PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition: Vancian magic system



jamroar
2007-08-18, 10:52 AM
Vancian magic system – there’s an element of that we held on to, but it’s a much smaller fraction of their overall power. A wizard will never completely run out of spells. They can run out of their “mordenkainen’s sword, however”.


Hmm, how would this work, you think? Are they going to fold the warlock into the wizard by giving them invocation slots / unlimited at will or per encounter low level spell slots? Allow spells to be prepared as an action during combat over several rounds?

Morty
2007-08-18, 10:57 AM
Where's that quote from?

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 10:58 AM
Oh! This excites me! Please don't be pulling my leg...

Beleriphon
2007-08-18, 10:59 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome&dcmp=ILC-DND062006FP

Looks like the Wizards of the Coast website.


Hmm, how would this work, you think? Are they going to fold the warlock into the wizard by giving them invocation slots / unlimited at will or per encounter low level spell slots? Allow spells to be prepared as an action during combat over several rounds?

I expect that it will mirror in some way that the Force powers work in the new edition of Star Wars. You can use your abilities X times per encounter, and after each encounter with a minute of rest they reset and are usable again. There would of course be other actions and abilities that will reset your abilities during an encounter.

Solo
2007-08-18, 11:07 AM
Sounds like they're gonna work in reserve feats as a class feature.

Matthew
2007-08-18, 11:09 AM
All I have got to say is:

Andy Collins - "Being a Wizard is about blasting people with magical energy."

puppyavenger
2007-08-18, 11:37 AM
So there removing one of the wizzards sole limiting features?

Diggorian
2007-08-18, 11:52 AM
I could easily see it being some modified version of the Spell Points variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) in UA.

It's worked well in our campaign from low to mid level, although we tweaked it with the Vitalizing variant incurring "mental fatigue and exhaustion" (penalties to the casting stat and another mental stat). This made casting truely a strain on the mind.

KIDS
2007-08-18, 12:16 PM
This is incredible; I really look forward to this change instead of the, as someone aptly put it, "narcoleptic wiz/clr team".

yango
2007-08-18, 12:19 PM
I expect that it will mirror in some way that the Force powers work in the new edition of Star Wars. You can use your abilities X times per encounter, and after each encounter with a minute of rest they reset and are usable again. There would of course be other actions and abilities that will reset your abilities during an encounter.

Thats my theory on how fighters will work (since they did say they were going to work in ToB stuff, and force powers and ToB maneuvers are very similar mechanically).


So there removing one of the wizzards sole limiting features?

Not if spells are going to be on the whole not as powerful (I don't see Warlock invocations being overpowered).

Fax Celestis
2007-08-18, 12:19 PM
I expect that it will mirror in some way that the Force powers work in the new edition of Star Wars. You can use your abilities X times per encounter, and after each encounter with a minute of rest they reset and are usable again. There would of course be other actions and abilities that will reset your abilities during an encounter.

This is where my money's at, considering they "are utilizing concepts from Star Wars Saga and the ToB."

Morty
2007-08-18, 12:25 PM
Bleh. This way they'll turn wizards into warlocks. I sincerely hope this prediction is wrong. I'd prefer even spell points over that.

yango
2007-08-18, 12:25 PM
I expect that it will mirror in some way that the Force powers work in the new edition of Star Wars. You can use your abilities X times per encounter, and after each encounter with a minute of rest they reset and are usable again. There would of course be other actions and abilities that will reset your abilities during an encounter.

Thats my theory on how fighters will work (since they did say they were going to work in ToB stuff, and force powers and ToB maneuvers are very similar mechanically).


So there removing one of the wizzards sole limiting features?

Not if spells are going to be on the whole not as powerful (I don't see Warlock invocations being overpowered).

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-18, 12:42 PM
All I have got to say is:

Andy Collins - "Being a Wizard is about blasting people with magical energy."
Ah. So they aren't planning to run any class that is about having a wide variety of magical tools that can be applied to all sorts of situations then? Or does the cleric get to keep the interesting side of magic, while the wizard becomes an over-int field gun?

Gah. Can't really judge until actual material is released, but that sounds very bad.

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2007-08-18, 12:46 PM
Truespeakers can use magic as often as they want, but they need to make a skill check. Could it be something like that?

bosssmiley
2007-08-18, 12:53 PM
All I have got to say is:

Andy Collins - "Being a Wizard is about blasting people with magical energy."

I think there may be a certain Batman Ninja Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500) slinking over Mr Collins rooftops to larn that boy the truth some time in the near future. :smallwink:

That said per-encounter/Wow-style cooldown casting would be a less bad mechanic than narcolepsomancy vancian casting. Although why WOTC just don't go the whole XPH 'spell points' hog I don't know. It just ... works. :smallconfused:

Lapak
2007-08-18, 12:58 PM
As my own random speculation, maybe they'll be able to cast many times during the day but only cast any given spell so many times before they lose it? So their spell slots become repetitions allowed?

Maybe once you've cast Fireball five times, say, you've exhausted that energy-track in your mental muscles, but you can still throw Lightning Bolts?

Morty
2007-08-18, 01:01 PM
Although why WOTC just don't go the whole XPH 'spell points' hog I don't know. It just ... works.

I don't know, because it appeared in 666 other various other games and is so utterly unoriginal that it's no wonder WoTC is trying to come up with something new?
It'd be better than per-encounter mechanics, but for casters everything is.

DraPrime
2007-08-18, 01:20 PM
With every major change that WotC lists, they make it easier to screw up the new addition. It could turn out to be amazing, but there's just so many things that could be ruined.

Enzario
2007-08-18, 01:24 PM
I expect that it will mirror in some way that the Force powers work in the new edition of Star Wars. You can use your abilities X times per encounter, and after each encounter with a minute of rest they reset and are usable again. There would of course be other actions and abilities that will reset your abilities during an encounter.

I sincerely hope they tweak the Force mechanics quite a bit, since in SW saga you get a VERY limited number of them. Imagine casters with less spells prepared than a Warblade has readied...

Zeta Kai
2007-08-18, 02:14 PM
Well, as some you may know by now, I'm not a huge fan of Vancian magic systems. So this is the best thing I've heard about 4E yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm still not ready for 4.0, but this definitely a step in the right direction.

Pokemaster
2007-08-18, 02:42 PM
I sincerely hope they tweak the Force mechanics quite a bit, since in SW saga you get a VERY limited number of them. Imagine casters with less spells prepared than a Warblade has readied...

I thought about setting up a system where spellcasters could cast a number of spells per encounter equal to the difference between their spellcasting ability modifier and the spell's level, so a level 5 wizard with 18 intelligence could cast 4 cantrips, 3 level 1 spells, 2 level 2 spells and 1 level 3 spell. I never really figured out how a level 7 wizard with 18 intelligence would work though.

SilverClawShift
2007-08-18, 03:19 PM
I have to admit, this and the racial talk have my interest piqued. Magic is fun, but the way wizards and sorcerers work is never exactly what I had in mind for what magic really is. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with.

I know everyone is worried, but frankly, I'm excited as all heck. If it sucks, I'll just keep playing 3.5. Between the dozens of classes, hundereds of prestige classes, and a mountain of homebrew stuff to sift through, 3.5 will still always be there.
And if it's fantastic, then hey, fantastic game system just waiting to be enjoyed, homebrewed, and expanded.

It's win win.

RaistlinandPals
2007-08-18, 03:48 PM
More spells per day for wizards and better capability in both battlefield control and blasting? It must be my birthday!

Citizen Joe
2007-08-18, 03:59 PM
I think its been slowly moving away from Vancian magic system as they went through the editions and expansions.

When they added the sorcerer in 3.0 they tested out removing the memorization but restricting spells to a smaller set.

When they added the Warlock, they removed the spells per day limitation and limited magic to a very few effects (which could then be modified).

I suspect they will aim some place in the middle.

kermel
2007-08-18, 04:29 PM
One of the problems with Vancian magic is that, at high levels, you have to spend a lot of time allocating all of those low level slots you have available. This could be solved by keeping Vancian magic for your highest spell level (or maybe your two highest spell levels), but introducing something else (per day, per encounter, at will, spell points, or whatever) for lower levels.

That way you would still get to make a choice regarding your best spells for the day, which is a tactically interesting feature IMO, but with less annoying book-keeping. That would make life easier to DMs: it's much faster to write down "Yurgol the 13th level NPC necromancer has 1 Mordenkainen's Sword memorized, can cast any 5th or 6th level spell once per encounter, and any 4th level or lower spell at will" than doing the whole list.

Irreverent Fool
2007-08-18, 04:47 PM
All I have got to say is:

Andy Collins - "Being a Wizard is about blasting people with magical energy."

Isn't that a warlock's job?

Irreverent Fool
2007-08-18, 04:55 PM
I think its been slowly moving away from Vancian magic system as they went through the editions and expansions.

When they added the sorcerer in 3.0 they tested out removing the memorization but restricting spells to a smaller set.

When they added the Warlock, they removed the spells per day limitation and limited magic to a very few effects (which could then be modified).

I suspect they will aim some place in the middle.

The sorcerer was around before 3.0

Citizen Joe
2007-08-18, 05:00 PM
Maybe your best (tier 1) spells need to be prepared/energized or what not.

Your next best (tier 2) spells can be cast spontaeously, but draw power from you.

Your least spells (tier 3) are mastered and you can cast them with little drain.

As you advance, these tiers move up. Ritual spells need to come out of the spell lists (like identify). Those seem to fall into a different category.

Stephen_E
2007-08-18, 05:26 PM
The other way could be to run a dual system.

Reduce the Wizards spells they can cast by 50% but give them Warlock invocations as well (I've generally seen the warlock held as weak at high levels).

That would leave the Wizard with a limited "batman" capacity, but he uses the invocations for general combat purposes.

The other possibility would be if they made the vancian part of magic work similiar to Artificer Infusions, generally take a minute to cast, and they have the their Warlock powers for unprepared combat, and general combat after the 1st round.

Both of thse would still leave the Wizard considerable power, but blunt his ability to rule combats. If you look at traditional fanatsy there are few examples where the the wizard can fire of complex spell after complex spell during a combat.

Possible example -
Wizard casts a few low level buffs before combat and then cast a "irresistable dance" in her right hand. Charges into combat firing arcane bolts woth the left hand in support of the fighters and then slaps in the iressitable dance (or whatever other nasty you wish to choose) when the opportunity presents. Then they choose, based on the tactical situation, whether to keep balsting or to cast another biggy. - You could also say that they can start casting the biggies while arcane blasting. So every 5 rounds or so the Wizard can pop out a Vancian spell, but the rest of the time they're stuck with Warlocking. Makes Time Stop less of a killer.

Stephen

Person_Man
2007-08-18, 05:37 PM
So there removing one of the wizzards sole limiting features?

Quite the contrary. If every class is essentially based off of Tome of Battle, then it will be much easier to balance. X level can produce Y level damage or results, every single combat. 3.5 balance often rests upon the DMG's suggestion to use 4ish combat encounters per game day. Switching to this system would remove that.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm for or against it. But I'm interested in seeing what they come up with. If it is based on ToB, then we will definitely need D&D 4.5, since ToB is in need of some serious errata.


This is where my money's at, considering they "are utilizing concepts from Star Wars Saga and the ToB."

OK, I've read everything there is to read about D&D, and have a good background in the World of Darkness, Games Workshop, and Wizkids games as well, with a smattering of GURPS, Amber, and various homebrew games. But I've never played Star Wars RPG. What's it like?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-18, 07:07 PM
The sorcerer was around before 3.0
Can you tell me which pre 3e book featured the sorcerer class then?

Machete
2007-08-18, 07:16 PM
Nerfing narcolepsy while noticing need for lasting nonvancian offensive abilities makes for neverending fun.

Matthew
2007-08-18, 07:17 PM
OK, I've read everything there is to read about D&D, and have a good background in the World of Darkness, Games Workshop, and Wizkids games as well, with a smattering of GURPS, Amber, and various homebrew games. But I've never played Star Wars RPG. What's it like?

Take a look at the previews up on the Star Wars Saga Site.

I don't really know Saga, but here's what I have picked up about it:

1) Iterative Attacks = Gone
2) +1 DB per 2 Character Levels (Maybe in D&D terms: BAB = +1 AB and +1 DB?)
3) Off Hand Strength Damage Bonus Multiplier = x 1.0
4) Two Handed Strength Damage Bonus Multiplier = x 2.0
5) Saving Throws Scale by Level 1:1 and are DCs [10 + Character Level]
6) Skills can be purchased and then automatically scale by half Character Level or used Untrained (-5) at half Character Level; they can also be focused in (+5)*
7) Armour Class replaced by Defence Value
8) Talent Trees - A kind of customisable Class Feature/Feat System
9) 'Double Attack' Feat, take -5 to AB to make two Attacks (I guess this or something similar is what was being discussed with reference to the Sword in the Preview)

Almost all good changes (i.e. almost all changes I would make to 3e).

* So, for example:

Skill A (Untrained) = 0 Ranks + 1/2 Character Level
Skill B (Trained) = 5 Ranks + 1/2 Character Level
Skill C (Focused) = 10 Ranks + 1/2 Character Level



Can you tell me which pre 3e book featured the sorcerer class then?

Player's Option: Spells and Magic introduced the idea of Free Magicks, which were essentially Spontaneous Spell Slots. If I remember rightly, you basically had less Slots overall as a result. It wasn't exactly a Class called Sorcerer, but an Optional Magic System.

Sequinox
2007-08-18, 07:30 PM
Honestly, I like Vance's ideas. They're great. But with my groups, It's just a spontanious desicion to play, not an organized session. So I don't see wizards too often, because it is a hassle to pick out spells.

I think that Vancian magic should stay. I also think that Sorcerers should stay. Those that like preparing spells, and have the time to prepare spells, should keep on being able to stay as wizards. It shouldn't go. It symbolizes DnD! For those that don't like the ideas that Vance had turned into DnD, play as sorcerers. It's that simple.

And yes, I do believe that magic should be weakened, or nonmagical characters should be strengthened. Either way.

____________________

Possible founder of the Oracle fanclub. if there already is one, I guess not.

GO KOBOLDS! (CN in my world)

78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

I started mine in a dungeon.

Belteshazzar
2007-08-18, 09:30 PM
But, but I like Vancian Wizards. Nooooooooooooo! It was the only class the Vancian system made sense for and they want to tinker with it.
Forget fireball I want my enemies to be turned to stone with a wave of my hand.
I want the dead to walk and imps to drag my foes away to Hades.
I want to stop time and drink some tea in the middle of battle just because I can.
I want to wither muscles, muddle minds, and tremble the hearts.
I want a tornado to carry those fools out of my way.
I want to throw my enemies out windows with my mind.
I want to run out of magic, just not so soon.
And I want to be able to do something completely different tomorrow.

Jothki
2007-08-18, 09:41 PM
Quite the contrary. If every class is essentially based off of Tome of Battle, then it will be much easier to balance. X level can produce Y level damage or results, every single combat. 3.5 balance often rests upon the DMG's suggestion to use 4ish combat encounters per game day. Switching to this system would remove that.

Yeah, it seems like to me that one of the reasons that casters are allowed to do so much ridiculously overpowered stuff is because they are limited on the total number of effective actions they can perform, and thus need to do overpowered stuff during those few actions. Allowing more spells allows those spells to be individually weaker.

arnoldrew
2007-08-19, 12:57 AM
The sorcerer was around before 3.0

Where, exactly?

Abstruse
2007-08-19, 07:00 AM
I know it'll depend on how they rewrite the system, but I can foresee at least one problem with the "oh, spellcasting recharges after every encounter":

Spells with hours-long durations combined with either Extend Spell or prestige-class abilities which mimic the same.

"Oh, I cast mage armor/protection from arrows/false life first thing every morning. But that actually doesn't affect my casting for the rest of the day, because my spellcasting recharges after every encounter! So I gain my +4 AC and DR10/magic against ranged attacks and extra hit points effectively for free."

Even without Extend Spell, that trick would allow a caster to basically keep buffs up for free all day long. Thus, either they'll have to nerf protective buffs so that their durations are substantially shorter or they'll need to completely rewrite the spell system. The Vancian system as it currently exists prevents that kind of abusive cheese, at least.

Sebastian
2007-08-19, 07:37 AM
I know it'll depend on how they rewrite the system, but I can foresee at least one problem with the "oh, spellcasting recharges after every encounter":

Spells with hours-long durations combined with either Extend Spell or prestige-class abilities which mimic the same.

"Oh, I cast mage armor/protection from arrows/false life first thing every morning. But that actually doesn't affect my casting for the rest of the day, because my spellcasting recharges after every encounter! So I gain my +4 AC and DR10/magic against ranged attacks and extra hit points effectively for free."

Even without Extend Spell, that trick would allow a caster to basically keep buffs up for free all day long. Thus, either they'll have to nerf protective buffs so that their durations are substantially shorter or they'll need to completely rewrite the spell system. The Vancian system as it currently exists prevents that kind of abusive cheese, at least.

Yeah, if they go for an per-encounter system for balance i'm surious about they will handle 3 things

1- healing
2- buff spells
3 utility spells (teleport, fly, detect magic, open door, detect trap, etc)

I'm the only one that dislike the idea of a per encounter balance, BTW, everyone seem so enthusiastic about it but to me it make D&D look like a videogame (combat. wait 10 minutes and you are 100% again, rinse, repeat). With the actual system the party is already 9 hour of rest (a rope trick) away from almost total recovery, this even if some of thme happen to be dead), with 4ed they will need only 9 minutes to go back at full health?

Sebastian
2007-08-19, 07:53 AM
About the long duration spells and buffs an idea could be that a spell is restored only it is not active, so if you have a mage armor on you, you can cast one spell less, if they reduce the number of castable spell (as they should) it could work.

Fishy
2007-08-19, 08:06 AM
With the actual system the party is already 9 hour of rest (a rope trick) away from almost total recovery, this even if some of thme happen to be dead), with 4ed they will need only 9 minutes to go back at full health?

So, here's the thing. Around the kitchen table, 'I sleep for nine hours' and 'I take 9 minutes to catch my breath' is exactly the same amount of player involvement, interest and decision making. Why is one better?

Abstruse
2007-08-19, 08:18 AM
So, here's the thing. Around the kitchen table, 'I sleep for nine hours' and 'I take 9 minutes to catch my breath' is exactly the same amount of player involvement, interest and decision making. Why is one better?

Arguably, because a lot more random monsters or beastie patrols could happen along in 9 hours than in 9 minutes. For example, if the stronghold you're invading decides to bring up a spellcaster to dispel your rope trick, and backs the caster up with a platoon of orcs, you're probably screwed.

It'll be interesting to see whether the new system limits how many spells you can hold as "active" at one time. Mage armor, shield, protection from arrows, false life, haste... ooops, sorry guys, I can't cast any offensive spells to add to the combat because my mystic energies are already tied up. That'd be one workable way to prevent caster buffs from becoming overpowering.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-19, 08:28 AM
Player's Option: Spells and Magic introduced the idea of Free Magicks, which were essentially Spontaneous Spell Slots. If I remember rightly, you basically had less Slots overall as a result. It wasn't exactly a Class called Sorcerer, but an Optional Magic System.
Yeah, free magic was a totally different beast and part of the spell point system used in Spells and Magic. They were so expensive, the clerics and wizards were best off sticking with memorizing specific spells as much as possible. Free magic just gave a little more flexibility.

The Mormegil
2007-08-19, 08:41 AM
I personally see it good if they are going to do something like: "I can cast 3rd level spells. I ready (AKA prepear from my spellbook) X 3rd level spells, including Fireball, Haste and Lightning Bolt. I am therefore capable of casting Fireball once, but then I must wait X rounds before my fireball's mystic energies recharge enough."

That would be OK for me, but I wonder: then Sorcerors?

Probably something like: "I need not ready my spells, I know them and am therefore capable of casting them repeatedly with less cooldown or maybe a cooldown time every X uses."

That will mean: Batman's screwed enough.
Sorcerors are better than wizards (arguably).
More fun casting, because I need to use a variety of spells, not always the same ol' Fireball.

Anyway, I think this isn't quite the correct answer: they say that a wizard can run out of Mordenkainen's Swords... Hmm... finishing one spell but can't be finishing them all... Intresting indeed... but...

Nay, the only thing I can think about is cooldown time.

I'm not quite sure I like it, but anyway, wait for more infos to come.

Sebastian
2007-08-19, 08:47 AM
So, here's the thing. Around the kitchen table, 'I sleep for nine hours' and 'I take 9 minutes to catch my breath' is exactly the same amount of player involvement, interest and decision making. Why is one better?

Because such a design choice risk to put all the encounters in one of two categories A) potentially deadly or B)unconsequential(sp) a non lethal trap become less than an annoyance, just walk through it and "take a breath", I can see high level party that jump out of windows of a tower rather than climb the stairs (yeah, it could already happen, this system just make it quicker :) ), with a system like that the only way to challenge a party is sending against them monster/encounters that have a chance to TPK, anything less is not even a blip on their radar.
Of course I'm exagerating here, There are a lot of ways they could do this right (even if many of those would a very different D&D) but from what we know until now I can't help feel worried.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-20, 10:00 AM
Am I the only one that finds "per-encounter" mechanics rather silly from a flavor point of view?

Morty
2007-08-20, 10:01 AM
Am I the only one that finds "per-encounter" mechanics rather silly from a flavor point of view?

You aren't. I find it silly from flavor point of view too. Come to think about that, I don't like it mechanically either. Leave "per encounter" for melee classes.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 10:02 AM
I hate them and the whole 'encounters per day' mentality.

Attilargh
2007-08-20, 10:05 AM
Hey, it could be that a per-encounter spell is "built" unconsciously as the Wizard is not otherwise occupied (by fighting, for example), and then he just needs to pull the imaginary trigger when he needs it.

That's at least as good an explanation as any I've heard for Vancian magic. :smalltongue:

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 10:08 AM
I hate them and the whole 'encounters per day' mentality.

I was DM rather few games, but I never used this damn 'encounters per day' thing.
When I though it should be fight, it was (not in some random places, 4 times per day :smallyuk: ). When players decided to go forward, they go.

This all 'encounters per day' is suggestion, how much players should fight. But making mechanics of classs abilities around it is misunderstanding.

Matthew
2007-08-20, 10:14 AM
I was DM rather few games, but I never used this damn 'encounters per day' thing.
When I though it should be fight, it was (not in some random places, 4 times per day :smallyuk: ). When players decided to go forward, they go.

This all 'encounters per day' is suggestion, how much players should fight. But making mechanics of classs abilities around it is misunderstanding.

I would tend to agree. I don't use Encounters within Adventure Sites, it makes no sense to me.

Aximili
2007-08-20, 10:32 AM
I've only been here since 3rd edition, thus the question:
How did spells and spellcasting work in the other editions?

Pokemaster
2007-08-20, 10:45 AM
I personally see it good if they are going to do something like: "I can cast 3rd level spells. I ready (AKA prepear from my spellbook) X 3rd level spells, including Fireball, Haste and Lightning Bolt. I am therefore capable of casting Fireball once, but then I must wait X rounds before my fireball's mystic energies recharge enough."

That would be OK for me, but I wonder: then Sorcerors?

Probably something like: "I need not ready my spells, I know them and am therefore capable of casting them repeatedly with less cooldown or maybe a cooldown time every X uses."

That will mean: Batman's screwed enough.
Sorcerors are better than wizards (arguably).
More fun casting, because I need to use a variety of spells, not always the same ol' Fireball.


I expect it'd be pretty much the same as it is now. The Sorcerer could cast the same spell as often as he can, but the Wizard would have access to every single spell in the core books so if the Wizard has a pretty good of what the party's quest is and has time to prepare for it, he'll probably have a substantial advantage over the Sorcerer.

The biggest advantage that 'spells per encounter' has over 'spells per day' is that if the DM wants the party to grind through a soul-crushing gauntlet-style dungeon and fight a lich at the end of it, the spellcasters will be able to sustain the same amount of effectiveness throughout the whole thing instead of blowing all their spells early or saving them all for the boss fight. Whether or not it works well in practice will probably depend on how available magic items are and how powerful magic in general will be.

Person_Man
2007-08-20, 10:59 AM
I've only been here since 3rd edition, thus the question:
How did spells and spellcasting work in the other editions?

Vancian spellcasting has been around since the very beginning.

Divine spellcasters sucked prior to 3rd edition.

When you found a new arcane spell, you had a % chance to learn the new spell, based on your Int. If you failed the roll, you couldn't learn it.

The editing was even worse then it is now, so errors which changed the effect of spells were common.

There main thing though is that there was no internet. Without an internet, there were no forums or errata. So rules for magic and the effects of particular spells tended to vary a lot more between gaming groups, because everyone interpreted them their way. This made playing D&D at conventions very interesting/frustrating.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-20, 11:01 AM
Am I the only one that finds "per-encounter" mechanics rather silly from a flavor point of view?
I certainly find "It takes some time for the magical energies to realign properly" easier to swallow than, "I can't get back into my Stance of Death until after I defeat this guy." Makes enough sense for Magic, not so much for combat.


I hate them and the whole 'encounters per day' mentality.
All 'encounters per day' is is a framework for being able to control pacing and balance as well as determining what the PCs could handle. It's simply a way for the DM to determine if the PCs would stand a chance against the young adult green dragon after defeating the horde of cultists. From the designer's standpoint, it also helps determine whether or not the new class you designed can keep up with or outlive the other cleasses. (If the answer to either is an extreme 'yes', the class should probably be re-balanced.)

As a second edition DM, I always found it difficult to determine exactly what was appropriate, as second edition lacked any guidelines of this sort.


This all 'encounters per day' is suggestion, how much players should fight. But making mechanics of classs abilities around it is misunderstanding.
Well, if the classes are properly balanced, shouldn't they all wear out after roughly the same amount of time? How would you propose to measure that without assuming a standard amount of encounter time?


I would tend to agree. I don't use Encounters within Adventure Sites, it makes no sense to me.
:smallconfused: All an encounter is is a label for an Important Event of some sort. Not sure what you mean by this.

Indon
2007-08-20, 11:15 AM
I've only been here since 3rd edition, thus the question:
How did spells and spellcasting work in the other editions?

I can't speak for the original AD&D, but the second edition had Vancian spell slots, memorization, etc. Wizards had one chance per level to learn a spell from a scroll (all their spells came from scrolls). Memorizing a spell from your spellbook took 10 minutes per spell level (so high-level wizards couldn't get all their spells back in a night).

Bards, who were also arcane casters, functioned mostly as Sorcerors do in 3'rd edition. They were no doubt the prototype for the Sorceror model.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 11:24 AM
I think Andy Collins has it right. I, for one, welcome the demise of "Batman" Wizards; I think they're a horrible misapplication of the game system, and hope 4th edition serves to remove or diminish the exploitable spells.

In every game I've ever played, the folks that wanted to be wizards invariably wanted to "blast people with magical power". They had little desire to "control battlefields" (the folks I play with are uninterested in the "war gaming" aspect of D&D) or any some such. With us getting older we haven't had a lot of time to play with variations like the Warlock, but that is more in-line with what my groups have wanted out of spell-casters.

I've always hated Vancian magic, as well. It simply seems nonsensical to me; spell slots or spell points, sure, I can see that as a finite amount of magic power available that eventually needs to be recharged - but the "preparation" of specific spells into those slots never made any sense to me. You either know how to cast a spell or you don't; "preparing" your magic always struck me as, quite frankly, dumb.

Oh, and as to the existence of Sorcerers pre-3rd edition: Baldur's Gate 2 had Sorcerer as an available class. The system was based on 2nd edition rules - although 3rd edition was in development the same time it was and was released around the same time, so I'm not sure it can really be held as a "pre-3rd" source.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-20, 11:40 AM
Wizards had one chance per level to learn a spell from a scroll (all their spells came from scrolls).
You could learn spells from spellbooks just fine.


Bards, who were also arcane casters, functioned mostly as Sorcerors do in 3'rd edition. They were no doubt the prototype for the Sorceror model.
No. Bards required spell books and had to learn spells and everything. Cast spells just like wizards.


In every game I've ever played, the folks that wanted to be wizards invariably wanted to "blast people with magical power". They had little desire to "control battlefields" (the folks I play with are uninterested in the "war gaming" aspect of D&D) or any some such. With us getting older we haven't had a lot of time to play with variations like the Warlock, but that is more in-line with what my groups have wanted out of spell-casters.
And I find simply blasting the opposition boring, unoriginal, and lacking finesse.


I've always hated Vancian magic, as well. It simply seems nonsensical to me; spell slots or spell points, sure, I can see that as a finite amount of magic power available that eventually needs to be recharged - but the "preparation" of specific spells into those slots never made any sense to me. You either know how to cast a spell or you don't; "preparing" your magic always struck me as, quite frankly, dumb.
The idea is that magic has to be actively stored within a spellcaster's mind within configurations specific to particular spells. When it comes time to cast the spell, those energies are released in accordance with their configuration. You can't actually change the configuration while casting the spell, save in the minute ways to decide on things like targets and final range and so forth.

It's a bit like preparing, say, a holiday fireworks show. You set up the fireworks in specific groups and configurations, hook them up to the console, and so forth. You can't change the way the fireworks will go off without reworking the configuration. Once you hit a particular batch's fuse, they go off in the direction you previously aimed them and explode in the colors and shapes you previously determined. Preparing the configuration is like preparing the spell. Lighting the fuse is like casting the spell.


Oh, and as to the existence of Sorcerers pre-3rd edition: Baldur's Gate 2 had Sorcerer as an available class. The system was based on 2nd edition rules - although 3rd edition was in development the same time it was and was released around the same time, so I'm not sure it can really be held as a "pre-3rd" source.
No. Video games don't count.

Zim
2007-08-20, 11:41 AM
I think that the new system is intended to make every class just as fun and playable as the others at every level. This will steer us away from CoDzillas and wizards being perceived as the "most powerful/broken (depending on your PoV)" classes to all classes being equally powerful, just different.

As for the magic system, I think we're going to see something a little more like the reserve feats where spellcasters can still produce certain spell effects on a regular basis and have "spell slots" that reflect their really "special" effects. Never running out of magic missile is a good thing:smallwink: Being able to summon monsters all day long is not.

How this is going to work is a mystery to me, but I have confidence that the R&D team are looking long and hard at this very important aspect of the game. This is one of those "make or break" issues in game design IMO.

I'm (much to my surprise) looking forward to the new editon of D&D. If it is as much a quantum leap forward as going from 2nd to 3.x edition, then I expect great things from WotC. 3rd edition was a wonderful rethinking of the game from the previous systems and won me over from Harnmaster. If WotC can make the game even better, then whoopee! If not, then I still have 3.5 to fall back on.

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 11:43 AM
I think Andy Collins has it right. I, for one, welcome the demise of "Batman" Wizards...


I agree 100% with your entire post.



I haven't seen anyone speculate exactly what I am speculating, so here goes:

I imagine that 4e will split magic between "Spells" and "Energy". The names of course would likely be different, but the idea would be that spells are things that take time to cast. You might have to memorize them or prepare them or some such. You could run out of these.

Energy would be like throwing bolts of energy, shooting magic arrows or something.

So basically Spells = dramatic effects, have to memorize.

Energy = attacking people with blasts of magic.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 12:03 PM
And I find simply blasting the opposition boring, unoriginal, and lacking finesse.
If you want originality and finesse, you shouldn't be a wizard. Finesse is the domain of the rogue and other such classes, not of the paragon of magical might.

Look at the powerful wizards of D&D mythos: Elminster, Mordenkeinen, Raistlin, Dalamar: were they really focused on "finesse", or did they apply their magic like a well-researched sledgehammer? It always seemed the latter to me.



The idea is that magic has to be actively stored within a spellcaster's mind within configurations specific to particular spells. <explanation of Vancian magic>
I understand it. I just think it's dumb. Magic isn't fireworks, and the amount of "retooling" done in how and who you target throws your analogy all out of whack already. It's more akin to having to fire 5 red and 4 blue fireworks instead of 3 red, 3 blue and 3 green because you left all your green fireworks at home: to which I say, "why don't you just get a bigger truck and bring them all?"

Indon
2007-08-20, 12:10 PM
You could learn spells from spellbooks just fine.


But you had to make the learn-spell-from-scroll roll anyway.



No. Bards required spell books and had to learn spells and everything. Cast spells just like wizards.

Are you sure? I could swear their magic was described as "they picked it up as they went along."

nagora
2007-08-20, 12:10 PM
Vancian spellcasting has been around since the very beginning.

Divine spellcasters sucked prior to 3rd edition.

In what way?


When you found a new arcane spell, you had a % chance to learn the new spell, based on your Int. If you failed the roll, you couldn't learn it.

This was in interesting mechanic which mixed up the characters a bit.


The editing was even worse then it is now, so errors which changed the effect of spells were common.

Any particular examples?


There main thing though is that there was no internet. Without an internet, there were no forums or errata.

There was Dragon magazine. Not available everywhere.


So rules for magic and the effects of particular spells tended to vary a lot more between gaming groups, because everyone interpreted them their way.

This is a good thing.


This made playing D&D at conventions very interesting/frustrating.

This is unimportant.

Pokemaster
2007-08-20, 12:38 PM
Look at the powerful wizards of D&D mythos: Elminster, Mordenkeinen, Raistlin, Dalamar: were they really focused on "finesse", or did they apply their magic like a well-researched sledgehammer? It always seemed the latter to me.


I would like to refer you to V and his thirteen giant spearmen. Just because most of the D&D novels present Wizards and Sorcerers as thermonuclear warheads doesn't mean every single Wizard and Sorcerer out there has to go around blasting people. An inventive Wizard can do a lot with Illusions, Transmutation and Enchantment.

Morty
2007-08-20, 12:41 PM
If you want originality and finesse, you shouldn't be a wizard. Finesse is the domain of the rogue and other such classes, not of the paragon of magical might.

So what's the point of learning to do things most people can never dream about doing if you're just going to do the same thing as fighter except in more flashy way?


I understand it. I just think it's dumb. Magic isn't fireworks, and the amount of "retooling" done in how and who you target throws your analogy all out of whack already. It's more akin to having to fire 5 red and 4 blue fireworks instead of 3 red, 3 blue and 3 green because you left all your green fireworks at home: to which I say, "why don't you just get a bigger truck and bring them all?"

And to which I respond: because you've got to have some god-damned limitation of what your wizard can do. I personally find Vancian casting great way to measure wizard's power and making magic respectable- you've got to decide carefully when to cast a spell instead of just swinging them around as if you were swinging a sword. I've always desribed it as casting the spell wile preparing it, and only finishing it in the moment of "actual" casting.
What can I say, I love playing casters in 3.X D&D, but it looks that it's going to change in 4ed.

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 12:50 PM
No. Bards required spell books and had to learn spells and everything. Cast spells just like wizards.hmm, while in 1st ed AD&D bards didn't need spell books any more than thier druid masters did.


The idea is that magic has to be actively stored within a spellcaster's mind within configurations specific to particular spells. When it comes time to cast the spell, those energies are released in accordance with their configuration. You can't actually change the configuration while casting the spell, save in the minute ways to decide on things like targets and final range and so forth. I've always found this idea ludicrous; it's spawned some of my earliest house rules as I got rid of it.

Draz74
2007-08-20, 12:52 PM
The designers have actually stated that the new form of Vancian-ish casting will involve wizards having spell abilities: "Some per-day, some per-encounter, and some at will."

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-20, 12:58 PM
If you want originality and finesse, you shouldn't be a wizard. Finesse is the domain of the rogue and other such classes, not of the paragon of magical might.
There are very many types of finesse. The Rogue offers very little in terms of the variety applied with magic.


Look at the powerful wizards of D&D mythos: Elminster, Mordenkeinen, Raistlin, Dalamar: were they really focused on "finesse", or did they apply their magic like a well-researched sledgehammer? It always seemed the latter to me.
Mostly familiar with Elminster. Yeah, he sledgehammered quite a bit, but he also had his finesse moments.

As for Raistlin. Well, I've only read the Dragonlance Chronicles, so I can only comment about what I saw there, and it was all finesse. I don't recall any outright blasting spells on Raistlin's part the entire series.

Never read anything featuring Mordenkeinen and Dalamar.


I understand it. I just think it's dumb.
Nah. It's just different from how magic is usually portrayed. I've always wanted to read Vance's books to see how it's portrayed there. Just haven't had the chance yet.


It's more akin to having to fire 5 red and 4 blue fireworks instead of 3 red, 3 blue and 3 green because you left all your green fireworks at home: to which I say, "why don't you just get a bigger truck and bring them all?"
You do get a bigger truck. It's called levelling up and getting more spell slots. You still can't turn the green ones into red.


But you had to make the learn-spell-from-scroll roll anyway.
That's just the "Learn Spell Roll." Source has nothing to do with it. Just like you need to make a Spellcraft check to learn a spell, whether from scroll or spellbook.


Are you sure? I could swear their magic was described as "they picked it up as they went along."
That's a description of how they find spells for their spellbook. Mostly a justification for why they max out at knowing sixth level spells, really. They don't devote themselves to magical study.


I've always found this idea ludicrous; it's spawned some of my earliest house rules as I got rid of it.
Don't see what's so ludicrous in this over any other magical system you could have.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 01:04 PM
I would like to refer you to V and his thirteen giant spearmen. Just because most of the D&D novels present Wizards and Sorcerers as thermonuclear warheads doesn't mean every single Wizard and Sorcerer out there has to go around blasting people. An inventive Wizard can do a lot with Illusions, Transmutation and Enchantment.
V is the exception that proves the rule, you realise. Most wizards aren't V; in 3rd edition, however, especially as espoused on these and the Wizards forums, they are V - and that's incorrect. V is supposed to be a different wizard, not standard flavour.

As for Raistlin: he never blasted, yes - because Wizards of the Red Robe didn't have access to Evocation. But he did use direct and focused uses of the illusions and enchantments he had; he didn't try to find "clever" ways of using them, or seek to "control the battlefield" with any of them.

Zid
2007-08-20, 01:09 PM
After reading through this and many other 4E threads, I have a few speculations.

1) WotC have fired their development team
2) They have no idea what to do for 4E
3) They started the countdown clock and put a few previews ont the website and are now scouring the internet forums for original ideas for 4E

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-20, 01:15 PM
hmm, while in 1st ed AD&D bards didn't need spell books any more than thier druid masters did.
In 2e, bardic spellcasting was entirely non-druidic.

And, didn't 1e bards also cast magic user spells as well as druid spells? Did they use spellbooks for those?

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 01:28 PM
3) They started the countdown clock and put a few previews ont the website and are now scouring the internet forums for original ideas for 4E

Well, some of ideas on those boards are quit good, so maybe it's not that bad :smallbiggrin:

Together will build the new 4th edition, comrades!! :smallwink:

Wolfwood2
2007-08-20, 01:34 PM
Personally, I think this is actually a move closer to magic as it was in Vance's books, not further away. (Despite what WotC seems to think.)

Vance's wizards prepared spells, but not a huge number of them. They would have a few "big guns", your Time Stops and your Prismatic Sprays hung, not dozens of minor spells. Yet at the same time, they could still do some pretty cool stuff without going to their prepared spells for anything.

I envision a system where a wizard gets a very few spell slots per day that he can use to prepare powerful spells. Much fewer than the 3.X wizard, but still along the same principle of being able to revise his spell selection based on the needs of the day. Yet at the same time he gets a bunch of at-will or short-recharge-time abilities that he can use whenever he wants. These may or may not be capable of revision.

Dausuul
2007-08-20, 01:53 PM
V is the exception that proves the rule, you realise. Most wizards aren't V; in 3rd edition, however, especially as espoused on these and the Wizards forums, they are V - and that's incorrect. V is supposed to be a different wizard, not standard flavour.

He is? Based on what? I don't recall anybody issuing a Code of Standard Wizard Flavors. V always struck me as a comic stereotype.


As for Raistlin: he never blasted, yes - because Wizards of the Red Robe didn't have access to Evocation. But he did use direct and focused uses of the illusions and enchantments he had; he didn't try to find "clever" ways of using them, or seek to "control the battlefield" with any of them.

Like when he used web to tangle a draconian's wings and send it plunging to its doom... or friends and charm person to get the gully dwarves to help the Companions find a way into Xak Tsaroth... or illusion spells to put on a travelling show and earn money when the Companions were broke... nah, nothing clever or innovative there.

Later on, when he was an Uber-Powerful Archmage of Doom, he did have a tendency to use magic like a sledgehammer, but by that point he could afford to. Low-level casters don't have that luxury; it's all about cleverness and utility, and always has been. I've been playing Batman-style casters since 2E.

geez3r
2007-08-20, 01:59 PM
Here's my predition as to how 4e magic will work:

Eerily similar to these classes: http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes

Here's the wizard: http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Wizard

Here's the cleric: http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Cleric

You get unlimited lower level spells at a lower caster level, while still having your standard "big guns" that you pull out on bosses and the like. Not to mention talent like abilities similar to Saga.

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 02:08 PM
And, didn't 1e bards also cast magic user spells as well as druid spells? Did they use spellbooks for those?Not as I recall; their spellcasting in 1e AD&D was entirely off of the druid list.
Though since they had thief levels they could use scrolls, and i think that in 1 ed you could cast spells from a spell book as if it were a scoll (but it destroyed the spell in the spell book to do that).

Techonce
2007-08-20, 02:46 PM
Pretty much I have played games with 3 types of magic systems.

Vancian like DnD.

Point Based like psions in D&D and most video games.

Drain Based like 1st and 2nd edition Shadowrun.

My thoughts:

Vancian: Works and is common to most of us since we play DnD. The advantage is that it makes a smart wizard (or a wizard with a smart player) use his spells as they need them and not waste them too much. We all know that the wizard can blast a group of goblins with the firball, but the poor player will throw out the "should I" part. IF you go to a per encounter based magic, then they can toss out this type of thinking and blast away. THe vancian system puts daily limits in place and for a dungeon crawl with minimal places te rest, then players need to be smart with their magic.

Point based: More freedom with vancian and it allows the player to use more minor spells if major spells are not needed at the time. This may be a good thing as it stops other players from geting mad the the spellcaster if they hog the spotlight by always using area effect spells.

Drain based. For those not used to the Shadowrun rules (and I don't know about 3rd and 4th edition of those rules, since I stopped playing long ago.) WHenever you cast a spell you make a drain type check and you determine how much subdual damage you took from it. You only got 10 points of subdual damage and 10 points of leather damage, so it was kind of critical. Excessive subdual damage rolled over into the lethal column. Stronger spells had the potential for more damage.

The nice part about this was that the mage could burn off a large number of weaker spells and not get too wiped out. A stronger spell was used with caution. Other then keeping track of your damage, there was no spell point bookkeeping or spells used book keeping.

In practice, it seemed to work quite well and if I remember correctly you could cast spelsl more powerful than you should and then it became lethal damage. It allowed cornered mages to kamakazi attack too.

Well my thoghts...

Krellen
2007-08-20, 02:55 PM
He is? Based on what? I don't recall anybody issuing a Code of Standard Wizard Flavors. V always struck me as a comic stereotype.
You've spent too much time here, or on the Wizards forum. Before reading these forums, the idea of a blast-free "Batman" Wizard was something I'd never heard of, even when I had players that used non-blasting spells. Solid fog as one of the best spells still strikes me as a rather absurd statement.


Like when he used web to tangle a draconian's wings and send it plunging to its doom... or friends and charm person to get the gully dwarves to help the Companions find a way into Xak Tsaroth... or illusion spells to put on a travelling show and earn money when the Companions were broke...
Only the first one is an "innovative" use of magic (allowed by a DM saying it was allowable). Using illusions to make money is a direct and simple application of their ability, and using friends and charm person to get people to do what you want is exactly what the spells are for, so what the heck is so innovative about using them that way?

Jack Mann
2007-08-20, 02:58 PM
For the record, I never thought that wizards should be blaster types. Even before I started playing D&D. Wizards should be subtle (if quick to anger).

Morty
2007-08-20, 03:07 PM
You've spent too much time here, or on the Wizards forum. Before reading these forums, the idea of a blast-free "Batman" Wizard was something I'd never heard of, even when I had players that used non-blasting spells. Solid fog as one of the best spells still strikes me as a rather absurd statement.

Non-blasting doesn't have to mean ludicrous spells like Solid Fog. It includes utility spells, save-or-lose spells, benefical spells etc. I agree that damage spells need to have their place, but wizards using only blasting spells are absurd. Why be a wizard if you only do what fighter can do as well?

Lapak
2007-08-20, 03:28 PM
As for Raistlin: he never blasted, yes - because Wizards of the Red Robe didn't have access to Evocation. But he did use direct and focused uses of the illusions and enchantments he had; he didn't try to find "clever" ways of using them, or seek to "control the battlefield" with any of them.Raistlin followed the correct spell-usage arc for a 1E/2E wizard: go ahead and use save-or-lose spells at low levels when everyone has terrible saves, but at high levels you must switch over to blasting spells because everyone and their cousin has really good saves vs. magic that there's no way to overcome.

High level save-or-lose casters in 2E had a much, MUCH harder time.

Ramos
2007-08-20, 04:04 PM
Just a note: mages having access to 25th level spells does not nessecarily mean they have spell slots of 25th level.

It might also mean you could cast higher level spells than you had slots just like overchanneling in The Wheel of Time.

It might yet mean a spell-point system and 25th "level" spells means spells costing 25 spell points to cast.

Another explanation is that, since we have epic levels, we also have epic spells. Only this time, they did the smart thing and put levels into those epic spells instead of making them just require a spellcraft check. So, an epic slot itself could be used to cast higher level spells as a wizard increases in levels just as the same epic slot is now used to cast DC 40 epic spells when the wizard is lvl 20 and DC 100 epic spells when the same wizard has levelled up to 40th level.

Crow
2007-08-20, 04:26 PM
Drain based. For those not used to the Shadowrun rules (and I don't know about 3rd and 4th edition of those rules, since I stopped playing long ago.) WHenever you cast a spell you make a drain type check and you determine how much subdual damage you took from it. You only got 10 points of subdual damage and 10 points of leather damage, so it was kind of critical. Excessive subdual damage rolled over into the lethal column. Stronger spells had the potential for more damage.

The nice part about this was that the mage could burn off a large number of weaker spells and not get too wiped out. A stronger spell was used with caution. Other then keeping track of your damage, there was no spell point bookkeeping or spells used book keeping.

In practice, it seemed to work quite well and if I remember correctly you could cast spelsl more powerful than you should and then it became lethal damage. It allowed cornered mages to kamakazi attack too.

Well my thoghts...

I was a big Shadowrun fan before Fanpro put out the 4th Edition for that game. Drain-based is awesome, and is quite well-balanced. I also agree with the other benefits you listed. One problem is that in Shadowrun you took penalties for accruing wounds, in D&D you don't. D&D hitpoints would be somewhat akin to old-fashioned spellpoints once the D&D guy starts taking drain.

But I actually came up with a variant spellcasting system for D&D based on this style. It worked quite well for our group.

Fixer
2007-08-20, 04:34 PM
The designers have actually stated that the new form of Vancian-ish casting will involve wizards having spell abilities: "Some per-day, some per-encounter, and some at will."

I think your comment was lost in all the angry posting. I also hope your statement is true.

As a very-infrequent player I enjoyed the concept of the Batman wizard before I knew it had a name. I would miss very much if they removed all the non-blaster spells from the Wizard's arsenal of spells. Some of us enjoy that style and I am pretty certain that the designers won't lop that off simply to make D&D more like an MMORPG on paper.

Also, I appreciated the drain concept of spells from Shadowrun as well. They did make a certain kind of sense. Too bad about that mana wall problem (did they solve that in 4th ed Shadowrun?).

Indon
2007-08-20, 04:44 PM
Personally, I think this is actually a move closer to magic as it was in Vance's books, not further away. (Despite what WotC seems to think.)

Vance's wizards prepared spells, but not a huge number of them. They would have a few "big guns", your Time Stops and your Prismatic Sprays hung, not dozens of minor spells. Yet at the same time, they could still do some pretty cool stuff without going to their prepared spells for anything.

I envision a system where a wizard gets a very few spell slots per day that he can use to prepare powerful spells. Much fewer than the 3.X wizard, but still along the same principle of being able to revise his spell selection based on the needs of the day. Yet at the same time he gets a bunch of at-will or short-recharge-time abilities that he can use whenever he wants. These may or may not be capable of revision.

So Zelazny did base Logrus magic off of the same thing!

I was wondering, when I read the books, why Merlin's spellcasting had such a D&D feel to it... now I know.

Dausuul
2007-08-20, 05:02 PM
You've spent too much time here, or on the Wizards forum. Before reading these forums, the idea of a blast-free "Batman" Wizard was something I'd never heard of, even when I had players that used non-blasting spells. Solid fog as one of the best spells still strikes me as a rather absurd statement.

I never said "blast-free." The defining trait of the Batman wizard is:


Your job is to do whatever it is that needs doing, unless it falls into the category of "hitting things," "healing things," or "using skills (2E equivalent: thief abilities) that aren't Knowledge or Spellcraft."

This means having an array of utility spells to be used as needed in any situation; which has described every wizard I've ever played. Of course we didn't call it "Batman" back then.


Only the first one is an "innovative" use of magic (allowed by a DM saying it was allowable). Using illusions to make money is a direct and simple application of their ability, and using friends and charm person to get people to do what you want is exactly what the spells are for, so what the heck is so innovative about using them that way?

I'll concede charm person and friends. However, using illusion spells to entertain and make money is a far cry from the intended purpose of the spells, which is to deceive and manipulate enemies.

And going back to the original question, which is whether wizards use "finesse," how are these uses not finesse? And if they aren't, what is?

Krellen
2007-08-20, 05:20 PM
And going back to the original question, which is whether wizards use "finesse," how are these uses not finesse? And if they aren't, what is?
Unusual or indirect applications of your spells. Black Tentacles to grapple and break up a cavalry charge isn't very much finesse; using the same spell to hold open a gate, or catch butterflies*, or cause an avalanche/rockfall/cave in is finesse.

To go back to the DragonLance setting we've been dwelling on, Fizban's "pfeather-splat" is a finessed usage of magic. Sure, he squished - but his goal was to save Tasslehoff, which he accomplished with - you guessed it - finesse.

*Butterflies here standing in for any small, hard-to-catch thing you want to catch.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-08-20, 05:29 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how going from ten pre-Epic spell levels to 25 is considered "streamlining", which is apparently the biggest issue for this new 4th Edition, making sure everything flows smoothly during sessions.

Besides the sheer size of the spells/day tables for the spellcasters, consider the spell descriptions themselves. The spell lists will take up their own chapter, the descriptions will be so numerous as to require their own book (Oh heck, a 4E Spell Compendium...we could beat whales to death with it).

I do however endorse the reworking of Vancian casting. In the present game, a spellcaster's greatest vulnerability is his limited spell count. When they run out of spells, prepared or spontaneous, they have to rely on whatever magic items they might have, like wands or the occasional magic weapon, or they're very much useless and sitting ducks. This has always been a sore point for me, fighters and melee types go charging head-on into combat and can keep fighting all week-long if need be, but spellcasters only have enough spells to last maybe an hour of casting.

If the spellcasters can now cast an unlimited number of low-level spells, that weakness becomes reduced if not eliminated. However, getting rid of the entire system isn't the way to go, and neither is turning them all into Warlock facsimiles.

The Glyphstone
2007-08-20, 05:38 PM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but maybe they're going to do something similar to the way Shadow Magic works in Tome of Magic..."spells" that start out at 1/day, become 3/day at higher levels, and eventually become at-will (for the weakest of the abilities). In this case, it could be per-day abilities that downgrade into per-encounter abilities and eventually become at-will abilities.

Kiero
2007-08-20, 05:43 PM
Player's Option: Spells and Magic introduced the idea of Free Magicks, which were essentially Spontaneous Spell Slots. If I remember rightly, you basically had less Slots overall as a result. It wasn't exactly a Class called Sorcerer, but an Optional Magic System.

Along with channeling as an alternative to fire and forget magic, with spell slots.

Wehrkind
2007-08-20, 05:43 PM
Just about every magic user I can think of reading used sublte, tricky magic most of the time, as opposed to launching fireballs everywhere.

The witch didn't just fireball Hansel and Grettle and serve them up later.

Sleeping Beauty had to eat an apple with magic poison delivered by a self altered witch to fall asleep (as opposed to Steward's Stupendous Sniper Shot).

Circe charms and polymorphs; she doesn't tac nuke ships.

What wizards do just blow things up?

Kiero
2007-08-20, 05:48 PM
What wizards do just blow things up?

Many of those who appear in fantasy novels and roleplaying games?

kpenguin
2007-08-20, 05:50 PM
To me, there are many ways to play a wizard (just as there are many ways to play many other classes). Some are more balanced. However, limitted play styles of a wizard to just a blaster isn't good. One of the reasons that I play D&D instead of video game RPGs is because of the freedom.

Let's say I have a spell that can summon a giant rock. I can drop that rock on people's heads. I can use that rock to climb. I can use that rock to block doorways or pipes. I can have some dwarves use the rock as a building material. There are a lot of ways to use that rock. Limiting me to only one way of using that rock would be silly.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-08-20, 06:00 PM
Yes, the Wizard is very much a role of versatility. You have the general, straight-forward interpretation of what spells do, and then you can get creative and think of what alternative uses there are for it.

For example, I once tried using Prestidigitation to blind a bear by colouring it's pupils black to stop light getting in. It didn't work because the DM ruled I couldn't duplicate a higher-level spell with it, but it was a very creative use that I was applauded for coming up with.

kpenguin
2007-08-20, 06:07 PM
Ah yes. As a DM, I ruled that having a continual flame on your face would indeed blind you if stayed there for an extended period of time.


Many of those who appear in fantasy novels and roleplaying games?

I believe the question was what spellcasters just blow stuff up. Off the top of my head, I can only name a few, like Tim the Enchanter. Most spellcasters at least fly around or summon things or make glowy little lights around their heads.

Duke Malagigi
2007-08-20, 06:12 PM
Just about every magic user I can think of reading used sublte, tricky magic most of the time, as opposed to launching fireballs everywhere.

The witch didn't just fireball Hansel and Grettle and serve them up later.

Sleeping Beauty had to eat an apple with magic poison delivered by a self altered witch to fall asleep (as opposed to Steward's Stupendous Sniper Shot).

Circe charms and polymorphs; she doesn't tac nuke ships.

What wizards do just blow things up?

The wizards of the Unseen University do. Just listen to the names of these three spells. Sumpjumper's Incendiary Surprise, Quandom's Attractive Point and Herpetty's Seismic Reorganizer. True, these are Discworld wizards but still, those are impressive sounding spell names.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 06:13 PM
I believe the question was what spellcasters just blow stuff up. Off the top of my head, I can only name a few, like Tim the Enchanter. Most spellcasters at least fly around or summon things or make glowy little lights around their heads.
All of which the Warlock can do.

This path of conversation started because I agreed with Andy Collins, and specifically invoked the Warlock as a better example of what a wizard "should" be like than the D&D Wizard, especially his "Batman" version so beloved around here. No one's advocating nothing but Evocations here, but rather a far greater focus on the explosive potential of the wizard over the cheesier, more unbalancing "finesse" version.

After all, if anything is truly iconic of a D&D wizard, it is "I cast a fireball!" - and "Batman" wizards are destroying that.

Kiero
2007-08-20, 06:26 PM
After all, if anything is truly iconic of a D&D wizard, it is "I cast a fireball!" - and "Batman" wizards are destroying that.

Bingo! D&D is a genre unto itself quite distinct within fantasy, any property that's been going over thirty years will tend to do that. Before 3.x appeared, that's what an archetypical D&D wizard was all about.

Crow
2007-08-20, 06:39 PM
Also, I appreciated the drain concept of spells from Shadowrun as well. They did make a certain kind of sense. Too bad about that mana wall problem (did they solve that in 4th ed Shadowrun?).

At the risk of going off-topic: Mana Wall?

kpenguin
2007-08-20, 06:41 PM
All of which the Warlock can do.

This path of conversation started because I agreed with Andy Collins, and specifically invoked the Warlock as a better example of what a wizard "should" be like than the D&D Wizard, especially his "Batman" version so beloved around here. No one's advocating nothing but Evocations here, but rather a far greater focus on the explosive potential of the wizard over the cheesier, more unbalancing "finesse" version.

After all, if anything is truly iconic of a D&D wizard, it is "I cast a fireball!" - and "Batman" wizards are destroying that.

Just so we're clear here, could you describe what you think the D&D wizard should be and what a "Batman" wizard is?

Arakune
2007-08-20, 06:47 PM
hum... tell me see if this have some sense:

The Vancian type wizard need to prepare spells, right? But why, for all that's holy and right, you need to prepare a spell with only verbal and/or somatic components? I can see the wizard making a limited amount of chemicals, like bat guano, and then when desired he trigger the spell with his magic power spending the material component and one daily use of spells. I can also see the wizard doing a quick search for his spell book to remember some spell he don't cast for a long time. Also, the lower the spell level, the lower spell slot required, and the lower recharge time, like this:

0-1: 1~5 minute of rest -> full recharge;
2-3: 10 minutes of rest -> (Int mod)+3 spell slot recharged
4-5: 30 minutes or rest -> (Int mod)+2 spell slot recharged
6-7: 1 hour of rest -> (Int mod) spell slot recharged
8-9: 3 hours of rest -> (Int mod)-1 spell slot recharged (min 1)
... and so on, where the sorcerer can cast more spells and recharge then faster, but altough their spell slot are recharged that doesn't mean they can cast all spells again, such as some nuke spells (with complicated preparations, huge amount of magical power that must be readied before, etc) and spells with material components (if you don't have the prepared components or don't have some feats then you can't use it, and even if you can find more late, I think it still need some preparation on the material to become usable as a spell component).

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 06:50 PM
Here's a thought:

If the "Batman" wizard is on the way out, and the "Blaster" is on the way back in, to which class does that leave the subtle magic?

I have an answer, my friends, and it is an answer that makes me very, very happy:

The Bard.

With "Batman" moving out of the way, the Bard can finally step into his own: the charmer; the roguish magician; the jack of all trades: The Subtle Wizard.

Edit: Grammarnazied my OWN POST.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 06:51 PM
Just so we're clear here, could you describe what you think the D&D wizard should be and what a "Batman" wizard is?
I am not linking the guide. There's a thread right now on the first page of this forum with a link to the "Batman" guide. Said shortly: a wizard that never (or hardly ever) uses an evocation is a Batman. There are exceptions - the aforementioned Wizards of the Red Robes, for instance, who can't use them, for instance - but generally this is a good measure. To be honest, the broken gate is also a non-Batman spell, as are many (but not all) applications of summoning in general - but if you've got a list of 15 to 20 possible choices for your summons, you've become Batman again.

The D&D wizard is a portable artillery with some utility magic on hand. He might, now and then, be able to teleport a party, or passwall an entrance, or fly about the battlefield - but in general, he's focused on killing enemies, not defeating them. The D&D wizard's primary application of magic is directed towards blasting his problems to smithereens.

The Batman wizard's primary application of magic is to get things out of his way - often by means of changing which way is his way. Basically, someone who can tell the laws of physics to "sit down and shut up", in general, should not be thinking of "outside the box" solutions; he's "omnipotent", so why can't he just eliminate the problem, after all?

It's a bit outside the genre, but Q from Star Trek is a D&D Wizard, while the crew of the Enterprise, excusing technobabble solutions, are the Batman.


With "Batman" moving out of the way, the Bard can finally step into his own, the charmer, the roguish magician, the jack of all trades: The Subtle Wizard.
I support this notion.

nagora
2007-08-20, 06:54 PM
hum... tell me see if this have some sense:

The Vancian type wizard need to prepare spells, right? But why, for all that's holy and right, you need to prepare a spell with only verbal and/or somatic components? I can see the wizard making a limited amount of chemicals, like bat guano, and then when desired he trigger the spell with his magic power spending the material component and one daily use of spells. I can also see the wizard doing a quick search for his spell book to remember some spell he don't cast for a long time.

This is how Vancian magic works (from an earlier post by myself):


The brain of a magic user is incapable of generating the power even of a 1st level spell without incapacitating the caster. However, it is capable of shaping a "magic bag" (this happens when the spell is learnt), which then holds the power (from one of the inner planes, for example) and effects of whichever spell it is "shaped" for. The release-words (and actions) of the spell then act as a "knot" in the caster's head on this bag, holding back the power until needed - a much easier task than actually filling the bag with brain power. When the knot is untied to let the spell work, the words vanish from the caster's head, usually along with any material components which form part of the multi-dimensional knot. In other words: the reason the spell "fizzles out" of the caster's head is because if it doesn't the spell is still tied up and won't be released.

So how recently a spell was used is of no consequence. Clearly there are also game balance issues that Jack Vance never had to worry about, which brings us to:


Also, the lower the spell level, the lower spell slot required, and the lower recharge time, like this:

0-1: 1~5 minute of rest -> full recharge;
2-3: 10 minutes of rest -> (Int mod)+3 spell slot recharged
4-5: 30 minutes or rest -> (Int mod)+2 spell slot recharged
6-7: 1 hour of rest -> (Int mod) spell slot recharged
8-9: 3 hours of rest -> (Int mod)-1 spell slot recharged (min 1)
... and so on, where the sorcerer can cast more spells and recharge then faster, but altough their spell slot are recharged that doesn't mean they can cast all spells again, such as some nuke spells (with complicated preparations, huge amount of magical power that must be readied before, etc) and spells with material components (if you don't have the prepared components or don't have some feats then you can't use it, and even if you can find more late, I think it still need some preparation on the material to become usable as a spell component).

Still too powerful unless the spells themselves are castrated.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 06:56 PM
Bingo! D&D is a genre unto itself quite distinct within fantasy, any property that's been going over thirty years will tend to do that. Before 3.x appeared, that's what an archetypical D&D wizard was all about.

I have to disagree. Even back in the old, first edition SSI video games, I'd have two magic-users. One "Master" and one "Blaster". The blaster had fireball, the master had everything else. Even back then, "Batman" was just as useful.

bingo_bob
2007-08-20, 07:01 PM
What about a system where a wizard was more Sorceror-like? At the beginning of each day, the wizard prepares a couple of 'spells known' for each slot level, and thereafter behaves like a sorceror.

Sorcerors, meanwhile, would have a fixed 'spells known', but would have many more spell slots available for each level.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 07:02 PM
The D&D wizard is a portable artillery with some utility magic on hand. He might, now and then, be able to teleport a party, or passwall an entrance, or fly about the battlefield - but in general, he's focused on killing enemies, not defeating them. The D&D wizard's primary application of magic is directed towards blasting his problems to smithereens.


Not to further muddy the waters, but doesn't that strike you as TERRIBLY evil?

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:05 PM
In 2e, bardic spellcasting was entirely non-druidic.

And, didn't 1e bards also cast magic user spells as well as druid spells?

No; druid only.

Kiero
2007-08-20, 07:07 PM
I have to disagree. Even back in the old, first edition SSI video games, I'd have two magic-users. One "Master" and one "Blaster". The blaster had fireball, the master had everything else. Even back then, "Batman" was just as useful.

And they're relevant to D&D the tabletop game how, exactly? That's about as appropriate as someone citing Baldur's Gate as an example of what AD&D is all about, or Neverwinter Nights as an example of 3.0.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:07 PM
Not to further muddy the waters, but doesn't that strike you as TERRIBLY evil?

It depends on how you deal with Evil in your game. It would be in the games I'm running now, but not in the games I ran 3 or 4 years ago. I may again decide to run a few games with very clear morality, rather than the shades of gray that I tend to enjoy.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 07:13 PM
And they're relevant to D&D the tabletop game how, exactly? That's about as appropriate as someone citing Baldur's Gate as an example of what AD&D is all about, or Neverwinter Nights as an example of 3.0.

The point of contention was that "Batman" is a recent invention. That is patently not true. Given that I usually DMed more than I played I used that as an example that magic users have always been able to be "Batman" and it's not some evil released on D&D by WotC. I can trace it back to first edition, even in a venue where all the spells weren't available.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 07:26 PM
Not to further muddy the waters, but doesn't that strike you as TERRIBLY evil?
Nope. Not particularly Good, likely, but once they draw their swords and try to take off your head, killing them ceases to be Evil. Remember, I said enemies. Wizards aren't going around killing random bystanders.


The point of contention was that "Batman" is a recent invention.
Yes, non-standard, non-blasty uses of spells have existed for a long time. I once had a 1st level wizard kill a Hill Giant with clever application of an audible glamer, back in the 2e days. But never has it been so championed as it is now. For crying out loud, people cannot post a character idea on these forums without at least one person saying "you're not a full caster, you lose". I've had many conversations with many gamers in many venues over the past two decades (my career as a gamer), and never have I seen such a rabid and asinine championing of a "one true way" as the Batman.

It's probably important to note that the Wizard is not terribly unbalanced if he focuses on blasting. His blasting abilities are about on par with that of melee classes, even at high levels. It's the non-blasting spells (and their poor translation to 3rd edition, which in general has worse spell-defences than earlier editions) that cause the problems.

kpenguin
2007-08-20, 07:31 PM
It's probably important to note that the Wizard is not terribly unbalanced if he focuses on blasting. His blasting abilities are about on par with that of melee classes, even at high levels. It's the non-blasting spells (and their poor translation to 3rd edition, which in general has worse spell-defences than earlier editions) that cause the problems.

So your argument is that the blaster wizard should be championed because it is balanced with melee classes?

horseboy
2007-08-20, 07:36 PM
Yes, non-standard, non-blasty uses of spells have existed for a long time. I once had a 1st level wizard kill a Hill Giant with clever application of an audible glamer, back in the 2e days. But never has it been so championed as it is now. For crying out loud, people cannot post a character idea on these forums without at least one person saying "you're not a full caster, you lose". I've had many conversations with many gamers in many venues over the past two decades (my career as a gamer), and never have I seen such a rabid and asinine championing of a "one true way" as the Batman.That's because WotC doesn't know how to design a paper bag, let alone a game system.


It's probably important to note that the Wizard is not terribly unbalanced if he focuses on blasting. His blasting abilities are about on par with that of melee classes, even at high levels. It's the non-blasting spells (and their poor translation to 3rd edition, which in general has worse spell-defences than earlier editions) that cause the problems.
That second part I'll agree with totally. However the core problem here isn't that wizards "kill" instantly with other spells, but that shoving a 5' piece of metal into someone's torso doesn't.

Dwarkanath
2007-08-20, 07:41 PM
We all know that the wizard can blast a group of goblins with the firball...I know it's a typo, but a wizard casting a spell that explodes into a ball of fir trees is something I find horribly amusing for some reason :smallbiggrin:

-- Dave

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:43 PM
I know it's a typo, but a wizard casting a spell that explodes into a ball of fir trees is something I find horribly amusing for some reason :smallbiggrin:

-- Dave

...Can I claim the rights on homebrewing this? :smallbiggrin:

Arakune
2007-08-20, 07:44 PM
This is how Vancian magic works (from an earlier post by myself):

The brain of a magic user is incapable of generating the power even of a 1st level spell without incapacitating the caster. However, it is capable of shaping a "magic bag" (this happens when the spell is learnt), which then holds the power (from one of the inner planes, for example) and effects of whichever spell it is "shaped" for. The release-words (and actions) of the spell then act as a "knot" in the caster's head on this bag, holding back the power until needed - a much easier task than actually filling the bag with brain power. When the knot is untied to let the spell work, the words vanish from the caster's head, usually along with any material components which form part of the multi-dimensional knot. In other words: the reason the spell "fizzles out" of the caster's head is because if it doesn't the spell is still tied up and won't be released.

So how recently a spell was used is of no consequence. Clearly there are also game balance issues that Jack Vance never had to worry about, which brings us to:

Also, the lower the spell level, the lower spell slot required, and the lower recharge time, like this:

0-1: 1~5 minute of rest -> full recharge;
2-3: 10 minutes of rest -> (Int mod)+3 spell slot recharged
4-5: 30 minutes or rest -> (Int mod)+2 spell slot recharged
6-7: 1 hour of rest -> (Int mod) spell slot recharged
8-9: 3 hours of rest -> (Int mod)-1 spell slot recharged (min 1)
... and so on, where the sorcerer can cast more spells and recharge then faster, but altough their spell slot are recharged that doesn't mean they can cast all spells again, such as some nuke spells (with complicated preparations, huge amount of magical power that must be readied before, etc) and spells with material components (if you don't have the prepared components or don't have some feats then you can't use it, and even if you can find more late, I think it still need some preparation on the material to become usable as a spell component).

Still too powerful unless the spells themselves are castrated.

But it's just dumb to prepare (or relearn, since tecnicaly that's how most people see it) over and over again the spell, specialy the ones with only verbal and somatic components, or if you can cast some spells without material components (with feats or class features). Maybe it works nice for the 1~3.x edition (with the right fluff to correctly explain the system) but for the 4th ed. it's just useless for their new concept of magic (unless they change their minds).
Also, the nuke spells (a.k.a powerfull, game breaking spells and spell combos) and some spells could still need some preparation (making the spell component useful), but that doesn't mean he can't cast it, just that it lacks resources to do it. For exemple, if he spend his last spell slot with some spell that need preparation in the shape of material component and he don't have more, he could still cast it when the spell slot are recharged and he got another set of material component (maybe the knocked down enemy wizard have similar preferences than you and have a bag with some spell components to spare) and, as I view, the spell slot will recharge with diferent time for each diferent level.

Rockphed
2007-08-20, 07:50 PM
To a point the wizard should be balanced and championed as a Blaster. Does this mean that Petrification should go out the window? Not at all. It does mean that a creature that will fail its save against petrification 60% of the time should lose 60% of its health from a 6th level damage spell.

EDIT:Simued like a turtle. And will someone please link to where this new concept of magic is explained. I looked all over the wizards sight, and I seem to have dismal spot and search rolls today.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:52 PM
To a point the wizard should be balanced and championed as a Blaster. Does this mean that Petrification should go out the window? Not at all. It does mean that a creature that will fail its save against petrification 60% of the time should lose 60% of its health from a 6th level damage spell.

Quoted for bloody truth. A little balance, that's all I'm askin' from WotC.

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:53 PM
But it's just dumb to prepare (or relearn, since tecnicaly that's how most people see it) over and over again the spell, specialy the ones with only verbal and somatic components, or if you can cast some spells without material components (with feats or class features).

I don't see why material components make a different to the argument here.


Maybe it works nice for the 1~3.x edition (with the right fluff to correctly explain the system) but for the 4th ed. it's just useless for their new concept of magic (unless they change their minds).

I'm assuming that the same idiots that made 3e will make a mess of any new system too. But, yes, an explanation of why Vancian spells work the way they do is indeed useless for a non-Vancian spell system.

Generally speaking, I've nothing against other magic systems being an option so long as contradictory ones aren't used in the same world (eg: Vancian and Psionics). But I do also think that Vancian is distinctive while spell-point systems are a dime-a-dozen and usually advocated by people who want to play game-dominating spell-casters and are tired of the limits placed on them by the current system.

Starsinger
2007-08-20, 08:27 PM
But I do also think that Vancian is distinctive while spell-point systems are a dime-a-dozen and usually advocated by people who want to play game-dominating spell-casters and are tired of the limits placed on them by the current system.

Just because something is distinctive doesn't make it good. And to put it bluntly, what rock are you living under? Vancian magic is used in a system with game-dominating spell-casters who have very few limits placed on them by the current system.

Vancian magic may not be the source of a wizard/cleric/druid's brokenness, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, especially since if they wait til tomorrow they can fix any problem with a spell that fixes it.

Sebastian
2007-08-21, 01:30 AM
I have to disagree. Even back in the old, first edition SSI video games, I'd have two magic-users. One "Master" and one "Blaster". The blaster had fireball, the master had everything else. Even back then, "Batman" was just as useful.

as far as 3.x edition is concerned Andy Collins is right, but that is not about how the wizard is/should be but is more about the spells, 99% of 3.x spells are about blasting people up or anyway about combat (and, as the saying goes, when you have a hammer...), previous editions spells had a little more versatility, see polymorph spells for a good example, in 2nd edition polymorphs were a good utility spell with combat use, in 3rd edition with its reduced duration it become mostly useless outside of combat, the last patch made them even worse IMHO.
So, Andy is right, in 3.x and probably 4th edition being a wizard is about blasting people with magical energies, but that only because they designed it that way, not because the wizard was like that.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 02:23 AM
My main problem with Vancian magic is that it is very bad at simulating any other kind of magic system aside from Vancian magic. If you want to play a low-magic campaign based off of real-world magical beliefs it doesn't work, if you want to run a Middle Earth campaign it doesn't work, if (god forbid) you want to run a WoT campaign it doesn't work. Vancian magic just isn't very flexible fluff-wise.

A spell point or encounter based system might not be as distinctive and may not allow as great a scope for certain kinds of tactics, but its a hell of a lot easier to adapt to non-D&D settings.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 02:42 AM
All 'encounters per day' is is a framework for being able to control pacing and balance as well as determining what the PCs could handle. It's simply a way for the DM to determine if the PCs would stand a chance against the young adult green dragon after defeating the horde of cultists. From the designer's standpoint, it also helps determine whether or not the new class you designed can keep up with or outlive the other cleasses. (If the answer to either is an extreme 'yes', the class should probably be re-balanced.)

As a second edition DM, I always found it difficult to determine exactly what was appropriate, as second edition lacked any guidelines of this sort.

See, I just never needed these guidelines. I have never built a Dungeon/Adventure Site that was comprised of Encounters (Hell, I never even used a Random Encounter/Wandering Monster). When I design such places, they get populated and the population is fluid (except for fixed guardians, like Undead or Golems explicitly ordered to remain in one location). They don't get broken up into 'encounters'.

This may well be a product of the 'large Adventuring Party' or expedition ethic, where a core Party of three to six Player Characters is accompanied by a number of NPC Adventurers, Henchmen and Hirelings, the exact number of which is entirely dependent on the Party's aims.


:smallconfused: All an encounter is is a label for an Important Event of some sort. Not sure what you mean by this.

I don't use fixed events if I can help it. Monsters have reaction scripts and react during the adventure according to changing circumstances.

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:51 AM
Just because something is distinctive doesn't make it good. And to put it bluntly, what rock are you living under? Vancian magic is used in a system with game-dominating spell-casters who have very few limits placed on them by the current system.

Vancian magic may not be the source of a wizard/cleric/druid's brokenness, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, especially since if they wait til tomorrow they can fix any problem with a spell that fixes it.

No system will prevent bad designers who want to pander to pubescent power fantasies from making a mess. Vancian magic has a lot of potential to make spell-casters interesting and fun while holding them in check.

It worked for years in 1e.

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:56 AM
if you want to run a Middle Earth campaign it doesn't work

Why not? What is there in any of Tolkien's work which tells us anything at all about the mechanics of spell-casting for non-divine beings? Vancian works just fine for ME because there's no way to judge if it doesn't work, especially if you assume most of the very, very few casters are actually clerics of the various Powers.

Solo
2007-08-21, 04:04 AM
My main problem with Vancian magic is that it is very bad at simulating any other kind of magic system aside from Vancian magic. If you want to play a low-magic campaign based off of real-world magical beliefs it doesn't work, if you want to run a Middle Earth campaign it doesn't work, if (god forbid) you want to run a WoT campaign it doesn't work. Vancian magic just isn't very flexible fluff-wise.



Vancian makes sense for clerics, IMHO.

"I Pelor, will grant you a certain number of spells of various powers so that you, mortal, may carry out my will upon the mortal realms, and if you do well enough, I shall increase your magical allowance."

Bosh
2007-08-21, 04:18 AM
Why not? What is there in any of Tolkien's work which tells us anything at all about the mechanics of spell-casting for non-divine beings? Vancian works just fine for ME because there's no way to judge if it doesn't work, especially if you assume most of the very, very few casters are actually clerics of the various Powers.
Maybe not the best example of what I was talking about, I don't think that the magic there is is really captured very well by Vancian magic but its hard to tell since magic is so indistinct in Tolkien. At the very least, it would be almost impossible to model LotR-style magic with D&D classes taken as a whole.


Vancian makes sense for clerics, IMHO.

"I Pelor, will grant you a certain number of spells of various powers so that you, mortal, may carry out my will upon the mortal realms, and if you do well enough, I shall increase your magical allowance."
I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, just that it only makes sense in the context of D&D fluff. It certainly doesn't fit at all with any real-world mythology or with virtually any fantasy writer out there (except for Jack Vance and D&D novels). D&D magic is very quirky and very very bad at simulating anything except for D&D magic.

nagora
2007-08-21, 05:04 AM
Maybe not the best example of what I was talking about, I don't think that the magic there is is really captured very well by Vancian magic but its hard to tell since magic is so indistinct in Tolkien. At the very least, it would be almost impossible to model LotR-style magic with D&D classes taken as a whole.


I did do it once (under 1ed obviously) and it worked quite well simply because there was no easy way to say that it wasn't working. The Balrog cut the whole thing rather short, of course, but that's a different story.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 05:07 AM
I think Bosh was mainly talking about 3e in his original post about D&D being generally unsuitable for low magic campaigns (which I agree with).


Along with channeling as an alternative to fire and forget magic, with spell slots.

Oh yeah. Channellers were the inspiration for the Sorcerer, no doubt:


Imagine wizards who do not forget spells as they are cast, but instead freely use any spell in their repertoire whenever they wish. Wizards in this system of magic are born with some special spark or gift that allows them to reach some hidden source or supply of magical energy and use this to power their enchantments and spells. A young apprentice knows only one or two ways to harness this energy into useful applications and has a very limited capacity for tapping and shaping magical energy, while a great archmage knows dozens upon dozens of spells and has a nearly unlimited capability for wielding magical energy.

Crow
2007-08-21, 05:13 AM
A drain system based on Shadowrun's style of magic would be great balance-wise, while still allowing people to live their power fantasies.

Also, Vancian casters don't re-learn the spell everytime they cast it. The wizard's mind is not made to contain universe-changing cosmic power, so the wizard has to craft the magical energy and "store" it (i forget where though) in such a way that it is ready to be called upon when needed. When it is released, he doesn't "forget" the spell, it just isn't built up anymore.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 05:16 AM
Actually, we get a few different interpretations of Vancian casting in the various D&D Books. Amongst others, I have heard that one also. According to the PHB, Mialee 'unlocks the power of her mind' or something...

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 05:19 AM
No system will prevent bad designers who want to pander to pubescent power fantasies from making a mess. Vancian magic has a lot of potential to make spell-casters interesting and fun while holding them in check.

It worked for years in 1e.

Sorry, maybe I'm not "normal" but none of my prepubescent fantasies involved power, especially not power that was gained through studying for an hour every day.

And let's say for a moment that I agree with you, and that Vancian magic has some dubious potential to not suck. That doesn't mean it's risen up to said potential. Vow of Poverty also had potential. Vow of Poverty is like something you see in a menu at a restaurant, it sounds juicy and delicious, but when you get it, it's bland and tasteless. Vancian Magic doesn't sound appetizing from far away either.

No amount of stories about how in the golden age of 1e you had to walk 15 miles to your dungeons, up hill both ways (because the rules never said hills can only go up one way, and so the DM interpreted that absence of ruling as saying that they can go up hill both ways), with ad hoc rules about the raging snow storm, and wearing nothing but mundane leather armor because magic items were super rare and no one had one, except for the +1 longsword split amonsgt the party, is going to change the fact that Vancian Magic utterly fails in 3rd edition. No one complains about Sorcerers or Favored Souls, and no one advocates putting them on a seperate experience chart so the fighters and other people who lag behind can level faster so they aren't totally over shadowed.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 05:21 AM
Hmmn. I thought people did complain about Sorcerers.

Morty
2007-08-21, 05:26 AM
Sorry, maybe I'm not "normal" but none of my prepubescent fantasies involved power, especially not power that was gained through studying for an hour every day.

And let's say for a moment that I agree with you, and that Vancian magic has some dubious potential to not suck. That doesn't mean it's risen up to said potential. Vow of Poverty also had potential. Vow of Poverty is like something you see in a menu at a restaurant, it sounds juicy and delicious, but when you get it, it's bland and tasteless. Vancian Magic doesn't sound appetizing from far away either.

No amount of stories about how in the golden age of 1e you had to walk 15 miles to your dungeons, up hill both ways (because the rules never said hills can only go up one way, and so the DM interpreted that absence of ruling as saying that they can go up hill both ways), with ad hoc rules about the raging snow storm, and wearing nothing but mundane leather armor because magic items were super rare and no one had one, except for the +1 longsword split amonsgt the party, is going to change the fact that Vancian Magic utterly fails in 3rd edition. No one complains about Sorcerers or Favored Souls, and no one advocates putting them on a seperate experience chart so the fighters and other people who lag behind can level faster so they aren't totally over shadowed.

Great. Now compare mage who prepares cheesiest spells from TLN's guide to gamebreaking with wizard who prepares weak blasting spells and some useless spells like Hold Portal. See a difference? It's not the system that makes wizards broken, it's the spells. Psions aren't less broken than wizards because they have their lame power points but because psionic powers are far less powerful than arcane spells.

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 05:32 AM
Great. Now compare mage who prepares cheesiest spells from TLN's guide to gamebreaking with wizard who prepares weak blasting spells and some useless spells like Hold Portal. See a difference? It's not the system that makes wizards broken, it's the spells. Psions aren't less broken than wizards because they have their lame power points but because psionic powers are far less powerful than arcane spells.

And because unlike a Psion, said blaster wizard who fills all of his 3rd level and higher spells with Fireball and Heightened Fireball, can't stumble across a problem fireball can't solve and fix it tomorrow. If a Psion doesn't have "X" power, he can't manifest it magically tomorrow. If a Wizard doesn't prepare "Y" spell, but has it in his spell book of vancian broke, he can roll over and say, "Fix it when I wake up!", then pop off into his rope trick.

Morty
2007-08-21, 05:40 AM
And because unlike a Psion, said blaster wizard who fills all of his 3rd level and higher spells with Fireball and Heightened Fireball, can't stumble across a problem fireball can't solve and fix it tomorrow. If a Psion doesn't have "X" power, he can't manifest it magically tomorrow. If a Wizard doesn't prepare "Y" spell, but has it in his spell book of vancian broke, he can roll over and say, "Fix it when I wake up!", then pop off into his rope trick.

He can fix it tomorrow. He needs to run away, find a place to rest -unlike you I don't use spells like Rope Trick- and if he prepares something against said monster, it's likely going to be weak against other monster. Of course, it's not that simple in 3.x but it's because of the spells like Rope Trick, Teleport or no-save-you're-screwed battlefield control spells, not vancian system itself.

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 06:04 AM
He can fix it tomorrow. He needs to run away, find a place to rest -unlike you I don't use spells like Rope Trick- and if he prepares something against said monster, it's likely going to be weak against other monster. Of course, it's not that simple in 3.x but it's because of the spells like Rope Trick, Teleport or no-save-you're-screwed battlefield control spells, not vancian system itself.

Monster? Monsters are problems that most certainly can be solved by fireball. I'll assume you mean it's fire immune, and I'll even go so far as to say that his first level slots are full of tenser's floating disc, second level too. But what happens when the cleric is petrified? Or when the party discovers they need to go to Sigil to acquire something? Or when they need to divine an item's purpose. Well the wizard can roll over and fix it tomorrow. If the Psion/Sorcerer doesn't have powers/spells that can do it, then he can't solve the problem.

Or are you saying that Planar Travelling, Stone to Flesh, and divination type spells shouldn't exist, in which case my question is, for your precious Vancian system, what spells need to be removed before it's perfect?

Sebastian
2007-08-21, 06:12 AM
I think Bosh was mainly talking about 3e in his original post about D&D being generally unsuitable for low magic campaigns (which I agree with).

Oh yeah. Channellers were the inspiration for the Sorcerer, no doubt:

IIRC they were also incredibly broken at high levels and too weak at low levels.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 06:15 AM
IIRC they were also incredibly broken at high levels and too weak at low levels.

Never used them myself, but I think that could be said of all Wizards in any edition of the game.

nagora
2007-08-21, 06:20 AM
Monster? Monsters are problems that most certainly can be solved by fireball.

If your DM only hands you scenarios that can be handled by force then force is the correct thing to use. Request more intelligent plots and opponents or get a new DM.


Vancian Magic utterly fails in 3rd edition

So do lots of things in 3ed. The common factor is Skip Williams and his total lack of talent.

Morty
2007-08-21, 06:21 AM
Monster? Monsters are problems that most certainly can be solved by fireball. I'll assume you mean it's fire immune, and I'll even go so far as to say that his first level slots are full of tenser's floating disc, second level too. But what happens when the cleric is petrified? Or when the party discovers they need to go to Sigil to acquire something? Or when they need to divine an item's purpose. Well the wizard can roll over and fix it tomorrow. If the Psion/Sorcerer doesn't have powers/spells that can do it, then he can't solve the problem.

So? Wizard is versatile. He can prepare spells to fit into situation. But he needs 8 hours of rest which means he can't do this on the fly. Second, if he prepares some utility spell to solve a situation he can't use the slot to prepare combat spell. Third, he needs those spells in his spellbook, and scrolls don't grow on trees. Besides, are you implying that Fireball is overpowered?


Or are you saying that Planar Travelling, Stone to Flesh, and divination type spells shouldn't exist, in which case my question is, for your precious Vancian system, what spells need to be removed before it's perfect?

No, I'm not saying that. And I don't really know where dou you get that from.

Spiryt
2007-08-21, 06:25 AM
Monster? Monsters are problems that most certainly can be solved by fireball. I'll assume you mean it's fire immune, and I'll even go so far as to say that his first level slots are full of tenser's floating disc, second level too. But what happens when the cleric is petrified? Or when the party discovers they need to go to Sigil to acquire something? Or when they need to divine an item's purpose. Well the wizard can roll over and fix it tomorrow. If the Psion/Sorcerer doesn't have powers/spells that can do it, then he can't solve the problem.

Or are you saying that Planar Travelling, Stone to Flesh, and divination type spells shouldn't exist, in which case my question is, for your precious Vancian system, what spells need to be removed before it's perfect?

I don't quite get it. You like the fact that wizard can do something later, or you don't?

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 06:25 AM
No, I'm not saying that. And I don't really know where dou you get that from.

Why, from you, pumpkin.


Of course, it's not that simple in 3.x but it's because of the spells like Rope Trick, Teleport or no-save-you're-screwed battlefield control spells, not vancian system itself.

See, that implies that the problem isn't the "select magic bullets, fire and forget" system of casting, but rather that there are some bullets which are "unfair". So I presented some problems which a wizard doesn't need to solve immediately, that he can comfortable wait 24 hours to fix. Because earlier you had mentioned that a 24 hour time limit on "reloading" the glass cannon was a big deal, but these are problems with spells that aren't generally considered "unfair".


I don't quite get it. You like the fact that wizard can do something later, or you don't?

I think part of the problem with Wizards is that they can fix anything tomorrow.

Morty
2007-08-21, 06:30 AM
See, that implies that the problem isn't the "select magic bullets, fire and forget" system of casting, but rather that there are some bullets which are "unfair". So I presented some problems which a wizard doesn't need to solve immediately, that he can comfortable wait 24 hours to fix. Because earlier you had mentioned that a 24 hour time limit on "reloading" the glass cannon was a big deal, but these are problems with spells that aren't generally considered "unfair".


That's alright, but you implied I suggested dropping spells I wasn't talking about at all. All I said is that there are spells that make biggest drawback of vancian-style wizards irrelevant and they shouldn't exist -in case of Rope Trick- or be changed -in case of Teleport. And of course there are spells that are just blatantly unfair, broken, etc. But those are spells, and they would be just as broken if used by power-point caster or spontaneous caster.

kpenguin
2007-08-21, 06:36 AM
I think part of the problem with Wizards is that they can fix anything tomorrow.

That's not a problem of a system of prepared spells. A wizard still needs to know the spell in order to cast it the next day and if he didn't have to prepare it, then he could just cast it right away.

Crow
2007-08-21, 06:40 AM
Third, he needs those spells in his spellbook, and scrolls don't grow on trees.

But the problem is, that in the games some DMs run, they do. I agree, most of the problem with magic has little to do with the Vancian system, but with the spells themselves.

Still, I personally don't see a problem with a wizard being able "to fix anything tomorrow". Almost anything which can be fixed via magic, can be fixed via mundane means. Don't have "Knock" in your spellbook and the rogue's on vacation? Time to run back to town and buy a portable ram? Don't have teleport? I guess you're gonna get there the old fashioned way. Don't have a "Fly" spell or "Spider climb", to get up that cliff face? Time to go find some climbing gear. Don't have "Rope Trick"? It's time for a strategic withdrawl.

I don't see it as a problem that the wizard can fix anything. It's a convenience. The players can solve the same problems (for the most part), it just takes longer. The problem with narcoleptic wizards and clerics aren't the classes or the magic system, it's the DM for letting the players abuse the system like that.

Spiryt
2007-08-21, 06:47 AM
I think part of the problem with Wizards is that they can fix anything tomorrow.


Problem with wizards is that they can do it all with damn standard action and with no cost. There are some spells that require concentration, and generally casting last longer, but they're very few of them. Dunno why.

I don't have problem with Wizard who can fix anything tomorrow. He still must know proper spell, and since he can't know them all, it's OK.
And really, in the heat of adventure, tommorow can be very easily too late.

Finally that's the sense of being wise wizard. You should be able to do really impresive things. You just shouldn't be able to do it without preparation, with stupid single "Standard action".

Edit: Crap, h'been ninjed. But it's nice that we agree, guys.

Crow
2007-08-21, 06:53 AM
Another nice thing about Shadowrun-style magic is that spells with a continuous effect have to be sustained through concentration. The wizard takes penalties while holding up a spell (which stack if more than one spell is maintained) unless he drops it.

There are no "1 hour/level effects".

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 06:54 AM
I think that Vancian magic can work in the right setting, but I don't prefer it.

And I think we can all agree that certain spells are just insane. Here's to hoping that 4e balances spells for Core, and then when they introduce splat books they keep them balanced.

Dausuul
2007-08-21, 07:25 AM
I think that Vancian magic can work in the right setting, but I don't prefer it.

And I think we can all agree that certain spells are just insane. Here's to hoping that 4e balances spells for Core, and then when they introduce splat books they keep them balanced.

Whoa, let's not go overboard, here. I'll settle for balanced spells in Core. Expecting consistent balance from splatbooks is a bit much. :smallsmile:

Khanderas
2007-08-21, 07:49 AM
A drain system based on Shadowrun's style of magic would be great balance-wise, while still allowing people to live their power fantasies.

Also, Vancian casters don't re-learn the spell everytime they cast it. The wizard's mind is not made to contain universe-changing cosmic power, so the wizard has to craft the magical energy and "store" it (i forget where though) in such a way that it is ready to be called upon when needed. When it is released, he doesn't "forget" the spell, it just isn't built up anymore.

Exactly. In my mind Wizard memorizing of a spell means you are empowering your mind with one (or more) copies of that spell.
In modern terms, the wizard is a gun, depending on levels he have slots for bullets of different sizes (spell-levels). The bullets he make himself when memorizing. The actual casting is just pulling the trigger and things like targets and such are not determined until that time.

Sorcerers much the same except the bullets are "undetermined" until fired. They still have different sizes.


I think it will be much like what someone wrote in the beginning. Some evocation type spells at <Max spellslot> - x will progress from Spellslot -> per encounter -> at will. That way, there will always be some type of bullet in the gun, although it wont be of the highest level castable by the wizard.

Ivellios
2007-08-21, 07:55 AM
This is nuts. Low spells per day is the only class drawback. If they give more spells per day to wizards, they better do the same for sorcerers AND give sorcerers more spells known.

Khanderas
2007-08-21, 08:02 AM
This is nuts. Low spells per day is the only class drawback. If they give more spells per day to wizards, they better do the same for sorcerers AND give sorcerers more spells known.
I think it will be less spell slots overall, but some spells (not all spells, summoning was mentioned for example) and spell levels (no infinite casting of your highest spellslot) will be rechargable per encounter (instead of 8 hour rest) or even at will. Or some other way. We are all speculating, its part of the fun :)

The basic idea is not to make the casters more powerful, if anything they will problebly be less powerful at higher levels (since the general concensus is that casters are Overpowered at higher levels) but they will be able to keep going instead of :
* 2 encounters: Wizard demands 8 hour rest. Everyone rests because otherwise the player of the Wizard becomes cranky and/or the wizardless encounters can very well TPK.

Person_Man
2007-08-21, 10:01 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of killing the current Vancian system. D&D is essentially six things:

1) Hanging out with your friends
2) Roleplaying
3) Storytelling
4) Skill Encounters
5) Combat Encounters
6) Metagaming

Let's assume that 4.0 kills Vancian spellcasting. In exchange, a magic user can use a certain number of known spells that can be used once per encounter (most likely with some sort of recovery mechanism, so that you can spend a round regaining your spells for that encounter), plus a small number of spells that can only be used X times per day (presumably non-combat spells, like Identify, Detect Thoughts, etc).

This new magic system should have no impact on hanging out with your friends. Nothing is more powerful then Cheetos and Mountain Dew. (The new online technology might, but that's another thread).

It should have little impact on your roleplaying or the DM's storytelling. Whatever you want to call it, you'll still be a Magic User of some sort, and you can build whatever fluff you want around it.

Hopefully, 4.0 should limit Magic Users' ability to solve Skill Encounters with magic. They've been very clear that one of the main goals of 4.0 is niche protection. So most spells like Find Traps, Invisibility, Silence, Summon Monster, Charm Person, etc. will either be eliminated (because they are not related to "blasting things with magical energy") or severely limited. This is a good change, in my opinion, as niche protection generally leads to better party balance and a better overall game experience.

And finally, it's my hope that a new magic system will make combat much better. To use a poorly constructed metaphor:

In 3.5, your Magic User has a machine gun. Everyone else on the battlefield has swords. So as long as he has bullets to shoot and is smart enough to know how to use them, the Magic User wins, unless there's another Magic User on the battlefield, and then whoever shoots first wins. But he essentially starts with only a few bullets, so at early levels, the Magic User is only useful for one or two combats. And then he sucks for the rest of the day. As he gains levels he gains bullets. Eventually, he has enough bullets to dominate every combat. And any semblance of game balance breaks down. It's still fun to walk out onto the field and shoot everyone, but it makes all your friends with swords feel left out.

In 4.0, your Magic User has a has a six shooter. And so does everyone else. You each have six bullets. Certainly, there are different types of guns, guns made for short, medium, and long range, different special ways to shoot, different protections you might wear, etc. But you're all on a level playing field, and you all have a certain number of bullets that you can use each encounter. Everyone is theoretically at the same power level, you just focus on different aspects of the battlefield.

If they play test a lot and do it correctly, the magic system in 4.0 could be an infinite improvement over 3.5. But if they do it poorly, it will destroy the uniqueness of the D&D magic system and turn D&D into WoW. And nobody wants that.

nagora
2007-08-21, 11:27 AM
And finally, it's my hope that a new magic system will make combat much better. To use a poorly constructed metaphor:

In 3.5, your Magic User has a machine gun. Everyone else on the battlefield has swords. So as long as he has bullets to shoot and is smart enough to know how to use them, the Magic User wins, unless there's another Magic User on the battlefield, and then whoever shoots first wins. But he essentially starts with only a few bullets, so at early levels, the Magic User is only useful for one or two combats. And then he sucks for the rest of the day. As he gains levels he gains bullets. Eventually, he has enough bullets to dominate every combat. And any semblance of game balance breaks down. It's still fun to walk out onto the field and shoot everyone, but it makes all your friends with swords feel left out.

In 4.0, your Magic User has a has a six shooter. And so does everyone else. You each have six bullets. Certainly, there are different types of guns, guns made for short, medium, and long range, different special ways to shoot, different protections you might wear, etc. But you're all on a level playing field, and you all have a certain number of bullets that you can use each encounter. Everyone is theoretically at the same power level, you just focus on different aspects of the battlefield.

I suspect the situation will be more like this:

In 1ed spell casters could choose various types of ammo for differing situations but were limited by how much they could carry overall and by how much of each class of ammo they could carry within that overall limit. Reloading took a long time and was difficult and often expensive. Gaining access to new types of ammo was a rare thing and not guaranteed to ever happen for most casters.

By 4e, spellcastering has degenerated to the point where all have instant access to airstrikes that they can call in as often as they like, although the aircraft become slightly smaller after a while. A quick lie down will restart the cycle all over again.


If they play test a lot and do it correctly, the magic system in 4.0 could be an infinite improvement over 3.5. But if they do it poorly, it will destroy the uniqueness of the D&D magic system and turn D&D into WoW. And nobody wants that.

Place your bets:smallfrown:

Dausuul
2007-08-21, 11:34 AM
I suspect the situation will be more like this:

In 1ed spell casters could choose various types of ammo for differing situations but were limited by how much they could carry overall and by how much of each class of ammo they could carry within that overall limit. Reloading took a long time and was difficult and often expensive. Gaining access to new types of ammo was a rare thing and not guaranteed to ever happen for most casters.

By 4e, spellcastering has degenerated to the point where all have instant access to airstrikes that they can call in as often as they like, although the aircraft become slightly smaller after a while. A quick lie down will restart the cycle all over again.

What are you basing that assessment on? Given that one of the express design goals in 4E was to make wizards less powerful at high levels relative to fighters, I find it highly unlikely that wizards will suddenly become vastly more powerful.

Moving away from Vancian casting is not the only change being made.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 11:35 AM
Ermm... what if they just 'power Fighters up'?

Dausuul
2007-08-21, 11:38 AM
Ermm... what if they just 'power Fighters up'?

To match 3.5E "I can singlehandedly annihilate monsters 4-5 CRs above my level" wizards?

Seems... unlikely. And even if they do, it hardly matters; then you're just making the numbers bigger.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 11:42 AM
I wouldn't put it past Wizards at all. Especially the way Andy Collins is talking about 'cool' things in the Video. The thing is Spell Casters are required to be powerful to defeat high CR Monsters. I doubt their solution was to power down both Monsters and Spell Casters, rather than power up Non Spell Casters.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-21, 11:47 AM
Ooh, I know how its gonna work...

Everyone is going to have a basic attack form, be it fighting with swords or slinging blasties. However, they will make special collectible cards to represent spells and other special attacks. The more levels you get, the more cards you can keep in your arsenal. Then you can either do your standard attack or use your rare special ability card.

Solo
2007-08-21, 11:57 AM
Ooh, I know how its gonna work...

Everyone is going to have a basic attack form, be it fighting with swords or slinging blasties. However, they will make special collectible cards to represent spells and other special attacks. The more levels you get, the more cards you can keep in your arsenal. Then you can either do your standard attack or use your rare special ability card.


And the wizard will be able to Mindcrush people?

Yahzi
2007-08-22, 01:17 AM
I hate them and the whole 'encounters per day' mentality.
Dogs, yes!

4 encounters per day x 13 per level = 20th level by Xmas.

Bleh.

Funkyodor
2007-08-22, 07:31 AM
This is what I'm thinking when I hear the proposed 'spells at will, spells per encounter, and spells per day' system that WotC has proposed for AD&D v4. Lets use Magic Missile, Invisibility, and Fireball(tm) in the example. A caster as he progresses gets access to X at will, X per encounter, and X per day spells. Magic Missile is default per encounter, to change it to at will it takes up 2 of at will spells. Once he gets invisibility it is a per day spell, to change it to per encounter takes 3 spells, and is unable to be made into an at will spell. Once he gets Fireball(tm) it is a per day spell, to change it to a per encounter takes 3 spells, but to change it to an at will takes 7 spells (because an at will Fireball(tm) just sounds too cool). As the Wizard progresses, he gets access to more spells from the relevant positions and has the options to switch around spells at listed costs. So they can limit the number of new spells available at each level, spread spells out across 25! levels, and still keep the consumer intrested with the myriad of customizable Wizard options available. Sorceror/Psionic might just have different spell selections or varying numbers of will/encounter/day spells. My 2 cents.