L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

FireLance · Feb 28, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
I don't quite understand how he's distinguishing spells from other things here, or, really, why. Isn't a blast of force you can use at will just an at-will spell? Or are "spells" necessarily Vancian in nature (e.g.: they must be prepared, and are spent once cast)? And if that's the case then how is a spell that has a lengthy duration (like a faithful hound or a floating disc) necessarily non-Vancian? I am not following his verbiage on this one. "Spells" don't necessarily indicate the specific things he seems to be assuming we all know they are.

I think he's trying to avoid the Great Terminology Turn-off of 4e. These things that you have to prepare in advance on a daily basis and are expended once used? They're "Spells".

These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.

Hassassin · Feb 28, 2012

Odhanan said:
I have nothing against options... as options.

There's a scale of options and how to present them.

Wizard choosing which spells to learn is an option.
Fighter choosing which weapon to be good with is an option.
Wizard choosing to switch some spells for At-Will magic is an option.

The first one has been a part of all editions in a very core way. The second was implemented as a feat in 3e, and is IMO a perfectly fine option for a core fighter*. The third may according to the article be a feat in 5e, but nothing indicates wizards with At-Will are in any way non-optional.

*Although I prefer generalist fighters.

So should the core game be so simple that none of the above options are offered?

Mark CMG · Feb 28, 2012

FireLance said:
I think he's trying to avoid the Great Terminology Turn-off of 4e. These things that you have to prepare in advance on a daily basis and are expended once used? They're "Spells".

These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.

"Powers" does seem to be a term that divides players of the game into camps, perhaps because some see it as more akin to other types of games whether they be supers games or even non-tabletop games. I'm sure those of us hoping for a vibrant 5E with as large a player pool as possible don't mind if terminology like that is dropped in favor of alternate or even more traiditonal terms.

Dausuul · Feb 28, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
As much as I don't quite grok what Monte means specifically in his examples, I do hope they're keeping in mind that resource management models don't need to be necessarily married to one class or another, and that vancian fighters probably should be as viable as all-at-will wizards, and vice-versa.

Yow, I hope not. Surely they can come up with an interesting, strategically complex resource model for the fighter that doesn't follow the Vancian scheme. I can only just barely stomach Vancian casting with the "It's magic!" excuse.

Minigiant · Feb 28, 2012

Odhanan said:
Are we talking about the core-sans-modules, or the whole game including modules? I have nothing against options... as options. I think that's really what is not computing with me right now: the core of the game is supposed to be just that. The core of the game experience. Customization and options are the realm of modules, of add-ons. I am more happy with a central core that relies on the imagination of the players primarily. I'd be fine with that kind of core. Other players who want options and stuff could use the modules.

I think you can't go about this in 36 different ways: it is much simpler to add options than substract them. As such the core is the simplest expression of the game. It should be. From there you add options you can trigger on and off to reflect your particular playstyles.

You can't start with feats and skills being the part of the core-sans-modules when these things are not core to the D&D experience itself, unless you're telling me that iterations such as AD&D, OD&D, B/X, Holmes et al. somehow "got it wrong" or should not be considered as being part of this shared experience, in which case there is SUCH a disconnect as to what we think the core of D&D is there can be no possible common ground from there.

The aim for the designers shouldn't be IMO whether to have the core be/reflect AD&D OR 3rd ed OR 4th ed. The aim should be to have the core be what is COMMON between these iterations of the game so that, THEN, with modules, you can recreate AD&D AND 3rd ed AND 4th ed by toggling them on and off.

Starting with Skills and Feats is a non-starter. It's bone-headed.

It's a simple question of logic, in my opinion.

There's only one way I see this working for you as well as many other D&D fans.

NO CLASS CHAPTERS

Instead each Module has a page for each class. Each DM and Player chooses which chapters to use and which one to not use.

Combat

Assassin HP and Base Attack Chart
Bard HP and Base Attack Chart
Cleric HP and Base Attack Chart
Druid HP and Base Attack Chart
Fighter HP and Base Attack Chart
Etc
Etc

Equipment

Assassin
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter

Class Features

Assassin
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter

Skills

Skills Introduction
Using Skills
Assassin
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter

Feats

Choosing Feats
Feat Descriptions
Assassin
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter

Then ignore the Skill and Feats chapters.

MrGrenadine · Feb 28, 2012

Odhanan said:
What matters is that the guys who are designing this D&D Next game need to understand that. They need to really think hard about whether they want this game to be this "big tent" they are talking about, or if this is just all PR destined to target one single, specific segment of the D&D audience instead.

Well, I think they DO understand that. To be fair, D&DN can be "big tent" and still exclude some of your specific needs and wants.

"Big tent" doesn't mean every D&D fan of every edition has to be 100% satisfied with every rule included in the game. It just has to be big enough to include a sizable majority.

Anyway, I for one think Monte is on the right track here. Vancian is legacy, and a terrific system, to boot. No need NOT to include it, as long as folks who like other forms of magical resource management can do things their way, too. And I like the idea of feats that grant magical abilities or attacks that can be used at-will, though I will reserve the right to have my Vancian mage pull out a crossbow when necessary, and be pretty damn deadly with it.

Zaukrie · Feb 28, 2012

I love all four methods of building casters....but if you want new players, you better not make point buy the only way to do it....

I dream of a world were I could choose to mix and match the four types of managing spells and powers and whatnot for magic using characters. But that would be hard to do.

So, I'd probably have different classes use different methodologies.

tuxgeo · Feb 28, 2012

To avoid confusion due to the nomenclature, WotC might want to consider calling the default class features "comps" -- short for "components," or for "competencies" -- instead of calling them "class features."

That way, when the Feats module gets introduced, any character who is taking a Feat can select a provided Feat that allows that character to trade away a default "comp" to get a different "comp," as specified in the wording of the Feat, which new "comp" is roughly as powerful as the default "comp" that is being replaced.

This arrangement might work for people such as [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION] on the basis of not including Feats within the core of the game; yet still also work for the required availability of Feats for those who want to use them.

I'm A Banana · Feb 28, 2012

Dasuul said:
Yow, I hope not. Surely they can come up with an interesting, strategically complex resource model for the fighter that doesn't follow the Vancian scheme. I can only just barely stomach Vancian casting with the "It's magic!" excuse.

If one's copacetic with fighter dalies in 4e, one shouldn't (in theory) have a problem with a strategist-style fighter that prepares combat moves to activate them once, since that is an oft-used justification for fighter dalies in 4e.

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 28, 2012

KidSnide said:
Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike? Are they too fiddly? Too complex? Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does? Some other reason?

-KS

The classic (at the risk of using a hackneyed term) old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things. Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds (again with a check). The point is everyone is competent and you just use ability scores to determine how far the PC's ability actually goes.

Actually, IMHO the skill system Monte has outlined is really very much a modernistic version of this, at least potentially. You just use ability scores, and then you COULD have 'skills' which are just very niche things where your character has 'mastery' (like climbing for a rogue).