Pathfinder 1E A question about Pathfinder's casters.

Cadfan said:

... its not really the same.

It mostly relates to how spells are learned- in 4e, your wizard knows a particular spell. In a vancian system, he doesn't "know" any spells at all, he just has a book or a scroll or something where the spell is written down. He prepares his spells from those books and scrolls, and each spell, once prepared, is like a buzzing potential *thing* whirling around in his head until he decides to let it out. Once its out, its gone.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell the flavor for Wizard spells is only slightly different in 4E. In both 3E and 4E Wizards prepare spells in advance to trigger later. In 3E every spell is forgotten when cast (although some feats in later supplements allowed casters to choose a certain spell to focus on so they could use it as a spell-like ability). In 4E only the most complicated (Daily) spells work this way. Encounter spells are simple enough that the Wizard can spend time resting to remember how to cast the spell again (until he decides to prepare a different Encounter spell, in which case he quickly forgets how to cast it). It's not strictly Vancian, but it is related and makes sense that simpler spells would be easier to remember for a time.

It still seems to me that Pathfinder's at-will/x times per day/daily magic system can only be called Vancian because non-daily magical abilities are called "spell-like" or "supernatural" abilities. How would calling 4E's at-will and encounter spells "spell-like" abilities be any different?

Pathfinder, above all else, is meant to be compatable with D&D 3.x and the SRD (and the multitude of products based on it). Creating an entirely different spellcasting system, whatever its merits, would pretty much derail that goal.

D&D 4e, besides simplifying the list of combat spells, made another important deviation from the old Vancian system: rituals. Rituals cover basically all the 'non-combat' spells. They can be cast by anyone with the ritual magic feat, and require no memorization or spell slots, only the time and materials (both of which can be considerable). Just as importantly, the justification for limiting what spells you can cast was changed from 'forgetting' a memorized spell to simply having to rest (and to maintain the dramatic pace).

Cadfan said:

... its not really the same.

For the record, I hate and loathe vancian magic and wish it would die in a ditch. But there is a difference between 4e's method of handling wizard spells and vancian magic. It mostly relates to how spells are learned- in 4e, your wizard knows a particular spell. In a vancian system, he doesn't "know" any spells at all, he just has a book or a scroll or something where the spell is written down. He prepares his spells from those books and scrolls, and each spell, once prepared, is like a buzzing potential *thing* whirling around in his head until he decides to let it out. Once its out, its gone.

Click to expand...

Just like 4e powers. And the 4e wizard can change his daily and utility spells after an extended rest, so he doesn't "know" them permanently either.

4e follows more of a "stamina" model of magic, where you know how to manipulate magical energies in particular ways, but you can only do so every so often. You can do easy things all the time, harder things somewhat frequently, and big things only rarely. Its not a complete stamina model, but that's the closest match I can think of.

Click to expand...

No, 4e really doesn't follow a "stamina" model of anything. Every class now uses a vancianish fire-and-forget system with a separate slot for each power. So you can be too "tired" to reuse a low level encounter power but perfectly able to use your most powerful daily. I never liked vancian spellcasting, this is the main reason I don't like 4e.
A power point system like the Unearthed Arcana variant or 3e psionics could be a "stamina model of magic". 4e's power system is not. Even the 3e sorcerer would a better match.

Hexmage-EN said:

So, contrary to your claim, a Fourth Edition Wizard can come to possess quite a number of spells to choose from per day.

Click to expand...

Except that wasn't my claim.

I was speaking about the overall design of the system, not specifically the design of wizards. 4e has an "exception based design", so there are some exceptions (funny thing, that).

My point was that "limited number of times per day" structure for powers does not, in my opinion, equate to "Vancian". While wizards may be a bit closer to the original Vancian structure, the other classes aren't, so the game, as a whole, isn't.

Vancian magic is in.

Fortunately, this is 3e, so you ALSO have every alternate system of spellcasting in. Psionic power points, all the alternate systems in Unearthed Arcana (recharge times, for one), the "equipped spells" method of Incarnum, the "use and recover" method of the Bo9S classes, the skill-based casting of the Truenamer, the "small suite all day" method of the Binder, the spell-like abilities of the archmage.....

3e doesn't make you fit everything into one overall power model. Sure, wizards and sorcs might still use vancian magic, but the system is compatible enough with the other 3e stuff that you can still have a "spellcaster" who doesn't use a slots system.

Lutecius said:

Every class now uses a vancianish fire-and-forget system with a separate slot for each power. So you can be too "tired" to reuse a low level encounter power but perfectly able to use your most powerful daily.

Click to expand...

For the record, this is what I see as true in 4e. EVERYONE IS VANCIAN. Every power is fire-and-forget (or "use and discard"), which, in my mind, is the hallmark of Vancian resource management: you have this THING until you use it, then you can't use it again until after you rest. 4e does change the time scale of certain powers (some things don't need to recover, some things require a short rest, some things require a long rest), but I'm under the impression that Pathfinder ALSO does this (at-will cantrips and the like). 4e also makes EVERYTHING Vancian so even fighters use the fire-and-forget mechanics, and every class that will be published for 4e will be vancian, using fire-and-forget powers. One of the biggest flaws of the 4e powers system in my mind is that you can't really have alternatives. Everything is use-it-and-loose-it, always, for all classes. There are some benefits to this method, but I think the lost variety and forced homogenization of playstyles is a fantastically aggravating thing.

Cadfan said:

4e follows more of a "stamina" model of magic, where you know how to manipulate magical energies in particular ways, but you can only do so every so often. You can do easy things all the time, harder things somewhat frequently, and big things only rarely. Its not a complete stamina model, but that's the closest match I can think of.

Click to expand...

No, it's Vancian, because no matter how tired you are from using up all of one power, it doesn't affect your ability to use any other power. A power points/mana points/magic points model like FFZ or the 3e psionics system would be a "stamina" model. 4e's powers are self-contained effects, something like cards from Magic: The Gathering (and similar to the vancian spells of earlier editions). Using one won't hurt your ability to use another.

Part of the reason for this, no doubt, is to dodge the "nova" issue that 3e psionics had, where if you went all-out in one combat, you'd be useless until tomorrow. Stamina models can aggrivate this problem. Though there are some solutions, I don't think 4e was ever really interested in a stamina model. I think they're entirely happy with a Vancian, card-like model because it's simpler to design, simpler to calculate the effects of, and ultimately limited by the number of powers you design rather than dominated by one or two big, expensive, exhausting powers.

One of my biggest problems with the 3.x magic system was the mages/casters resorting to crossbows and other mundane things to attack enemies with instead of using what they were trained for: Magic.

Click to expand...

If you're going to let a mage plonk away with a crossbow in the first place ... what's wrong with simply calling it a wand (or whatever) instead? Use the same effect with different "special effects". That's basically what 4E does all over the place! Call it a handgun if you like, or trained Wasp Imps of the Sloth Jungle; what's the difference?

Ariosto said:

If you're going to let a mage plonk away with a crossbow in the first place ... what's wrong with simply calling it a wand (or whatever) instead? Use the same effect with different "special effects". That's basically what 4E does all over the place! Call it a handgun if you like, or trained Wasp Imps of the Sloth Jungle; what's the difference?

Click to expand...

See, I don't see anything wrong with that, but I can see why some people might say it's going against the grain of 3.x's "Magic should be limited." If the mage can shoot bolts of arcane energy from a wand, why does he only get so many magic missles, or even cantrips?

Also, I'm trying to imagine a wizard reloading a wand.

RefinedBean said:

Also, I'm trying to imagine a wizard reloading a wand.

Click to expand...

That's easy - he mumbles an arcana formula, some sparkling light appears, touches the wand, and it glows again.

If the mage can shoot bolts of arcane energy from a wand, why does he only get so many magic missles, or even cantrips?

Click to expand...

Because the latter are matters of game balance. Simply changing how one describes what is still game-mechanically the same as shooting with a crossbow does not muck up the rules. If you find it more aesthetically pleasing, then I see no reason not to go for it.

I have not been following the Pathfinder development very closely but I am glad that Vancian magic is still in. I really hope they did something about turn based intiative or the same old caster domination problems will still be there.