PDA

View Full Version : Simplified 3.5 Magic...



Red Machine D
2008-08-17, 11:09 PM
Maybe this isn't an original thought, but I'd just like to share my thoughts.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use the PP system from Psionics for arcane and divine casters in 3.5? PP = MP, power point cost for levels translate straight across, each metamagic level costs 2 MP, and your caster level equals the number of MP you can use in a single casting. Give the classes the same number of MP as the comparable class for psionics, be it wilder or psionic warrior or whatnot (somewhere in between for bards, duskblades, and the other semi-casters).

Thoughts? Suggestions? Improvements?

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 11:13 PM
Yes, a point system is widely regarded as the simplest fix for 3.5 magic. It's a good idea, and it works pretty well with a few tweaks.

Not to be rude, though... there is a forum specifically for this kind of thing. Homebrew, right below the Gaming one.

Andras
2008-08-18, 12:40 PM
You mean like this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)?

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-18, 12:47 PM
To be honest, one thing I like about 3.5 Edition D&D is how there are different mechanics (it just seems less interresting if Psions and Wizards work in the same way). Why is it that a lot of people don't like Vancian casting? I'm curious due to not being able to see anything wrong with it.

Morty
2008-08-18, 01:02 PM
Why is it that a lot of people don't like Vancian casting? I'm curious due to not being able to see anything wrong with it.

Apparentlly it's because
-it doesn't let them sling spells all day at their leisure
-it isn't generic enough.
Otherwise, color me clueless, because I don't see the reason either.

FMArthur
2008-08-18, 01:06 PM
Because it's more restrictive. You can't cast three level one spells using a single second-level spell slot when using vancian casting (without having to fiddle with feats and PrCs), for instance. Personally, I think the restrictiveness is part of the challenge of normal casters. You can't just be awesome without preparing very carefully how much of which kinds of awesome you need to be. I agree that if you want to use a point pool from which all levels of your spells are cast, you should just use a Psion, because other forms of casting are all interesting in their own way.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-18, 01:09 PM
Isn't needing to plan a good thing considering how full casters are often seen as overpowered, though?

Andras
2008-08-18, 01:09 PM
To be honest, one thing I like about 3.5 Edition D&D is how there are different mechanics (it just seems less interresting if Psions and Wizards work in the same way). Why is it that a lot of people don't like Vancian casting? I'm curious due to not being able to see anything wrong with it.

I generally agree, but a lot of people don't like the compartmentalized, discrete nature of the spell levels, and prefer the psionics-like "pool". It's up to the individual person, I suppose.

Vexxation
2008-08-18, 01:12 PM
Having been an avid player of Turbine's Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO), I recommend against this idea.

The problem with a spell-point pool is that it takes away the only real disadvantage a Wizard has compared to a Sorcerer: spontaneity, or, lack thereof. A wizard with a spell-point pool can prepare X spells, but he might just use one of them way more times than he should be able to prepare it.

The same occurs with a Cleric. Granted, in DDO, clerics were (and likely still are) relegated to Healbots, but that's MMOs for you.

Unless you somehow restrict the casting capabilities of a wizard, there is no real reason to play a sorcerer in a spell-point variant.

Andras
2008-08-18, 01:16 PM
Unless you somehow restrict the casting capabilities of a wizard, there is no real reason to play a sorcerer in a spell-point variant.

Extra spell points per day is an OK reason, if not a great one (especially since the difference amounts to like 2 level 9 spells' worth at 20th level...fairly insignificant at that point).

LordOkubo
2008-08-18, 02:24 PM
The reason I like vancian casting is simple. Wizards actually use level 1 spells at level 13. Psions just don't.

I don't think it's cool to say: Yeah I totally have 72 spells on my character sheet. And I only use 3 of them. Things shouldn't stop being used just because you got a higher level of shinies.

MeklorIlavator
2008-08-18, 02:41 PM
I think it would be a nice idea, but the problem is that you would need to completely redesign the spell system to account for it. Remember that Powers can be augmented, drastically increasing the length of time a spell sees use. Also, while a Vancian caster may use a 1st level spell at 13th level, it wouldn't do that much, barring extraordinary circumstances. On the other hand, a psions level 1 power can either be augmented so that it is still useful in a variety of situations, or it does something that can't really be repeated by other powers, and is therefore still useful.

Telonius
2008-08-18, 03:04 PM
Apparentlly it's because
-it doesn't let them sling spells all day at their leisure
-it isn't generic enough.
Otherwise, color me clueless, because I don't see the reason either.

The general objection to Vancian magic seems to be the effect that it has on the people who play Wizards. The idea is that, in general, Vancian casting means that the Wizard is an extremely powerful class ... as long as it has a few spells left to use. If it runs out of spells, it's a smart Commoner, incapable of doing anything to help the fight situation. This is really only the case for Wizards and (to a lesser extent) Sorcerers. The Fighter isn't going to run out of sword.

The problem with the Wizard is that players will often realize this, and start getting paranoid about their spells. They'll do everything that they can to squeeze every last drop out of spell utility. Allowing multiple sourcebooks compounds this issue, but even in Core it's an issue.

The counter-argument is that a good DM should prevent the sort of cheese that will flow from that, either by disallowing ridiculous spells or by messing with the caster (interrupting sleep, stealing spellbooks, etc). A different counter-argument is that yes, this is fine. Wizards are supposed to be really powerful, and that classes don't need to be balanced for power.

NEO|Phyte
2008-08-18, 03:06 PM
The reason I like vancian casting is simple. Wizards actually use level 1 spells at level 13. Psions just don't.

Untrue, unless the psion took utter trash for their first level powers. If all of your group has Darkvision (naturally or otherwise), and your opponents don't, Control Light can be used to plunge the battlefield into complete, nonmagical (and thus penetrated by darkvision) darkness. Your rogue buddy is planning a solo heist? Mindlink and Sense Link, and you've got a free second set of eyes and ears along for the ride, using the rogue's skill modifiers. Mindlink in general is handy, you can discuss sensitive information without every Tom **** and Harry listening in (Unless Tom **** and Harry are mindflayers), and it allows you to split the party and still stay in contact. Empathy can be used to get an idea of whether a given person/group of people are a possible threat, with no save. If you're a fan of dealing damage, Crystal Shard/Energy ray are your classic no-save ranged touch attack powers. The precognition/prescience powers give Insight bonuses, which means they'll stack with pretty much everything, though their augment ratio sucks because of it. I've never used Astral Construct myself, but going off the outcry from CPsi's nerf, it gets used too.

Morty
2008-08-18, 03:11 PM
The general objection to Vancian magic seems to be the effect that it has on the people who play Wizards. The idea is that, in general, Vancian casting means that the Wizard is an extremely powerful class ... as long as it has a few spells left to use. If it runs out of spells, it's a smart Commoner, incapable of doing anything to help the fight situation. This is really only the case for Wizards and (to a lesser extent) Sorcerers. The Fighter isn't going to run out of sword.

The problem with the Wizard is that players will often realize this, and start getting paranoid about their spells. They'll do everything that they can to squeeze every last drop out of spell utility. Allowing multiple sourcebooks compounds this issue, but even in Core it's an issue.

The counter-argument is that a good DM should prevent the sort of cheese that will flow from that, either by disallowing ridiculous spells or by messing with the caster (interrupting sleep, stealing spellbooks, etc). A different counter-argument is that yes, this is fine. Wizards are supposed to be really powerful, and that classes don't need to be balanced for power.

Last time I checked, wizard's power came from spells, not the method of casting them. If a wizard fills all his slots with weaksauce spells, he's not going to be very powerful even if he blows them all in a single fight. I can see why people don't like the resource management connected with Vancian casting -althout I enjoy it- but the system isn't the reason of wizard's balance problems.

Spiryt
2008-08-18, 03:19 PM
Got to agree with M0rt. Vancian system is pretty decent on it's own, the ridiculous spells is what killed 3.5 balance.

Telonius
2008-08-18, 03:25 PM
Last time I checked, wizard's power came from spells, not the method of casting them. If a wizard fills all his slots with weaksauce spells, he's not going to be very powerful even if he blows them all in a single fight. I can see why people don't like the resource management connected with Vancian casting -althout I enjoy it- but the system isn't the reason of wizard's balance problems.

The main issue isn't the relative power of any given spell, it's the total worthlessness of a Wizard without any spells. If Wizards had something useful to contribute even if all of their per-day spells were gone, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I personally think that both sides have pretty good points in this argument. Ridiculous spells will lead to ridiculous wizards, and DMs should step in if things get out of hand. But I also think that the system at least mildly encourages "creative" resource management.

Edea
2008-08-18, 03:29 PM
Honestly, I usually start whipping up or purchasing scrolls and wands of the most important spells my character has access to/wants (in the case of buying) as quickly as possible. This tends to curb the problem of "oh crap, I don't have the right spell prepared" somewhat, in combination with the 'Experience is a River' phenomenon.

Kalirren
2008-08-20, 09:28 PM
I think for me the objection to Vancian magic comes from the fact that I try to think about things in terms of skill, technique, and form, not in terms of mechanics, unless the mechanics exist in an IC way (like the way basic physics is assumed to, even if it isn't modeled accurately) So from this perspective, a Vancian magic system on top of an ill-defined magic system is just a random set of limitations imposed by the gaming system upon the potential verisimilitude of the IC world. The idea that there is some force or entity in the magical Weave of the world keeping track of spell levels and spell slots is taxing, though not unheard of. By the time the Faerun setting made it to 3e, it was already throughly intertwined with the setting. For instance, Mystra has denied 10th-level spells ever since the fall of Myth Drannor. Vancian magic is part of the setting. I can deal with that. That's *how* magic works in that world. But try to arbitrarily transplant that sort of system into any old homebrew world, (take Eberron for example, which would just do better without it) and my tolerance for Vancian magic just plummets.

Being "out of magical stamina" I can buy in general, but "out of spell slots" makes far less sense, especially when you think, "out of lower-level spell slots, but not higher-level slots?" And a wizard can't even re-prepare a 2nd-level slot into an Identify once he's made it into a Melf's? What is this, having become too bored to cast another Identify spell?

In short, I find it to be needlessly clunky, and would rather my spell system of choice deal with actual mental fatigue rather than some arbitrarily-defined, class-and-level-based magical quanta.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-20, 10:07 PM
I think for me the objection to Vancian magic comes from the fact that I try to think about things in terms of skill, technique, and form, not in terms of mechanics, unless the mechanics exist in an IC way (like the way basic physics is assumed to, even if it isn't modeled accurately) So from this perspective, a Vancian magic system on top of an ill-defined magic system is just a random set of limitations imposed by the gaming system upon the potential verisimilitude of the IC world. The idea that there is some force or entity in the magical Weave of the world keeping track of spell levels and spell slots is taxing, though not unheard of. By the time the Faerun setting made it to 3e, it was already throughly intertwined with the setting. For instance, Mystra has denied 10th-level spells ever since the fall of Myth Drannor. Vancian magic is part of the setting. I can deal with that. That's *how* magic works in that world. But try to arbitrarily transplant that sort of system into any old homebrew world, (take Eberron for example, which would just do better without it) and my tolerance for Vancian magic just plummets.

Being "out of magical stamina" I can buy in general, but "out of spell slots" makes far less sense, especially when you think, "out of lower-level spell slots, but not higher-level slots?" And a wizard can't even re-prepare a 2nd-level slot into an Identify once he's made it into a Melf's? What is this, having become too bored to cast another Identify spell?

In short, I find it to be needlessly clunky, and would rather my spell system of choice deal with actual mental fatigue rather than some arbitrarily-defined, class-and-level-based magical quanta.

could you not just redifine the fluff behind the vatican spell system, to instead of saying im out of spell slots im out of magical stamina...

I know we always did this.. i never new that the magic system in d&d was called the vatican system until i started trolling these boards... However IC we never viewed it as i have x amount of slots avalable it was always, eaither my mana is low. or the magic in me is fading and i need to rest, or somethign along those lines.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-20, 10:37 PM
It's a nice idea but really empowers spellcasters because they can make more of their most powerful attacks as needed.

I didn't care for the UA/SRD variant since it really nerfed the Sorcerer giving the Cleric, Druid and Wizard 232 Spell Points a day and a Sorcerer 249 without increasing known spells when it could already emulate this poorly to a limited degree casting a lower level spell with a higher level spell.

A Sorcerer has 150% more daily spellcasting than a standard generalist Wizard so why wasn't the Sorcerer Spell Point pool increased to 348 PP?

JoshuaZ
2008-08-20, 10:48 PM
Apparentlly it's because
-it doesn't let them sling spells all day at their leisure
-it isn't generic enough.
Otherwise, color me clueless, because I don't see the reason either.

Well, there are two separate aspects of "Vancian" casting which people don't seem to like. But in all discussions they often get lumped together. One is preparing spells in advance. The other is restriction about how many of each level you can prepare (which essentially amounts to no breaking up or combining spell slots).

Both elements don't fit with standard tropes of how magic works. For example, even in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance books wizards and sorcerers frequently get exhausted. (although occasionally depending on the author specific spell preparation does come up). And if you look at almost any other series, the description of what is going on is much closer to a point system. See for example David Edding's Belgariad. What you label as not being "generic" isn't that; people want to be able to play the generic caster they are used to reading about or seeing in movies. With the standard 3.5 that isn't really even an option. The sorcerer should have been that, but isn't quite (more on that later).

A point based system fits much better with many of our intuition of how things work than one in which you have fixed spell slot sizes. We're generally used to a universe where things take energy and you can break down energy more or less however you want but you eventually run out. Vancian magic is almost like you have energy in quanta that are very large and of differing sizes. There's no good intuition for that. If one uses a starting pool of spell points but still need to prepare and set them aside but can do so however one wants (this isn't that hard to do, one needs a few tweaks but it isn't that difficult) then that takes away one of the more annoying aspects of the Vancian system.

The Vancian system is also seen somewhat as a straight-jacket for how other systems function that are made for D&D. For example, the sorcerer could easily be a straight spell-point system but because the starting idea was the wizard, it isn't. And that followed through with other spontaneous casting classes such as the dread necromancer, the warmage, and the beguiler. (This is the second, often less explicitly talked about part of the Vancian system). To some extent this was presumably necessary so lots of magic spells, items and feats were meaningful for these classes. But it still comes across as being straightjacked by the Vancian system. In that sense, it took a long time for them to actually make non-Vancian classes aside from the psionic classes. The only major ones really are binders, shadowmagic users, truenamers, and the various incarnum classes.

This is aside from the fact that the "Vancian" system has little connection to Vance's actual method of magic aside from the notion of preparing before hand. In Vance's work, spells generally didn't ever have much of an effect less than the equivalent of a 7th level spell, were often epic in effect, you could maybe fit one in your mind at a time, and to prepare them you needed to drag around massive tablets that had the spells engraved in them. (Someone correct me if this is inaccurate. I've only read a little bit of Vance's stuff).

There's another issue that strong defenders of the Vancian system sometimes miss: Non-intuitive mechanics does not equal flavor. To make an extreme example of this, I could make a class that required to do some effect taking say 2d6 + character level and then having different effects based on wether or not that number was prime. That's not flavorful or fluffy, its just stupid. (This is related to one of my prime objections to shadowmagic. It isn't at all clear where the central mechanics are coming from flavor wise. In that case, the mechanic is simple but has no flavor explanation. Contrast this for example with for example binders (one of my favorite classes) where the flavor fits the mechanics very well. Ok, the 5 turn thing needs a bit of an explanation but it isn't hard to come up with something of the form "Even with the assistance of binders, vestige's can only intervene directly in our universe in very limited ways, and to do so more frequently would strain or break the connection between the vestige and the binder".)

Chronos
2008-08-20, 11:38 PM
Quoth Telonius:
The main issue isn't the relative power of any given spell, it's the total worthlessness of a Wizard without any spells. If Wizards had something useful to contribute even if all of their per-day spells were gone, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.I'm not sure how relevant this is to the present discussion, though, because a psion without any power points left is just as useless as a wizard who's out of spells. And personally, I think that's a feature, not a bug: The wizard is differentiated from the fighter (who "doesn't run out of sword") by the fact that he has to conserve his abilities. Making the classes more different is a good thing. If anything, I'd say the problem is that 3.x spellcasters get so many spell slots, that once they get a few levels, they almost never actually run out.

Quoth JoshuaZ:
This is related to one of my prime objections to shadowmagic. It isn't at all clear where the central mechanics are coming from flavor wise. In that case, the mechanic is simple but has no flavor explanation.Yeah, I see this problem, too. If anything, the fluff seems like shadow magic ought to be more flexible than conventional magic, not this straightjacket of "you can only use each mystery once per day, and you have to take these particular mysteries in this order".

Kalirren
2008-08-21, 12:54 AM
could you not just redifine the fluff behind the vatican spell system, to instead of saying im out of spell slots im out of magical stamina...


That's exactly where I come at it from the opposite angle as you do. My position takes intuition for granted, and I therefore seek a system that jives with my intuition, and am willing to tweak the system to bring that about. Your position is that the system stands as is, and that the fluff can just be changed over it. So it reduces to my insisting that the way the system works OOCly influences the way that I OOCly percieve the possible scope of my character's IC actions in the IC world, and thereby my play. In this way it matters to me more than simple "fluff" (i.e. random, non-mechanical setting detail) does. I'm not just looking for a layer of fluff, I'm looking for a layer of structure. Sooner or later, a poorly-laid out structure will fail to make sense, and an otherwise interesting RP option will be closed to me or my players, and that's a bad thing in my book.

On a more specific ground, running out of lower-level spell slots before you run out of higher-level spell slots (which happens under my DM) breaks the idea that the D&D magic system models mental fatigue in any sensible way. Again, a wizard "too tired" to cast another Magic Missile because he's out of 1st-level spell slots can turn right around and let loose a Cloudkill because that's a 5th-level spell slot? That fluff breaks down over the Vancian sub-structure.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-21, 12:58 AM
I can understand mental fatigue for Arcanists, but would it work for Divine Casters? I kow this isn;t quite the same thing, but when I use Reiki, I never get tired due to the fact that I'm not using my own energy (I'm assuming it would be the same for Divine casters, but it's unfair for Arcanists if that sort of fatigue only affects them).

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-21, 01:20 AM
That's exactly where I come at it from the opposite angle as you do. My position takes intuition for granted, and I therefore seek a system that jives with my intuition, and am willing to tweak the system to bring that about. Your position is that the system stands as is, and that the fluff can just be changed over it. So it reduces to my insisting that the way the system works OOCly influences the way that I OOCly percieve the possible scope of my character's IC actions in the IC world, and thereby my play. In this way it matters to me more than simple "fluff" (i.e. random, non-mechanical setting detail) does. I'm not just looking for a layer of fluff, I'm looking for a layer of structure. Sooner or later, a poorly-laid out structure will fail to make sense, and an otherwise interesting RP option will be closed to me or my players, and that's a bad thing in my book.

On a more specific ground, running out of lower-level spell slots before you run out of higher-level spell slots (which happens under my DM) breaks the idea that the D&D magic system models mental fatigue in any sensible way. Again, a wizard "too tired" to cast another Magic Missile because he's out of 1st-level spell slots can turn right around and let loose a Cloudkill because that's a 5th-level spell slot? That fluff breaks down over the Vancian sub-structure.

see thats one of the issues with 3.x that i don't like and ususaly the players are drawn to it. is that they worry to much about the structure and Not the fluff... i would rule in that case as to let you use a higher level slot for a lower level slot. similair to a sorcerer.. not that hard or game breaking.

Kalirren
2008-08-21, 01:29 AM
Tempest Fennac:

That's an interesting point. I'm not particuarly religious iRL, so in my intuition, your god literally gave you the power to do something, and then you'd do it. You'd still have to channel it and get tired doing so; in this way, divine magic always worked in the same way as arcane magic did. But I can see the unconscious assumption from a more ritualistic perspective; when you do something, wave your hand just so, it just happens, as a function of having performed the appropriate ritual.

I hear that from what Gygax said about it, the Vancian magic system is used in D&D because Gygax thought it was easy to balance. How it was intended to be interpreted is how it is most often intepreted; the kinds of magic practiced by each spellcasting class each have their own limitations, and these limitations are abstracted. Magic users have "mana", or "fatigue", or whatever. Priests have standing with their deity to worry about. Witches, sorcerers, paladins, whatever. They all use spells in spell slots because it's easier bookkeeping than trying to understand what actually goes on, which doesn't even matter most of the time anyway when you just want a fireball for 10d6.

And honestly, if that's enough detail for you, then it really doesn't matter. It matters to me because I like not only thinking about -what- happens but -how- and -why-, and what effects that has on the characters' perceptions and relations towards the world around them.

I know, people have said to me that you can have just as exciting (if not more exciting) of a game by forgetting about the way things work IC and just go with the flow of the effects. From my experience, they're right. I suppose you could say I have no flair for drama. Guilty as charged, then. I would say that I like my drama to make sense in a world that also makes sense, and not just happen because I say so.

RagnaroksChosen:


i would rule in that case as to let you use a higher level slot for a lower level slot. similair to a sorcerer.. not that hard or game breaking.


As would I! I totally agree! But that's really a side point in relation to the main one I was trying to get at, which was that if I'm going to -use- a system, I want one that makes sense to me, not one that works against my intuition. I've played freeform, and made it work before. But there are still times when I want a system, and in those times I want it to make sense out of the box. I don't want something I'll just have to houserule, sice I may as well make up a system out of no-rules-written freeform then. Someone who's used to pulling fancy trick shots on a regular basis can do straight shots all day long. That's what my intuition tells me. Hence I don't like Vancian casting. QED, as far as I'm concerned.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-21, 01:43 AM
^^

That's an interesting point. I'm not particuarly religious iRL, so in my intuition, your god literally gave you the power to do something, and then you'd do it. You'd still have to channel it and get tired doing so; in this way, divine magic always worked in the same way as arcane magic did. But I can see the unconscious assumption from a more ritualistic perspective; when you do something, wave your hand just so, it just happens, as a function of having performed the appropriate ritual.

I hear that from what Gygax said about it, the Vancian magic system is used in D&D because Gygax thought it was easy to balance. How it was intended to be interpreted is how it is most often intepreted; the kinds of magic practiced by each spellcasting class each have their own limitations, and these limitations are abstracted. Magic users have "mana", or "fatigue", or whatever. Priests have standing with their deity to worry about. Witches, sorcerers, paladins, whatever. They all use spells in spell slots because it's easier bookkeeping than trying to understand what actually goes on, which doesn't even matter most of the time anyway when you just want a fireball for 10d6.

And honestly, if that's enough detail for you, then it really doesn't matter. It matters to me because I like not only thinking about -what- happens but -how- and -why-, and what effects that has on the characters' perceptions and relations towards the world around them.

I know, people have said to me that you can have just as exciting (if not more exciting) of a game by forgetting about the way things work IC and just go with the flow of the effects. From my experience, they're right. I suppose you could say I have no flair for drama. Guilty as charged, then. I would say that I like my drama to make sense in a world that also makes sense, and not just happen because I say so.

no your restricting your view in game because of a system out of game. I agree i like musing about how a character looks at the vatican casting system... but again for what your saying its simple fluff change in game..
Its the ability to seperate ingame elements and the system and looking at both of them abstractly. I can have the same fluff ingame no matter what system i use. If the system dictates what happens ingame then alot of systems in my opinion would suck. Thats the great thing about story telling is that its flexable i can tell the same story in 5 languages and although the system is diffrent the fluff comes off the same.. if it didn't then we would have issue debating about the illiad or the oddessy.

TeeEl
2008-08-21, 01:59 AM
Fluff deficiencies aside, I honestly find Vancian casting fun. And even the deficiencies aren't as bad as they're getting made out to be here.


On a more specific ground, running out of lower-level spell slots before you run out of higher-level spell slots (which happens under my DM) breaks the idea that the D&D magic system models mental fatigue in any sensible way. Again, a wizard "too tired" to cast another Magic Missile because he's out of 1st-level spell slots can turn right around and let loose a Cloudkill because that's a 5th-level spell slot? That fluff breaks down over the Vancian sub-structure.

The reason that the wizard can't toss off another Magic Missile isn't just because he's "too tired", it's because he doesn't have any more Magic Missiles prepared. If he really wanted to he could have prepared another Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellSlots) instead of Cloudkill; hell, he could have prepared three Magic Missiles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mnemonicEnhancer.htm) using that single 5th level slot. He could have left a 5th level slot open (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellSelectionandPreparatio n), so that later in the day he could decide to prepare either Cloudkill or a lower-level spell depending on what he turned out to need. But he chose to allocate his limited mental resources to concentrating on a Cloudkill spell instead of any of these other options.

The exact fluff behind how spell preparation works is somewhat vague, granted, but welll... magic. I know it's stupid and lame and cliche, but I'm not going to accept guys spontaneously generating lightning bolts from their fingertips and then worry about how the abstract mental exercises that do it work.

Talic
2008-08-21, 02:05 AM
It has its potential, but you'd need more. A system of augmentation, for example, or you'd end up seeing casters that never bother to cast level 1 spells after level 7.

SuperPanda
2008-08-21, 02:25 AM
About the Vani-something casting system.


The way I've always seen it is that the DnD Wizard required three things to cast spells of any sort:

Casting Reagents, gestures, and incantations (usually worthless and assumed to be infinite, and even usable with your hands full of quarterstaff)

Preparation and mind power

Mana, or fatigue.


Since Reagents are generally infinite with some exceptions we can ignore them.

So that leaves us with Preparation and Mana or Endurance.


I completly agree with the idea that if spells must be prepared ahead of time and the only resource needed to draw on is Mana, such as is the case with the Sorcerer, then spell points function beautifully and make much more sense in every meaningful way than the system in 3.x. This would mean that you decide before hand (or on the fly with a sorcerer) how to expend your mastery of the magical flow about you, your personal limit and your knowledge of spells being the only thing stopping you.

For wizards this is not the case.

The wizard needs to prepare the spell and hold them in their memory. That last part is important, they have to hold the prepared spell (and magical energy) in their memory from the time of preparation ot the time of casting (INT as a base stat).

So the Wizard has 2 resources to handle: Memory (can hold X number of spells at a given level of proficiency: Wizard level) and Mana (can command X amount of raw power at a given level of proficency: Wizard level).

The result is that the wizard can prepare spells based off of "spell slots" because that is the predetermined most efficient use of both resources.

Because of this as a DM I have no problem with my casters preparing a first level spell in a second level slot (still counts as a first level spell for casting purposes) but they don't get extra stamina out of it.


And as to why the wizard can't keep throwing Magic Missle when he's still got a cloudkill in reserve, thats because he didn't prepare another magic missle spell, he prepared X spells of that type and has expended them.



As for the arbitrary rule that the Wizard cannot re-prepare spells at a later time int he day I agree that this one makes less sense, but at the same time not too much. It would take a full hour to do so and fluff wise the Identify spell has been all but cast already, the magical energy for it is already drawn into you and needs to be expended before the spell can be released from your memory, so you could reprepare the spell (free up the memory) but then have no mana to cast it with (mana used for Indetify was still used), leaving the option present but pointless.


I agree that Sorcerers should have a point based system, but I think Wizards are just fine as they are. The only time I myself or my players have ever complained about the Wizard casting system was when we wanted to go to town spell slinging more often without having to spend wealth on wands or scrolls. A desire wholly understandable, and acceptable in specific games or settings, but not one I generally support for normal games (being someone who wouldn't mind doing it now and again).

Grey Paladin
2008-08-21, 06:33 AM
SuperPanda: Actually, in both AD&D and in some obscure OD&D book there was an optional rule that allowed you to prepare spells at any point in time, but it took 15 Minutes*Spell Level. Thus high level casters needed to think carefully before using that level 9 spell but could freely cast Sleep.

As an interesting side effect, High level Wizards often lacked their higher level spells if they did not have a significant amount of down-time, and low level spell casters, as long as they had 15 minutes, had at least one devastating trick up their sleeve so the progression of Wizards became much more linear.


Mind you, I disagree with the common interpretation of the memory fluff, but I'll leave that for another thread.

Morty
2008-08-21, 07:10 AM
Both elements don't fit with standard tropes of how magic works. For example, even in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance books wizards and sorcerers frequently get exhausted. (although occasionally depending on the author specific spell preparation does come up). And if you look at almost any other series, the description of what is going on is much closer to a point system. See for example David Edding's Belgariad. What you label as not being "generic" isn't that; people want to be able to play the generic caster they are used to reading about or seeing in movies. With the standard 3.5 that isn't really even an option. The sorcerer should have been that, but isn't quite (more on that later).

Now, see, that's something I completely don't understand. I just can't see what's wrong in D&D wizards not being identical to those from books and movies. D&D is neither a book nor a movie, it's D&D. A gaming system, and Vancian casting has always been a thing that made D&D different from others. Plus, it's of course fun.


A point based system fits much better with many of our intuition of how things work than one in which you have fixed spell slot sizes. We're generally used to a universe where things take energy and you can break down energy more or less however you want but you eventually run out. Vancian magic is almost like you have energy in quanta that are very large and of differing sizes. There's no good intuition for that. If one uses a starting pool of spell points but still need to prepare and set them aside but can do so however one wants (this isn't that hard to do, one needs a few tweaks but it isn't that difficult) then that takes away one of the more annoying aspects of the Vancian system.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, myself.


The Vancian system is also seen somewhat as a straight-jacket for how other systems function that are made for D&D. For example, the sorcerer could easily be a straight spell-point system but because the starting idea was the wizard, it isn't. And that followed through with other spontaneous casting classes such as the dread necromancer, the warmage, and the beguiler. (This is the second, often less explicitly talked about part of the Vancian system). To some extent this was presumably necessary so lots of magic spells, items and feats were meaningful for these classes. But it still comes across as being straightjacked by the Vancian system. In that sense, it took a long time for them to actually make non-Vancian classes aside from the psionic classes. The only major ones really are binders, shadowmagic users, truenamers, and the various incarnum classes.

If core spellcasting wasn't Vancian but some other system, all new casting classes would use that system as well/. I don't really see a difference here.


This is aside from the fact that the "Vancian" system has little connection to Vance's actual method of magic aside from the notion of preparing before hand. In Vance's work, spells generally didn't ever have much of an effect less than the equivalent of a 7th level spell, were often epic in effect, you could maybe fit one in your mind at a time, and to prepare them you needed to drag around massive tablets that had the spells engraved in them. (Someone correct me if this is inaccurate. I've only read a little bit of Vance's stuff).

Why do people call it Vancian then? Also, such system would be very ill-suited for an RPG game, so it's no wonder they changed it for D&D.


There's another issue that strong defenders of the Vancian system sometimes miss: Non-intuitive mechanics does not equal flavor. To make an extreme example of this, I could make a class that required to do some effect taking say 2d6 + character level and then having different effects based on wether or not that number was prime. That's not flavorful or fluffy, its just stupid. (This is related to one of my prime objections to shadowmagic. It isn't at all clear where the central mechanics are coming from flavor wise. In that case, the mechanic is simple but has no flavor explanation. Contrast this for example with for example binders (one of my favorite classes) where the flavor fits the mechanics very well (ok, the 5 turn thing needs a bit of an explanation but it isn't hard to come up with something of the form "Even with the assistance of binders, vestige's can only intervene directly in our universe in very limited ways, and to do so more frequently would strain or break the connection between the vestige and the binder".

I'm not sure I see your point here. Isn't Vancian casting explained well enough fluff-wise?

Person_Man
2008-08-21, 09:22 AM
You know the more I think about it, the more I realize that 4E was the correct solution to 3.5 - eliminate Vancian casting and give everyone at will, per encounter, and per day powers. Problem is, most of those powers are boring and fluffless. Right solution, poor execution. Maybe 5E (which I presume will come out around 2013) will be better.

Anywho, assuming you want to play 3.5, I think that the best fix is to eliminate Wizards, Clerics, and other generic casters, and replace them entirely with Beguilers, Warmages, Dread Necromancers, Wu Jen, and other limited list casters. If you're worried about running out of things to do, buy a wand.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-21, 09:44 AM
You know the more I think about it, the more I realize that 4E was the correct solution to 3.5 - eliminate Vancian casting and give everyone at will, per encounter, and per day powers. Problem is, most of those powers are boring and fluffless. Right solution, poor execution. Maybe 5E (which I presume will come out around 2013) will be better.

Anywho, assuming you want to play 3.5, I think that the best fix is to eliminate Wizards, Clerics, and other generic casters, and replace them entirely with Beguilers, Warmages, Dread Necromancers, Wu Jen, and other limited list casters. If you're worried about running out of things to do, buy a wand.


i don't think that was the solution. I think what they should have done is expanded on TOB, only added in stances/menuvers that where less wuxia. I mean 4e is the farthest thing from d&d it doesn't even feel like d&d...

Vatican casting, even mana based casting is ten times more D&d then the way they did 4th.. Although im just talking about the feel of it.

Andras
2008-08-21, 10:06 AM
Vatican

Vancian, as named after the writings of Jack Vance.

Nitpicking aside, the fluff associated with Vancian-style casting isn't all that bad. I don't mind the idea of different magnitudes of abilities, that seems to be how a lot of things end up getting classified in real life anyway. I would agree, though, that it's quite easy to swap a spell point system out for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters without much grief. Using the same system with preparation-based casters takes out the point of the limitations inherent in the system classes like wizards and clerics use.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-21, 10:10 AM
Vancian, as named after the writings of Jack Vance.

Nitpicking aside, the fluff associated with Vancian-style casting isn't all that bad. I don't mind the idea of different magnitudes of abilities, that seems to be how a lot of things end up getting classified in real life anyway. I would agree, though, that it's quite easy to swap a spell point system out for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters without much grief. Using the same system with preparation-based casters takes out the point of the limitations inherent in the system classes like wizards and clerics use.

yes yes my sig says I have a spelling problem, never new the system was called that till I came here. But yes you can do that .. I've been in a game that had spontaneous casters use a point system it was acutaly pritty cool.. the dm in that game let druids choose between point system and vancian casting...
i thought it made sense...

JoshuaZ
2008-08-21, 10:52 AM
Now, see, that's something I completely don't understand. I just can't see what's wrong in D&D wizards not being identical to those from books and movies. D&D is neither a book nor a movie, it's D&D. A gaming system, and Vancian casting has always been a thing that made D&D different from others. Plus, it's of course fun.



D&D isn't that but people want the option of playing those sort of wizards. The core rules don't even give that option even though they allow you to play pretty much every standard trope.





If core spellcasting wasn't Vancian but some other system, all new casting classes would use that system as well/. I don't really see a difference here.


I don't see why there needs to be a single core spellcasting system. For example, what if one made Tome of Magic or something similar to be part of your core? You don't need to follow it.



Why do people call it Vancian then? Also, such system would be very ill-suited for an RPG game, so it's no wonder they changed it for D&D.

Oh, yes no question that Vance's original magical system wouldn't work well. As I understand it, Gygax liked Vance's system and so made this as a tribute to Vance. I've also heard it claimed that Gygax wanted a system which did not resemble any actual occult system so as to minimize possible accusations of actual magic use or such. However, I've never seen that in a reliable source and that would have required Gygax to be very prescient since such issues didn't even show up for a few years after the original D&D was made. So I find the second claim not believable.



I'm not sure I see your point here. Isn't Vancian casting explained well enough fluff-wise?

Is it? I can maybe understand spell-preparation. But why can't a normal wizard say store multiple low level spells in a 9th level spell slot? What do spell slots represent? This is not at all clear.

Fri
2008-08-21, 10:56 AM
Well, anyone here ever read Jack Vance's Dying Earth Series? Anyone can clear the fluff up?

I kinda like Vancian Casting because it's unique, but I also never understand the fluff.

darkzucchini
2008-08-21, 12:17 PM
I am not a huge fan of Vancian spell casting for a couple of reasons, which I will now force you to listen through...

1. I never liked the idea of forgetting a spell once you cast it. Just seems rather odd to me...

2. Spell casters run out of spells too quickly at low levels.

3. Spell casters don't run out of spells fast enough at high levels.

4. Not really a problem with Vancian casting itself but instead the D&D spell list. I like powerful spells, but I would have liked to have seen them have more drawbacks.

I solve this problem with a multi-step solution, starting off with a point based system (solves #1 as it more accurately represents fatigue). But I don't use set of points but two. The first set is called mental fatigue points and are similar to hit points in the way that they are acquired. Full casters gain d12 + Wis mod MF pts, half-casters d8 + Wis mod MF pts, and non-casters d4 + Wis mod MF pts. These MF points represent the absolute limit of spells that a mage can cast before resting (this solves #2 as even at first level a mage will most likely be able to cast at least 12 1st level spells per day). The second set of power points are in the Power Point Pool. Power Points represent the short term strain of spell casting. A first level casters will have 2 PP and a 20th 40 PP. PP can be fully regained through an extended rest or can be partially regained during combat by resting for a round (this solves #3 as even a high level caster will not be able to chuck around high level spells for long before needing a rest). I also have slowly been placing drawbacks on some of the spells to make them dangerous to the caster.

Fri
2008-08-21, 12:41 PM
I agree on most of the complain here. But anyway, Vancian Magic have been synonymous with DnD. Without it, it wont be DnD, it'll just be another RPG system. (And nothing wrong with that though, I like Gurps)

Morty
2008-08-21, 12:43 PM
D&D isn't that but people want the option of playing those sort of wizards. The core rules don't even give that option even though they allow you to play pretty much every standard trope.

You wouldn't be able to play many wizards from books and movies anyway, because portryal of magic varies so wildly between each other, sometimes not fitting an RPG game like D&D. Take Belgariad for example: wizards there aren't simply magic users, they're Aldur's chosen ones.


I don't see why there needs to be a single core spellcasting system. For example, what if one made Tome of Magic or something similar to be part of your core? You don't need to follow it.

I wouldn't have anything against every casting class coming up with its own system -I'd very much like that, in fact- but it's not a realistic possibility.


Oh, yes no question that Vance's original magical system wouldn't work well. As I understand it, Gygax liked Vance's system and so made this as a tribute to Vance. I've also heard it claimed that Gygax wanted a system which did not resemble any actual occult system so as to minimize possible accusations of actual magic use or such. However, I've never seen that in a reliable source and that would have required Gygax to be very prescient since such issues didn't even show up for a few years after the original D&D was made. So I find the second claim not believable.

I can't really say anything about it, as I started my gaming career with D&D 3ed and Gygax designed first D&D when I wasn't even born yet.


Is it? I can maybe understand spell-preparation. But why can't a normal wizard say store multiple low level spells in a 9th level spell slot? What do spell slots represent? This is not at all clear.

Vancian spellcasting in 3ed could have been both done and explained better, yes. But it doesn't invalidate the system itself, as the concept is sound.


1. I never liked the idea of forgetting a spell once you cast it. Just seems rather odd to me...


Those discussions about Vancian spellcasting would be much more enjoyable if so many people actually understood the system before dismissing it. A 3ed spellcaster doesn't "forget" spells after casting. Instead, during spell preparation the caster "locks" the spell in his or her mind and spellcasting itself is simply pulling the trigger- spell is cast, and the energies disappear from caster's mind. Now, it doesn't mean you have to like the system of course, but at least try to understand it before discussing it.

Kalirren
2008-08-21, 01:22 PM
re: M0rt's last point about the common lack of understanding about Vancian magic

You know, I think you've actually hit the nail on the head for me. My problem with the system was that I always had difficulty constructing a mental model for -how- exactly it worked. What sort of an IC mechanic would give rise to a OOC/systemic notion of "preparation?" That question was never answered well for me until now.

I think a big part of my confusion was that I am a musician, and I think of art as a very transient and instantaneous thing, produced effectively in the same instant in which it is heard, and not lasting beyond that instant. The "preparation" you can do in music for a performance is limited to the preparation of having practiced, whether the piece itself or basic technique that supports that piece's execution. On the level of the actual fluid motions that are necessary to produce the sound and music you want, technique during performance is equivalent to physical improvisation, and it occurs almost entirely subconsciously.

I guess a better model for D&D-style "perparation" could be rooted in a magical mechanic that was less like music and more like painting or sculpture. When you prepare a spell, you prepare the energy to flow in a specific way through the Weave. Casting the spell is merely letting loose that energy to fulfill the pattern you described before, and with a spell, it destroys that matrix. But you can embed them matrix in an item, thereby enchanting an item to carry the spell. Really powerful magi can embed the matrix into the land, the essence of a region itself, and that's a mythal.

Viewed in this way, I guess, a similar level and kind of preparation to musical preparation in a D&D-Vancian magic system would be equivalent to Spell Mastery, the feat.

So it isn't just about mental fatigue, it's about the extent and type of preparation. Okay. I get it. I don't think I have a problem with Vancian spellcasting anymore.

darkzucchini
2008-08-21, 01:31 PM
Those discussions about Vancian spellcasting would be much more enjoyable if so many people actually understood the system before dismissing it. A 3ed spellcaster doesn't "forget" spells after casting. Instead, during spell preparation the caster "locks" the spell in his or her mind and spellcasting itself is simply pulling the trigger- spell is cast, and the energies disappear from caster's mind. Now, it doesn't mean you have to like the system of course, but at least try to understand it before discussing it.

That sound a whole lot like forgetting to me. Admittedly I have never read any Jack Vance, from your explanation its more like firing rounds from a revolver, but it still seems an odd system to use seeing as fatigue seems a much more common result of magic casting in Fantasy writing, as well as contributing to other issues that I mentioned in my post. The whole 'revolver' style of casting seems to rub a lot of people the wrong ways. In my opinion, it feels a whole lot more meta-game-ish than a fatigue system.

Morty
2008-08-21, 01:37 PM
I guess a better model for D&D-style "perparation" could be rooted in a magical mechanic that was less like music and more like painting or sculpture. When you prepare a spell, you prepare the energy to flow in a specific way through the Weave. Casting the spell is merely letting loose that energy to fulfill the pattern you described before, and with a spell, it destroys that matrix. But you can embed them matrix in an item, thereby enchanting an item to carry the spell. Really powerful magi can embed the matrix into the land, the essence of a region itself, and that's a mythal.

Well, the official explanation is as follows:
Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it.

Preety much what you said, only differently worded. Although this explanation doesn't work for divine casters, but in this case I like to think they ask their diety for favors during prayer and then they choose the time to use those favors.


That sound a whole lot like forgetting to me. From your explanation its more like firing rounds from a revolver, but it still seems an odd system to use seeing as fatigue seems a much more common result of magic casting in Fantasy writing, as well as contributing to other issues that I mentioned in my post. The whole 'revolver' style of casting seems to rub a lot of people the wrong ways. In my opinion, it feels a whole lot more meta-game-ish than a fatigue system.

As I said, the fact that it's that way rather than simply "forgetting" doesn't mean you should instantly start to love it -although a change of mind is possible, as Kalirren shows, I'm just tired of people repeating the same misconception over and over again.

TeeEl
2008-08-21, 01:41 PM
I think the fluff behind Vancian casting makes a lot more sense if you assume that there is a unique element intrinsic to each particular casting of a spell. In preparing a spell you are calculating a lock on a specific spell existing in potentia. When you cast the spell, that specific spell has been used up. You didn't forget anything or lose your preparation... it's just that your preparation was only good for a particular set of magical energies which have been expended. Scrolls work the same way: they describe a lock on a specific spell, so once you cast it the information contained on the scroll is useless since it only describes a spell that has already been spent. In contrast, a wizard's spellbook contains formulae that can be used to find a lock on particular types of spells.

By way of analogy: if you prepare a pizza, and eat the pizza, then you can't eat the pizza again. You can make another pizza using an identical recipe, though. (Note to self: I need to make some pizza. :smallbiggrin:)

Kalirren
2008-08-21, 02:37 PM
So to return somewhat to the OP's point/question, I think it's easily doable to switch to a MP-based system if you don't hold much love for Vancian preparation. I haven't yet given much thought to the details of implementing Vancian preparation -within- an MP-based system. I would think it's possible, but I don't know how yet.

Currently the wizard is (supposedly, actually not quite) balanced against the sorcerer because the wizard has fewer spell slots in return for a spellbook that can be substantially larger than his spell list on any given day. (Of course, the fact that sorcerers are behind one level on the spell level advancement is really the bigger issue. But we all knew that.)

So maybe in an MP-based system, the wizard gets to prepare a certain number of distinct spells from the spellbook, and any spell they've prepared can be cast as long as they have the requisite MP.

The sorcerer, of course, translates directly. Since they have a more restricted spell knowledge, they also have more MP than the wizard.

PEACH?

JoshuaZ
2008-08-21, 03:22 PM
So to return somewhat to the OP's point/question, I think it's easily doable to switch to a MP-based system if you don't hold much love for Vancian preparation. I haven't yet given much thought to the details of implementing Vancian preparation -within- an MP-based system. I would think it's possible, but I don't know how yet.

Currently the wizard is (supposedly, actually not quite) balanced against the sorcerer because the wizard has fewer spell slots in return for a spellbook that can be substantially larger than his spell list on any given day. (Of course, the fact that sorcerers are behind one level on the spell level advancement is really the bigger issue. But we all knew that.)

So maybe in an MP-based system, the wizard gets to prepare a certain number of distinct spells from the spellbook, and any spell they've prepared can be cast as long as they have the requisite MP.



There are variations of this that work well. One problem is the automatic caster level increase for casting spells. A system that works well and seems to make wizards and sorcerers slightly weaker than way would be normally is as follows:

1. All cantrips known are at will for sorcerers.
2. Wizards can prepare 3 at will cantrips a day. Any other cantrips they prepare take 1 point aside.
3.Use the standard rule for psionics that a level n spell costs 2n-1 power points.
4. Range and duration are determined by caster level. All other caster-level based effects are determined by how many power points you pay beyond the minimal level of the required for that spell, with that bumping it up accordingly. So for example, a fireball (as a 3rd level spells) as a default is cast as a 5th level caster costing 5 spell points. If one wanted to cast it at a higher level one would need to pay additional spell points. So to cast it at 9th level one would pay 9 points. As with pisionics, one cannot pay more points per a spell than your caster level.
5. Wizards set aside spell points with preparation at the beginning of the day (or can leave points open to prepare later in the day. It takes 15 minutes to prepare open points). So for example, a wizard with say 12 spell points could prepare 4 2nd level spells, or 12 1st level spells, or 2 2nd level spells and 6 first level spells etc.
6. Sorcerers spontaneously cast without preparation.

Total power points: Prepared casters (clerics, druids and wizards) have total spell points like the standard spell point variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm ). Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters use spell points like the standard power points for a psion.

Bonus spell points for all classes are done just like psions with the relevant moderator being the obvious one.

Ascension
2008-08-21, 03:49 PM
The way I see it is that magic, for wizards at least, is a science. Through serious study, wizards have figured out how to trick the universe into letting things that shouldn't happen happen anyway. The thing is, talking physics into sitting down and shutting up for a moment isn't the sort of thing you can do immediately, first you've got to take the universe to a bar and get it drunk enough it thinks you're a pretty woman, then you haul it out into the back alley and beat it over the head with a two by four. The actual hitting-it-in-the-head thing only takes a brief bit of time, but the getting it drunk takes longer.

When the wizard prepares spells in the morning, he's getting the universe drunk. When he actually casts a spell, he's hitting it in the head until it capitulates. But the thing is, he can't do it too often or too hard, or else he'll give it cirrhosis of the liver or a concussion or something. So he has to limit the number of spells he prepares and the potency of said spells, or else the fabric of reality is going to start showing some serious abuse.

Now when he gains experience, he can do his thing with greater finesse. Instead of serving the universe whiskey and using a two-by-four, he's taking the universe out for martinis and hitting it with a polo mallet. So he can put more drinks into the universe before it pukes and he can hit it in the head more often before it grabs the mallet away from him, and he can prepare higher level spells without tearing reality to shreds.

The universe is just built to accept Vancian magic. If the wizard tries to circumvent the process, everything starts going all fuzzy and spheres of annihilation start raining from the sky and everybody dies.

Do you want everybody to die?

Now sorcerers, I have no problem with taking them off of the Vancian system. They're an entirely different breed of cat. See, they don't brutally date rape the universe like wizards, they use their amazing charisma to charm the universe into sleeping with them voluntarily. Or something.

Fri
2008-08-22, 01:10 AM
Damn. Not entirely accurate in my opinion, but hell if that isn't some win material. I want to sig it but I can't, so I'll just say that you can imagine that post in my sig from now on.

And yeah, I always imagined vancian mage like a loaded revolver. Now I know that I'm not the only one.

I really want to read dying earth now.

ericgrau
2008-08-22, 01:44 AM
I've seen a couple magic systems that I like, one of which accomplishes the OP's goals.

The first is from Hero Quest. You get 9 spells that each perform a specific, different and interesting function, each usable once per day. And I don't remember if any of them even dealt damage. I liked that b/c it encouraged creative thinking and b/c you had just the right amount of spells where you never felt the need to conserve or go nova.

The second one solve's the OP's goal. It is from Grey Star the Wizard (world of Lone Wolf). That one gives you willpower points. These heal at the rate of 1-2 per day. Most spells cost 1 point, but may be augmented a little for 2 points (range/size boost, etc.). One spell costs 2 points, and may be augmented for 3 but this is physically exhausting. Each "spell" is actual a very broad thing, almost like a d&d school. Each level you gain access to a new spell, increasing your versatility.

Later you get more powerful spells that cost 2-4 willpower points. But while these are improved versions of the basic spells, they are each a little different from the basic spells and they usually can't replace the functions provided by the basics. And you don't need the basic spell to get the greater one. One spell creates force effects, the improved ver handles teleportation, levitation and the like. One summons elementals but only makes a request, the improved verr commands elementals (but doesn't summon IIRC). One protects from the dead and let's you summon them to talk w/ them, strike a deal, etc., the improved ver lets you create undead. One lets you create mundane potions out of herbs & chemicals, the improved ver lets you make magic potions. One tells the immediate future, the improved ver lets you scry. Etc. So no spell ever becomes obsolete b/c it is the only spell that can do what it does.

Unfortunately, implementing this in d&d would be quite an undertaking.

Andras
2008-08-22, 11:17 PM
So to return somewhat to the OP's point/question, I think it's easily doable to switch to a MP-based system if you don't hold much love for Vancian preparation. I haven't yet given much thought to the details of implementing Vancian preparation -within- an MP-based system. I would think it's possible, but I don't know how yet.

Currently the wizard is (supposedly, actually not quite) balanced against the sorcerer because the wizard has fewer spell slots in return for a spellbook that can be substantially larger than his spell list on any given day. (Of course, the fact that sorcerers are behind one level on the spell level advancement is really the bigger issue. But we all knew that.)

So maybe in an MP-based system, the wizard gets to prepare a certain number of distinct spells from the spellbook, and any spell they've prepared can be cast as long as they have the requisite MP.

The sorcerer, of course, translates directly. Since they have a more restricted spell knowledge, they also have more MP than the wizard.

PEACH?

Use the progression of the Spirit Shaman (Complete Divine), since this is basically that with a spellbook and spell points, and that sounds good.

Starsinger
2008-08-23, 02:35 AM
I find a decent way to simplify 3.5 magic is to remove prepared casters and replace them with Spontaneous Casters. Ban specific spells at your leisure.

Saph
2008-08-23, 05:24 AM
The thing about 3.5 is that if you don't like one particular type of magic you can always find a class that lets you do another one.

Want Vancian casting? Play a wizard or cleric. Want spontaneous casting? Sorcerer or favoured soul. Don't like spell slots, and want a magic-point system? Psion will do you just fine. Want to be able to sling magic around all day long like candy and never run out at all? Go Warlock. If even that's not enough for you you can start looking into the really weird stuff like Binders and Incarnates, and there's the option of playing a monster race with all the assorted SLAs.

So really, if you don't like Vancian casting (or spontaneous casting, or psionic casting), there's no reason you should be forced to play with it. There's always another choice.

- Saph

Nychta
2008-08-23, 05:31 AM
The thing about 3.5 is that if you don't like one particular type of magic you can always find a class that lets you do another one.

*snip*

So really, if you don't like Vancian casting (or spontaneous casting, or psionic casting), there's no reason you should be forced to play with it. There's always another choice.

- Saph

And I have to agree with this. I really like that I can use different types of casting depending on my preference (haven't tried psion yet though).
Also I don't see what's wrong with the Vancian system.