L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

AW/E/D can be simply kind of spells.
You prepare them as you like.

When you cast a daily spell, you lost that spell(till you prepare it again).
When you cast a encounter spell, you need some fix with that spell(or short rest, in 4e term).
When you cast an at will spell, well, you recast it as you like
So, you don't need feat or whatever.

Maybe this is too flexible.
Then, restriction by slots can be introduced.
Say, wizard has mostly daily slots(you can prepare daily spells only with them) and only a few encounter/at will slots.
Sorcerer has mostly encounter slots and some daily slots and at will slots.

More idea:
Wizard has daily slots only by default but can gain(or exchange) encounter slots(if you're ok with feats).

Sacrifice daily slot permanentlly to gain encounter slot.

You can choose to prepare each spell as AW/E/D.
(Way too flexible ?)
You can choose to CAST each spell as AW/E/D.
(When you cast as E, you can't cast it until you fix it/You cast it as D, it's lost)


Spell with long duration can be "prepare and you gain effect" spell.
(I ambiguously remember such spell in 3e era...?)
Say, you prepare "eldritch armor" spell, and you gat +2 to AC. You don't need cast it; actually, you can't cast it. As long as eldrich armor is prepared, you have that bonus. But one slot is used.
When eldrich armor is dispelled, you lose the bonus. But you can regain it as standard action.

(And, sorry for bad English

I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.

Someone said:

I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.

Click to expand...

I'm all for Dailies being called Spells, Encounter being called Sorceries, At-will attack spells called Glamours/Charms/Hexes, and At-will utilities called Cantrips.

That's what I call them in my 4e game and My Homebrew game.

Wizards get spells. Sorcerers get sorceries. Warlock get Glamours.

If you have feats in your game, you can have Wizards get sorceries and glamours and Sorcerers cant get spells and glamours.

Defining Wizards is tricky, with all the different iterations we've seen over the years.

I am absolutely fine with them having both At-Will magic and Daily magic. I would prefer if the Daily magic was prepared, or Vancian, from a list that the Wizard knows (I miss learning spells as a reward mechanic). I would understand that the sorceror might be more 4th Edition, able to cast more Daily spells but with far less (or completely fixed) choice. One thing to definitely avoid is a feat-tax to obtain abilities that most people would consider necessary (however, bonus feats that allow you to gain At-Will magic or enhance existing Vancian magic would be fyouine).

Points systems should be avoided, they are rather too flexible for powerful magic. I quite enjoyed the 4th Edition psion though, with upgradeable powers. They might consider using a points system for Fighters/Martial stunts though - spend Stamina to perform a tiring but powerful maneuver (or give them Encounter powers, but please, not Dailies for non-magical types!).

I just want the classic vancian system in the core. At willsi can live with if ey explain them believably (and it isn't ivided on overly gamey lines, ike making at wills all non combats). Encounter spells in the core are a deal breaker for me.

Rogue Agent said:

It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.

And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)

Click to expand...

You can go back earlier than the 1e AD&D.

The OD&D rules Cyclopedia had things like Paladin and Druid (and several others) being classes that were entered after getting to name level.

You could not start as a Paladin but had to earn that class through deeds of your previous levels (good fighters to name level).

Druids had to be clerics that had been neutral for their life up to name level and then you could be a druid.

Jack Daniel said:

PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
DM: "Nope. The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."

^
(This is not irony or satire. This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e. But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)

Click to expand...

I would respond two ways:

• That exchange sounds perfectly legitimate under the paradigm so far presented for 5e
• If that's a problem for you as you describe, that sounds more like an issue between you and your player, not the rules.

Jack Daniel said:

The point is, in a proper core to D&D, yes Fred the Fighter and Joe the Fighter should be pretty close to mechanically identical (assuming the same level and ability scores). How that's achieved is less important than the fact that it gets done, but "baked in" feats would only be on the marginal fringes of acceptable for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical.

Click to expand...

Why is that?

I mean, player's who're going to ask for customisation options are going to ask for them no matter how the modules are built.

So what about baking in feats is offputting?
I'm genuinely curious, because I suspect that whatever it is, it's a problem that can be solved; and it's always best to solve problems.

Would it help if, rather than baked in feats, you had class features that could be swapped for feats, if using the feat module?

Or maybe the problem is the fiddlyness of having lots of class features?

Someone said:

I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.

Click to expand...

Now, that would be Magic I'd Like to Fling.

Or maybe Flick.

Bedrockgames said:

I just want the classic vancian system in the core. At willsi can live with if ey explain them believably (and it isn't ivided on overly gamey lines, ike making at wills all non combats). Encounter spells in the core are a deal breaker for me.

Click to expand...

If the rumored "four rests per day" rule is actually in 5e, an "encounter" spell could just be one that you can regain up to four times per day, instead of one that you can regain at any time after resting for five minutes. No doubt, spellcasters would still need to go through the necessary spell preparations - studying spellbooks for a wizard, meditating for a cleric, etc.

EDIT: I think it's possible that the lack of similar flavor text for how PCs regained their encounter powers contributed to their dislike since it made them seem even more divorced from the traditional flavor of spell preparation and contributed to the (false) perception that they were regained on some "cooldown" basis.