I have 80% of the time:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/Gorbash/Untitled-11.jpg

Since this is an average Wizard - no cheese, or god knows how optimization, just a Transmuter, how on earth does an average Sorcerer knows more spells than me?

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 02:35 PM
But how many can he use during any given day before he has to rest?

How many times do you need to cast Haste, anyway? Or Suggestion, or Overland Flight, or Rope Trick, or...

Zen Monkey
2010-02-12, 02:35 PM
As some people have already mentioned, alot of this discussion depends on how much the spellcaster knows in advance. In some games, the party will know what to prepare because they know what they're going up against the next day. In others, they might have some hints but need to prepare for a more generic combat assortment. Even if I do know that the temple of doom has 30 base trolls, 2 cleric sub-bosses, and 1 wizard boss, I still may not memorize the right number of dispels (or whatever else). The sorcerer's niche is for when someone says "I wish we had memorized more X for today" or "That X was a wasted slot."

This doesn't mean that the sorcerer is better, but that he can adapt better on the fly in certain gaming styles. In one game, the dungeon hook (I mean, local townsperson) says "A red dragon was born in that cave 175 years ago and still lives there", in another he says "A dragon is rumored to be living in those hills" and in another he just talks about the "great beast that has been killing all their livestock." The wizard is great in the first, but unless the game allows for lots of research and days of preparation, the sorcerer has some advantages in the next two styles.

Superglucose
2010-02-12, 02:36 PM
Absolutely worthless 95% of the time. It's on a piece of paper not their head. As said they usually prepare the same list for combat anyway. Most of the time the sorcerer knows more spells by any common sense of the word. Also, I explained this in my original post, which you did not address in the slightest. Reading helps stop 50 page threads that go nowhere on hot topics.
Sorcerors get 6 spells per day per level at level 20.

Wizards get 4 spells per day per level at level 20. Sounds bad, doesn't it?

Except that the wizard may very well be a conjuration or transmutation specialist, giving up Enchantment (pretty damn close to useless at the level where you can assume 90% of encounters have Mind Blank) which means 5 spells per level. Suddenly sorcs have exactly 10 more spells, one at every level, than wizards per day. Do you really think that makes a significant difference?

To top that off, Sorcs only know 3 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells while a wizard without trying will know 4 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells as well as 8 9th level spells, of which they can prepare 4.

So yes, Wizards actually have significantly more versatility across their higher level slots.

As for "same combat list" I might prepare Shape Change, Time Stop, Prismatic Sphere and Mage's Disjunction for my mirror match versus your sorc. Disjunction to pwn your buffs, Prismatic Sphere to stop you from touching me, Shape Change for its raw awesome, and Time Stop because... do I need to tell you why? A sorceror cannot do that without investing feats... feats it has fewer of compared to a wizard who actually gets bonus feats!

Lin Bayaseda
2010-02-12, 02:36 PM
But how many can he use during any given day before he has to rest?Amazingly enough, same number.

Sorcerer level 6, CHA 16: four 3rd level spells per day
Wizard level 6, INT 16: three 3rd level spells per day, plus one for school specialization.

Except in the sorcerer's case, they are all the same spell...

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 02:37 PM
The "adapt on the fly argument" is a wash. There are many spells you prepare no matter what's coming at you that day. Rope Trick. Polymorph. Dimension Door. See Invisibility. GMW. Heart of Water.

You don't have to Contact Other Plane every morning to know these are good spells to have in your head - it's just common sense.

Vaynor
2010-02-12, 02:43 PM
Personally, I love Sorcerers. There are so many ways to get around the spells known hindrance (knowstones, runestaves, eternal wands, MotAO, etc) and I find them much more fun to play. The spells/day they have coupled with spontaneous casting, and usually the reduced metamagic casting time ACF, makes them much more enjoyable to play.

Thrawn183
2010-02-12, 02:48 PM
Sorcerors have an advantage in that if they have a spell that is awesome for a situation, they can cast it repeatedly. The problem? Sorcerors usually don't learn spells that are really good in specific situations because they don't know many spells. Don't get me wrong, slow and haste are great spells, so it doesn't really hurt them much, but their potential isn't quite as high.

Sadly, I think that a lot of this discussion is forgetting that not all of D&D is about combat. How many spells known can a sorceror dedicate to out-of-combat situations? A wizard can learn a whole bunch of useful spells for his off time, or just general utility.

It's the wizard's ability to prepare spells that are awesome in combat AND prepare spells that are great outside of combat (if not always at the same time) that pushes them higher.

That said, I enjoy playing sorcerors far more. I can't really stand prepared casting.

ericgrau
2010-02-12, 02:48 PM
A) You're being very needlessly hostile.

B) The sorcerer always knows far less spells of his highest level (the ones that matter) than the wizard, even without scrolls. When they finally get access to 3rd-level spells (a level later than wizard), they can only learn one 3rd-level spell. Meanwhile, the wizard knows 4 of them at level 6, even without scrolls.

A) I'm hungry and it's still far better than - and an appropriate response to - derailing a discussion with clichés w/o regard to what anyone else said. It's as bad as a political discussion in that it'll go nowhere exactly because of this. The usual result is that it's not worth bothering discussing a hot topic at all (and I usually don't), unless someone genuinely wants help on a build or etc.

B) I'm curious how you can even have far less than 2. EDIT: Ah, using a rather contrived example. Practically speaking it's usually 3, and getting the 3rd is not w/o drawbacks (at least in core, where schools can't easily replace other schools). Anyway this is not so on a batman caster, with useful spells on most levels even against higher level encounters. It's more true on an evoker.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 02:49 PM
I'll take Psions/Erudites over both of them myself. Arcane magic in general, and Vancian in particular, is just distasteful. *Flicks fingers*

Lifeson
2010-02-12, 02:51 PM
Personally, I think Wizards > Sorcerers for powergameing, Sorcerers > Wizards for actually haveing fun.

That's just me, though.


This is my opinion, too.

Example, if you click Serenity in my sig, You'll notice she's a sorcerer. I'd find her very different, and a little more stuffy and less fun to play as a Wizard.

Instead, as a Sorcerer, I can have her in the thick of things along side her crew. Which is much more pleaseable to me. (Nevermind her current 3 hp.)

Dr.Epic
2010-02-12, 02:55 PM
Wizards because of there diversity. My brother used to say "You can either not have the spell memorized you need or just not have the spell you need."

Although sorcerers do have their uses. Say you wanted to multiclass to get some arcane spells to help your build. Sorcerers the way to go.

Sanguine
2010-02-12, 03:01 PM
Wizards because of there diversity. My brother used to say "You can either not have the spell memorized you need or just not have the spell you need."

Although sorcerers do have their uses. Say you wanted to multiclass to get some arcane spells to help your build. Sorcerers the way to go.

Unless your main class gets a bonus from high Int.

ericgrau
2010-02-12, 03:08 PM
Yes, but wizards don't usually prepare 5 times the same spell, whereas Sorcerers don't have that luxury to choose.

The assumption when counting options before was that each spell the wizard prepared was different. This is actually in the sorcerer's favor in terms of versatility. If the wizard prepares 2 of the same spell, he has even less options. If he doesn't, then he may cast each one once and only once. The sorcerer can choose any number of each.

This is why, like others, I also find the sorcerer to be loads of fun. Less to decide ahead of time, and many more combat options without worrying about not having something later. Less work, more puzzling what I'll do this round. Win win for me.

One of these days I'd like to build a wizard with the express purpose of focusing on non-combat spells prepared as-needed. Though he'd have combat spells too. It'd be difficult in most campaigns to get the hour to swap spells most of the time, and this certainly isn't meant to be the best wizard around, but I mean it'd be an interesting change of pace.

Sanguine
2010-02-12, 03:13 PM
The assumption when counting options before was that each spell the wizard prepared was different. This is actually in the sorcerer's favor in terms of versatility. If the wizard prepares 2 of the same spell, he has even less options. If he doesn't, then he may cast each one once and only once. The sorcerer can choose any number of each.

This is why, like others, I also find the sorcerer to be loads of fun. Less to decide ahead of time, and many more combat options without worrying about not having something later. Less work, more puzzling what I'll do this round. Win win for me.

One of these days I'd like to build a wizard with the express purpose of focusing on non-combat spells prepared as-needed. Though he'd have combat spells too. It'd be difficult in most campaigns to get the hour to swap spells most of the time, but I mean it'd be an interesting change of pace.

There is that one feat from complete Mage that allows you to cast any spell from your spellbook with an open slot as a full-round action. At least I think that's how it works.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 03:17 PM
I'll take Psions/Erudites over both of them myself. Arcane magic in general, and Vancian in particular, is just distasteful. *Flicks fingers*

Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).

And speaking of Vancian magic, does anyone else find it silly that clerics have to prepare their spells ahead of time? I mean, they get their magic directly from a god, who, under the rules, always knows what's going on with his/her worshippers. They should be able to cast spontaneously (which, of course, they actually can, but only for "cure" and "inflict" spells).

Anyway, that's part of why I prefer arcane magic.

Sanguine
2010-02-12, 03:20 PM
Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).

Honestly, no. But I must say that the Power Points system fits much more closely to the magic in fantasy novels then the Vancian system.

Fiery Diamond
2010-02-12, 03:22 PM
Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).

And speaking of Vancian magic, does anyone else find it silly that clerics have to prepare their spells ahead of time? I mean, they get their magic directly from a god, who, under the rules, always knows what's going on with his/her worshippers. They should be able to cast spontaneously (which, of course, they actually can, but only for "cure" and "inflict" spells).

Anyway, that's part of why I prefer arcane magic.

I think they made clerics prepared casters solely for "balance" reasons. It would be incredibly broken to allow spontaneous casting of any cleric spell of a level you can cast, with no limit to spells known.

Kylarra
2010-02-12, 03:22 PM
Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).
Belgariad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Belgariad). :smalltongue:

Admittedly they call it sorcery in the books, but it's closer to psionics than magic, inasfar as D&D is concerned.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 03:23 PM
Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).

If you think Star Wars is anything but fantasy, I have a bridge to sell you to Mongolia.


And speaking of Vancian magic, does anyone else find it silly that clerics have to prepare their spells ahead of time? I mean, they get their magic directly from a god, who, under the rules, always knows what's going on with his/her worshippers. They should be able to cast spontaneously (which, of course, they actually can, but only for "cure" and "inflict" spells).

Vancian in general is a silly system, and I'm very glad they scrapped it.

Eldariel
2010-02-12, 03:29 PM
Vancian in general is a silly system, and I'm very glad they scrapped it.

What's so silly about it? I think it's a perfect fit for what it's supposed to represent. That's not high magic though.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 03:35 PM
Belgariad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Belgariad). :smalltongue:

Admittedly they call it sorcery in the books, but it's closer to psionics than magic, inasfar as D&D is concerned.

Of all the magic types in 3.5, Belgariad sorcery's probably actually closest to Truenaming.

Belgariad magic is, of course, analogous to Binding.


If you think Star Wars is anything but fantasy, I have a bridge to sell you to Mongolia.

It involves people flying around in a spaceship. Soft scifi.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-12, 03:37 PM
One of these days I'd like to build a wizard with the express purpose of focusing on non-combat spells prepared as-needed. Though he'd have combat spells too. It'd be difficult in most campaigns to get the hour to swap spells most of the time, and this certainly isn't meant to be the best wizard around, but I mean it'd be an interesting change of pace.
You'll only need 15 minutes, not a full hour:

After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

I personally prefer spontaneous casting to prepared casting, but Wizards are the "better" class, if you want more power. Sorcerers do offer tactical flexibility, though, especially with judicious metamagic feat selection (ie, Sculpt Spell).

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 03:40 PM
I'd like to throw out a question: The wizard, or the UA Generic Spellcaster. What one is more powerful?

Chaelos
2010-02-12, 03:42 PM
Personally, I think Wizards > Sorcerers for powergameing, Sorcerers > Wizards for actually haveing fun.

That's just me, though.

Agreed completely. In my younger days, when my priority was to optimize above all else, I played almost exclusively wizards in the campaigns I participated in (although part of that was due to the fact that the rest of my group, DM aside, couldn't be bothered to learn the arcane magic rules). Now that I'm firmly on the side of flavor over power, even while appreciating both, I find sorcerers far more to my liking.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 03:44 PM
What's so silly about it? I think it's a perfect fit for what it's supposed to represent. That's not high magic though.

Wizards with alzheimers? No thanks.


It involves people flying around in a spaceship. Soft scifi.

One word - "midichlorians"

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 03:47 PM
I'd like to throw out a question: The wizard, or the UA Generic Spellcaster. What one is more powerful?

I'd say Wizard, because the Spellcaster can't leverage their larger spell list as effectively.

Eldariel
2010-02-12, 03:49 PM
Wizards with alzheimers? No thanks.

Uh, the spell is precast in their mind during preparation; casting it effectively finishes it hence why it disappears. It's "stored" there.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 03:54 PM
Uh, the spell is precast in their mind during preparation; casting it effectively finishes it hence why it disappears. It's "stored" there.

Ah, that explains why it always takes an hour to precast all your spells, whether you're level 1 or level 17.

And by "explains" I mean "vancian makes no sense."

JoshuaZ
2010-02-12, 03:57 PM
It seems like one issue is that the different nature of some abilities is interfering with the comparison between the two. Aspecialist wizard is at level 20, a total of 10 spells behind a sorcerer right? Let's assume the wizard puts their bonus feats into one of the worst possible options, extra spell slots (whatever the feat is that gives you a spell slot that is one level below your highest level). We agree that this sub-optimal for the wizard, but it makes the comparison easier.

Ok, pick that up at 5,10,15 and 20. You now have an extra 2nd level slot, an extra 4th level slot, an extra 7th level slot and an extra 8th level slot. And you still get Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. You are now only 6 spells per a day behind the sorcerer, and on your way to 20th get more spells available and get them sooner. And 6 daily spells is a tiny different.

And we all agree that this is a sub-optimal use of those bonus feats right? They could instead go to heighten, quicken, and two other metamagic feats for example. And sorcerers in core can't even use quicken at all even if they burn one of their non-bonus feats to get it.

Or, to use another (similar) approach. Let's just stay in core. If we stay in core so we don't have fancy stuff like the dragonwrought kobold or the like where exactly what optimization is practical and what is theoretical becomes blurry. Moreover, much outside core may not be allowed by specific DMs whereas most of core is allowed by pretty much everyone and everyone has access to it (whereas you might not have a copy of Splat Book X). In this framework, the wizard seems better than the sorcerer due to the bonus feats, earlier spell access, and flexible spells prepared. The wizard even has a better skill set (all those yummy knowledge skills).

Or to use another approach, let's try to build mages using core PrCs and see what happens. Let's say there is a wizard trying to become an archmage. She can qualify for the class at 13th level, or wait two levels and get her additional bonus feat before doing so. The sorcerer? He's going to have a lot of trouble. He needs to put two feats into spell focus and one into skill focus, meaning he's got a very fixed build because he doesn't have bonus feats to play with. And when does he qualify? Well, not at 13th. Maybe at 14th? Well yeah, if he makes sure that every single one of his spells known is from a different school. Otherwise, maybe he waits another level. I'm not going to go into the archmage abilities in detail: Although the wizard may be hurt more by the loss of spell slots (but not by very much and even that's arguable), the potential abilities all add more effective spontaneity, making the wizard have many of the advantages of a sorcerer. Mastery of Elements for example makes a wizard much happier.

Similar analysis can be done with many other PrCs. For example, consider the mystic theurge. The PrC is weak. But it is far worse for the sorcerer than the wizard since the sorcerer gives up any chance of 9th level spells to qualify (and in fact gives up 9th level spells on the cleric end also since they need four levels of sorcerer).

Many other PrCs in core push up the qualification level by at least one for the sorcerer and make them lose a lot more than with the wizard. Thus, for example, the sorcerer can't even qualify for Loremaster without a lot of work because it requires 10 ranks in two knowledge skills, and Sorcerer's only have one on their class list. Moreover, they require "Any three metamagic or item creation feats, plus Skill Focus (Knowledge [any individual Knowledge skill])." Easy for the wizard with her tasty bonus feats. Our poor sorcerer though needs to burn a very narrow feat set. He's going to have trouble with that. In order to qualify he's going to need a very narrow build (this brings up a more general issue of how even if we go outside core, sorcerers need much less flexible builds to qualify for a lot of PrCs, whereas wizards can use their bonus feats to qualify and still have other free feats for fun). And they need knowledge of a very large set of divination spells. Easy for the wizard who just prepares many of them when they actually need them. But not convenient for the sorcerer with limited spells known.

I suppose that a sorcerer can qualify about as well as an Arcane Archer. But why bother? It is a very weak class. And all the sorcerer can say is that he as as easy a time as the wizard. Except wait! That's not even true. You need to multiclass to qualify, and be either an elf or a half-elf. Since the elves have favored class wizard, wizards have an easier time getting the necessary requirements. Sorcerers can do so easily but only if they are half-elves. Huh. Poor sorcerers.

There is a single PrC in all of Core that actually allows sorcerer's to qualify for better than wizards. In fact, wizards can't get it at all. The Dragon Disciple. So he can qualify for a single class that our wizard can't. And that class doesn't even advance spellcasting aside from some minor bonus spells. And this only works because what amounts to a fluff requirement says spontaneous casters only.

The sorcerer and wizard can both qualify about as well for the Eldritch Knight. The wizard and sorcerer have about the same for Thaumaturgist (but people often forget that class even exists) aside from the wizard being able to qualify one level lower. The wizard has a slightly easier qualification for Arcane Trickster but only marginally so (but as with other classes that require multiclassing wizard builds that get 9th level spells are easier than with the sorcerer).

So what's our conclusion about PrCs? By and large, if you are a sorcerer and want a given core PrC, you need to think carefully about how you are going to get there. In contrast, even if you don't have a specific build in mind, a wizard can easily accidentally qualify for a lot of PrCs. Even if they are trying to qualify for a specific PrC, they still have a lot of build flexibility. Sorcerers are hurt more by going into many PrCs than wizards, and wizards often benefit more from the class features.

I think this shows that at least in core, wizards are better by most reasonable metrics.

I'm pretty sure that if we restrict to Core + any single splatbook, that will be the same unless that splatbook has the word "dragon" in the title, and even then, might still be true. I'm pretty sure that's true if it is any of the splatbooks Libris Mortis, BoVD(although that's partially 3.0), Tome of Magic, and Complete Arcane but haven't done such a detailed analysis to make sure. Certainly, to name just a few, a wizard can more easily qualify for anima mage, and can still get 9th level spells from it, while a sorcerer cannot easily do so. Same goes for the noctumancer. (Both classes are from ToM).

If something is a quick and dirty game, I'll probably play a sorcerer given the choice between the two since it involves a lot less thinking. But the general pattern seems pretty clear about which is better.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 04:11 PM
It seems like one issue is that the different nature of some abilities is interfering with the comparison between the two. Aspecialist wizard is at level 20, a total of 10 spells behind a sorcerer right? Let's assume the wizard puts their bonus feats into one of the worst possible options, extra spell slots (whatever the feat is that gives you a spell slot that is one level below your highest level). We agree that this sub-optimal for the wizard, but it makes the comparison easier.

Ok, pick that up at 5,10,15 and 20. You now have an extra 2nd level slot, an extra 4th level slot, an extra 7th level slot and an extra 8th level slot. And you still get Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. You are now only 6 spells per a day behind the sorcerer, and on your way to 20th get more spells available and get them sooner. And 6 daily spells is a tiny different.

And we all agree that this is a sub-optimal use of those bonus feats right? They could instead go to heighten, quicken, and two other metamagic feats for example. And sorcerers in core can't even use quicken at all even if they burn one of their non-bonus feats to get it.

Or, to use another (similar) approach. Let's just stay in core. If we stay in core so we don't have fancy stuff like the dragonwrought kobold or the like where exactly what optimization is practical and what is theoretical becomes blurry. Moreover, much outside core may not be allowed by specific DMs whereas most of core is allowed by pretty much everyone and everyone has access to it (whereas you might not have a copy of Splat Book X). In this framework, the wizard seems better than the sorcerer due to the bonus feats, earlier spell access, and flexible spells prepared. The wizard even has a better skill set (all those yummy knowledge skills).

Or to use another approach, let's try to build mages using core PrCs and see what happens. Let's say there is a wizard trying to become an archmage. She can qualify for the class at 13th level, or wait two levels and get her additional bonus feat before doing so. The sorcerer? He's going to have a lot of trouble. He needs to put two feats into spell focus and one into skill focus, meaning he's got a very fixed build because he doesn't have bonus feats to play with. And when does he qualify? Well, not at 13th. Maybe at 14th? Well yeah, if he makes sure that every single one of his spells known is from a different school. Otherwise, maybe he waits another level. I'm not going to go into the archmage abilities in detail: Although the wizard may be hurt more by the loss of spell slots (but not by very much and even that's arguable), the potential abilities all add more effective spontaneity, making the wizard have many of the advantages of a sorcerer. Mastery of Elements for example makes a wizard much happier.

Similar analysis can be done with many other PrCs. For example, consider the mystic theurge. The PrC is weak. But it is far worse for the sorcerer than the wizard since the sorcerer gives up any chance of 9th level spells to qualify (and in fact gives up 9th level spells on the cleric end also since they need four levels of sorcerer).

Many other PrCs in core push up the qualification level by at least one for the sorcerer and make them lose a lot more than with the wizard. Thus, for example, the sorcerer can't even qualify for Loremaster without a lot of work because it requires 10 ranks in two knowledge skills, and Sorcerer's only have one on their class list. Moreover, they require "Any three metamagic or item creation feats, plus Skill Focus (Knowledge [any individual Knowledge skill])." Easy for the wizard with her tasty bonus feats. Our poor sorcerer though needs to burn a very narrow feat set. He's going to have trouble with that. In order to qualify he's going to need a very narrow build (this brings up a more general issue of how even if we go outside core, sorcerers need much less flexible builds to qualify for a lot of PrCs, whereas wizards can use their bonus feats to qualify and still have other free feats for fun). And they need knowledge of a very large set of divination spells. Easy for the wizard who just prepares many of them when they actually need them. But not convenient for the sorcerer with limited spells known.

I suppose that a sorcerer can qualify about as well as an Arcane Archer. But why bother? It is a very weak class. And all the sorcerer can say is that he as as easy a time as the wizard. Except wait! That's not even true. You need to multiclass to qualify, and be either an elf or a half-elf. Since the elves have favored class wizard, wizards have an easier time getting the necessary requirements. Sorcerers can do so easily but only if they are half-elves. Huh. Poor sorcerers.

There is a single PrC in all of Core that actually allows sorcerer's to qualify for better than wizards. In fact, wizards can't get it at all. The Dragon Disciple. So he can qualify for a single class that our wizard can't. And that class doesn't even advance spellcasting aside from some minor bonus spells. And this only works because what amounts to a fluff requirement says spontaneous casters only.

The sorcerer and wizard can both qualify about as well for the Eldritch Knight. The wizard and sorcerer have about the same for Thaumaturgist (but people often forget that class even exists) aside from the wizard being able to qualify one level lower. The wizard has a slightly easier qualification for Arcane Trickster but only marginally so (but as with other classes that require multiclassing wizard builds that get 9th level spells are easier than with the sorcerer).

So what's our conclusion about PrCs? By and large, if you are a sorcerer and want a given core PrC, you need to think carefully about how you are going to get there. In contrast, even if you don't have a specific build in mind, a wizard can easily accidentally qualify for a lot of PrCs. Even if they are trying to qualify for a specific PrC, they still have a lot of build flexibility. Sorcerers are hurt more by going into many PrCs than wizards, and wizards often benefit more from the class features.

I think this shows that at least in core, wizards are better by most reasonable metrics.

I'm pretty sure that if we restrict to Core + any single splatbook, that will be the same unless that splatbook has the word "dragon" in the title, and even then, might still be true. I'm pretty sure that's true if it is any of the splatbooks Libris Mortis, BoVD(although that's partially 3.0), Tome of Magic, and Complete Arcane but haven't done such a detailed analysis to make sure. Certainly, to name just a few, a wizard can more easily qualify for anima mage, and can still get 9th level spells from it, while a sorcerer cannot easily do so. Same goes for the noctumancer. (Both classes are from ToM).

If something is a quick and dirty game, I'll probably play a sorcerer given the choice between the two since it involves a lot less thinking. But the general pattern seems pretty clear about which is better.

By and large, I agree. For PrCs which burn a lot of spell slots, though, like Jade Phoenix Mage, Sorcerer can be more useful - except that Jade Phoenix Mage requires 2nd level casting, and hence wastes a level without cheese. So much for that.

taltamir
2010-02-12, 04:17 PM
sorcerers don't actually have more spells per day because a wizard should specialize (double specialize actually). the sorcerer is always a level behind the wizard in terms of max level spell (eg: a level 5 wizard can cast 3rd level spells, but a sorcerer needs to be level 6).
when the sorcerer catches up to you at level 6, he gets 1 spell known only from his max level, and 1 spell per day more then a generalist wizard. But a specialist wizard (who naturally bans enchantment and evocation) matches that. Eventually the sorcerer caps out at 6 spells per day on lower level spells and the specialist wizard at 5... but thats where the double specialist wizard gets the advantage.
Double specialized wizard have 6 spells per day on their low level spells like the sorcerer, their mid levels spells they get 1 more spell per day than the sorc, way more spells known, getting spells a level early, and the versatility of swapping them out at will.

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 04:20 PM
Double specialized wizard

Huh? How, may I ask?

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 04:23 PM
Huh? How, may I ask?

Focused Specialist, an ACF in Complete Mage that sacrifices an additional school and 1 spell slot per spell level for 2 extra specialist slots per spell level.

Freshmeat
2010-02-12, 04:26 PM
I prefer sorcerers, since they require much less bookkeeping and preparation, but I strongly feel wizards are better:

- increased versatility
- they get spell levels sooner
- bonus feats are golden
- scribe scroll for free is nice too
- their casting statistic is generally better (intelligence is more useful than charisma)
- intelligence also provides more skill points, and boosts more relevant wizardry skills than charisma
- specializing in a school diminishes the gap between a wizard's spells per day when compared to a sorcerer
- depending on the books your DM allows, you may not be able to properly use such metamagic spells as quicken spell on your spontaneous-casting sorcerer. A wizard doesn't have this problem.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-12, 04:27 PM
Focused Specialist, an ACF in Complete Mage that sacrifices an additional school and 1 spell slot per spell level for 2 extra specialist slots per spell level.

Yes, but then you get a very narrow spell selection option. And the more we move outside core the more generally cheeserific things get. Hence, my attempt to try to focus on core to make the question marginally more well-defined. But see also my earlier remark about Core + any specific splatbook without the word "Dragon" in the title. Any such paring will almost certainly help wizards more than sorcerers.

Lysander
2010-02-12, 04:29 PM
Sorcerer is better choice if you want to fly into battle and rain destruction down on your foes.

Wizard is better if you want to create your own private universe, build an enormous castle in it filled with minions and traps, and plot your ascent to godhood.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-12, 04:40 PM
Sorcerer is better choice if you want to fly into battle and rain destruction down on your foes.

Wizard is better if you want to create your own private universe, build an enormous castle in it filled with minions and traps, and plot your ascent to godhood.

Sorcerer is better for that iff you have the free level cheese and the Sorcerer-only uberspells.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 04:40 PM
Yes, but then you get a very narrow spell selection option.

No narrower than a sorcerer, who simply cannot select certain spells (e.g. most Divinations) because they aren't versatile/spammable enough.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-12, 04:44 PM
No narrower than a sorcerer, who simply cannot select certain spells (e.g. most Divinations) because they aren't versatile/spammable enough.

Good point. The concern is much more about optimizing a wizard than the socr/wiz comparison per se. Even as a double-specialized or super-specialized wizard, you still have more versatile spell options than a sorcerer. So, yeah, I agree.

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 04:57 PM
Focused Specialist, an ACF in Complete Mage that sacrifices an additional school and 1 spell slot per spell level for 2 extra specialist slots per spell level.

Ah. I see. I though it was Double specialization, as in, Ban 4 schools and be a specialist in two different schools (that would be cool).

craverguy
2010-02-12, 04:59 PM
Ah, that explains why it always takes an hour to precast all your spells, whether you're level 1 or level 17.

And by "explains" I mean "vancian makes no sense."
I think you misunderstand the motivation behind putting Vancian magic in the game. It wasn't a narrative choice; it was to prevent magic from being too much of a game-breaker.

See, the thing about the higher-level magic spells is that they're really powerful. Really, really powerful. So powerful, in fact, that any spell over, say, 6th level is probably going to be more powerful than anything the Fighter or Rogue classes will ever be able to do. And once you get to around 9th level, well, just think of it like this: if a 19th level Wizard could cast Wish, Shapechange, and Meteor Swarm all day at will, that character would pretty much be a demigod, wouldn't he?

Hence, Vancian magic: yes, your spellcaster is much, much more powerful than the other members of the party. But he can only pull out his guns so many times in a day, and then he's just a geek in a funny outfit. Meanwhile, that fighter is going to be able to swing that BFS really, really well all day long and well into the night. Thus, a semblance of balance is created.

Is it possible they could have found a more elegant solution to the problem? Maybe. But as I understand it, these guys pretty much created an entire universe out of their garages. So, you know, cut them a little slack.

Optimystik
2010-02-12, 05:07 PM
I think you misunderstand the motivation behind putting Vancian magic in the game. It wasn't a narrative choice; it was to prevent magic from being too much of a game-breaker.

Actually, I do understand that they came up with the system first, then justified the fluff of it later.

I dislike it, because it does nothing to fix the problem - that at low levels, the wizard hides behind the fighter, and at high levels, the fighter hides behind the Wizard. By mid-levels, you'll start going to bed with spell slots unused - this only gets worse as you progress.


Is it possible they could have found a more elegant solution to the problem? Maybe. But as I understand it, these guys pretty much created an entire universe out of their garages. So, you know, cut them a little slack.

Did I condemn them for creating it? No. I merely said I was glad that subsequent authors (i.e. the UA team, the CArc team, and the 4e design team) saw fit to abandon it.

Thanks to at-wills, reserve feats, the recharge system etc. - casters always have something to do besides pull out the crossbow. That's a good thing for everyone.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-12, 05:07 PM
I think you misunderstand the motivation behind putting Vancian magic in the game. It wasn't a narrative choice; it was to prevent magic from being too much of a game-breaker.



It seems clear that Gygax was also just a fan of Vance. The magic system in prior editions was also much weaker. Spells of higher levels too longer to prepare for example. Also, spells were much more likely to have big nasty consequences (I think in either 2nd or maybe even 3rd edition, Shout could make the caster go deaf if they weren't careful). There's been a steady decrease in the drawbacks of the Vancian magic as the editions have progressed.

Of course, actual Vancian magic isn't very similar to the Vancian magic in D&D, which is more pseudo-Vancian. In Vance's books spell effects were always very powerful (equivalent of at least a 9th level spell, 8th at the very minimum, often equivalent of epic things) but you could only carry around a single spell in your head generally at most. The term Vancian to describe this system is a bit of a misnomer. Vancian magic would be almost like giving level 1 wizards something like epic spellcasting.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 05:09 PM
Speaking as someone whose first experience as a Level 1 Mage (way back in the early '90s) was to get his ass handed to him by an orc after blowing through his two puny first level spells in as many rounds, I would not have objected to that. :smallwink:

KellKheraptis
2010-02-12, 05:11 PM
My input on this is that while I can get a Wizard casting spontaneously with equal or near equal spell slots to a Sorcerer, and a Sorcerer or Warmage with at least the versatility (far more in the case of the Warmage) of a Wizard, and leverage the advantage of spontaneous casting in action economy on all three, at the end of the day it all boils down to what style is the character in question. If he's a methodical evil genius, Wizard fits perfectly. If he's a godchild with divine aspirations through arcane ascension, sounds like a Sorc. And if he just loves blowing **** up, that's a Warmage. I can get all three to perform any function of any of the three, at roughly the same level of power and versatility, so class isn't an issue. The only considerations outside of concept that play a mechanical role in influencing the decision are casting stat(s) and learning mechanism.

Also, as an aside to a poster above me, I too have fallen for the wonders that are psionics, particularly with variant stacking on an Erudite...but we all know Kell isn't known for being tame :P

Rixx
2010-02-12, 05:23 PM
Sorcerer, for sure. Before Pathfinder came out, I didn't care much for them one way or another (Indeed, I didn't even know much about them), but once they came out with all those nifty bloodline powers, I got totally hooked on them.

Pluto
2010-02-12, 07:40 PM
In Dungeons & Dragons v. 3.0 and 3.5, which do you feel is the better arcane spellcasting class, wizards or sorcerers?
I find the Sorcerer to be a far superior class from a design persepective.

The limited spell list pushes Sorcerers toward distinction. There are basically 9 flavors of Wizards (and with more spells, the distinctions blurred closer and closer together). There are dozens of distinct variations of Sorcerer, based on different routes in spell selection.

The Sorcerer is better fitted for most group play. Whereas Wizards are essentially omnipotent as soon as they hit level 5 spells, Sorcerers are restricted to only several game-changing options.

(Between Planar Binding, Polymorphs, Scrying, Teleport, Major Creation, Fabricate, Dominate, Suggestion, Major Image, Magic Jar, Telekinesis, Animate Dead, Charm Monster and Command Undead, a level 9 Wizard can pretty much do anything he likes. A level 10 Sorcerer with even 3 or 4 of these is still playing a game similar to that of the group's Ranger and Bard.)
Where the Wizard is clever to choose each and every spell he can and prepare for every contingency, Sorcerer players are discouraged from stepping on party members' toes.


The Sorcerer's ability to build around a schtick (and to actually have a reason to stick to it) is much truer to familiar portrayals of magic and super powers than the Wizard's "I can do EVERYTHING." Yes, there are occassional Merlins in popular fiction, but I find beguiling witches, one-trick-Magnetos and repetitive Jedi powers to be more common.

The Sorcerer has weaknesses where prepared casters do not. No matter what spell list a Sorcerer picks, there will be situations where he does not have the proper tool. So instead of just Scrying/Teleporting into the Evil Lich King's castle, he has to find a way to use Summon Monster 3, Major Creation, Dispel Magic and Telekinetic Sphere to get the job done. Creative uses of typically inapplicable abilities have led to some of my most rewarding moments as a player and some of the most memorable sessions in games I've DMed.

...of course, the Sorcerer has plenty of flaws of its own (terrible skills without Cha synergy, feat tax on metamagic, no class features, a restricted spell list despite limited spells known).

[A Spell Point Generic Spellcaster with a reserve feat strikes me as the best design for a casting class.]



Which would you say gets the better tradeoff between their separate spellcasting systems?
Wizards, hands down.

Wizards learn spells more quickly.
Spells per day are equal, between Specialization, advanced spell progression and Scribe Scroll.
15 minutes' study gives the Wizard any toolbox he needs for the job at hand.
Wizards don't face a feat tax to use Metamagic.
Wizards' skill list synergizes with their primary ability modifier.

Runestar
2010-02-12, 07:55 PM
A wizard with enough ways of casting his spells spontaneously is virtually indistinguishable from the sorcerer. Or is that the other way around? :smallconfused:

Alacritous congitation to let me cast any spell I know 1/day.
Uncanny forethought to do the same thing int mod/day.
Spontaneous divination to do the same for any divination spell I know.
I don't need to mention what can be done with shadowcraft mage, do I?
Magelord (a lost empires of faerun prc) lets me cast my spell-mastered spells spontaneously.

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-12, 09:39 PM
Magelord (a lost empires of faerun prc) lets me cast my spell-mastered spells spontaneously.


Not to be a thread jacker, but anyone know a faster way to get evasion other than rogue/monk-2? preferably while advancing wizard casting? :smallconfused:

KellKheraptis
2010-02-12, 09:56 PM
Not to be a thread jacker, but anyone know a faster way to get evasion other than rogue/monk-2? preferably while advancing wizard casting? :smallconfused:

Spelldancer 2. I can show you how to get in at 4th level, as well, when I get back from the store. And as it pertains to Wizards especially, I wouldn't call it thread jacking (though it's equally awesome on a sorc, and if you go full cheese ahead on Skitter, it even gets 19/20 or 20/20 casting).

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-12, 09:57 PM
I'm just saying, with high optimisation, Sorcerers get more raw power than Wizards with the same amount of optimisation.

BULL****!


Changeling Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Recaster 1/Archmage 2/Recaster+4 with Uncanny Forethought. You may get ahead in spell access (and do note that 2 of those are very questionable), but I pull ahead in both Spells Known and sheer versatility (free metamagic helps a lot). This isn't even that optimized, just standard GOD caster.


Gnome Wizard 5/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Incanatrix 10 with the Substitution levels and Echo Spell is literally a Game Breaker. Screw your spells/day, I have N uses of Shadow Miracle, where N is 20 times the number of hours I'm effing concious. No, I am not making up that number.

Runestar
2010-02-13, 01:05 AM
Not to be a thread jacker, but anyone know a faster way to get evasion other than rogue/monk-2? preferably while advancing wizard casting? :smallconfused:

Combat medic (heroes of battle) gets it at 4th lv as well, though you will probably need arcane disciple to qualify.

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 02:22 AM
Ah, that explains why it always takes an hour to precast all your spells, whether you're level 1 or level 17.

And by "explains" I mean "vancian makes no sense."

That's a 3.5 simplification. In AD&D 2e and earlier editions, it actually took time for each spell you were repreparing. However, that meant a high-level Wizard might need many weeks to prepare all his slots, so the change is kind of understandable.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-13, 02:26 AM
That's a 3.5 simplification. In AD&D 2e and earlier editions, it actually took time for each spell you were repreparing. However, that meant a high-level Wizard might need many weeks to prepare all his slots, so the change is kind of understandable.

Technically it got up to around 2-3 days at max, but it was still a pain for the other party members who had to wait around for that time. You never really used up all your slots in a 5-minute workday the way some 3e groups do, though, so it was very rare that you'd ever have to prepare more than a dozen spells at once unless you'd just been through a long or hard battle.

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 02:39 AM
Technically it got up to around 2-3 days at max, but it was still a pain for the other party members who had to wait around for that time. You never really used up all your slots in a 5-minute workday the way some 3e groups do, though, so it was very rare that you'd ever have to prepare more than a dozen spells at once unless you'd just been through a long or hard battle.

This is all true. But wasn't it hour/spell level? On 20, all it takes is your level 9-7 slots to take you 3 days (2*9+3*8+3*7 = 63 hours).


But yeah, I hate how 3e threw all the fluff out of Vancian casting. It's a pretty awesome system when you think about it; 2e AD&D PHB pretty much explains precisely how it works.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-13, 02:56 AM
Personally, psionics in D&D has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, have you ever read a fantasy novel where any of the characters had psychic powers? It's a bit too sci-fi to fit well into any of the standard campaign worlds (except, of course, Spelljammer, which is most of the way there already).

And speaking of Vancian magic, does anyone else find it silly that clerics have to prepare their spells ahead of time? I mean, they get their magic directly from a god, who, under the rules, always knows what's going on with his/her worshippers. They should be able to cast spontaneously (which, of course, they actually can, but only for "cure" and "inflict" spells).

Anyway, that's part of why I prefer arcane magic.
Actually pulp fantasy makes no distinction between sci-fi or fantasy a lot of the time. They're both forms of escapist fiction after all. So the hard-and-fast division between "soft core" sci-fi and fantasy is an artificial one anyway. Then you have the guys who try to make fantasy "realistic." So I'm not sure there's really a difference as far as "hard" sci-fi goes either.

In some settings, being "psychic" is just one of many skills in the wizardly discipline.

This is pretty much the only reason that I find psionics annoying: It's still magic. It didn't stop being magic just because you changed the name and the mechanics.

Secondly, no. I do not find it weird that clerics have the same Vancian system. Gods just grant spells through the rules already established for Vancian magic. It's pretty impressive that a god can just beam the knowledge of the magic straight into your brain anyway.


Vancian in general is a silly system, and I'm very glad they scrapped it.
I used to think the same, but I don't really care strongly about it one way or the other anymore.

What I hate is that D&D really isn't very consistent about what magic is supposed to be. I'd have much less problem with things like this if they simply called things like PrC abilities "magic." That'd be honest. As it is, you get a jarring panalopy of magical systems that aren't exactly consistent to a core mechanic. (You have skills. Special combat actions. Feats that give you combat actions. Vancian spells. Special abilities as class features. And OHMYGOD would you look at this mess!)

I think the Vancian system is a valid way of maintaining a large catalog of abilities in a rules-light system where very specific rulings on magic are mandatory. You can play fast-and-loose with nearly everything else under such a system, but if you're going to let players fly, then it helps to set limits.

Frankly, it's just as much work as keeping track of mana points or whatever.

Superglucose
2010-02-13, 03:19 AM
Frankly, it's just as much work as keeping track of mana points or whatever.
Agreed. Vancian casting is fine, it's just different.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 03:53 AM
D&D does have quite a few SF elements, I'll note.

*looks at Illithid backstory, looks at Neogi*

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 07:07 AM
That's a 3.5 simplification. In AD&D 2e and earlier editions, it actually took time for each spell you were repreparing. However, that meant a high-level Wizard might need many weeks to prepare all his slots, so the change is kind of understandable.

I know that, and that's the problem. With Vancian, you either get a system that snaps verisimilitude in half (constant preparation time) or an exceedingly bloated and impractical one, with no middle ground.

And how do sorcerers/bards work? Do they just memorize the last part of each spell to avoid all the precasting? "...ball!!!"


Frankly, it's just as much work as keeping track of mana points or whatever.

Surely you jest.

With a Psion, I count down a number. When I rest, I put the number back to where it was. Repeat.

With an Erudite, I have a list of every power I know, and simply circle all the ones that become part of my UPD that day. At the end of the day, I erase my circles.

How on earth is that complicated?

Raendyn
2010-02-13, 09:08 AM
Sorcerers require a lot of skill in spell selection, but if you're good at that, they can be pretty effective. Their main drawback is always being one level behind. This becomes less of an issue as you level up. Once a sorcerer hits about level 7, they should have enough spells known to do OK in any normal situation.

Bear in mind that Wizards usually end up preparing pretty much the same spell list every day anyway, at least for combat, so the lack of spells known isn't actually as big a drawback as you might think.

Cough cough,
Let's say you are in the wilderness.you have actually options available,you pick your spells depending on your info for your enemy,(let;s not mention random encounter,let's say you are heading toward an orc fort,or whatever).you do your job.

Wizard:blast blast blast
Sorserer:blast blast blast

Then you go to a city,

Wizard :charm person, suggestion, geas,disguise self,blah blah
Sorserer:blast blast blast (oups its not needed here,A! i can use my charisma to gather information,??Oups i forgot the rogue/bard do this better)

Runestar
2010-02-13, 09:13 AM
That is why I like the focused specialist wizard variant so much. It is like an amalgamation of the wizard and sorc. I get to enjoy most of the perks of both the wizard and sorc, while losing very little in the process.

It is really the best of both worlds for me. :smallsmile:

craverguy
2010-02-13, 09:16 AM
Cough cough,
Let's say you are in the wilderness.you have actually options available,you pick your spells depending on your info for your enemy,(let;s not mention random encounter,let's say you are heading toward an orc fort,or whatever).you do your job.

Wizard:blast blast blast
Sorserer:blast blast blast

Then you go to a city,

Wizard :charm person, suggestion, geas,disguise self,blah blah
Sorserer:blast blast blast (oups its not needed here,A! i can use my charisma to gather information,??Oups i forgot the rogue/bard do this better)
Or, you know, not. Not everyone just does big flashy evocation spells for their Sorcerer, you know. In fact, if you just learn one good one, the increased number of spells per day (and the ability to deploy them as needed) should suit quite nicely.

DementedFellow
2010-02-13, 09:16 AM
I would rather have a smaller spell selection to choose from and the ability to cast those on the fly than to have a multitude of spells, but not have that spell available because I prepared X instead of Y.

Sorcerers are simply more fun. Unless you like digging through book after book and flipping through pages to find out what spells to choose.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 10:36 AM
I would rather have a smaller spell selection to choose from and the ability to cast those on the fly than to have a multitude of spells, but not have that spell available because I prepared X instead of Y.

Sorcerers are simply more fun. Unless you like digging through book after book and flipping through pages to find out what spells to choose.

That's what handbooks are for (Treantmonk and LogicNinja's in particular) - no digging necessary. Why reinvent the wheel?

Another advantage to Wizards - thanks to faster spell advancement and their bonus feat, they qualify for PrCs more easily.

Jayabalard
2010-02-13, 11:13 AM
That's a 3.5 simplification. In AD&D 2e and earlier editions, it actually took time for each spell you were repreparing. However, that meant a high-level Wizard might need many weeks to prepare all his slots, so the change is kind of understandable.and by "understandable" you mean "understandable by a strictly gameplay perspective"

Jayabalard
2010-02-13, 11:16 AM
Wizard:blast blast blast
Sorserer:blast blast blast

Then you go to a city,

Wizard :charm person, suggestion, geas,disguise self,blah blah
Sorserer:blast blast blast (oups its not needed here,A! i can use my charisma to gather information,??Oups i forgot the rogue/bard do this better)
Wouldn't that actually be (assuming 2 people who play blasty characters)


Wizard:blast blast blast
Sorcerer:blast blast blast, blast

Then you go to a city,

Wizard :charm person, suggestion, geas, disguise self, blah blah
Sorcerer:charm person, suggestion, geas, disguise self, blah blah blah

Acero
2010-02-13, 11:25 AM
Wizards: Swiss Army Knives

Sorcerers: Bazookas

sombrastewart
2010-02-13, 11:46 AM
Actually pulp fantasy makes no distinction between sci-fi or fantasy a lot of the time. They're both forms of escapist fiction after all. So the hard-and-fast division between "soft core" sci-fi and fantasy is an artificial one anyway. Then you have the guys who try to make fantasy "realistic." So I'm not sure there's really a difference as far as "hard" sci-fi goes either.

In some settings, being "psychic" is just one of many skills in the wizardly discipline.

This is pretty much the only reason that I find psionics annoying: It's still magic. It didn't stop being magic just because you changed the name and the mechanics.

Check out Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series of books. They have sorcery (arcane power), witchcraft (thaumaturgy) and psionics (exactly what it sounds like).

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-13, 11:57 AM
I know that, and that's the problem. With Vancian, you either get a system that snaps verisimilitude in half (constant preparation time) or an exceedingly bloated and impractical one, with no middle ground.

And how do sorcerers/bards work? Do they just memorize the last part of each spell to avoid all the precasting? "...ball!!!"
How does it break verisimilitude? What does that even mean?

Wizards just need to prepare constantly. Study all their life. It fits well with the trope.

lesser_minion
2010-02-13, 12:07 PM
For the OP:

Personally, I prefer spontaneous casters. I don't have a problem with Vancian magic, I just don't like having to prepare every single spell.

In power terms, you've probably heard all of the arguments. Sorcerers get their spells a level behind, and suffer crippling penalties to every piece of metamagic they attempt. In core, your daily output of spells is lower on average (no quicken, and less access to magic items even when they're helpful), and less efficient on average (being able to choose your spell list daily can do that).

Spells are just so awesome that this is fun as opposed to absolutely horrible.

Freshmeat
2010-02-13, 12:08 PM
Wizards just need to prepare constantly. Study all their life. It fits well with the trope.

It makes no sense because they studied all their life to learn how to cast fireball, and then still don't know how to cast it whenever they feel like it. Apparently they keep on forgetting the magic words until they sneak a peek at their spellbook at the start of the day. Oh, and woe betide the wizard who wants to cast two fireballs on a day he memorized only one. Despite the fact that he may have cast the first one only a moment ago, he still randomly forgets how to cast precisely the same spell immediately afterwards without specific preparation.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 12:18 PM
It makes no sense because they studied all their life to learn how to cast fireball, and then still don't know how to cast it whenever they feel like it. Apparently they keep on forgetting the magic words until they sneak a peek at their spellbook at the start of the day. Oh, and woe betide the wizard who wants to cast two fireballs on a day he memorized only one. Despite the fact that he may have cast the first one only a moment ago, he still randomly forgets how to cast precisely the same spell immediately afterwards without specific preparation.

Hmm. You kinda didn't read the fluff. The reason they need to prepare is because the large majority of the spell is cast in preparation. As for why they need a spellbook, it's bloody hard to keep an entire book in photographic memory.

SensFan
2010-02-13, 12:21 PM
It makes no sense because they studied all their life to learn how to cast fireball, and then still don't know how to cast it whenever they feel like it. Apparently they keep on forgetting the magic words until they sneak a peek at their spellbook at the start of the day. Oh, and woe betide the wizard who wants to cast two fireballs on a day he memorized only one. Despite the fact that he may have cast the first one only a moment ago, he still randomly forgets how to cast precisely the same spell immediately afterwards without specific preparation.
I suggest you go back and read the fluff before you attack it, especially when your arguments are rendered completely void by the fact you don't know the fluff.
The Wizard doesn't 'memorize' his spells at the beginning of each day, he casts them. Spells cannot be cast in 4 seconds as happens over the course of the day; instead they are cast during the preparation at the beginning of the day, leaving only the smallest trigger to be unleashed when the Wizards wants the spell's effect.

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 01:07 PM
and by "understandable" you mean "understandable by a strictly gameplay perspective"

By "understandable", I mean "an understandable design decision"; can't cater to everyone, etc.


I know that, and that's the problem. With Vancian, you either get a system that snaps verisimilitude in half (constant preparation time) or an exceedingly bloated and impractical one, with no middle ground.

And how do sorcerers/bards work? Do they just memorize the last part of each spell to avoid all the precasting? "...ball!!!"

Spontaneous casters should obviously use a powerpoint system, but that's not a failing of Vancian casting but 3.X design. I don't really see why you're blaming Vancian casting here.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 01:14 PM
How does it break verisimilitude? What does that even mean?]

Wizards just need to prepare constantly. Study all their life. It fits well with the trope.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verisimilitude

And 3e breaks it because it takes a level 1 wizard the same amount of time to "precast" his 4 spells, as it does a level 12 wizard to precast his 24 spells.

2e was less jarring - more spells to prepare did equal more time - but it made the system clunky, as the rest of the party would have to sit around for several hours to several days until you got done.

lesser_minion
2010-02-13, 01:15 PM
Spontaneous casters should obviously use a powerpoint system, but that's not a failing of Vancian casting but 3.X design. I don't really see why you're blaming Vancian casting here.

Meh, Vancian's nothing compared with the eldritch abominations that are spell slots.



And 3e breaks it because it takes a level 1 wizard the same amount of time to "precast" his 4 spells, as it does a level 12 wizard to precast his 24 spells.

I suppose being able to work a lot faster is out of the question then?

After all, it takes fifteen minutes for your 12th level wizard to prepare six spells.

Perfectly reasonable. Round the number of spells prepared to the nearest quarter load and spend fifteen minutes for each quarter load. It's not that bad.

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 01:25 PM
Well, if you want something like that in 3.5 without changing things too much, make it take 5 min/spell level. This has some side effects like making level 1 spell preparation exceedingly quick, while still having it matter, how many spells you have to reprepare (and it'd give you some hard fast rules for how to deal with open slots left in the morning) and still, preparing every single spell for a level 20 Wizard (not counting bonus slots) would require 15 hours so the difference is there and when pressed for time, Wizard will move out with less-than-full payload.

Spontaneous casters can quite easily be fluffed having the "spell energy" in them that is somewhat equivalent to precast spells and that they can convert at will towards desired spell due to their inherent control of the spell energies, but needing rest to recharge the spell energy. Maybe the different levels of spells use different energy types causing lower level energies not being applicable for higher level spells (and causing lower level spells take equivalent amounts of higher level energies to cast compared to spell of the higher level). Of course, power points again make more sense there, but it's not unworkable to have spontaneous Vancian casting either.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 01:30 PM
I suppose being able to work a lot faster is out of the question then?

After all, it takes fifteen minutes for your 12th level wizard to prepare six spells.

Regardless of which spells they are? Or how many times he's prepared/cast them before in his career? And regardless of his Int bonus?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly for me.

JellyPooga
2010-02-13, 02:08 PM
I suggest you go back and read the fluff before you attack it, especially when your arguments are rendered completely void by the fact you don't know the fluff.
The Wizard doesn't 'memorize' his spells at the beginning of each day, he casts them. Spells cannot be cast in 4 seconds as happens over the course of the day; instead they are cast during the preparation at the beginning of the day, leaving only the smallest trigger to be unleashed when the Wizards wants the spell's effect.

The argument against this, however, is that what is to stop the Wizard from preparing the spell again later that day? Sure he is only capable of holding so many spells 'prepared' at once, but once he's not holding a spell in limbo any more (i.e. he's cast it), why does he have to spend 8 hours asleep/resting to re-prepare it? You might say that he has to "clear his mind" or whatever reason the fluff gives, but I just don't buy it...why can't he just "clear his mind" a little bit to re-prepare one spell? Why does he have to completely empty his mind to 'prepare' a single spell?

lesser_minion
2010-02-13, 02:12 PM
Regardless of which spells they are? Or how many times he's prepared/cast them before in his career? And regardless of his Int bonus?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly for me.

Int bonus is taken into account, for a start.

It's fudged a little, but it's not the fault of Vancian magic.

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 02:13 PM
The argument against this, however, is that what is to stop the Wizard from preparing the spell again later that day? Sure he is only capable of holding so many spells 'prepared' at once, but once he's not holding a spell in limbo any more (i.e. he's cast it), why does he have to spend 8 hours asleep/resting to re-prepare it? You might say that he has to "clear his mind" or whatever reason the fluff gives, but I just don't buy it...why can't he just "clear his mind" a little bit to re-prepare one spell? Why does he have to completely empty his mind to 'prepare' a single spell?

Preparing spells can only be done with a fresh mind. The process simply isn't possible if you're least bit tired. Casting spells tends to make you tired as does staying awake. You can't just "rest a bit"; you're still tired after resting a bit. You don't "rest the spellslot open", you rest until you reach a mental state where you are able to prepare spells again.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 02:17 PM
Int bonus is taken into account, for a start.

No, it isn't. A level 1 Wizard with 16 Int and a Level 12 Wizard with 16 Int will take the exact same amount of time preparing spells, despite the second having many more to take care of.

I understand you want to justify it, and that's great. Me, I'll just be glad for 4th edition streamlining the system, and for the UA variants.

JellyPooga
2010-02-13, 02:26 PM
Preparing spells can only be done with a fresh mind. The process simply isn't possible if you're least bit tired. Casting spells tends to make you tired as does staying awake. You can't just "rest a bit"; you're still tired after resting a bit. You don't "rest the spellslot open", you rest until you reach a mental state where you are able to prepare spells again.

I don't buy it. Some Wizard is sitting in his laboratory, his spells already prepared. He casts a single spell; let's say he casts Comprehend Languages to read a foreign book. Having read his book, he sits back and closes his eyes for a bit, to clear his mind. You can't tell me that casting that one spell is fatiguing enough to warrant an entire 8 hours of rest and meditation to clear his mind sufficiently to prepare another spell in place of the one he just cast. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, in an "adventuring" day where you're travelling, fighting, running, jumping and climbing trees (or whatever), sure your argument makes sense...resting "a little bit" doesn't help enough because your mind is clouded by the other activities you've been pursuing that day. But as general fluff for a spellcasting system, it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

lesser_minion
2010-02-13, 02:42 PM
No, it isn't. A level 1 Wizard with 16 Int and a Level 12 Wizard with 16 Int will take the exact same amount of time preparing spells, despite the second having many more to take care of.

I understand you want to justify it, and that's great. Me, I'll just be glad for 4th edition streamlining the system, and for the UA variants.

Well, they have the same int bonus don't they?

On the flip side, a 1st level generalist wizard with 11 Int takes 15 minutes to prepare a spell while a 1st level generalist wizard with 13 Int takes 12 minutes.

In any event, this isn't a problem with the system - it's not like the only options are "one hour to prepare a full load of spells" or "fifteen minutes per spell level".

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 03:10 PM
Well, they have the same int bonus don't they?

But it will still stay the same even if the level 12 has an Int of 18. Or 20. It's not intuitive.


In any event, this isn't a problem with the system - it's not like the only options are "one hour to prepare a full load of spells" or "fifteen minutes per spell level".

It's a problem with verisimilitude, as I said before.

A level 1 Psion wakes up and meditates for one round - and he's good to go. The same Psion at level 18 takes no less time - even though he has a lot more powers and PP rattling around in his skull. But it makes more sense, because he isn't "pre-casting" anything, or even worse "rememorizing" anything.

Also, your Vancian fluff is inconsistent - in the Nether Scrolls series, Druhallen described it as literally forgetting the spell every time it was cast, not "precasting."

It's just a clunky, messy system that even the authors who use it can't keep straight.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 03:52 PM
But it will still stay the same even if the level 12 has an Int of 18. Or 20. It's not intuitive.

Technically, a 12th level wizard with an Int of 20 will take slightly less time per spell to prepare spells than a 12th level wizard with Int 16, since the former can prepare two more bonus spells in the same amount of time.


A level 1 Psion wakes up and meditates for one round - and he's good to go. The same Psion at level 18 takes no less time - even though he has a lot more powers and PP rattling around in his skull. But it makes more sense, because he isn't "pre-casting" anything, or even worse "rememorizing" anything.

Hypothetically, one can precast faster and faster as you level up, because your mind expands and you become more used to completing the ritual gestures. This explains why a level 12 wizard takes only a fraction of the time required by a novice to prepare a 1st level spell. However, the fact that it always takes one hour to prepare all spells is somewhat contrived.


Also, your Vancian fluff is inconsistent - in the Nether Scrolls series, Druhallen described it as literally forgetting the spell every time it was cast, not "precasting."

Technically, you precast in the morning (as I understand it) and when you cast the spell it becomes erased from your mind (you forget it). D&D simply added an element of precasting to the initial stage of memorization to represent that the spells are actually highly complex works of arcane power that require large amount of time to unleash.


It's just a clunky, messy system that even the authors who use it can't keep straight.

Well, the logic of it is rather messy, but the actual mechanics of it are straightforward.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 04:01 PM
Well, the logic of it is rather messy, but the actual mechanics of it are straightforward.

Recharge magic, spell points and psionics are straightforward too, but the fluff is far more consistent. And 4e's at-wills, encounters, dailies are the most straightforward of all. So I'll take those, thanks.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 04:03 PM
Recharge magic, spell points and psionics are straightforward too, but the fluff is far more consistent. And 4e's at-wills, encounters, dailies are the most straightforward of all. So I'll take those, thanks.

How is having a category of magic that only comes back when you've stopped being near an opponent for a while logical? [Note that, under the rules, even if you're in a safe location while a battle drags on for 5 minutes, you still don't get your encounter power back.

Gametime
2010-02-13, 04:44 PM
How is having a category of magic that only comes back when you've stopped being near an opponent for a while logical? [Note that, under the rules, even if you're in a safe location while a battle drags on for 5 minutes, you still don't get your encounter power back.

That's debatable. The rules for what makes you involved in an encounter aren't explicitly spelled out, but the implication is that, if you can make it five minutes without strenuously exerting yourself, you've taken a short rest. There's nothing in the description of the rest that says a battle can't be fought near you, or that simply being near potentially hostile enemies prevents you from resting. The PHB just implies that you won't successfully rest if people are trying to wail on you, which is perfectly reasonable.


You can use encounter powers many times during a day of adventuring, but you have to rest a few minutes between each use, so you can use them each once per encounter.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 04:47 PM
That's debatable. The rules for what makes you involved in an encounter aren't explicitly spelled out, but the implication is that, if you can make it five minutes without strenuously exerting yourself, you've taken a short rest. There's nothing in the description of the rest that says a battle can't be fought near you, or that simply being near potentially hostile enemies prevents you from resting. The PHB just implies that you won't successfully rest if people are trying to wail on you, which is perfectly reasonable.

Why can't you make concentration checks to re-gather your magic in the middle of combat? If a short mental rest if all that is necessary, there should logically be some way to achieve this process in combat.

Or was concentration removed from the skill list (along with a lot of other logical skills)?

Eldariel
2010-02-13, 04:51 PM
I don't buy it. Some Wizard is sitting in his laboratory, his spells already prepared. He casts a single spell; let's say he casts Comprehend Languages to read a foreign book. Having read his book, he sits back and closes his eyes for a bit, to clear his mind. You can't tell me that casting that one spell is fatiguing enough to warrant an entire 8 hours of rest and meditation to clear his mind sufficiently to prepare another spell in place of the one he just cast. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, in an "adventuring" day where you're travelling, fighting, running, jumping and climbing trees (or whatever), sure your argument makes sense...resting "a little bit" doesn't help enough because your mind is clouded by the other activities you've been pursuing that day. But as general fluff for a spellcasting system, it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Don't buy it, then. All I'm saying is, it makes perfect sense to me. Maybe the mental fatigue caused by casting a spell is just different type of fatigue than what you'd normally associate with the word and requires extended sleep to clear or whatever. I don't really see how that's implausible from a no-expectations point .

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 04:53 PM
Don't buy it, then. All I'm saying is, it makes perfect sense to me. Maybe the mental fatigue caused by casting a spell is just different type of fatigue than what you'd normally associate with the word and requires extended sleep to clear or whatever. I don't really see how that's implausible from a no-expectations point .

Certainly. Also, the wizard could simply have prepared multiple copies of Comprehend Languages.

Spells represent discrete packets of arcane energy arranged in specific formats, and it is dangerous (if not impossible) for the mortal mind to gather more than a certain amount of this energy per day per level.

Gametime
2010-02-13, 05:01 PM
Why can't you make concentration checks to re-gather your magic in the middle of combat? If a short mental rest if all that is necessary, there should logically be some way to achieve this process in combat.

Or was concentration removed from the skill list (along with a lot of other logical skills)?

You CAN re-gather your magic in the middle of combat. It just takes five minutes to do and requires that you not strenuously exert yourself. If you can survive for five minutes in combat without doing anything special, congratulations, you can get your encounter powers back with no check necessary.

Most people can't do that. 50 rounds of getting beaten up is enough to kill most players.

I don't have a problem with the casting system in 3.5, but it is the way it is for primarily balance reasons. The fact that recovery times are static makes little sense, but it's the best way to handle spell recovery without getting into either needlessly complicated or easily abused rules. I don't think 4th edition is significantly more sensible; it does appeal to me a bit more, since power recovery is all based on how well you can rest yourself, but there are verisimilitude problems with both.

Concentration was removed from 4th edition - mostly because it only had a few uses: casting defensively was removed, while casting in the face of damage is automatically possible.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 05:10 PM
You CAN re-gather your magic in the middle of combat. It just takes five minutes to do and requires that you not strenuously exert yourself. If you can survive for five minutes in combat without doing anything special, congratulations, you can get your encounter powers back with no check necessary.

Not by the rules that you just posted.


Most people can't do that. 50 rounds of getting beaten up is enough to kill most players.

I'm not saying that it seems likely, I'm just saying that the rules are phrased in such a way as to make this eventuality impossible, which is counter intuitive (for example, one might be able to use encounter powers more than once a day in the middle of a war).


I don't have a problem with the casting system in 3.5, but it is the way it is for primarily balance reasons. The fact that recovery times are static makes little sense, but it's the best way to handle spell recovery without getting into either needlessly complicated or easily abused rules. I don't think 4th edition is significantly more sensible; it does appeal to me a bit more, since power recovery is all based on how well you can rest yourself, but there are verisimilitude problems with both.

While it might not be balanced, that doesn't prevent it from being fun. Only a minority of people play casters to begin with because it takes too much work (I have a quasi-dedicated optimizer in my campaign who mainly plays tanks because he finds them to be more fun) and of those not many will have read enough online optimization to totally break the game. Also, DMs can generally keep them within reasonable limits, and they work within the party anyways.

Having one category of daily spells makes sense to me, because magic requires a huge amount of effort to break through reality to spells, and then once your gateway through the 4th wall reality is closed you're done for the day(although reserve feats are an interesting add-on). Encounter powers, though, don't make much sense as written.


Concentration was removed from 4th edition - mostly because it only had a few uses: casting defensively was removed, while casting in the face of damage is automatically possible.

Really? Getting stabbed in the face doesn't cause you to lose your train of thought?

Optimystik
2010-02-14, 05:36 PM
How is having a category of magic that only comes back when you've stopped being near an opponent for a while logical? [Note that, under the rules, even if you're in a safe location while a battle drags on for 5 minutes, you still don't get your encounter power back.

You have to have a short rest to recover encounter powers, that makes perfect sense.

lesser_minion
2010-02-14, 05:52 PM
Recharge magic, spell points and psionics are straightforward too, but the fluff is far more consistent. And 4e's at-wills, encounters, dailies are the most straightforward of all. So I'll take those, thanks.

You mean the fluff that is presented in the game (which has no bearing whatsoever on how good or bad the concept of Vancian magic is) is inconsistent. It's not like it's hard to change.

taltamir
2010-02-14, 07:52 PM
Wizards are the stronger class, hands down. However, I prefer playing sorcerers, myself*. I hate having to keep track of all the spells known and prepared each day. :tongue:

*I should say, I prefer spontaneous casting over prepared casting.

disclaimer: when built properly, with access to by the RAW cheese, abusing broken spells with no DM punishment, with non traditional gameplay (aka, you do not follow your party into the dungeon).

for example of properly built, a major requirement for playing a kick ass wizard is being a specialist, preferably a double specialized wizard.

example of by the raw cheese: meta reducers, action economy breakers like celerity, abusing shapechange, abusing gate, abusing divination, etc.

normally, your dm will NOT let you get away with such playstyle so your wizard will be a lot weaker... you will be a big squishy target with a pittiful amount of spells, casting haste and glitterdust and grease and praying nobody decides to kill you.

Runestar
2010-02-14, 08:26 PM
you will be a big squishy target with a pittiful amount of spells, casting haste and glitterdust and grease and praying nobody decides to kill you.

Isn't this exactly what god wizards do to ensure nobody kills them? :smallamused:

mostlyharmful
2010-02-15, 06:28 AM
no, they cast about a third of their spell load to increase their own durability, miss chances, movement forms, invisibility spells, illusions, form changes, decoys, etc.... If you're a focussed specialist that still has some combination of illusion/Conjuration/Transmutation/Necromancy you'll be fine.

Hopeless
2010-02-15, 06:48 AM
In Dungeons & Dragons v. 3.0 and 3.5, which do you feel is the better arcane spellcasting class, wizards or sorcerers? Which would you say gets the better tradeoff between their separate spellcasting systems?

That depends on answering three questions;

1) What setting you're using since if you're running Blackmoor then I suggest you forget running a sorceror since wizards have a heck of alot more going for it thanks to all of the sorceror hate in that setting!

2) Your dm, I've played in games where the dm chose all of the sorceror spells' even if the player wasn't interested in running a blaster style spellcaster. Another game I ran a sorceror where I tried my best to avoid any spells relying on spell components until I could gain the eschew material feat (3.0) and ended up having to select identify because my character was the only arcane spellcaster in a group of 13 players!

3) What you prefer to play, sounds a mite odd but the first sorceror I ran was due to multiclassing from a cleric who was aged by the ghost of a black dragon to over 80 years of age.
My interest at that time was because of the two item creation feats my character had at that point (Scribe Scroll and Brew Ingestibles for those familiar with Alchemists' & Herbalists) looking to obtain those spells I knew the wizard had access to and cast but the dm had other ideas (see above about that).

Sorry to go a little off course but its been a while since I've seen one of these threads!

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 07:54 AM
Regardless of which spells they are? Or how many times he's prepared/cast them before in his career? And regardless of his Int bonus?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly for me.

How complex do you want this mechanic? Claiming that this breaks verisimulitude is like complaining about the lack of location-specific hits in D&D.

The system isn't supposed to reach that level of detail, and trying to make it do so tends to mess it up badly.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 08:51 AM
How complex do you want this mechanic? Claiming that this breaks verisimulitude is like complaining about the lack of location-specific hits in D&D.

The system isn't supposed to reach that level of detail, and trying to make it do so tends to mess it up badly.

Other (read: better) systems manage to maintain credulity without being "messed up badly." I rest, I regain my spell points; or, my magic is continually recharging; or, I have two levels of rest: a brief one for lesser (encounter) powers, and an extended one for greater (daily) ones.

I love the Spell Point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) variant, and especially the Vitalizing variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm#spellPointVariantVitalizing) of that variant. As your points drop, you become more tired (going from fatigued to exhausted) and then must rest. This is a lot more interesting - and again, has more verisimilitude - than the Vancian slot system. Vancian is more difficult to determine tiredness with. Which is more taxing; using all of one's 9th-level spells or all of one's 1st- and 2nd-level spells? Is it simply using a percentage of one's slots per day? Should casting a 9th-level spell tire me more than a 2nd-level one? And so on.

Though less granular, Recharge Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) is also a more sensible system. Spell levels are no longer just arbitrary measures of relative power - now each represents a partition of the caster's mind, and using spells from each of the levels forces the others of that level onto a cooldown. What I like about this one is that it completely removes the "15-minute adventuring day" problem - PCs will never feel like they have to retreat or Rope Trick to rest before a big fight, because the casters never depend on sleep to access their powers. You can keep the suspenseful feel of a time limit campaign ("the cultists are about to sacrifice the princess, hurry!") without the casters feeling like they're running on empty and therefore marginalized.

The best part is that under both variants, you never have to "precast" a spell more than once, which removes the question of why under Vancian you can't simply precast a spell again after having used it without an extended rest. If you somehow knew what you were doing in the morning, why can't you repeat those steps until you've faffed about or slept for 8 hours? And why can you never do this, even though you are supposedly (as you claim) getting faster and better at preparation as you advance in levels?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 09:01 AM
As your points drop, you become more tired (going from fatigued to exhausted) and then must rest. This is a lot more interesting - and again, has more verisimilitude - than the Vancian slot system. Vancian is more difficult to determine tiredness with. Which is more taxing; using all of one's 9th-level spells or all of one's 1st- and 2nd-level spells? Is it simply using a percentage of one's slots per day? Should casting a 9th-level spell tire me more than a 2nd-level one? And so on.

Whatever you want. Just because it isn't specified in the rules doesn't prevent you from roleplaying it.

And the limitation need not even be simply exaustion. People have limits on memory, and can generally only memorize so much per day. This is why cramming for tests works so poorly. You need not actually be tired to be unable to further memorize things effectively.


The best part is that under both variants, you never have to "precast" a spell more than once, which removes the question of why under Vancian you can't simply precast a spell again after having used it without an extended rest. If you somehow knew what you were doing in the morning, why can't you repeat those steps until you've faffed about or slept for 8 hours? And why can you never do this, even though you are supposedly (as you claim) getting faster and better at preparation as you advance in levels?

Because it erases the knowledge from your mind. If you woke up, memorized one spell, used it, memorized another spell, used it...you can do that too. You don't HAVE to memorize every single spell you can cram in your head before breakfast.

Yes, eventually you'll learn how to memorize spells better. We represent this via leveling up. You can then use those spell slots throughout the day to refresh spells, if you wish. Your decision to max everything out right away is not a required one, and thus, your complaints about the lack of verisimulitude caused by it, from your perspective, are caused only by your choice.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 09:22 AM
Whatever you want. Just because it isn't specified in the rules doesn't prevent you from roleplaying it.

The fact that I can repair fluff by spinning it myself does not make it well-made. Indeed, the fact that I need to repair it suggests the opposite.

This is particularly true for fluff with mechanical ramifications. Sure I can roleplay being tired, but there are gameplay effects that actually depend on my character's level of tiredness. So now I have the choice of convincing my DM to actually apply that condition to my character for verisimilitude's sake (despite it not being in the rules), then deciding what good thresholds for spell usage vs. tiredness are under Vancian, examining how they interact with exisiting tiredness effects, considering interactions with metamagic and reducers... Or, I can just use a system that has been created and tested for me, and not worry about all that prep work and bookkeeping. It seems like an easy choice to me.


And the limitation need not even be simply exaustion. People have limits on memory, and can generally only memorize so much per day. This is why cramming for tests works so poorly. You need not actually be tired to be unable to further memorize things effectively.

That memorization limit applies to Spell Points and Recharge magic as well. It is not a point in Vancian's favor.

In fact, it's even better under the other two systems. Just like real life, I only have to memorize something once to use it multiple times - whether I spend spell points on it, or a cooldown. You don't forget your notes halfway through a test just because you applied them at the beginning. On the contrary, using them should make you MORE apt to remember them subsequently, not less.

...Unless you have Alzheimer's that is. (See below.)


Because it erases the knowledge from your mind.

And again, I find wizards with Alzheimer's unappealing.


If you woke up, memorized one spell, used it, memorized another spell, used it...you can do that too. You don't HAVE to memorize every single spell you can cram in your head before breakfast.

Yes, eventually you'll learn how to memorize spells better. We represent this via leveling up. You can then use those spell slots throughout the day to refresh spells, if you wish. Your decision to max everything out right away is not a required one, and thus, your complaints about the lack of verisimulitude caused by it, from your perspective, are caused only by your choice.

Except doing that drags the game, because I need a minimum of 15 minutes downtime for each of those spells. So I'm forced to either prepare a quarter of my complement every time I stop for 15 minutes (whether I want to do so or not), or take more 15-minute stops throughout the day as I prepare spells individually - wasting my time, and that of my party members, and removing any sense of urgency from the campaign.

Do not want.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 10:56 AM
The fact that I can repair fluff by spinning it myself does not make it well-made. Indeed, the fact that I need to repair it suggests the opposite.

No, no, I said you can change it. I did not say repair. I see no inherent virtue to either "using magic makes me tired" or "using magic does not make me tired".

They are simply different. If you don't like one, you can use the other.


This is particularly true for fluff with mechanical ramifications. Sure I can roleplay being tired, but there are gameplay effects that actually depend on my character's level of tiredness. So now I have the choice of convincing my DM to actually apply that condition to my character for verisimilitude's sake (despite it not being in the rules), then deciding what good thresholds for spell usage vs. tiredness are under Vancian, examining how they interact with exisiting tiredness effects, considering interactions with metamagic and reducers... Or, I can just use a system that has been created and tested for me, and not worry about all that prep work and bookkeeping. It seems like an easy choice to me.



That memorization limit applies to Spell Points and Recharge magic as well. It is not a point in Vancian's favor.

You completely missed the point that an inability to memorize something is a different condition entirely from being tired, and that the first does not require the second.

Vancian does not require being tired in order to work.


In fact, it's even better under the other two systems. Just like real life, I only have to memorize something once to use it multiple times - whether I spend spell points on it, or a cooldown. You don't forget your notes halfway through a test just because you applied them at the beginning. On the contrary, using them should make you MORE apt to remember them subsequently, not less.

The entire point of vancian magic is that using magic erases the entire spell from your mind. This has nothing to do with Alzheimer's, it's simply how the casting system works. The spell has literally left your mind. Think of the discworld series, and how the great spells are potrayed as sentient. Having one in your head leaves no room for others, and it wants to get out. The idea of casting it repeatedly based off reading it once simply does not mesh with the fluff at all.


Except doing that drags the game, because I need a minimum of 15 minutes downtime for each of those spells. So I'm forced to either prepare a quarter of my complement every time I stop for 15 minutes (whether I want to do so or not), or take more 15-minute stops throughout the day as I prepare spells individually - wasting my time, and that of my party members, and removing any sense of urgency from the campaign.

Do not want.

Does not your int modifier reduce this? What wizard does not boost his int modifier? Or you could use Mnemmonic enhancer.

Either way, you're not prevented from re-memorizing spells by the system...you're prevented from doing so by your desire for convenience. Nothing wrong with that, but attacking the system because of it is a wee bit unfair.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 11:05 AM
No, no, I said you can change it. I did not say repair. I see no inherent virtue to either "using magic makes me tired" or "using magic does not make me tired".

They are simply different. If you don't like one, you can use the other.

I know that. My point is that one is much more easily modeled without Vance.

The system that is more adaptable with less bookkeeping, has superior design.


You completely missed the point that an inability to memorize something is a different condition entirely from being tired, and that the first does not require the second.

Vancian does not require being tired in order to work.

No, but the system makes introducing such a mechanic cumbersome - I have already elaborated why.


The entire point of vancian magic is that using magic erases the entire spell from your mind. This has nothing to do with Alzheimer's, it's simply how the casting system works.

Randomly forgetting things I should know how to do has nothing to do with Alzheimer's? :smallamused:


The spell has literally left your mind. Think of the discworld series, and how the great spells are potrayed as sentient. Having one in your head leaves no room for others, and it wants to get out. The idea of casting it repeatedly based off reading it once simply does not mesh with the fluff at all.

I'm no expert on Discworld by any means, but my understanding is that the universe is primarily humorous fantasy. If that's the flavor your campaign is going for, bully for you - I'm sure all kinds of punchlines can be derived from wizards who forget their magic, and spells that want nothing more than to break free of their casters' skulls. But such mystical slapstick has no place in serious fantasy, in my opinion.


Does not your int modifier reduce this?

No it doesn't - the minimum is a hard 15 minutes, per the SRD. "To achieve the required mental state" or somesuch.


Either way, you're not prevented from re-memorizing spells by the system...you're prevented from doing so by your desire for convenience. Nothing wrong with that, but attacking the system because of it is a wee bit unfair.

If the system arbitrarily opposes my desire for convenience, I have every right to attack it. Neither the spell point variant nor the recharge magic variant make spells fall out of my skull, thank you.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 11:25 AM
I know that. My point is that one is much more easily modeled without Vance.

It's a mechanic that is not part of vancian magic, that's why. There's no particular reason why you should suddenly because exausted. The heavy lifting is pre-casting all the spells at the beginning of the day. Completing the spells is a comparatively minor deed.

What you are asking for is something that isn't included because it wouldn't make any sense, and complaining that it's lack hampers verisimulitude.


The system that is more adaptable with less bookkeeping, has superior design.

No. Adaptability is not the only desirable attribute of a system. Otherwise, we'd all be playing freeform.


No, but the system makes introducing such a mechanic cumbersome - I have already elaborated why.

So? If you insist on entirely changing the fluff, thats going to happen.


Randomly forgetting things I should know how to do has nothing to do with Alzheimer's? :smallamused:

The point is that, according to the fluff, you should not remember the spell after having cast it any more than a building would remember you for being in it, and thus, possess a copy of you. In this fluff, spells are more like entities, and much less like ordinary information.


I'm no expert on Discworld by any means, but my understanding is that the universe is primarily humorous fantasy. If that's the flavor your campaign is going for, bully for you - I'm sure all kinds of punchlines can be derived from wizards who forget their magic, and spells that want nothing more than to break free of their casters' skulls. But such mystical slapstick has no place in serious fantasy, in my opinion.

You've missed the point again. This isn't about slapstick in any way, and the particular aspect I pointed out is part of the setting, not humor itself. Vancian magic is also used in serious settings.... Yknow...like Jack Vance's books.


No it doesn't - the minimum is a hard 15 minutes, per the SRD. "To achieve the required mental state" or somesuch.

Ah, misread what lesser_minion was stating. Gotcha.


If the system arbitrarily opposes my desire for convenience, I have every right to attack it. Neither the spell point variant nor the recharge magic variant make spells fall out of my skull, thank you.

Why do you have such issues with things not being memorized after casting?

And a desire for convenience/power is entirely different from a lack of verisimulitude, for which you originally criticized it.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 11:35 AM
I know that. My point is that one is much more easily modeled without Vance.

The system that is more adaptable with less bookkeeping, has superior design.

Except that it isn't. It's much more easily modelled without spell slots, which are not an inherent part of Vancian magic.


No, but the system makes introducing such a mechanic cumbersome - I have already elaborated why.

Spell slots do. You fail to explain why the system couldn't have been "you can prepare 200 points' worth of spells", however.


Randomly forgetting things I should know how to do has nothing to do with Alzheimer's? :smallamused:

When it's very clearly a consequence of casting the spell and not 'random' as you claim, yes it does have nothing to do with Alzheimer's.

Vancian magic clearly ties the energy used to cast the spell to the spell itself.

Spell points, 4e, and recharge magic have no excuse beyond "Vancian magic has preparation" for requiring casters to memorise their spells. They actually do entail casters randomly forgetting how to cast spells instead of making use of spells that are stored in their mind (in the same way as they might be bound into a wand or a scroll).


I'm no expert on Discworld by any means, but my understanding is that the universe is primarily humorous fantasy. If that's the flavor your campaign is going for, bully for you - I'm sure all kinds of punchlines can be derived from wizards who forget their magic, and spells that want nothing more than to break free of their casters' skulls. But such mystical slapstick has no place in serious fantasy, in my opinion.

But Vancian magic is no more associated with non-serious fantasy than it is with spell slots.

Discworld actually played it as "the effort required to achieve an end is independent of the route used" and "you could always do it with magic, but in the end, magic always presents its bill, which is always more than you can afford". Terry Pratchett played magic being totally and utterly useless for comedy, not wizards forgetting spells that they had cast.


No it doesn't - the minimum is a hard 15 minutes, per the SRD. "To achieve the required mental state" or somesuch.

Because fifteen minutes is so much considering that you're already spending a tonne of time gathering up loot and catching your breath after a fight.


If the system arbitrarily opposes my desire for convenience, I have every right to attack it. Neither the spell point variant nor the recharge magic variant make spells fall out of my skull, thank you.

Erm... yes they do, and with less justification. What happens to the spells you decide not to prepare on any given day? Do you just randomly forget them?

Forgetting how to use a spell because you'd rather use a different spell is far worse than forgetting a spell as a direct consequence of casting it (and, remember that the energy to cast the spell is stored in the caster's mind with the spell, so whether they remember it or not, they still can't cast it).

Gnaeus
2010-02-15, 11:40 AM
I know that. My point is that one is much more easily modeled without Vance.

Randomly forgetting things I should know how to do has nothing to do with Alzheimer's? :smallamused:

If you don't like the fluff about forgetting spells, you can use Vancian without it. You "Cast" the spell in the morning, which takes several minutes (actually an hour, to "Cast" all your spells). You leave out a few words or gestures which are needed to "complete" the spell, which is what you are actually doing in combat. You might remember how the spell went, but repeating those words doesn't actually do anything because they were only the trigger to complete a spell cast earlier. Amber diceless calls this "hanging" spells.

No Alzheimers. Problem all fixed.


It just doesn't make sense. Sure, in an "adventuring" day where you're travelling, fighting, running, jumping and climbing trees (or whatever), sure your argument makes sense...resting "a little bit" doesn't help enough because your mind is clouded by the other activities you've been pursuing that day. But as general fluff for a spellcasting system, it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Maybe your spells can only be prepared at midnight, or dawn.

Maybe the spells aren't in your mind, but part of a magical field around you. When you discharge the spell, you have used all the energy there, but it is still in that space messing up other spells until time has passed, or you clean your aura.

If you spent as much time trying to think of a reason for it to make sense as you seem to spend thinking of reasons for it not to make sense, it shouldn't be a problem. As it turns out, its imaginary.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 11:54 AM
It's a mechanic that is not part of vancian magic, that's why. There's no particular reason why you should suddenly because exausted. The heavy lifting is pre-casting all the spells at the beginning of the day. Completing the spells is a comparatively minor deed.

Even when completing said spells takes minutes, hours and even days of casting?

Take a spell like Legend Lore. Under Vancian magic, it takes less than an hour to prepare, yet weeks to complete. Which end is the "heavy lifting?"

EDIT: I'll direct that particular issue to Gnaeus' "fix" too.


What you are asking for is something that isn't included because it wouldn't make any sense, and complaining that it's lack hampers verisimulitude.

No, I was using it as an example of a way that Vancian precludes options by its very nature.

You can include those options via houseruling, of course, but that doesn't make the flavor dissonance any less jarring.


No. Adaptability is not the only desirable attribute of a system. Otherwise, we'd all be playing freeform.

But it is one desirable attribute. What exactly does Vancian offer that Spell Points and Recharge magic don't?


So? If you insist on entirely changing the fluff, thats going to happen.

In what way am I changing the fluff? Under Vancian, wizards get alzheimer's - under the other systems, they don't. That wasn't my decision.


The point is that, according to the fluff, you should not remember the spell after having cast it any more than a building would remember you for being in it, and thus, possess a copy of you. In this fluff, spells are more like entities, and much less like ordinary information.

So let me get this straight - spells are like entities in this specific instance, and not at all like entities in any other way - and you're wondering why I claim it breaks verisimilitude?


You've missed the point again. This isn't about slapstick in any way, and the particular aspect I pointed out is part of the setting, not humor itself. Vancian magic is also used in serious settings.... Yknow...like Jack Vance's books.

I haven't read them, so I'll have to take your word for it. What I have read is the Nether Scrolls series, where Druhallen's POV described the process of preparing spells and casting them. He literally forgot his magic every day until his spellbook refreshed his memory - until a fragment of a Nether Scroll let him cast a spell spontaneously. The book strongly implies that Vancian magic is inferior - a limitation imposed on mortal wizards by Mystra after Netheril's fall - and that being able to cast spells at will was the original state of magic.


Why do you have such issues with things not being memorized after casting?

Because it doesn't make sense that after I memorize something several days in a row, I'm no better at keeping it in my head!


And a desire for convenience/power is entirely different from a lack of verisimulitude, for which you originally criticized it.

So? I've got more than one problem with the system, obviously.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 12:11 PM
Except that it isn't. It's much more easily modelled without spell slots, which are not an inherent part of Vancian magic.

Vancian magic is fire-and-forget casting - which goes hand-in-hand with spell slots, and none of the three other systems.

Recharge Magic is probably the closest to Vancian of the three - you could fluff it as forgetting the spell for a brief time, or losing the energy to cast it for a brief time. The difference of course, is that you can recover this energy while on the move, making for a much more exciting and fast-paced campaign.


Spell slots do. You fail to explain why the system couldn't have been "you can prepare 200 points' worth of spells", however.

Because doing so would just be the current Vancian under a different ribbon. If charm person is worth 5 points, peparing 20 points worth of charm person would be preparing it 4 times. It's functionally no different from spell slots, and fire-and-forget casting.

Whereas under the actual spell points variant, you prepare one charm person, and can cast it four times if you wish (or something else that uses the available points.) So I'm not sure what you misunderstand about my position.


When it's very clearly a consequence of casting the spell and not 'random' as you claim, yes it does have nothing to do with Alzheimer's.

Yet other systems untie casting spells with forgetting them. Clearly it is not an essential part of the fluff.


Vancian magic clearly ties the energy used to cast the spell to the spell itself.

And I am saying this makes no sense. The energy I use to write a book is not tied to the ink I put on the page. I do not suddenly forget my ideas because I took the time to put them on paper, any more than I forget a musical piece by playing it, forget the rules of soccer when I score a goal, etc.


Spell points, 4e, and recharge magic have no excuse beyond "Vancian magic has preparation" for requiring casters to memorise their spells. They actually do entail casters randomly forgetting how to cast spells instead of making use of spells that are stored in their mind (in the same way as they might be bound into a wand or a scroll).

No, they don't. If I don't change my spell list under any of the other three methods, I don't have to undergo any more preparation. The only time I need to crack open my spellbook is if I'm swapping spells out, not if I'm preparing the same ones as before a la Vance.


But Vancian magic is no more associated with non-serious fantasy than it is with spell slots.

Discworld actually played it as "the effort required to achieve an end is independent of the route used" and "you could always do it with magic, but in the end, magic always presents its bill, which is always more than you can afford". Terry Pratchett played magic being totally and utterly useless for comedy, not wizards forgetting spells that they had cast.

If wizards in Discworld don't forget their spells, then they aren't using Vancian magic and there's no reason to discuss them.


Because fifteen minutes is so much considering that you're already spending a tonne of time gathering up loot and catching your breath after a fight.

Is combat the only time you cast spells?

For that matter, do you always have 15 minutes to sit around after a fight? Consider my earlier example with the party racing to stop that cult. The Recharge Mage doesn't have to stop at all. The Spell Point one can still cast what he has prepared,


Erm... yes they do, and with less justification. What happens to the spells you decide not to prepare on any given day? Do you just randomly forget them?

No, you forget them after an extended rest period, which makes much more sense. How sharply can you remember the previous day's/week's events?

For example: I prepare charm person once under Vance, then cast it. It's gone until I rest again, despite having just looked at the spell this morning. But under spell points and recharge magic, the spell stays in my head indefinitely until I willingly replace it with something else.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 12:13 PM
Even when completing said spells takes minutes, hours and even days of casting?

Take a spell like Legend Lore. Under Vancian magic, it takes less than an hour to prepare, yet weeks to complete. Which end is the "heavy lifting?"

EDIT: I'll direct that particular issue to Gnaeus' "fix" too.

It depends. Presumably the preparation stage where you actually bind the energy that goes into the spell.




No, I was using it as an example of a way that Vancian precludes options by its very nature.

You can include those options via houseruling, of course, but that doesn't make the flavor dissonance any less jarring.

But the absence of those options is nothing to do with Vancian magic, it's a problem with spell slots.


But it is one desirable attribute. What exactly does Vancian offer that Spell Points and Recharge magic don't?

A more interesting premise, a harder cap on spellcasting (if you want one), simpler bookkeeping


In what way am I changing the fluff? Under Vancian, wizards get alzheimer's - under the other systems, they don't. That wasn't my decision.

But they don't. Wizards get Alzheimer's under every system that isn't Vancian but still has spell preparation. Under Vancian, losing the spell is a direct consequence of casting it, and has at least as much to do with expending the energy bound to it as it does with any mundane notions of memory.


So let me get this straight - spells are like entities in this specific instance, and not at all like entities in any other way - and you're wondering why I claim it breaks verisimilitude?

Spell as discrete entities representing both the energy to produce an effect and a procedure for doing so? Not a problem.


I haven't read them, so I'll have to take your word for it. What I have read is the Nether Scrolls series, where Druhallen's POV described the process of preparing spells and casting them. He literally forgot his magic every day until his spellbook refreshed his memory - until a fragment of a Nether Scroll let him cast a spell spontaneously. The book strongly implies that Vancian magic is inferior - a limitation imposed on mortal wizards by Mystra after Netheril's fall - and that being able to cast spells at will was the original state of magic.

Because all D&D is the Forgotten Realms, clearly.

In any event, now you're having a deity mandate that you forget (or at least not use) the spell.


Because it doesn't make sense that after I memorize something several days in a row, I'm no better at keeping it in my head!

This is like arguing that after eating three hundred times you should never feel hungry for the rest of your life. The rules even note that the "spell energy" is one of the things stored within your mind.


Vancian magic is fire-and-forget casting - which goes hand-in-hand with spell slots, and none of the three other systems.

No, it doesn't. I could have wizards who memorise a certain number of points in spells, or a certain total number of spell levels (both of which are closer to the source)


Recharge Magic is probably the closest to Vancian of the three - you could fluff it as forgetting the spell for a brief time, or losing the energy to cast it for a brief time. The difference of course, is that you can recover this energy while on the move, making for a much more exciting and fast-paced campaign.

At the expense of having to track two durations for every effect, completely negating absolutely anything you gain.


Because doing so would just be the current Vancian under a different ribbon. If charm person is worth 5 points, peparing 20 points worth of charm person would be preparing it 4 times. It's functionally no different from spell slots, and fire-and-forget casting.

The point is that your 'problem' of fatigue not making sense only comes up under spell slots. Such a system has none of the problems you suggest, just the horrendous imbalance of spell points.


Whereas under the actual spell points variant, you prepare one charm person, and can cast it four times if you wish (or something else that uses the available points.) So I'm not sure what you misunderstand about my position.

What did you misunderstand about mine? You argued that spell points are more adaptable because you can tie them to how tired a caster is. You could do that with Vancian magic.


Yet other systems untie casting spells with forgetting them. Clearly it is not an essential part of the fluff.

Strangely, Vancian magic is no better or worse for the fact that other systems exist. Use something else if you like, but the problems you have with Vancian are not rational.


And I am saying this makes no sense. The energy I use to write a book is not tied to the ink I put on the page. I do not suddenly forget my ideas because I took the time to put them on paper, any more than I forget a musical piece by playing it, forget the rules of soccer when I score a goal, etc.

Yet... those are completely different cases. For a start, there is no need to actually 'forget' the spell in the sense of not remembering the words - they just lose their power. Secondly, magic, by definition, doesn't follow the rules of the mundane situations you describe.


No, they don't. If I don't change my spell list under any of the other three methods, I don't have to undergo any more preparation. The only time I need to crack open my spellbook is if I'm swapping spells out, not if I'm preparing the same ones as before a la Vance.

So... memorising a new spell now pushes an old one out of your head? I'll stick with something where it doesn't matter whether I know the words or not, thanks.


If wizards in Discworld don't forget their spells, then they aren't using Vancian magic and there's no reason to discuss them.

They do, the point is that that isn't the part that is played for comedy.


Is combat the only time you cast spells?

For that matter, do you always have 15 minutes to sit around after a fight? Consider my earlier example with the party racing to stop that cult. The Recharge Mage doesn't have to stop at all. The Spell Point one can still cast what he has prepared,

The recharge mage has to remember when his spells come back, actually. As for the racing to stop the cult thing, that just makes Vancian magic into 'hard mode'.


No, you forget them after an extended rest period, which makes much more sense. How sharply can you remember the previous day's/week's events?

You mean the complicated magical technique that you've been taught repeatedly is something you can just 'forget' at will?

Forgive me for thinking that that doesn't make sense. At least in Vancian the spell itself is distinct from the complicated magical technique.


For example: I prepare charm person once under Vance, then cast it. It's gone until I rest again, despite having just looked at the spell this morning. But under spell points and recharge magic, the spell stays in my head indefinitely until I willingly replace it with something else.

Under Vancian magic, the juice to cast it is gone. An advantage to Vancian magic is that it also follows the same pattern as many magic items in the game.

Note that you don't forget a spell if you're able to supply the energy for it using a magic item or other source.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 12:20 PM
Even when completing said spells takes minutes, hours and even days of casting?

Take a spell like Legend Lore. Under Vancian magic, it takes less than an hour to prepare, yet weeks to complete. Which end is the "heavy lifting?"

EDIT: I'll direct that particular issue to Gnaeus' "fix" too.

In those special cases, you can't cast other spells at the same time, so the issue of recharging slots midday and such just isn't important.

In general practice, you spend a round or less casting most spells. Perhaps some spells just, for whatever reason, cannot be finished in that time. Perhaps legend lore is a complicated spell, and can't be completed in an hour.

It's magic.


I haven't read them, so I'll have to take your word for it. What I have read is the Nether Scrolls series, where Druhallen's POV described the process of preparing spells and casting them. He literally forgot his magic every day until his spellbook refreshed his memory - until a fragment of a Nether Scroll let him cast a spell spontaneously. The book strongly implies that Vancian magic is inferior - a limitation imposed on mortal wizards by Mystra after Netheril's fall - and that being able to cast spells at will was the original state of magic.

That's certainly one way to look at it. No doubt many dragons and kobolds will share this viewpoint, as will a great number of sorcerers.

After all, if everything else is equal, then yes, spont is superior to prepared. The issue when comparing wizards with sorcs(to tie this back to the original topic), is that all else is NOT equal.


Because it doesn't make sense that after I memorize something several days in a row, I'm no better at keeping it in my head!

You have problems with the idea that memorization works differently with regards to magic, but not with the idea that so do things like conservation of energy? Dude, it's magic.

mostlyharmful
2010-02-15, 12:36 PM
That's certainly one way to look at it. No doubt many dragons and kobolds will share this viewpoint, as will a great number of sorcerers.

After all, if everything else is equal, then yes, spont is superior to prepared. The issue when comparing wizards with sorcs(to tie this back to the original topic), is that all else is NOT equal.

It's also how the 2E Netherize 'Arcarnist' class worked, they had one try with each spell to learn it, once they had they could just 'reach into the weave' and cast it. Only one try though and if you fluff the learning you are barred from ever learning it.

You can pick up a free PDF of it here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Netheril:_Empire_of_Magic)

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 12:53 PM
Dude, it's magic.

I'm aware of that little detail - hence my use of the phrase "verisimilitude" rather than "realism."

Minion, you have a lot of points - forgive me if I miss a couple, just call attention to them and I'll try to address them.


It depends. Presumably the preparation stage where you actually bind the energy that goes into the spell.

If you're "binding energy" every time you prepare spells, why doesn't a Wizard's bald head detect as magic?


But the absence of those options is nothing to do with Vancian magic, it's a problem with spell slots.

I'm having trouble extricating the two, as Vancian magic is the only explanation for spell slots that WotC has put forward prior to UA and psionics - to my knowledge, anyway.


A more interesting premise, a harder cap on spellcasting (if you want one), simpler bookkeeping

A) We'll have to agree to disagree on the first one. I find points and recharge magic far more interesting.

B) It's easy to cap the other two if you want - just limit the number of times the wizard can cast a given spell per day. Once his uses are up, he has to use his remaining points on other spells (SP Variant) or the given spell won't recharge until he's rested (RM Variant.)

But personally, I'd rather let the player manage his own resources.

C) You've got to be kidding - Vancian has the worst bookkeeping of the three. With the others, I don't have to rewrite the spells section of my character sheet every morning.


But they don't. Wizards get Alzheimer's under every system that isn't Vancian but still has spell preparation. Under Vancian, losing the spell is a direct consequence of casting it, and has at least as much to do with expending the energy bound to it as it does with any mundane notions of memory.
...
Spell as discrete entities representing both the energy to produce an effect and a procedure for doing so? Not a problem.
...
This is like arguing that after eating three hundred times you should never feel hungry for the rest of your life. The rules even note that the "spell energy" is one of the things stored within your mind.

If the energy is the only thing that you lose, then why do you need a book to prepare your spells?


Because all D&D is the Forgotten Realms, clearly.

In any event, now you're having a deity mandate that you forget (or at least not use) the spell.

I apologize, but the FR explanation for this silly system is the only one I've ever read. And at least Mystra having it in for mortal casters makes sense for the system to be onerous, by saddling them with it.


No, it doesn't. I could have wizards who memorise a certain number of points in spells, or a certain total number of spell levels (both of which are closer to the source)

Which, as I pointed out before, would be identical to spell slots in all but name and therefore a cosmetic change at best.


At the expense of having to track two durations for every effect, completely negating absolutely anything you gain.

It's no more difficult than tracking any other mechanic with a cooldown, like Binder abilities. And guess what - the cooldown elapses while travelling.

"You dimly hear the sounds of chanting at the end of the hallway - the cultist ritual is nearing its climax. You don't have much time!"
"How long does it take us to run down the hall?"
"2 minutes."
*rolls* "Good, now I have these spells available." *checks them off.*


The point is that your 'problem' of fatigue not making sense only comes up under spell slots. Such a system has none of the problems you suggest, just the horrendous imbalance of spell points.

Spell Points, imbalanced? Must be how Psionics got so terribly broken.


What did you misunderstand about mine? You argued that spell points are more adaptable because you can tie them to how tired a caster is. You could do that with Vancian magic.

I addressed the problems with doing so under Vancian earlier.


Strangely, Vancian magic is no better or worse for the fact that other systems exist. Use something else if you like, but the problems you have with Vancian are not rational.

They're perfectly rational. How can you point out the flaws with a system with no basis of comparison?


Yet... those are completely different cases. For a start, there is no need to actually 'forget' the spell in the sense of not remembering the words - they just lose their power. Secondly, magic, by definition, doesn't follow the rules of the mundane situations you describe.

Again - If you're not forgetting the spell, why do you need your book to prepare it?


So... memorising a new spell now pushes an old one out of your head? I'll stick with something where it doesn't matter whether I know the words or not, thanks.

It does that under Vancian too, actually. Only under Vancian, memorising the same spell three times pushes two others out of your head, making even less sense.


They do, the point is that that isn't the part that is played for comedy.

If they don't forget their magic, in what way is it Vancian?


The recharge mage has to remember when his spells come back, actually.

And how hard is that to do? D&D is a round-based game.


You mean the complicated magical technique that you've been taught repeatedly is something you can just 'forget' at will without the personal involvement of the goddess of magic herself?

Under Vance, evidently.


Under Vancian magic, the juice to cast it is gone. An advantage to Vancian magic is that it also follows the same pattern as many magic items in the game.

Note that you don't forget a spell if you're able to supply the energy for it using a magic item or other source.

What do magic items have to do with it? You don't forget spells if you use items under the other systems also.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 01:11 PM
I'm aware of that little detail - hence my use of the phrase "verisimilitude" rather than "realism."

You haven't yet shown how it breaks verisimilitude. You've used the word, but claimed that forgetting spells was the problem, without ever showing why doing so is inconsistant with the setting.


If the energy is the only thing that you lose, then why do you need a book to prepare your spells?

He pretty clearly said "one of the things".


Which, as I pointed out before, would be identical to spell slots in all but name and therefore a cosmetic change at best.

So, whats the problem? If you have a problem with the fluff, and a cosmetic change fixes it, there's no more problem.

If your problem is simply that you don't like spell slots, well, that's something else. A system preference that you're attempting to justify via fluff.


Spell Points, imbalanced? Must be how Psionics got so terribly broken.

It leads to novas being most optimal. Some of us prefer other modes of play.


Again - If you're not forgetting the spell, why do you need your book to prepare it?

Because a single spell involves a minimum of one full page of magical writing, which is sufficiently difficult as to be incomprehensible to most people.

To restock spells, you'll be reading scores of such pages. So, even without the forgotten mechanism, it's not really ridiculous.


It does that under Vancian too, actually. Only under Vancian, memorising the same spell three times pushes two others out of your head, making even less sense.

With either the power or entity methods, this makes perfect sense. You can only handle so much magic. It doesn't matter if the only thing you prepare is fireball 20 times, that's still a ton of magic up there.


If they don't forget their magic, in what way is it Vancian?

In the case of the great spells, my example, the spell is indeed an entity in this respect. Once it's said, it's out of the casters head. He wouldn't possibly be able to cast it again unless, say, he reread it from the book. Sounds pretty vancian to me.


And how hard is that to do? D&D is a round-based game.

So I have to now count rounds for every single spell Ive cast? Ugh. Hard, no. Annoying, and filled with bookkeeping, yes.


What do magic items have to do with it? You don't forget spells if you use items under the other systems also.

He said other sources. Such as mnemonic enhancer, which I already mentioned. Spell completion works off scrolls, you can use pearls of power to restore a spent spell, etc. There are a number of ways to address this particular shortcoming if you dislike it.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 01:49 PM
If you're "binding energy" every time you prepare spells, why doesn't a Wizard's bald head detect as magic?

Because there are no active effects. The magic isn't doing anything. And why would it, in any event? It doesn't under spell points.


I'm having trouble extricating the two, as Vancian magic is the only explanation for spell slots that WotC has put forward prior to UA and psionics - to my knowledge, anyway.

You do realise that half of this thread is about using spell slots without Vancian magic, don't you?


B) It's easy to cap the other two if you want - just limit the number of times the wizard can cast a given spell per day. Once his uses are up, he has to use his remaining points on other spells (SP Variant) or the given spell won't recharge until he's rested (RM Variant.)

HTF is that easier or more sensible than Vancian magic? You now have to mark off spells as you cast them, mark off spells as you prepare them, and keep track of your points/how long it takes for your spells to recharge.

Vancian: mark a spell when you prepare it, erase the mark when you cast. Infinitely easier.


C) You've got to be kidding - Vancian has the worst bookkeeping of the three. With the others, I don't have to rewrite the spells section of my character sheet every morning.

Erm... mark a spell when you prepare it, erase the mark when you cast it. How is this difficult?


If the energy is the only thing that you lose, then why do you need a book to prepare your spells?

You lose the spell - i.e. whatever manifestation that particular discrete unit of magic takes while it's in your mind.


Which, as I pointed out before, would be identical to spell slots in all but name and therefore a cosmetic change at best.

Actually:


Spell Slots
Characters are given a strict budget of spell slots each of which may be used for one spell. Each spell slot also has a level, and may not be used for spells of higher level.
Spell Points
Characters are given a budget of points. Each spell costs a number of points depending on its level


Note how they are different and that neither of them requires or precludes Vancian magic.


It's no more difficult than tracking any other mechanic with a cooldown, like Binder abilities. And guess what - the cooldown elapses while travelling.

"You dimly hear the sounds of chanting at the end of the hallway - the cultist ritual is nearing its climax. You don't have much time!"
"How long does it take us to run down the hall?"
"2 minutes."
*rolls* "Good, now I have these spells available." *checks them off.*

Which is no easier than Vancian most of the time and harder when you're actually tracking time. As I said, it means that you now have to track two durations per effect, when having to track durations was precisely one of the things the 4e team identified as a significant cause of slowdown in combat.


Spell Points, imbalanced? Must be how Psionics got so terribly broken.

Well, aside from the further hit to blasting (which is shared with psionics), you also gain the ability to cast ninth level spells fourteen times per day.


I addressed the problems with doing so under Vancian earlier.

Yes, here:


Vancian is more difficult to determine tiredness with. Which is more taxing; using all of one's 9th-level spells or all of one's 1st- and 2nd-level spells? Is it simply using a percentage of one's slots per day? Should casting a 9th-level spell tire me more than a 2nd-level one? And so on.

Well, I just handed you a solution. Just total the costs of the expended spells and wait until they hit a certain number.


They're perfectly rational. How can you point out the flaws with a system with no basis of comparison?

You don't like the inability to model fatigue, which is not a problem with Vancian (which merely removes the need to do so from any gameplay perspective).


Again - If you're not forgetting the spell, why do you need your book to prepare it?

Because there is more to preparing a spell than just memorising three words. When you prepare a spell, you also have to pull the energy to cast it from somewhere, and presumably that is complicated enough to require the aid of a book, in the same way as one might keep a textbook around to do calculus.


It does that under Vancian too, actually. Only under Vancian, memorising the same spell three times pushes two others out of your head, making even less sense.

No, it doesn't, because Vancian doesn't put any requirement on the caster


If they don't forget their magic, in what way is it Vancian?

They do forget their magic, but that is not what is played for comedy.


And how hard is that to do? D&D is a round-based game.

Which is why having to track ridiculous details like that was about the first thing on the block when the new edition was written, presumably.


Under Vance, evidently.

Actually, no. Under Vance, you never forget the complicated magical technique, you just bring a book along to help you apply it (there's a feat that lets you not need the book for certain spells). All that's in your mind is the triggering part, and the energy associated with it.

And we know it's a complicated magical technique because it takes up several relatively large pages of text in a language no-one fully understands.


What do magic items have to do with it? You don't forget spells if you use items under the other systems also.

Except that the way a spell behaves in a wand or a scroll is similar to the way a spell behaves in a caster's mind.


He said other sources. Such as mnemonic enhancer, which I already mentioned. Spell completion works off scrolls, you can use pearls of power to restore a spent spell, etc. There are a number of ways to address this particular shortcoming if you dislike it.

Actually, I was referring to the Rod of Absorption, but Pearls of Power are another good example - you haven't forgotten the spell, you've just spent the energy behind it.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 02:07 PM
You haven't yet shown how it breaks verisimilitude. You've used the word, but claimed that forgetting spells was the problem, without ever showing why doing so is inconsistant with the setting.

I've explained this repeatedly.

1) I can understand how casting a spell can make its energy leave my mind, but not how memorizing it in the morning can store it there (and not make my head ping magical, anyway.) Nor can I understand why it takes the same 15 minutes to prepare one-tenth or one-quarter of my arsenal.

2) I can understand how studying a spell in the morning can help me retain it during the day, but not how casting it later can make me forget it. Nor can I understand why I forget it immediately (even if I had cast it 6 seconds ago!), and cannot relearn it until after I rest.

Those are the inconsistencies I dislike about Vancian magic.


So, whats the problem? If you have a problem with the fluff, and a cosmetic change fixes it, there's no more problem.

If your problem is simply that you don't like spell slots, well, that's something else. A system preference that you're attempting to justify via fluff.


It does not fix it (see above.)

And no, I don't have a problem with spell slots - after all, spell points use them without being Vancian. They just keep the spells from falling out of my head after each use. They disconnect the energy of the spell from the knowledge of the spell, which I think makes more sense.


It leads to novas being most optimal. Some of us prefer other modes of play.

Nobody is forcing you to nova your way through encounters.


Because a single spell involves a minimum of one full page of magical writing, which is sufficiently difficult as to be incomprehensible to most people.

To restock spells, you'll be reading scores of such pages. So, even without the forgotten mechanism, it's not really ridiculous.

But you regain those same spells without reading any magical writing under the RM variant. The only time you'll be rereading is when you're memorizing something different.

Under the SP variant, you do forget the details of your spells - after you sleep for 8 hours, rather than the second you cast them.

How often do you need a GPS to find your way to work? After the first few days on the job - never, because it's routine and you automatically know the way. You don't need to consult your GPS again until they reassign you to the uptown office.

The Vancian commuter, however, has to check his GPS every morning, no matter how many times he takes the same route to work. In fact, once he gets to work he forgot how he got there!


With either the power or entity methods, this makes perfect sense. You can only handle so much magic. It doesn't matter if the only thing you prepare is fireball 20 times, that's still a ton of magic up there.

The difference is that I'm not "locked in" to fireball in the morning under the spell points system, even if I do decide to spam it 20 times.


In the case of the great spells, my example, the spell is indeed an entity in this respect. Once it's said, it's out of the casters head. He wouldn't possibly be able to cast it again unless, say, he reread it from the book. Sounds pretty vancian to me.

Well, that still makes no sense to me. Why would I forget it moments after having cast it? If it wants out of my head so bad, why did it go in there in the first place?


So I have to now count rounds for every single spell Ive cast? Ugh. Hard, no. Annoying, and filled with bookkeeping, yes.

You only have to track individual spells if they're not general recharge spells (i.e. uncommon cases.) Otherwise, you just track the spell level. There are only ten of them (0-9), you know.


He said other sources. Such as mnemonic enhancer, which I already mentioned. Spell completion works off scrolls, you can use pearls of power to restore a spent spell, etc. There are a number of ways to address this particular shortcoming if you dislike it.

I can address it just fine without pearls and enhancers and other external constructs simply by using a better system to begin with.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 02:29 PM
I've explained this repeatedly.

1) I can understand how casting a spell can make its energy leave my mind, but not how memorizing it in the morning can store it there (and not make my head ping magical, anyway.) Nor can I understand why it takes the same 15 minutes to prepare one-tenth or one-quarter of my arsenal.

2) I can understand how studying a spell in the morning can help me retain it during the day, but not how casting it later can make me forget it. Nor can I understand why I forget it immediately (even if I had cast it 6 seconds ago!), and cannot relearn it until after I rest.

Those are the inconsistencies I dislike about Vancian magic.

1. Magic detection doesn't always ping stores of magical energy though. It pings active effects and magic items. The fact that it misses casters is a problem with the spell, not the system. However, I will point out that no supernatural being pings on a detect magic spell, despite there being far more supernatural beings around (elementals, outsiders, undead).

2. Because the designers fudged it a little. It's the same way that in 4e it takes you 5 minutes to refresh one spell or the entirety of your arsenal.

3. "Upon casting, the spell's energy is purged from the caster". As explained before, preparing a spell basically binds it up into the character's mind in the same way as you might bind it to a magic item, with the exception that it doesn't show up on magical detection.

Also, yet again, this is a problem with spell slots. There is no given reason why you can't instantly regain spell points that you've used. You just have these random points.

Spell slots being harder to explain is not a problem with Vancian magic.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 02:31 PM
Surely you jest.

With a Psion, I count down a number. When I rest, I put the number back to where it was. Repeat.

With an Erudite, I have a list of every power I know, and simply circle all the ones that become part of my UPD that day. At the end of the day, I erase my circles.

How on earth is that complicated?

it is certainly more complicated then keeping track of a number.

it is the difference between:


Mana Points - Daily: 57
Mana Points - Used: 7

And:


Prepared Spells (Evocation Bonus Slots):
SL0 (1): 1-Light
SL1 (1): 1-Magic Missile
SL2 (1): 1-Shatter
SL3 (1): 1-Lightening Bolt
SL4 (1): 1-Ice Storm
SL5 (1): 1-Cone of Cold
SL6 (1): 1-Chain Lightening
Prepared Spells (Generic Slots):
SL0 (4): 1-Mage Hand, 1-Arcane Mark, 1-Message, 1-Prestidigitation
SL1 (6): 1/1-Mage Armor, 1-Feather Fall, 1-Enlarge Person, 2-Magic Missile, 1-True Strike
SL2 (6): 1/1-Protection from Arrows, 1-Rope Trick, 1-Acid Arrow, 1-Scorching Ray, 1-Blur, 1-Mirror Image
SL3 (6): 1-Dispel, 1-Phantom Steed, 1-Fly, 1-Haste, 2-Fireball
SL4 (5): 1-Stoneskin (M: 250gp), 1-Dimension Door, 1-Empowered Scorching Ray, 1-Empowered Acid Arrow, 1-Improved Invisibility
SL5 (4): 1-Quickened True Strike, 1/1-Overland Flight, 1-Teleport, 1-Empowered Fireball
SL6 (3): 2-Disintegrate, 1-Quickened Scorching Ray, 0-Contingency

SL = Spell Level
Format: X/Y-<Metamagic> <Spell Name> or Y-<Metamagic> <Spell Name>
Y = How many copies of that spell I prepared today.
X = How many times I have cast this today. if not listed, then it is 0.
When X=Y I have used up my castings per day.
This is followed by pages listing all my numerous spells known, material components, and foci items. And a bunch of other stuff that all characters have to keep track of

For a sorcerer you have something in the middle:


SL0: 0/6
SL1: 2/6
SL2: 1/5
SL3: 0/4
SL4: 0/2

SL = Spell Level
Format: X/Y-<Metamagic> <Spell Name> or Y-<Metamagic> <Spell Name>
Y = How many copies of that spell I prepared today.
X = How many times I have cast this today. if not listed, then it is 0.
When X=Y I have used up my castings per day.

vs my warlock:

Known Invocations:
Least Invocations:
Celestial Shout (Baleful Utterance): Cast Shatter
Spear Shape: Blast Shape Invocation that increases range from 60ft to 250ft.

Format1: <Refluffed Name> (<Original Invocation Name>): <Description>
Format2: <Original Invocation Name>: <Description>

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 02:50 PM
You've omitted the need to track spells prepared for the mana points variant - for Vancian, just mark the spells you prepare and erase the marks as you cast them. You are not tracking appreciably more information.

For spell points, you have to remember which 40+ spells you have prepared and how many points you have left.

Material components only have to be kept track of if they're expensive - otherwise, it's just a case of noting that some spells require you to keep a component pouch to hand, and that's no more important than recording psionic displays (which are more important than components because they affect perception).

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 02:56 PM
I've explained this repeatedly.

1) I can understand how casting a spell can make its energy leave my mind, but not how memorizing it in the morning can store it there (and not make my head ping magical, anyway.) Nor can I understand why it takes the same 15 minutes to prepare one-tenth or one-quarter of my arsenal.

1a. Then how do you understand the alternate systems you described? From where does the power come? If there's a timer before you can cast a specific spell again, how does that make sense? Why is it the same if you're resting or using other spells?

The whole concept of stored magic not pinging magical applies to any of these systems, btw.

1b. The reason it requires 15 minutes either way is because people don't want to do complex math to determine the number of seconds to memorize x spells. That's why. It was removed because it has a greater level of detail than desired for 3.x, and that level of granularity is consistant across the edition. A lack of tiny details is not a lack of verisimulitude.


2) I can understand how studying a spell in the morning can help me retain it during the day, but not how casting it later can make me forget it. Nor can I understand why I forget it immediately (even if I had cast it 6 seconds ago!), and cannot relearn it until after I rest.

Because the spell is not merely memorizing certain words in order. If it were, anyone could simply mimic a caster, and do magic with relative ease.

How does it make more sense for the spell to be gone, but be castable again two minutes later, with no intervening study time? What, you forget and then relearn it?


And no, I don't have a problem with spell slots - after all, spell points use them without being Vancian. They just keep the spells from falling out of my head after each use. They disconnect the energy of the spell from the knowledge of the spell, which I think makes more sense.

Falling out of head after use = vancian.

I really don't understand what you're arguing about.


Nobody is forcing you to nova your way through encounters.

Thats not the point. You put up pisonics as a reason why spell points are good/balanced. That's a systemic flaw with spell points.


But you regain those same spells without reading any magical writing under the RM variant. The only time you'll be rereading is when you're memorizing something different.

So? How does this make sense? You forget the spell after casting either way. How does mysteriously regaining this knowledge increase verisimulitude?


Under the SP variant, you do forget the details of your spells - after you sleep for 8 hours, rather than the second you cast them.

So, I cast something every day for twenty years, and always forget it when I go to bed.

How is this more rational than the idea that it's forgetten when casting because use of it expends the knowledge?


How often do you need a GPS to find your way to work? After the first few days on the job - never, because it's routine and you automatically know the way. You don't need to consult your GPS again until they reassign you to the uptown office.

The Vancian commuter, however, has to check his GPS every morning, no matter how many times he takes the same route to work. In fact, once he gets to work he forgot how he got there!

Magic is not simply knowedge in this sense. It encompasses knowedge, yes, but it's more than that. Otherwise, every intelligent person could do magic with ease merely by picking up knowledge: arcana. There is a strong sense of craft involved with it(ie...spellcraft, for example), and the idea that magic takes actual work to master, not just study.


Well, that still makes no sense to me. Why would I forget it moments after having cast it? If it wants out of my head so bad, why did it go in there in the first place?

You put it there. You're taking the entity idea to mean that the spell is in control/sentient. Even in vancian ideas, this is the exception(though Ive seen it in books, done quite well in fact), not the norm. A plant is also an entity, as is a chair.

Things made solely of information are infinitely copyable. Things that are not, cannot be. A spell is not made solely of information.


You only have to track individual spells if they're not general recharge spells (i.e. uncommon cases.) Otherwise, you just track the spell level. There are only ten of them (0-9), you know.

So? It's an element of bookwork in addition to the vancian bookwork. The last thing I want is more bookwork.


I can address it just fine without pearls and enhancers and other external constructs simply by using a better system to begin with.

A system you enjoy more /= a better system.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 02:57 PM
1. Magic detection doesn't always ping stores of magical energy though. It pings active effects and magic items. The fact that it misses casters is a problem with the spell, not the system. However, I will point out that no supernatural being pings on a detect magic spell, despite there being far more supernatural beings around (elementals, outsiders, undead).

Hell, do magical beasts ping as magic on detect magic?

SaintRidley
2010-02-15, 02:59 PM
Wizards are strictly superior.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 03:17 PM
Hell, do magical beasts ping as magic on detect magic?

Undead don't, Constructs don't. Outsiders and elementals only register if summoned.

What distinguishes a spell bound into an item from a spell bound into someone's head is anyone's guess, but it's definitely an issue with Det. Magic, not the Vancian magic fluff

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 03:18 PM
Undead don't, Constructs don't. Outsiders and elementals only register if summoned.

What distinguishes a spell bound into an item from a spell bound into someone's head is anyone's guess, but it's definitely an issue with Det. Magic, not the Vancian magic fluff

*shrug* No LOS to the inside of someone's head?

Well, hopefully, at any rate.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 03:22 PM
*shrug* No LOS to the inside of someone's head?

Well, hopefully, at any rate.

Detect spells don't even seem to be impeded by warm bodies. Only dirt, stone, metal, and lead.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-15, 04:17 PM
A more interesting premise, a harder cap on spellcasting (if you want one), simpler bookkeeping



I agree with most of what you've said but have two issues with this part of your comment. "Interesting premise" is extremely subjective and in so far as it is objective, it runs into all the issues that Optimystik is laying out. A premise that isn't consistent with the way everything is done isn't that great.

Second, "simpler bookkeeping" is just false. It is much easier to just keep a running total of spellpoints remaining for example than to have to keep track of each individual spell cast.

Incidentally, the Vancian system can be made to make more sense if one combines it with spellpoints. Spellpoints then become pre-allocated to a specific spell and the system works just as normal. Thus for example, if one had say 5 spell points, one could maybe allocate a 2nd level spell (3 spell points) and 2 level 1 spells. If one uses this sort of variation one should reduce the total number of spell points than a direct conversion one would get from using a wizard's spells per a day. (The simplest conversion seems to be using the standard n to 2n-1 for spell cost, but converting each spell slot into 2n-2 points in the pool).

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 04:24 PM
I agree with most of what you've said but have two issues with this part of your comment. "Interesting premise" is extremely subjective and in so far as it is objective, it runs into all the issues that Optimystik is laying out. A premise that isn't consistent with the way everything is done isn't that great.

Second, "simpler bookkeeping" is just false. It is much easier to just keep a running total of spellpoints remaining for example than to have to keep track of each individual spell cast.

Compared with recharge magic, Vancian magic is like playing a commoner.

Also, Vancian has little in-game slowdown due to bookkeeping, because all you do when you cast a spell is rub out one of the ticks next to the spell on your character sheet. Spell points require the same amount of prep work (picking your spells) and some maths as well.

It's easier to see at a glance how much juice you have left, but I don't think Vancian is anywhere near as hard to track as people think.


Incidentally, the Vancian system can be made to make more sense if one combines it with spellpoints. Spellpoints then become pre-allocated to a specific spell and the system works just as normal. Thus for example, if one had say 5 spell points, one could maybe allocate a 2nd level spell (3 spell points) and 2 level 1 spells. If one uses this sort of variation one should reduce the total number of spell points than a direct conversion one would get from using a wizard's spells per a day. (The simplest conversion seems to be using the standard n to 2n-1 for spell cost, but converting each spell slot into 2n-2 points in the pool).

Erm... yes, I've tried pointing that out three times already.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 04:42 PM
it is certainly more complicated then keeping track of a number.

That is my point exactly; thank you for the visual aid. :smallsmile:


Falling out of head after use = vancian.

I really don't understand what you're arguing about.

Falling out of head after use = senseless. That is what I'm arguing.


So? How does this make sense? You forget the spell after casting either way. How does mysteriously regaining this knowledge increase verisimulitude?

Under spell points, you forget when you sleep - which makes sense, you lose a lot of detail when you sleep for 8 hours. Under recharge, you don't forget at all.

Forgetting something less than six seconds after you do it - that's Alzheimer's.

I'm at work, so I can't refute every point at one sitting, though I will pop back in periodically and do my best to get my point across.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:02 PM
Falling out of head after use = senseless. That is what I'm arguing.

But you're ok with it falling out of your head, then, x number of rounds later, suddenly falling back in.


Under spell points, you forget when you sleep - which makes sense, you lose a lot of detail when you sleep for 8 hours. Under recharge, you don't forget at all.

Forgetting something less than six seconds after you do it - that's Alzheimer's.

The system has nothing to do with alzheimer's. At this point, it's becoming a straw man.

The point is, a spell is more than just words in a certain order. You can't cast ninth level spells by shoving a spellbook in front of a kid who's a good reader.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 05:07 PM
That is my point exactly; thank you for the visual aid. :smallsmile:

Except that the spell points system is worse because you have to track everything you'd need for Vancian plus your points total, and updating spells prepared takes less effort than updating a points total as well.

Badly presented material isn't bad material.


Falling out of head after use = senseless. That is what I'm arguing.

Except it isn't. You just don't like it.


Under spell points, you forget when you sleep - which makes sense, you lose a lot of detail when you sleep for 8 hours. Under recharge, you don't forget at all.

Again, when your revision notes for something run to eighteen pages, it's not something you forget in a hurry. Vancian doesn't require you to forget that, it just requires you to check your notes and make sure you're doing it right.


Forgetting something less than six seconds after you do it - that's Alzheimer's.

I'm at work, so I can't refute every point at one sitting, though I will pop back in periodically and do my best to get my point across.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether you forget the barely-pronounceable short sentence or not, it has no power once used, until you go back and prepare it again. If you did, that's because the backlash of the spell purged it from your mind.

It's also a lot better than the spell point casters who can learn a technique but have it magically disappear when they go to sleep*. Or, for that matter, only know 40 such techniques at a time.

* The same technique that Vancian casters never forget, realistically, but need a book around to make sure they get it right.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:14 PM
You've omitted the need to track spells prepared for the mana points variant - for Vancian, just mark the spells you prepare and erase the marks as you cast them. You are not tracking appreciably more information.

I thought the mana point varient gives you a limited amount of spells known. (like the psion)
I have also omitted several extra pages which are identical for both methods.
and the whole "just circle it and then erase" does NOT work for vanacian:
1. You have metamagic
2. You can prepare the same spell twice.

Speaking of, circle it and then erase DOES work with a mana point system where you "prepare" several spells in the morning and then treat those as your spells known for the sake of point casting the rest of the day.

So "circle and erase" is a terrible method. This is why I use Cast/Prepared instead. which is the easiest most efficient method of managing vanacian casting. What I pasted is actual copy paste from a real character sheet.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZcEvOA-L4zcZGNqNnF0NDdfNjg3ZG1jNTl4amI&hl=en

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:21 PM
I have omitted several extra pages which are IDENTICAL for both methods.
and the whole "just circle it and then erase" does NOT work for vanacian:
1. You have metamagic

Ok, metamagic exists for any spell. I write a shortened version of the metamagic besides the spell. For example, extended is Ex. Empowered is Em. Quickened is Q. Fell drain is FD. It's not hard. When no metamagics are involved, I just put a tick mark. Then, when used, I erase it.

Things that are persisted, I don't even bother to write down. I have the same things persisted all the time, each player has a notecard. If a player wants that spell changed for the day, he can fix that.

Invisibility? I don't bother to write it down. A better question is why I would prepare spells without it.


2. You can prepare the same spell twice.

You got me. I then use two tick marks.


So "circle and erase" is a terrible method. This is why I use Cast/Prepared instead. which is the easiest most efficient method of managing vanacian casting. What I pasted is actual copy paste from a real character sheet.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZcEvOA-L4zcZGNqNnF0NDdfNjg3ZG1jNTl4amI&hl=en

That's probably why lesser suggested using tick markets, not circles. Because two tick marks is nice and convenient, while multiple circles is a PITA.

Making a seperate spell list for each day is...painful.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:25 PM
That's probably why lesser suggested using tick markets, not circles. Because two tick marks is nice and convenient, while multiple circles is a PITA.
Yes, Tick marks are perfectly valid... circles aren't. It is a small and important difference. I personally prefer a digit over a tick mark... but it makes little difference.


Making a seperate spell list for each day is...painful.
I find it less painful then looking through multiple pages of spells. I tried the tick mark method, it was cumbersome and got really bad as soon as I ran out of room on the chart for listing all my spells known.
I don't make a seperate list for every day, I memorize the same spells every day, when appropriate, I modify it slightly.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:28 PM
Yes, Tick marks are perfectly valid... circles aren't. It is a small and important difference

But the thing is, nobody is advocating using circles.


I find it less painful then looking through multiple pages of spells. I tried the tick mark method, it was cumbersome and got really bad as soon as I ran out of room on the chart for listing all my spells known.

For the truly lazy, just write in the phb. It's the easiest way. However, it will make some players cry, and you still need to actually make a list for the non-core spells.

I keep everything organized strictly by spell level and school, though. So long as you do that, and know your spells well enough to not have to bother with descriptions, you can fit a LOT of spells on a page, and let's be honest, how many wizards are going to bother with learning more than a hundred or so spells anyhow?

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:36 PM
I am truly lazy, you think I didn't try that before?

the problem with that is the a piece of paper can only take so many write/erase cycles before it wears down and tears apart. And it would be a shame to ruin your phb like that.

you have to print a page, and print it again and again. There are some pages which I have used in the past with all PHB spells, but most of them are a waste of space and ink, and it has no non core spells.

So you need to make a custom list, which means typing it in the computer; which i do... I also do NOT use a paper, pencil, or erase at all when playing DND, I use a laptop.

you might have noticed some of the spells were used up on the google doc I linked, that is because I already cast them "today" in a current game.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 05:41 PM
I thought the mana point varient gives you a limited amount of spells known. (like the psion)
I have also omitted several extra pages which are identical for both methods.
and the whole "just circle it and then erase" does NOT work for vanacian:
1. You have metamagic
2. You can prepare the same spell twice.


When did I say circle?

Try just putting a little mark next to it for each copy you prepare. If you metamagic it, then use a letter so you can identify the feat.

No problem.

And it's easier to find a spell you've already prepared and erase a tick than it is to find a spell, check that it's prepared, then work out how many points you're paying for it, then update your points.

The only meaningful bookkeeping is in-play bookkeeping. If you're sitting in downtime, everyone will be updating their sheets, so there's no real problem.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:44 PM
I am truly lazy, you think I didn't try that before?

the problem with that is the a piece of paper can only take so many write/erase cycles before it wears down and tears apart. And it would be a shame to ruin your phb like that.

Feh, I've got a 3.0 phb that's outdated anyhow. If it wears out, it wears out.


So you need to make a custom list, which means typing it in the computer; which i do... I also do NOT use a paper, pencil, or erase at all when playing DND, I use a laptop.

Pen and paper is preferred here. Laptops at games lead to distractions.

If you use a good mechanical pencil, character sheets and the like hold up much better, since less lead is generally used(and thus, needs to be erased).

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:46 PM
several metamagic feats have the same first letter. I would like my DM to be able to comprehend my character sheet.

This is why I use the following:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZcEvOA-L4zcZGNqNnF0NDdfNjg3ZG1jNTl4amI&hl=en

Which is very similar to the "check mark" and "letter" method...
either way, this method is a lot more work then just tracking power points. You can say it is "no problem", but it is a problem. it is just one MORE thing to try and track out of many many many things. you need to track your skills, your skill synergies, your carry weight, your items, your spells, your daily powers, blah blah blah.
I like keeping things simple whenever I can, and vanacian is the most complex method of doing magic I have ever seen.

One of the things I love about warlock is how SIMPLE it is to keep track of their magic.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 05:48 PM
several metamagic feats have the same first letter. I would like my DM to be able to comprehend my character sheet.

This is why I use the following:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZcEvOA-L4zcZGNqNnF0NDdfNjg3ZG1jNTl4amI&hl=en

Which is very similar to the "check mark" and "letter" method...
either way, this method is a lot more work then just tracking power points. You can say it is "no problem", but it is a problem. it is just one MORE thing to try and track out of many many many things. you need to track your skills, your skill synergies, your carry weight, your items, your spells, your daily powers, blah blah blah.
I like keeping things simple whenever I can, and vanacian is the most complex method of doing magic I have ever seen.

One of the things I love about warlock is how SIMPLE it is to keep track of their magic.

Try writing your feats as:

Extend Spell (E)
Enlarge Spell (N)

And so on. There are at least 40 letters available to you, and you probably don't have 40 metamagic feats.

Preparing spells takes place during downtime - breaks, and the like. The only real issue is the possibility of missing out on snacks.

Also, as I pointed out, taking 173, subtracting 17 and updating the result is actually more work than erasing a tick mark. It's just easier to tell how much juice is left.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:51 PM
Try writing your feats as:

Extend Spell (E)
Enlarge Spell (N)

And so on.

too much work to memorize the notation.

There is extend, enlarge, empower, maximize, persistant

If extend is E and enlarge is N, and maximize is M and persistant is P... then what is empower? M is take, E is taken, P is taken... O? anyways, writing maximize instead of M isn't a big deal. managing the whole page is time consuming though...

Familiar is the absolute worst though... for your class feature you get a whole new extra character to manage. enjoy!

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:53 PM
several metamagic feats have the same first letter. I would like my DM to be able to comprehend my character sheet.

This is why I use the following:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZcEvOA-L4zcZGNqNnF0NDdfNjg3ZG1jNTl4amI&hl=en

Which is very similar to the "check mark" and "letter" method...
either way, this method is a lot more work then just tracking power points.

Spell points still require you to prepare spells, though. So...you still need the second list with your method(or tick marks for our method) AND need to track total spell points.

So, spell slots is less work.

And the timed refresh variant is worse. Im seriously not going to count down rounds for every single level of spell I cast. I hate counting down status effects round by round, drags combat to a crawl.


You can say it is "no problem", but it is a problem. it is just one MORE thing to try and track out of many many many things. you need to track your skills, your skill synergies, your carry weight, your items, your spells, your daily powers, blah blah blah.
I like keeping things simple whenever I can, and vanacian is the most complex method of doing magic I have ever seen.

One of the things I love about warlock is how SIMPLE it is to keep track of their magic.

Now warlocks, yes...they simply blast away. At will classes tend to do that. The downside is, they tend to be repetitive to play.

Skills generally only change on level up. Skill synergies, less often. In general, I check at second level, when things actually have five ranks, then never check again.

Carry weight...once you get a handy haversack, you stop caring.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 05:53 PM
too much work to memorize the notation.

There is extend, enlarge, empower, maximize, persistant

If extend is E and enlarge is N, and maximize is M and persistant is P... then what is empower? M is take, E is taken, P is taken... O? anyways, writing maximize instead of M isn't a big deal. managing the whole page is time consuming though...

Familiar is the absolute worst though... for your class feature you get a whole new extra character to manage. enjoy!

First syllable?

You could even use the first word, I mean, it's not that hard to write small.

As a wizard is unlikely to be packing more than 14 metamagic feats, I still fail to see the problem.

As for familiars... oh, is that an ACF?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:54 PM
Familiar is the absolute worst though... for your class feature you get a whole new extra character to manage. enjoy!

I utterly ignore my familiar. I happily take my bonus, and then forget he ever existed. V has nothing on me.

Arakune
2010-02-15, 05:56 PM
Wasn't Vacian magic like loading bullets in the wizard head? I don't know how much that is "logical" or whatever, but aparently it was the official fluff.

Wizards where like barrel guns with some space for bullets and need to load one bullet at a time and could be set from "balistic" to "arrow" to "stun" to "nuke", where Sorceres are like machine guns with larger clips but if you modded it to accept only "stun" or "arrow" you couldn't change it later.


I utterly ignore my familiar. I happily take my bonus, and then forget he ever existed. V has nothing on me.

Unless you take Improved Familiar. In that case they kick ass. Even more if you invested in UMD.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't advise you to look at it that way.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 05:58 PM
Wasn't Vacian magic like loading bullets in the wizard head? I don't know how much that is "logical" or whatever, but aparently it was the official fluff.

Wizards where like barrel guns with some space for bullets and need to load one bullet at a time and could be set from "balistic" to "arrow" to "stun" to "nuke", where Sorceres are like machine guns with larger clips but if you modded it to accept only "stun" or "arrow" you couldn't change it later.

Now this does make my head hurt.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 05:59 PM
First syllable?

You could even use the first word, I mean, it's not that hard to write small.

I do, I write "empowered" or "maximized" etc :P
I guess I could write emp, max, shape, per, etc...


Spell points still require you to prepare spells, though. So...you still need the second list with your method(or tick marks for our method) AND need to track total spell points.
Yes, I said I was thinking of psionics originally; I didn't realize it was an actual specific variant called spell points he is referring to. I thought he meant "point based spellcasting" like psionics.
If they combine spells prepared and spell points then they are not noticeably easier to manage. it should be almost identical to my current list, only instead of individual checkmarks I have one point pool.


And the timed refresh variant is worse. Im seriously not going to count down rounds for every single level of spell I cast. I hate counting down status effects round by round, drags combat to a crawl.
I agree, I really hate those

Arakune
2010-02-15, 05:59 PM
I wouldn't advise you to look at it that way.

It was a long time since I saw the original quote. Aparently it was from the original books where vancian casting came from. I could be wrong, but then that's more a memory problem.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 06:01 PM
Unless you take Improved Familiar. In that case they kick ass. Even more if you invested in UMD.

UMD is not nearly as good as people make it out to be.
but yes, they CAN kick ass... but that still requires you to manage to manage two characters at once.

Arakune
2010-02-15, 06:05 PM
UMD is not nearly as good as people make it out to be.
but yes, they CAN kick ass... but that still requires you to manage to manage two characters at once.

I belive UMD is as good as people make it to be: either unholy broken or just meh. Like your average wizard.

And for managing two characters, there is always Leadership. Nobody said it's a good idea (except WotC) but it was supposed to be used.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 06:07 PM
Unless you take Improved Familiar. In that case they kick ass. Even more if you invested in UMD.

I've never really noticed, although the only time I took improved familiar I went for a shocker lizard. I find them cute.

UMD is alright, although I'm not sure what to make of the decision to stop it from being a rogue/bard class feature.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-15, 06:07 PM
I belive UMD is as good as people make it to be: either unholy broken or just meh. Like your average wizard.

And for managing two characters, there is always Leadership. Nobody said it's a good idea (except WotC) but it was supposed to be used.

The key is to have a celestial monkey with UMD, leadership, and a minion with a celestial monkey and leadership, and he has...

Oh dear.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 06:08 PM
I belive UMD is as good as people make it to be: either unholy broken or just meh. Like your average wizard.

And for managing two characters, there is always Leadership. Nobody said it's a good idea (except WotC) but it was supposed to be used.

Leadership has a few uses, it's just... yeah, let's not go there.

Arakune
2010-02-15, 06:12 PM
Leadership has a few uses, it's just... yeah, let's not go there.

Well, it was more to strenghten the idea that "managing 2+ chars at the same time" was expected and taken into account in the class/game design.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 06:18 PM
Well, it was more to strenghten the idea that "managing 2+ chars at the same time" was expected and taken into account in the class/game design.

No. The leadership feat was deliberately moved to the DMG in 3.0 to emphasise that it is an optional rule that requires very careful consideration from the DM before using it.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 06:34 PM
the problem with UMD is that completion items are very expensive, are limited to the lowest stat and CL (unless you pay extra), and the good ones (wands) are limited to 4th level.

Most spells are just not practical to make in wand, scroll, or staff form. It is certainly USEFUL to have more actions per round or more flexibility, but the type of actions you can take are really limited.

Hiisi
2010-02-15, 06:39 PM
Wizards are more powerful, but sorcerers don't become commoners when they can't get their hands on a spellbook.

Pluto
2010-02-15, 06:47 PM
Most spells are just not practical to make in wand, scroll, or staff form. It is certainly USEFUL to have more actions per round or more flexibility, but the type of actions you can take are really limited.
Scribe Scroll is a first level ability and Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability is found in the SpC.

Mix in a smattering of the Nightstalker's Transformation and Mental Pinnacle spells, and your familiar becomes a star.
(For best results, add Unseen Seer.)

jokey665
2010-02-15, 06:48 PM
Wizards are more powerful, but sorcerers don't become commoners when they can't get their hands on a spellbook.

Eidetic Spellcaster variant from DR357. What now?

Hiisi
2010-02-15, 07:09 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster variant from DR357. What now?

Ooh, didn't know about that. That's a good variant, eliminates a big weakness (a weakness that is rarely exploited though, except by DMs that are pure evil). I might not allow that variant as a DM, I always thought that carrying that paper brick as a wizzy was somewhat balancing factor between wizards and sorcerers.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 07:12 PM
Scribe Scroll is a first level ability
and? scrolls are still expensive, use the minimum save DC and caster level (unless you pay extra), and cost XP to scribe. Also, unlike wands scrolls have mishaps


and Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability is found in the SpC.
and it has nothing to do with UMD.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-15, 07:13 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster variant from DR357. What now?

Not familiar with that. From the title it sounds like they get Spell Mastery of everything. What do they give up for that?

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-15, 07:13 PM
too much work to memorize the notation.

There is extend, enlarge, empower, maximize, persistant

If extend is E and enlarge is N, and maximize is M and persistant is P... then what is empower? M is take, E is taken, P is taken... O? anyways, writing maximize instead of M isn't a big deal. managing the whole page is time consuming though...

Familiar is the absolute worst though... for your class feature you get a whole new extra character to manage. enjoy!


Ext,Enl, Emp*, Max, Per......


*Caution! EMP use can short out pace makers and other medical devices. Ask your doctor before use.

taltamir
2010-02-15, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by jokey665
Eidetic Spellcaster variant from DR357. What now?
Not familiar with that. From the title it sounds like they get Spell Mastery of everything. What do they give up for that?

unlike spell mastery, it costs money.

You get the ability to "scribe" any amount of spells you want into your memory. However, such scribing costs 100gp per spell level in magical incense.
And your memory is not subject to "blessed book" effect so there is no way to get rid of it later on. I think there might be some other issues, don't really remember.

if your DM hates wizards (aka, attacks spellbooks and component pouches often, but doesn't sunder weapons and armor in equal amounts), then you can either play a sorcerer + eschew materials, or a wizard with eidetic spellcaster + eschew materials.

Optimystik
2010-02-15, 07:54 PM
All right, I'm back. Let's see...


But you're ok with it falling out of your head, then, x number of rounds later, suddenly falling back in.

Since that means it never actually fell out, yes I am!


The system has nothing to do with alzheimer's. At this point, it's becoming a straw man.

Actually, it's hyperbole. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole)


The point is, a spell is more than just words in a certain order. You can't cast ninth level spells by shoving a spellbook in front of a kid who's a good reader.

What does that have to do with forgetful wizards?

Spells are more than just words on a page - that's great. But Recharge Magic and Spell Points capture that too, without the forgetful fluff.


Except that the spell points system is worse because you have to track everything you'd need for Vancian plus your points total, and updating spells prepared takes less effort than updating a points total as well.

You've got to be kidding. Spell Points is by far the simpler system. Under spell points I never have to write a spell's name more than once, or come up with any kind of notation (x3? III?) to know I have multiples prepared. I also never need any kind of notation for metamagic. No "Haste, Extended" and "Fireball, Maximized" or "Dimension Door, Sanctum, Silent" or any of that. I can just pick any spell, add the points that metamagic requires, and subtract it from my total, as I would in any video game. Done.


Except it isn't. You just don't like it.

I don't like it because it's senseless, not the other way around.

Even when Wizards forget spells under the other systems, it's still more plausible than forgetting under Vance. I forget something after I sleep for 8 hours, not 6 seconds after I do it!


Again, when your revision notes for something run to eighteen pages, it's not something you forget in a hurry. Vancian doesn't require you to forget that, it just requires you to check your notes and make sure you're doing it right.

Why do I have to review those notes three times to prepare the same spell three times? Neither Recharge Magic nor Spell Points make me do that.


The point is that it doesn't matter whether you forget the barely-pronounceable short sentence or not, it has no power once used, until you go back and prepare it again. If you did, that's because the backlash of the spell purged it from your mind.

It's also a lot better than the spell point casters who can learn a technique but have it magically disappear when they go to sleep*. Or, for that matter, only know 40 such techniques at a time.

* The same technique that Vancian casters never forget, realistically, but need a book around to make sure they get it right.

Forgetting the fine details of something when you haven't looked at it in 8 hours isn't "magical." It's natural.


Spell points still require you to prepare spells, though. So...you still need the second list with your method(or tick marks for our method) AND need to track total spell points.

So, spell slots is less work.

Wrong, because under Spell Points I never actually need to combine the metamagic notes with the spells. All I need is the spell points number for each feat.


And the timed refresh variant is worse. Im seriously not going to count down rounds for every single level of spell I cast. I hate counting down status effects round by round, drags combat to a crawl.

It's not "every single spell." Read the variant - The majority of spells go by level. That's ten levels. You can't keep track of ten numbers? And that's even assuming you cast a spell from each level in every fight for some reason. Most combats last 4-5 rounds.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-15, 08:08 PM
Ooh, didn't know about that. That's a good variant, eliminates a big weakness (a weakness that is rarely exploited though, except by DMs that are pure evil). I might not allow that variant as a DM, I always thought that carrying that paper brick as a wizzy was somewhat balancing factor between wizards and sorcerers.

Spell Mastery. Or I tattoo may spellbook on my body (CArc). Or on my Familiar's too. Or both.

lesser_minion
2010-02-15, 10:24 PM
All right, I'm back. Let's see...

Since that means it never actually fell out, yes I am!

No, it means you've managed to screw yourself over with even more harmful bookkeeping.


What does that have to do with forgetful wizards?

Spells are more than just words on a page - that's great. But Recharge Magic and Spell Points capture that too, without the forgetful fluff.

No, they don't. At all. A spell in recharge or spell points is just a procedure for performing a magical effect. Vancian adds in the chunk of energy actually needed to perform the magical effect.

This is also why Vancian works without mandating that spells actually fall out of your mind, and other prepared-spell variants don't.


You've got to be kidding. Spell Points is by far the simpler system. Under spell points I never have to write a spell's name more than once, or come up with any kind of notation (x3? III?) to know I have multiples prepared. I also never need any kind of notation for metamagic. No "Haste, Extended" and "Fireball, Maximized" or "Dimension Door, Sanctum, Silent" or any of that. I can just pick any spell, add the points that metamagic requires, and subtract it from my total, as I would in any video game. Done.

Spell Points triple the negative impact of bookkeeping on your game, and recharge is even worse.

That's because, as a player, you don't have to be as quick preparing spells as you do using them.


I don't like it because it's senseless, not the other way around.

No, you don't like it because you can't see the sense. That doesn't make the sense absent.


Even when Wizards forget spells under the other systems, it's still more plausible than forgetting under Vance. I forget something after I sleep for 8 hours, not 6 seconds after I do it!

You forget spells as a direct consequence of performing them. That's perfectly acceptable, especially considering that the 'spell' stored in your mind is a discrete chunk of magical energy.

It also causes less slowdown.


Why do I have to review those notes three times to prepare the same spell three times? Neither Recharge Magic nor Spell Points make me do that.

1. Vancian doesn't require you to read the notes three times. You just have to have easy access to them in order to prepare most spells.

2. Magical energy. You have to bind energy to those words three times. You can't just do it once and say that it's done.


Forgetting the fine details of something when you haven't looked at it in 8 hours isn't "magical." It's natural.

You do not forget skills like that overnight in the real world, any more than you do in D&D. You might forget a little bit of theory that you weren't interested in, but you certainly don't forget the method.

Vancian doesn't ask you to - it just asks you to forget three words that don't carry any power any more.


Wrong, because under Spell Points I never actually need to combine the metamagic notes with the spells. All I need is the spell points number for each feat.

Except that combining metamagic with spells during a slow period is non-harmful, while combining it in the heat of combat is harmful.


It's not "every single spell." Read the variant - The majority of spells go by level. That's ten levels. You can't keep track of ten numbers? And that's even assuming you cast a spell from each level in every fight for some reason. Most combats last 4-5 rounds.

You still have far more damaging bookkeeping than with Vancian magic. You have to track multiple durations.

Compare and contrast Vancian, where you just wait for a particular event.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 12:56 AM
No, it means you've managed to screw yourself over with even more harmful bookkeeping.

Hectic combat is far less onerous to me than boring downtime.

I'm a twitch gamer - I think fast, play fast, and pride myself on improvisation. And even if I was slow-paced, so what? All I have to do is ask the DM to cut back a bit. There's no need to saddle myself or my party with a subpar system to do so. Worse, Vancian will never help me get any faster on my feet - all throughout my career I'll be trying to anticipate what I'm up against each day (maybe cheating a bit with Contact Other Plane, Augury etc.) and plodding along with that complement of spells in my head.

I also hate having the wrong tools for the job - a situation much more likely to happen under Vancian, where preparing the wrong number of a certain spell can be just as bad as not preparing at all. If my party decides to charm our way to the king's throne room, and I prepare 4 charm person spells and meet 5 guards, suddenly I'm a liability to my group. Meanwhile the Spell Point wizard can choose his path - use his resources with the party's plan, or think ahead to a battle that may come. For me, more options = better system.

The recharge wizard's path is a fun one - very chancy. Will he roll 1 round cooldowns all the way to the throneroom? He could always play it safe by having each charmed guard escort the group to the next checkpoint slowly. But will the evil chancellor wait while he does? Etc. It adds an unpredictability to his magic that can add nailbiting suspense to an otherwise dull exercise.


No, they don't. At all. A spell in recharge or spell points is just a procedure for performing a magical effect. Vancian adds in the chunk of energy actually needed to perform the magical effect.

This is also why Vancian works without mandating that spells actually fall out of your mind, and other prepared-spell variants don't.

Except the other variants don't have spells fall out of your mind at all.

Recharge magicians never have to study a spellbook unless they want to change something.

Spell point wizards do, but only after an extended rest, never during the day.

Meanwhile Vance prepares magic missile and, 6 seconds after casting it, needs to break out Wizardry 101.


Spell Points triple the negative impact of bookkeeping on your game, and recharge is even worse.

That's because, as a player, you don't have to be as quick preparing spells as you do using them.

I'd rather have the flexibility to adapt on the fly (yes, even as a wizard) than be locked in to what I thought were good ideas this morning.


You forget spells as a direct consequence of performing them. That's perfectly acceptable, especially considering that the 'spell' stored in your mind is a discrete chunk of magical energy.

It also causes less slowdown.

Slowdown? Funny, I never see Recharge mages calling for a pit stop in the Rope Trick.
A spellpoint Wizard might, but only at the end of the day, not because he only prepared three Limited Wishes and needs 4 or whatever.


1. Vancian doesn't require you to read the notes three times. You just have to have easy access to them in order to prepare most spells.

2. Magical energy. You have to bind energy to those words three times. You can't just do it once and say that it's done.

You can without Vancian.


You do not forget skills like that overnight in the real world, any more than you do in D&D. You might forget a little bit of theory that you weren't interested in, but you certainly don't forget the method.

You're not forgetting a skill, you're forgetting a very specific instruction. Read 9 pages of a magazine, then go to bed for 8 hours, wake up, and see how much you can remember. Want to bet you won't have it word for word? That's because it's natural for details to slip after hours of dreamland. Not so much 6 seconds.


Vancian doesn't ask you to - it just asks you to forget three words that don't carry any power any more.

I prefer the system where the words never had power to begin with.


Except that combining metamagic with spells during a slow period is non-harmful, while combining it in the heat of combat is harmful.

And if you combine the wrong ones? Widening that fireball seemed like a good idea this morning, but not so much when your cleric got teleported into the middle of the enemy ranks. And I bet you wish you'd saved that Silent Dimension Door for when you got captured and gagged, rather than escaping that cave-in because it was the only one you still had prepared. And that Quickened Dimensional Anchor could have easily stopped the BBEG from escaping - if only you'd known about those Boots of Teleportation he was wearing sooner!

You want to tell me none of those are "harmful?"


You still have far more damaging bookkeeping than with Vancian magic. You have to track multiple durations.

Compare and contrast Vancian, where you just wait for a particular event.

When you cast a spell, roll the cooldown - at the start of each of your turns, make a tally. When the tally equals the cooldown, cast again and start over.

That's in combat. Out of combat you do what you always do - ask the DM "How long does X take?" and subtract whatever he tells you from your cooldowns.

It's a small price to pay for not needing a Rope Trick/MMM, if you ask me.

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 11:34 AM
Hectic combat is far less onerous to me than boring downtime.

I'm a twitch gamer - I think fast, play fast, and pride myself on improvisation. And even if I was slow-paced, so what? All I have to do is ask the DM to cut back a bit. There's no need to saddle myself or my party with a subpar system to do so. Worse, Vancian will never help me get any faster on my feet - all throughout my career I'll be trying to anticipate what I'm up against each day (maybe cheating a bit with Contact Other Plane, Augury etc.) and plodding along with that complement of spells in my head.

If you don't want to play like that, don't play a wizard at all. The game also provides sorcerers.

Don't argue that the wizard shouldn't exist, or that his method makes no sense when you don't have a point, and some people do like planning.


I also hate having the wrong tools for the job - a situation much more likely to happen under Vancian, where preparing the wrong number of a certain spell can be just as bad as not preparing at all. If my party decides to charm our way to the king's throne room, and I prepare 4 charm person spells and meet 5 guards, suddenly I'm a liability to my group. Meanwhile the Spell Point wizard can choose his path - use his resources with the party's plan, or think ahead to a battle that may come. For me, more options = better system.

Don't play a wizard. Play a sorcerer or someone else who doesn't need to prepare spells. But don't try to bash other people's playing styles, and don't mess around with classes which were designed for the sole purpose of catering to them.


Except the other variants don't have spells fall out of your mind at all.

Recharge magicians never have to study a spellbook unless they want to change something.

Spell point wizards do, but only after an extended rest, never during the day.

Meanwhile Vance prepares magic missile and, 6 seconds after casting it, needs to break out Wizardry 101.

Erm... nor does Vancian. They just lose their power for a while. Forgetting three words that aren't of any interest to you is a lot easier than forgetting how to ride a bike.


I'd rather have the flexibility to adapt on the fly (yes, even as a wizard) than be locked in to what I thought were good ideas this morning.

Well, then the wizard isn't intended for you. Why do you insist on forcing everyone else to adapt to your style?


Slowdown? Funny, I never see Recharge mages calling for a pit stop in the Rope Trick.

That's because the purpose of recharge magic is to help people keep moving. It's not a bad variant, but it's not automatically better than Vancian, and in several respects it's worse.

And, in any event, slowing the game down by stopping to replenish spells is still less harmful - it screws up the balancing, sure, but it still doesn't create any bookkeeping with that much of an impact.


A spellpoint Wizard might, but only at the end of the day, not because he only prepared three Limited Wishes and needs 4 or whatever.

More accurately, because he can only cast 16 ninth level spells in a day and he spent the last two encounters casting two per round.


You can without Vancian.

You're begging the question. The fact that it's not the only way to look at spells doesn't make it the wrong way to look at spells.


You're not forgetting a skill, you're forgetting a very specific instruction. Read 9 pages of a magazine, then go to bed for 8 hours, wake up, and see how much you can remember. Want to bet you won't have it word for word? That's because it's natural for details to slip after hours of dreamland. Not so much 6 seconds.

Except it isn't a very specific instruction. A "very specific instruction" would be "d(x^n)/dx = nx^n-1". It certainly wouldn't take eighteen pages to explain a three-word spell, and once learned, you certainly wouldn't forget it.

Spell slots are justified in Vancian, because they represent discrete chunks of energy. Having to distinguish between spells a character knows and spells a character knows is a total mindbender.


I prefer the system where the words never had power to begin with.

How do you expect to perform magic?


And if you combine the wrong ones? Widening that fireball seemed like a good idea this morning, but not so much when your cleric got teleported into the middle of the enemy ranks. And I bet you wish you'd saved that Silent Dimension Door for when you got captured and gagged, rather than escaping that cave-in because it was the only one you still had prepared. And that Quickened Dimensional Anchor could have easily stopped the BBEG from escaping - if only you'd known about those Boots of Teleportation he was wearing sooner!

You want to tell me none of those are "harmful?"

No, they aren't. That's the price wizards pay for being inarguably more powerful in fluff terms.

Also, that doesn't hurt the game as a whole. It just means you'll have to think.


When you cast a spell, roll the cooldown - at the start of each of your turns, make a tally. When the tally equals the cooldown, cast again and start over.

That's in combat. Out of combat you do what you always do - ask the DM "How long does X take?" and subtract whatever he tells you from your cooldowns.

It's a small price to pay for not needing a Rope Trick/MMM, if you ask me.

Yet it's far worse than having everything worked out in advance.


The bottom line is that if you don't like prepared casters, don't use them. Don't force some ridiculous variant on them that they weren't supposed to use and that causes far more issues than it solves.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-16, 11:48 AM
Hectic combat is far less onerous to me than boring downtime.

So? Everyone has preferences. Your preferences in playstyle do not make a system inherently good or bad. I personally don't enjoy a warlock style of play. This doesn't make the system bad...in fact, it seems reasonably well designed. It's just not my favored type of play.


I'm a twitch gamer - I think fast, play fast, and pride myself on improvisation. And even if I was slow-paced, so what? All I have to do is ask the DM to cut back a bit. There's no need to saddle myself or my party with a subpar system to do so. Worse, Vancian will never help me get any faster on my feet - all throughout my career I'll be trying to anticipate what I'm up against each day (maybe cheating a bit with Contact Other Plane, Augury etc.) and plodding along with that complement of spells in my head.

I also hate having the wrong tools for the job - a situation much more likely to happen under Vancian, where preparing the wrong number of a certain spell can be just as bad as not preparing at all. If my party decides to charm our way to the king's throne room, and I prepare 4 charm person spells and meet 5 guards, suddenly I'm a liability to my group. Meanwhile the Spell Point wizard can choose his path - use his resources with the party's plan, or think ahead to a battle that may come. For me, more options = better system.

These are flexibility and power reasons, as well as playstyle reasons. They have nothing to do with systemic issues(wizards, even core wizards, are certainly not too weak, or lacking in flexibility), nor do they have anything to do with your claimed lack of verisimulitude.


The recharge wizard's path is a fun one - very chancy. Will he roll 1 round cooldowns all the way to the throneroom? He could always play it safe by having each charmed guard escort the group to the next checkpoint slowly. But will the evil chancellor wait while he does? Etc. It adds an unpredictability to his magic that can add nailbiting suspense to an otherwise dull exercise.

What you find fun, others may or may not. Your level of fun is not a sufficient criteria for judging the worth of a system.


Except the other variants don't have spells fall out of your mind at all.

Recharge magicians never have to study a spellbook unless they want to change something.

And why is it that they can cast a level 3 spell one round, and cant cast one the next, but still can cast a level 4 spell? How is that explained?


Spell point wizards do, but only after an extended rest, never during the day.

Meanwhile Vance prepares magic missile and, 6 seconds after casting it, needs to break out Wizardry 101.

Or make use of one of dozens of ways to circumvent this. Like, say, Spell Mastery. A feat that might just reflect your ability to master a spell via repeated use, and thus, ignore the spellbook.


I'd rather have the flexibility to adapt on the fly (yes, even as a wizard) than be locked in to what I thought were good ideas this morning.

Then play a sorcerer. Or a warlock. Or any other class without prepared spells. D&D has a wild variety of classes, it's not as if the fact that one works a different way prevents you from playing what you want.


Slowdown? Funny, I never see Recharge mages calling for a pit stop in the Rope Trick.
A spellpoint Wizard might, but only at the end of the day, not because he only prepared three Limited Wishes and needs 4 or whatever.

Your desire for more power is not related to system problems. If you only have 3 of your desired four limited wishes for the day, too bad. It's not as if the character is gimped and unplayable as a result.


You're not forgetting a skill, you're forgetting a very specific instruction. Read 9 pages of a magazine, then go to bed for 8 hours, wake up, and see how much you can remember. Want to bet you won't have it word for word? That's because it's natural for details to slip after hours of dreamland. Not so much 6 seconds.

My character is an elf, and thus, does not sleep.

Your emphasis on what is natural is based on the real world, not D&D, which has a wildly different set of "natural" laws. Thus, this is a flawed argument from realism.


And if you combine the wrong ones? Widening that fireball seemed like a good idea this morning, but not so much when your cleric got teleported into the middle of the enemy ranks. And I bet you wish you'd saved that Silent Dimension Door for when you got captured and gagged, rather than escaping that cave-in because it was the only one you still had prepared. And that Quickened Dimensional Anchor could have easily stopped the BBEG from escaping - if only you'd known about those Boots of Teleportation he was wearing sooner!

You want to tell me none of those are "harmful?"

This, again, seems to be an argument from a desire for more power and flexibility than that already granted by the vancian wizard. This again has nothing to do with verisimulitude, and also doesn't seem terribly appropriate, since the wizard has a great deal of power and flexibility already.


When you cast a spell, roll the cooldown - at the start of each of your turns, make a tally. When the tally equals the cooldown, cast again and start over.

And there are up to ten rows of these, since you didn't cast each spell on the same turn. Thats a pita to track.


It's a small price to pay for not needing a Rope Trick/MMM, if you ask me.

You are accepting greater bookwork in return for more perceived power. This also has nothing to do with the desirability of the system in itself.

Studoku
2010-02-16, 11:57 AM
I prefer sponaneous casters.

With prepared casters, I always think of plans involving spells that I didn't prepare. There's also the fact that I can use M&Ms as spell slots, with a different colour for each level.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-16, 11:59 AM
I prefer sponaneous casters.

With prepared casters, I always think of plans involving spells that I didn't prepare. There's also the fact that I can use M&Ms as spell slots, with a different colour for each level.

Damn, I'd blow through my spell slots quick.

Saph
2010-02-16, 12:30 PM
Yeah, and having other players eating your spell slots would get annoying fast.

Proven_Paradox
2010-02-16, 12:46 PM
Since when are sorcerers or wizards the only option. Psion for me, bitches!

But if psionics isn't an option, I'm more likely to pick a Sorcerer.

Not due to power--from the perspective of power, I'd pick a Wizard every time. Prepared casting is just that much more powerful in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. I played a Wizard in a game not that long ago, and actually implemented the Batman Wizard idea. I'd Scry on enemies the day before to know what was coming, and prepare accordingly. On more than one point, the enemy did something that was going to render the rest of the party worthless (lots of Force Walls), and I'd come in shouting, "Don't worry guys, I got this!" before solving all our problems. It was fun.

But the problem was time. I'd spend an hour or more pre-session prepping my spells and discussing the results of my scrying attempts with my DM (I always showed up early). And that part was not much fun for me. I had more spare time during that game than I do now, so today that hour would mean that much more to me. So now, to save time, I'm more prone to playing a Sorcerer with well-chosen spells known.

I saw someone say something in another thread like this one a while back that I thought was apt. I wish I remembered who it was so I could attribute them properly. But it went something like this: When you first start playing, you know the most important thing is spell slots. When you learn the system more, you know the most important thing is actions. When you have mastered the system, you know the most important thing is real life time.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 12:56 PM
So? Everyone has preferences. Your preferences in playstyle do not make a system inherently good or bad. I personally don't enjoy a warlock style of play. This doesn't make the system bad...in fact, it seems reasonably well designed. It's just not my favored type of play.

It is bad if one system enables multiple playstyles, whereas the other enables only one.

If you miscount how much of X spell you'll need under Vancian - you're screwed. You have no choice.

If you do so under Spell Points, you have the option of rectifying your mistake, at the cost of losing something else. You now have a choice, and one which is entirely up to you - the player.

I said it before - I consider the system with more options to be the better system, irrespective of preference.


These are flexibility and power reasons, as well as playstyle reasons. They have nothing to do with systemic issues(wizards, even core wizards, are certainly not too weak, or lacking in flexibility), nor do they have anything to do with your claimed lack of verisimulitude.

The verisimilitude issue was solely related to spells falling out of my head. Stop claiming I'm using it the word for all my issues with the base casting system, because I'm not.


What you find fun, others may or may not. Your level of fun is not a sufficient criteria for judging the worth of a system.

Of course not - that's where number and availability of options come into play (see above.)


And why is it that they can cast a level 3 spell one round, and cant cast one the next, but still can cast a level 4 spell? How is that explained?

Partitioned mind.


Or make use of one of dozens of ways to circumvent this. Like, say, Spell Mastery. A feat that might just reflect your ability to master a spell via repeated use, and thus, ignore the spellbook.

That works just as well for the other two variants. (The only difference being that Recharge never needs it, if the spell stays in their head.)


Then play a sorcerer. Or a warlock. Or any other class without prepared spells. D&D has a wild variety of classes, it's not as if the fact that one works a different way prevents you from playing what you want.

Thanks to UA, I don't have to.


Your desire for more power is not related to system problems. If you only have 3 of your desired four limited wishes for the day, too bad. It's not as if the character is gimped and unplayable as a result.

"Gimped and unplayable?" Where did I say that? You have a tendency to set up the most striking strawmen I've ever seen.


My character is an elf, and thus, does not sleep.

But they do trance, do they not? And even though the dreams are vivid, they can't control what they see.

You still need "8 hours of restful calm" even if you're a Warforged, btw. Calm, meaning "not actively focusing on your notes."


Your emphasis on what is natural is based on the real world, not D&D, which has a wildly different set of "natural" laws. Thus, this is a flawed argument from realism.

But not verisimilitude, which is a different concept.
Realism = what makes sense in a mundane world.
Verisimilitude = what makes sense if a fantasy world with several mundane concepts. (Such as - needing to read a book to remember its contents.)


This, again, seems to be an argument from a desire for more power and flexibility than that already granted by the vancian wizard. This again has nothing to do with verisimulitude, and also doesn't seem terribly appropriate, since the wizard has a great deal of power and flexibility already.

And again, I am not complaining about the wizard's power level. I take issue with a system that is clunky at modeling mechanics the way I want them to be, and praising systems that are capable of modeling both ways well.


And there are up to ten rows of these, since you didn't cast each spell on the same turn. Thats a pita to track.

I see it being no harder than tracking ten rows of Vancian magic.


You are accepting greater bookwork in return for more perceived power. This also has nothing to do with the desirability of the system in itself.

No, but versatility of the system is related to its desirability.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-16, 01:24 PM
The verisimilitude issue was solely related to spells falling out of my head. Stop claiming I'm using it the word for all my issues with the base casting system, because I'm not.


Partitioned mind.

So...your mind is in ten chunks, each of which becomes unusable for a period of time after casting a spell. This seems ever so much more believable than simply having a spell be expended after it's cast.

Note: That was a lie.


But they do trance, do they not? And even though the dreams are vivid, they can't control what they see.

You still need "8 hours of restful calm" even if you're a Warforged, btw. Calm, meaning "not actively focusing on your notes."

While true, this leads us to the inevitible conclusion that under this system, those who need not sleep are more forgetful during restful calm than in the heat of battle.


But not verisimilitude, which is a different concept.
Realism = what makes sense in a mundane world.
Verisimilitude = what makes sense if a fantasy world with several mundane concepts. (Such as - needing to read a book to remember its contents.)

But your beliefs about what "makes sense" and "is natural" are based on the real world. They are not based on the rules of D&D. You have not found an inconsistancy within D&Ds rules here, you are merely harping on something that does not act as you think it should/like real life.

When talking about magic, no less.

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 01:54 PM
If you do so under Spell Points, you have the option of rectifying your mistake, at the cost of losing something else. You now have a choice, and one which is entirely up to you - the player.

I said it before - I consider the system with more options to be the better system, irrespective of preference.

No. An added option is not automatically better any more than an added constraint is automatically worse. In this case, it's an in-play option, and adding those can unbalance the game and has to be done with care (in fact, it's more likely to be a negative option).

If you were talking about choices on how to play the game, then yes, more of those are good. But Vancian is itself one such option. If you don't want to take that option, feel free.


The verisimilitude issue was solely related to spells falling out of my head. Stop claiming I'm using it the word for all my issues with the base casting system, because I'm not.

Which has been debunked in at least four different ways.


Of course not - that's where number and availability of options come into play (see above.)

Except the added options don't actually add anything to the game.


Partitioned mind.

Nice, so what's the medical name for that again?


That works just as well for the other two variants. (The only difference being that Recharge never needs it, if the spell stays in their head.)

Except now you have the question of how I can know a spell without knowing it. It's even more of a total mindbender.


Thanks to UA, I don't have to.

Sure, but don't try to convince people who think otherwise that they're wrong.


But they do trance, do they not? And even though the dreams are vivid, they can't control what they see.

You still need "8 hours of restful calm" even if you're a Warforged, btw. Calm, meaning "not actively focusing on your notes."

I draw your attention to the fact that an eighteen page technique, that wizards are clearly shown to 'learn', is something that does not disappear from one's mind. In Vancian, it doesn't. You just keep the book around to make sure you get it right.


But not verisimilitude, which is a different concept.
Realism = what makes sense in a mundane world.
Verisimilitude = what makes sense if a fantasy world with several mundane concepts. (Such as - needing to read a book to remember its contents.)

But you don't. People do things from memory all the time. Most people only need to read a book to recall less important elements of it. There is no way I'm going to forget three words and a couple of hand signs after they have saved my life


And again, I am not complaining about the wizard's power level. I take issue with a system that is clunky at modeling mechanics the way I want them to be, and praising systems that are capable of modeling both ways well.

Erm... nope. You're complaining that you don't like a constraint that has been placed on the magic use of a small number of specific classes.


I see it being no harder than tracking ten rows of Vancian magic.

You have to update things far more often. In Vancian, all you have to do is mark a spell prepared and remove the mark when you cast it. In recharge, you have to mark a spell prepared, re-arrange your list of prepared spells, mark a spell used when you use it, and delete the mark when you're done. That is an utter mess.


No, but versatility of the system is related to its desirability.

But you aren't suggesting a 'more versatile' system, you're complaining that you don't like the additional limiting factor on wizards.

Gnaeus
2010-02-16, 02:01 PM
But the problem was time. I'd spend an hour or more pre-session prepping my spells and discussing the results of my scrying attempts with my DM (I always showed up early). And that part was not much fun for me. I had more spare time during that game than I do now, so today that hour would mean that much more to me. So now, to save time, I'm more prone to playing a Sorcerer with well-chosen spells known.

I saw someone say something in another thread like this one a while back that I thought was apt. I wish I remembered who it was so I could attribute them properly. But it went something like this: When you first start playing, you know the most important thing is spell slots. When you learn the system more, you know the most important thing is actions. When you have mastered the system, you know the most important thing is real life time.

*shrugs* That varies a lot by lifestyle. My gaming time is limited less by my free time, than it is by the difficulties in scheduling a time when a group of people all of whom have spouses, most of whom have kids, and most of whom have jobs are all free at the same 4-6 hour block. As a result, I actively want to pick the most time intensive option in which that time helps me maximize my effectiveness during the time I can play. Currently, that is Vancian casters who craft, with little index cards noting common spells and summoned creatures. If there was an option that made more use of downtime, I would do that instead.

Edit: Actually, at the moment it is Chameleon. That way, to maximize my limited vancian casting, I have to check the spell lists of every possible class. But Archivist is good too.... I email my scrying and crafting to the DM at least 3 days before game.

That is one of the reasons I don't like 4e. If the time I spend outside the game (mastering rules, figuring out spell combos, making little summoned monster cards, plotting out how my spell progression over the next 3 levels will help me craft needed items) doesn't help the party in play, it isn't a game I am interested in.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 02:56 PM
Note: That was a lie.

Really? I had no idea. :smallamused:


While true, this leads us to the inevitible conclusion that under this system, those who need not sleep are more forgetful during restful calm than in the heat of battle.

Okay - let your mind wander for 8 hours and see if you recall everything you were looking at before your eyes glazed over.


But your beliefs about what "makes sense" and "is natural" are based on the real world. They are not based on the rules of D&D. You have not found an inconsistancy within D&Ds rules here, you are merely harping on something that does not act as you think it should/like real life.

When talking about magic, no less.

Where did I say it was an inconsistency in the rules? Obviously the rules are consistent with themselves. They just aren't consistent with my expectations on how memory should work.


No. An added option is not automatically better any more than an added constraint is automatically worse. In this case, it's an in-play option, and adding those can unbalance the game and has to be done with care (in fact, it's more likely to be a negative option).

If you were talking about choices on how to play the game, then yes, more of those are good. But Vancian is itself one such option. If you don't want to take that option, feel free.

The other options give me everything Vancian does and more. If I want to Rope Trick before every major battle I still can - I'm just not required to because I ran out of empowered magic missiles or whatever.

So why would I, as a player, consider the option with more restrictions to be superior?


Which has been debunked in at least four different ways.

Nuh-uh. See, I can do pithy, unsubstantiated rebuttals too.


Except the added options don't actually add anything to the game.

Yes, they do. I can do everything I could do with Vancian under the other systems, and more.


Nice, so what's the medical name for that again?

To wit: "it's magic."


Except now you have the question of how I can know a spell without knowing it. It's even more of a total mindbender.

Um, you do have to study it initially, you know.


Sure, but don't try to convince people who think otherwise that they're wrong.

You're wrong when you say the other options "don't add anything to the game." If they didn't, WotC wouldn't have written them.


I draw your attention to the fact that an eighteen page technique, that wizards are clearly shown to 'learn', is something that does not disappear from one's mind. In Vancian, it doesn't. You just keep the book around to make sure you get it right.

So the functional part disappears rather than the whole thing - is there a difference that matters?

With Spell Points, I only need to look at it 8 hours after my mind being totally empty - when I wake up. With Vancian, I need to look at it right away, because I have Alzheimer's. And with Recharge, I never need to look at it again.


But you don't. People do things from memory all the time. Most people only need to read a book to recall less important elements of it. There is no way I'm going to forget three words and a couple of hand signs after they have saved my life

Then why do you?


Erm... nope. You're complaining that you don't like a constraint that has been placed on the magic use of a small number of specific classes.

And all of those classes have been fixed, thanks to UA. We can has rejoicing?


You have to update things far more often. In Vancian, all you have to do is mark a spell prepared and remove the mark when you cast it. In recharge, you have to mark a spell prepared, re-arrange your list of prepared spells, mark a spell used when you use it, and delete the mark when you're done. That is an utter mess.

Why are you rearranging anything? Just put a checkmark next to the level that is unavailable, and remove it when you're done. Your overcomplicating the process.

The timers change as you gain spell levels, but that doesn't happen during combat anyway.


But you aren't suggesting a 'more versatile' system, you're complaining that you don't like the additional limiting factor on wizards.

It's not just Wizards - the whole party has to snooze with me in the Rope Trick when I run out of Invisibilities to get us all past the bugbear patrol, or when I only prepared one spider climb and we all need to scale the cliff face, etc.

Also - is there a functional difference between "more versatile" and "less limiting factors?"

Tyndmyr
2010-02-16, 03:04 PM
Okay - let your mind wander for 8 hours and see if you recall everything you were looking at before your eyes glazed over.

Eight hours of calm and quiet is much easier for me to remember things through than 16 hours of combat, noise, etc.


Where did I say it was an inconsistency in the rules? Obviously the rules are consistent with themselves. They just aren't consistent with my expectations on how memory should work.

Verisimulitude does not consist of "How I expect things to be". If the system is consistant with itself in it's explanations of how things happen, then it is fine. Your expectations due to personal preference are irrelevant.


To wit: "it's magic."

You accept that for your favored explanation, but not for any other?


You're wrong when you say the other options "don't add anything to the game." If they didn't, WotC wouldn't have written them.

.....Why yes, everything WotC has ever written has been a wonderful addition to the game. All hail our perfect lord and masters.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 03:17 PM
Eight hours of calm and quiet is much easier for me to remember things through than 16 hours of combat, noise, etc.

Except you don't, remember? You have to read that book again after the 8 hours, not before.


Verisimulitude does not consist of "How I expect things to be". If the system is consistant with itself in it's explanations of how things happen, then it is fine. Your expectations due to personal preference are irrelevant.

But if they have poor justification for their explanations, I am quite able to call them out on it. Such as why I forget things 6 seconds after I do them - poorly justified.


You accept that for your favored explanation, but not for any other?

There's a reason I put it in quotes, you know.


....Why yes, everything WotC has ever written has been a wonderful addition to the game. All hail our perfect lord and masters.

Why yes, everything WotC has ever written has been complete garbage, especially Unearthed Arcana, what an awful book to give us options. Damn them to the depths of Hades!

lesser_minion
2010-02-16, 03:37 PM
The other options give me everything Vancian does and more. If I want to Rope Trick before every major battle I still can - I'm just not required to because I ran out of empowered magic missiles or whatever.

So why would I, as a player, consider the option with more restrictions to be superior?

Because they don't. They give you a different style of play, and you're still trying to argue that one style of play you don't like is wrong by some arbitrary standard that exists solely in your head.


Nuh-uh. See, I can do pithy, unsubstantiated rebuttals too.

Yeah... you see, I don't need to re-iterate something that you haven't disputed. There is a big difference between 'unsubstantiated rebuttal' (your post) and 'very well supported but you haven't bothered to read it'



Yes, they do. I can do everything I could do with Vancian under the other systems, and more.

No, your character can. That's a power increase, it's not objectively 'better' or 'worse'.


Um, you do have to study it initially, you know.

And you then forget it almost entirely because you can only really know four ninth level spells.


You're wrong when you say the other options "don't add anything to the game." If they didn't, WotC wouldn't have written them.

You're talking about a different kind of option.


So the functional part disappears rather than the whole thing - is there a difference that matters?

With Spell Points, I only need to look at it 8 hours after my mind being totally empty - when I wake up. With Vancian, I need to look at it right away, because I have Alzheimer's. And with Recharge, I never need to look at it again.

Try actually answering a point that has been put to you instead of re-iterating an argument that you know to be wrong. Repeating something ad nauseam does not prove you right.




Then why do you?

You don't. You spend it. And actually, people can quite easily forget three words of no importance.


And all of those classes have been fixed, thanks to UA. We can has rejoicing?

Erm... no, because they weren't broken. Again, you're arguing that a stylistic choice is 'wrong' because it's not your style.



Why are you rearranging anything? Just put a checkmark next to the level that is unavailable, and remove it when you're done. Your overcomplicating the process.

You have to pick out all of the exceptions and list them separately so you don't forget them.


It's not just Wizards - the whole party has to snooze with me in the Rope Trick when I run out of Invisibilities to get us all past the bugbear patrol, or when I only prepared one spider climb and we all need to scale the cliff face, etc.

Also - is there a functional difference between "more versatile" and "less limiting factors?"

More versatile characters don't automatically make a system better. My point was that you're trying to argue that the game as a whole is better because wizards aren't as constrained, which isn't given.

We're done here. This has just reached the point where you're trying to argue ad nauseam, and I'm sick of it.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 04:29 PM
Try actually answering a point that has been put to you instead of re-iterating an argument that you know to be wrong. Repeating something ad nauseam does not prove you right.

Right back at you.


Erm... no, because they weren't broken. Again, you're arguing that a stylistic choice is 'wrong' because it's not your style.

Where did I ever say the choice was wrong?

Considering two options to be equal when one gives you more versatility is what I consider to be wrong. You haven't convinced me one iota that I should settle for less and be glad I'm doing so.


More versatile characters don't automatically make a system better. My point was that you're trying to argue that the game as a whole is better because wizards aren't as constrained, which isn't given.

It is a given for the players - and not just the wizard players, either. The whole party benefits by the wizard having more options, assuming players that don't hog the spotlight.

And if they do, that is independent of the system.


We're done here. This has just reached the point where you're trying to argue ad nauseam, and I'm sick of it.

As you wish. Bye!