D&D 5E Spell Preparation - A Better Vancian or a Bridge Too Far?

[GX.Sigma]

I like it more than I thought I would. Vancian is awesome in theory, but the "fire-and-forget" thing can get annoying.

Only thing: they shouldn't call spell slots "spell slots." Because they're not slots anymore--you don't put anything in them. You just spend them to cast a spell.

 

[Nellisir]

If they work as I've been told they do (I haven't had time to read the packet, but I understand it to be: you have two spell slots. You prepare 2 spells, and can cast any combination of them that adds up to two: AA, AB, or BB) then I'm all for it. Monte Cook used it in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and I adopted it for my last d20 campaign. It worked great.

 

[Sunseeker]

I applied this concept to 4e as well, it was a little trickier for players to understand at first, but I still feel it's a superior system. Having X encounter powers and X dailies to use felt much more fun than having one use of one power once per encounter/day.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I agree that it's a big improvement. It still retains the strategy of spell preparation and the classic wizard "feel" while solving the biggest issues I've always had with vancian casting. Wizards no longer have to guess how many fireballs they might need in a given day, nor are they obligated to prepare a ton of combat spells, since many of them can be cast in higher level slots. A wizard could feasibly get by with magic missile as his only combat spell, if he so chooses. That's cool. They've also managed to keep wizards very flexible without giving them a bajillion spells per day at high levels.

Combined with at-will cantrips and rituals, this is shaping up to be a wizard that I could really enjoy playing. There are still some details that need ironing out, but it's getting there. I don't really see the point in retaining spell "slots" instead of just using spell points, but that's a minor issue. Spell points can easily be swapped in with a house rule.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'll be a voice of cautious dissent.

I think it is kind of a playstyle thing, but being inflexible and locked-in is part of the "fun failure" of the Wizard class. It emphasizes that this is a class about advanced preparation and specific solutions. A wizard caught with her pants down, in a chaotic situation she wasn't ready for, should get screwed. On the other side, when things go according to plan, she should have just the right tools for the specific jobs she needs accomplished.

That needn't be true for every single spellcaster, but it should be true for the academic wizard archetype in my games. Flexibility is not a virtue, it leads to a class I'm not as interested in playing. If I wanted flexibility, I'd go with a different spellcaster, or a different class altogether.

This is not the most awful compromise, but honestly the 5e wizard is currently really something I'm not personally that interested in playing because of the great sum of ways that it breaks the binary play experience I'm looking for in a wizard. I get why, but if that binary play experience isn't available within 5e's wizard class, I won't really be interested in it.

But I wasn't interested in 4e's wizard class in part for the same reason, so another edition without a core wizard I like isn't going to ruin the whole game for me, necessarily. ESPECIALLY if the flexibility and modularity of the game allow me to make a more binary wizard, I have no qualms with a more flexible, open, constant-magic kind of baseline. I'd only really have a problem if I didn't have an option for doing other stuff.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

When I first heard about the change, I immediately didn't like it. But, upon reading, I've had a change of heart. I think it's because there is a distinct separation between spells prepared and spells per day, and you get fewer of the former.

The traditional Vancian system treats spells like bombs. You craft one, and when you use it, it's gone. This one treats a spell more like a cannon. You build it, and as long as you have ammunition, you can keep using it.

I suspect that the Sorcerer will use the same system, except that all of his known spells are considered prepared.

 

[KidSnide]

As someone who likes the old Vancian system, I think this is type of system is a good compromise. However, I wish it was limited by spell levels. A first level spell should be more difficult than a second level spell to prepare.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. A 2nd level spell is already more difficult to cast (in that it requires a higher level slot). If 1st level spells were easier to prepare, then high level casters would have a huge quantity of lower level spells prepared and would be ready with the whole range of 1st-3rd level utility spells. Plus, with the ability to cast low level combat spells at higher effectiveness with upper level slots, you could end up changing the game if it's better for casters to stick to low level combat spells.

Plus, there is already a disadvantage to using your preparation slots on high level spells: flexibility. If you prepare extra low level spells, you can use your high level slots to cast them (often at higher effect). If you prepare extra high level spells, then you're limited to your small selection of low level spells once you use up your higher level slots. As written, it looks like an interesting tactical decision about whether to use higher or lower level slots.

Lastly, having spells cost different amounts to prepare would be more complicated. One thing I like about this rule is its simplicity.

I suspect that the Sorcerer will use the same system, except that all of his known spells are considered prepared.

I suspect the sorcerer will take a nod from 4e with archetypes that focus on more tightly themed styles of spellcasting. Sorcerers could easily have a narrower spell list to choose from with each "bloodline" (or whatever they call an archetype) getting a standard set of known spells plus some special abilities (like the cleric deities).

-KS

 

[Roland55]

You sure about that?

The Wizard class says "You can prepare a number of spells equal to 1 + your wizard level...When you cast a spell, choose one of your prepared spells and expend a spell slot of that spell’s level or higher. Some spells have improved effects when they are cast at higher levels." Magic Missile says "When you cast this spell using a spell slot of a level higher than 1st..."

The preparation section doesn't mention preparing them at certain levels, and the casting section clearly says you can cast them at higher levels. So it seems to me that you can just prepare Magic Missile (not "in a slot," just have it as one of your X spells prepared that day), and then cast it with any level of slot. It will have an effect based on what level of slot you use on it.

This is certainly how I read it!

 

[Rhenny]

When I first heard about the change, I immediately didn't like it. But, upon reading, I've had a change of heart. I think it's because there is a distinct separation between spells prepared and spells per day, and you get fewer of the former.

The traditional Vancian system treats spells like bombs. You craft one, and when you use it, it's gone. This one treats a spell more like a cannon. You build it, and as long as you have ammunition, you can keep using it.

I suspect that the Sorcerer will use the same system, except that all of his known spells are considered prepared.

This is exactly how I feel. At first I thougth it was not something I'd like, but after creating characters and seeing how the wizard played in the game I DMd, I think it adds some very interesting tactical choices for the wizard. This is especially true if you can prepare a lower level spell (like magic missle) and then if you want to use one of your higher level spell slots you can cast it as a higher level spell. I hadn't even thought about that until I read this thread.

 

[Mezzer]

I think it is kind of a playstyle thing, but being inflexible and locked-in is part of the "fun failure" of the Wizard class. It emphasizes that this is a class about advanced preparation and specific solutions. A wizard caught with her pants down, in a chaotic situation she wasn't ready for, should get screwed. On the other side, when things go according to plan, she should have just the right tools for the specific jobs she needs accomplished.

Mm, this was only really true of mid level Wizards though, and depending on the level of power gaming at hand, you could easily craft a Wizard that had a couple of incredibly effective generic answers to most situations. Besides, I'm fairly certain that the old system of fire & forget was at least partially responsible for the wonky power balance of arcane spells in earlier editions (sans 4E obviously).

I suppose I just like the fact that you still have to prepare spells rather carefully due to the (rather elegant) way that works now, even if it is ultimately a lot more flexible.