L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

GM Dave · Feb 27, 2012

I would reverse the thinking on the Cleric verses the Priest.

The base 'heal bot' cleric does not need a spell selection. This is the 1e Cleric that wields a mace and it a pocket fighter (interestingly more of a gish then most wizard attempts at the gish).

The cleric would have a few abilities to modify their mace usage and various healing magics as they level (maybe borrow the lay on hands ability from the the Pathfinder Paladin or something similar that allows healing or some charges to be used for more complex types of healing <cure blindness, cure disease> ).

This would be the simplified Cleric.

The priest would be more of the 'bells and whistles' version of a holy person who has domains representing different gods and pantheons. They would have the spell selection which would include various domain lists of spells.

The bridge between the two classes would be taking the Cleirc and then giving some options that can be pulled from the base and replaced with other options. This would create the Storm Cleric or Fire Cleric (reducing the mace usage for something else and giving a bit different in the utility power selection).

Kobold Avenger · Feb 27, 2012

They of course mention the Psion as being an example of a point using magic class, but is there anything about the way the Psion's power system (more likely the 3.5e one, over the 4e one) was implemented that should be changed?

El Mahdi · Feb 27, 2012

I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting. Feats are a limited resource to begin with. Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.

I'd like to see something more like: at character creation, you choose a number of spell-like abilities equal to your Intelligence/Wisdom bonus. You may then aquire more spell like abilities through the expenditure of a Feat.

Or...

Make a Feat able to grant two or three spell like abilities.

Or...

Just reintroduce Cantrips and make them completely at-will.

B-)

dkyle · Feb 27, 2012

My problem with Vancian casting is the focus on per-day abilities. I think anything more than minimal per-day balancing is simply bad, and is almost guaranteed to produce an imbalanced game. I think 4E has a bit too much, as it is. I'm loathe to see a return to those old mistakes.

Hopefully, all that per-day junk will be limited to Wizards. And I can just ban them from any table I DM (and try to find a like-minded DM, if I'm playing). But my guess is the other spellcasting systems will be just as per-day based, since I recall one of the devs repeating that old "expected encounters per day" nonsense. In which case, so much for 5E.

Yora · Feb 27, 2012

The big problem with the system is the situation, in which you can cast two more fireballs, but not a single fly spell. It's extremely rare to have such a thing appear anywhere in myth or fiction.

But I am really interested how this poll turns out. It's a subject on which anyone has a strong oppinon, but nobody really knows how common each view is.

Scribble · Feb 27, 2012

El Mahdi said:
I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting. Feats are a limited resource to begin with. Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.

Yeah but we don't really know how feats will play out this time around do we?

gyor · Feb 27, 2012

El Mahdi said:
I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting. Feats are a limited resource to begin with. Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.

I'd like to see something more like: at character creation, you choose a number of spell-like abilities equal to your Intelligence/Wisdom bonus. You may then aquire more spell like abilities through the expenditure of a Feat.

Or...

Make a Feat able to grant two or three spell like abilities.

Or...

Just reintroduce Cantrips and make them completely at-will.

We really don't know how many feats we get, what the all the types of feats, or if thier are ways to gain additional feats.

Ratskinner · Feb 27, 2012

Savage Wombat said:
If this implies that "Disciple of Tenser" is really phrased as some equivalent of "You may use Tenser's Floating Disc as a spell-like ability at will" then it's wouldn't be so bad. I would object to not having the option of preparing the effect as a spell at all.

It also brings back the issue of combat balance and non-combat balance. If I'm using a feat for mage hand that another player is using for extra combat damage, we have the gimping problem again.

It suggests a system by which feats are used primarily for out-of-combat effects, but we have evidence that's not the case.

To me, it seems like Feats are being upgraded to be more like "class features" rather than minor tweaks. However, I favor blurring the line between combat and non-combat. I think that the utility of various things varies so much between campaigns that it should be possible for characters in the same class but different campaigns to adapt to what they need. Its the only way to allow for balance while not "locking down" a hardwired combat playstyle, AFAICT.

gyor · Feb 27, 2012

Savage Wombat said:
Article for 2/27/12.

I'm reading this to imply that if you want a spell that doesn't affect combat, you have to use a feat to buy it?

I hope I'm wrong, because this bothers me to no end.

I think your wrong, these are probably more akin to reserve feats, minus the reserve part, aka lesser versions of greater spells, the way,fire javalin doesn't replace fireball.

DEFCON 1 · Feb 27, 2012

The one thing I'd love to see with regards to these "at-will" magical cantrips you gain with feats is for it to be stated quite clearly either in the cantrip explanation (or perhaps in the DMG) what the numbers could be for the DM to attribute consistent and balanced damage dice to their use.

For example... Mage Hand as a spell/cantrip traditionally has done no damage. However, there have always been ways that magic-users have "explained" the method for using Mage Hand so that it could be used to cause damage. Whether this was telekinetic punches, knocking things off shelves to drop on people's heads, directing vials of alchemists fire, etc.

It'd be great if there was a standard damage rating for all abilities gained via these feats. Like any basic magic feat could cause 1d4+INT damage depending how its used for example. So that whatever ability you got from whatever feat you took... if you found a way to use it offensively, the damage caused were balanced against each other and the 'spells' a Vancian wizard might have.

Use a Tenser's Floating Disk as an offensive attack? Does 1d4+INT damage. Use Mage Hand as an offensive attack? 1d4+INT damage. Use Ghost Sound offensively (like creating loud screams in the ears of the monster?) 1d4+INT damage. Give the casters the benefit of thinking of cool, weird ways to use their magic in addition to the standard method of what these cantrips would do. The benefit is... you don't ask the player to have to take TWO of these feats... one an offensive at-will attack, the other, a cool "non-combat" effect feat.