Vancian Spellcasting's Real Problem - CoDzilla

[Buugipopuu]

Ok, how about invisibility, fly, detect X, water breathing... Not every spell is opposed by a monster or variable DC.

The detect spells are minor enough that it doesn't matter. A bunch of classes get Detect Something at will and it's not even a significant feature. Pathfinder gives every caster Detect Magic at will. Invisibility is opposed to Spot (it should really just grant Hide in Plain Sight and a bonus to Hide). Water Breathing is also a pretty minor effect, after all loads of creatures get it continuously without it significantly affecting their challenge rating. Fly is always problematic, but having it give a speed of 60 feet was a bad decision on the part of designers. It means in most cases (since 90% of people have a speed of 30 feet) it was as good at making you fast as Haste, yet its other benefit was more significant and benefited more than just full-attacking melee types. Making the speed scale with level would turn a minimum level Fly spell (which should probably give you a speed that's less than your base speed) into a bit of a liability at high levels. You won't be able to gain much altitude after casting it, so anyone with a decent Jump modifier will just jump up and grapple you to the ground, because you're a Wizard and have crap for grapple modifier (and this system isn't stupid, so Freedom of Movement has been nerfed back to the stone age, and isn't super-stingy with its Jump DCs).

 

[Hassassin]

[snip examples]

Ok, you've convinced me they can make almost all low level spells quite low use for high level characters, but is that a better solution than reducing low level slots? Especially considering they are also trying to flatten the power curve, which works against making low level combat spells less useful.

 

[Odhanan]

I've played throughout the editions, and particularly 3rd edition throughout its run (with notably two campaigns that reached 16+ APL). I have never encountered the "CoDzilla" problem people keep complaining about.

I am not saying it isn't an issue, or that it hasn't been seen in action at some tables. Just that I have never actually experienced that problem myself. This leads me to believe this is (1) more a problem of players shooting deliberately for builds that milk some loophole or other (i.e. bad, counter-productive players, players who should be pointed at by the other players at the table as people who wreck everyone's fun because of a selfish agenda) rather than a true systematic problem running throughout the rules system itself, and (2) something that has been erected into a huge issue on message boards by armchair theorists reasoning in terms of Spherical Cows and the like.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Everything I've heard suggests flattening the curve for opposed rolls, but not hitpoints (except indirectly by reducing the availability of +Con items), when the main thing that high caster level got you was more damage dice on your blasting spells.

Cutting low level spell slots is actually more bookkeeping than not. It means when you level up you can't just add new entries to your standard spell preparation list, you have to decide which of your low level spells to lose and what to prepare in your new slot, rather than just what to prepare in your new slot. I don't like the idea of dropping low level slots as you level up, since deciding on what spell you want to lose when you level up makes levelling up less rewarding.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I am not saying it isn't an issue, or that it hasn't been seen in action at some tables. Just that I have never actually experienced that problem myself. This leads me to believe this is (1) more a problem of players shooting deliberately for builds that milk some loophole or other (i.e. bad, counter-productive players, players who should be pointed at by the other players at the table as people who wreck everyone's fun because of a selfish agenda) rather than a true systematic problem running throughout the rules system itself, and (2) something that has been erected into a huge issue on message boards by armchair theorists reasoning in terms of Spherical Cows and the like.

While I am sure those two you list are the possiblities, IMO, the real issues with it are:

(3) People accidently stumbling into it just playing their characters and not thinking about it. "Hey, we just now noticed that George's druid has been cutting up a ruckus the last three levels. What's up with that?"

(4) People aware of the potential problem still trying to find a good balancing point between chasing performance versus not overshadowing everyone. It's not that it can't be handled, but that the energy spent handling is largely waste. I can keep my house sort of cool in hot summertime with the doors and windows wide open--long as I don't mind wasting energy to do it. But I've got better uses for that energy.

It's actually worse for me in that my players being prone to the accidents puts a lot of work on me alone. If I had players with a bit of powergaming tendencies, I could tell them to cut it out. Being nice, that would put the effort back on them. That wouldn't be perfect, but it would work better than current. Running 3E for me (at least past 10th level or so) is a nightmare, because I have to constantly patrol to keep the players from accidently stomping on each others' niches.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Stomping over niches is still a spell issue, not the system of magic issue.

If you threw Righteous Might or Divine Power doing the same thing it did in 3.5 into 4e as a daily power(let alone encounter), it would still mess things up.

 

[Tallifer]

As for having the cleric use short term buffs, congrats. You just rediscovered encounter powers, and the cleric is supposed to be Vancian. You really think you waste limited daily slots on short term buffs unless they are godly? We're not talking "+2 strength" here.

That is not what Vancian magic means. Vancian just means that you can only cast each memorized spell once per day. It does not mean that spells need to have permanent or day-long durations.

Pathfinder has Vancian magic, but at the lower levels, a cleric's buffs only last for an encounter at most. (I do not know what feats and spells exist for higher levels, having just begun.) It should remain that way.

A high level cleric should be able to give better than a +2 bonus, but not a bonus which lasts forever or for an entire day. Long term buffs are what makes a cleric excessively godlike.

 

[GreyICE]

I've played throughout the editions, and particularly 3rd edition throughout its run (with notably two campaigns that reached 16+ APL). I have never encountered the "CoDzilla" problem people keep complaining about.

I am not saying it isn't an issue, or that it hasn't been seen in action at some tables. Just that I have never actually experienced that problem myself. This leads me to believe this is (1) more a problem of players shooting deliberately for builds that milk some loophole or other (i.e. bad, counter-productive players, players who should be pointed at by the other players at the table as people who wreck everyone's fun because of a selfish agenda) rather than a true systematic problem running throughout the rules system itself, and (2) something that has been erected into a huge issue on message boards by armchair theorists reasoning in terms of Spherical Cows and the like.

Yeah, except that the only way you haven't encounter the CoDzilla problem is if your druids were stupid.

Were they casting Summon Nature's Ally *? Congratulations. Those summons can grapple and attack, which quickly shuts down most enemies cold. With their feats, they could easily get +4 STR/+4 CON (a simple feat listed in the Player's Handbook that was clearly made for druids to take) and then those summons could become grapple/trip monsters. A Dire Wolf made trip attacks with every successful hit, with a bonus from size category, and an enormous strength. Resisting was nearly impossible for any humanoid.

Is it 'exploiting loopholes' to use a feat printed in the Player's Handbook for your class along with your iconic line of spells? Apparently yes.

How about Wildshape? You'd be an idiot not to take Natural Spell (A feat printed in the Player's Handbook that only your class could take) and that gave you access to all the forms in the monster manual?

How about your AC? Well, if you read the Dungeon Master's Guide (one of the three core books) there was a Wild Enchantment for armor that made the armor work in wildshape form, with bonuses (you ignored all armor penalties) and a type of plate armor clearly designed for you.

Did it take 'exploiting loopholes' to buy the armor designed for you to wear and wear it? Apparently it did.

And spells. Hah. Even the Spell Compendium had a number of totally busted options. Blinding Spittle ho.

If you never encountered the Druid outshining the rest of your players, it's probably because your druids were all played by the "Girlfriend of another player." And even THOSE have been known to solve entire realms of encounters just by spamming Summon Nature's Ally, with no real thought into best summons or anything else. After all, when you control 8 attackers you're just busy outshining the monk no matter what he's doing.


I'm going out on a limb here and saying you just haven't played much 3E. Because I played a LOT of 3E, and the optimization paths for the druid to break the game were all laid out, clear as day, as apparent and obvious as 'the fighter should get magical weapons' or 'monks should probably take those bracers that give them an armor class and were clearly designed to be taken by monks.' Druids were breaking the game from pretty much day 1.

 

[Li Shenron]

The real design flaws of 3.5 were the Cleric and the Druid. Both were full Vancian spellcasters with extra options.

In the Cleric's case, that made him a melee combatant equal to the fighter as well as a caster who could stand nearly toe to toe with the Wizard. The combination of Vancian class features with non-Vancian class features lead to a power growth that was beyond quadratic - the Cleric could do all those 'party helping' maneuvers on himself, growing his own power beyond any lesser ken.

...

Sooooo... what's planned here? I see full Vancian is back in for Clerics, and apparently this is melting down the design team (they've had about 5 polls in the forums asking what the iconic cleric is and whether or not it's a Priest, because they're clearly faced with making a Vancian caster with other features and flinching as hard as they can).

I can't speak for the 3ed druid because I've seen only a few, and were always interpreted as being restricted when not in natural surroundings.

But I've seen many 3ed clerics and played a few myself, and I have never seen them breaking the game or everybody's fun. The one and only thing that ever bothered me about them was the automatic knowledge of every clerical spell, both because it is very confusing for beginners and because it makes the cleric too flexible in the hands of a more seasoned or attentive player. Beside that problem, the cleric is better as a solo character because she can buff & heal herself, but it's not what happens in a group game unless everybody plays for himself, in which case I don't blame the rules but the players.

Still, apparently half of the gamers do think that the cleric needed to change because it is overpowered, while the other half thinks that it needed to change because nobody wanted to play it...

As a side note, this is one of the reasons I hate full vancian systems. You end up being able to do a very small number of things, and because that number is small, they have to be very powerful. Then if you gain any other class features (so your standard action in combat isn't 'write bad poetry' inbetween breaking reality) you grow exponentially and break apart the system. The only way to limit it appears to be to make the number of things you can do REALLY small (Factotem, Bard) which only leads to more frustration as you can once per day break apart the system and then you're basically useless, or you mete out your cool in painfully small increments (or if you're a Factotem, you run on proto-AEDU and thus sidestep the entire thing).

I am sure it's not your case, but when I read someone ranting that the "system breaks apart", that there is an "only way" to fix things and characters are "basically useless", normally I think that such person would just never like any ruleset.

 

[GreyICE]

I can't speak for the 3ed druid because I've seen only a few, and were always interpreted as being restricted when not in natural surroundings.

But I've seen many 3ed clerics and played a few myself, and I have never seen them breaking the game or everybody's fun. The one and only thing that ever bothered me about them was the automatic knowledge of every clerical spell, both because it is very confusing for beginners and because it makes the cleric too flexible in the hands of a more seasoned or attentive player. Beside that problem, the cleric is better as a solo character because she can buff & heal herself, but it's not what happens in a group game unless everybody plays for himself, in which case I don't blame the rules but the players.

Still, apparently half of the gamers do think that the cleric needed to change because it is overpowered, while the other half thinks that it needed to change because nobody wanted to play it...



I am sure it's not your case, but when I read someone ranting that the "system breaks apart", that there is an "only way" to fix things and characters are "basically useless", normally I think that such person would just never like any ruleset.

Okay, lets focus here. You admit that the Cleric is better than the Fighter because of the self-buffs, heals (although CLW wands) and magical attacks were a good combination that made you much more potent. But this didn't come into effect in a group situation.

Okay, was two clerics better than a cleric and a fighter? Yes. The fighter brought only his BAB to the party, which was fairly easily replicated a number of ways. Meanwhile the two clerics had twice the buffs, twice the spells, twice the utility.

So... what did the fighter do? Uniquely, nothing. That's why they replaced him with the far superior Warblade. Sadly this was late in the development cycle of 3.5E. If Warblade/Cavalier/Swordsage had been in the first book then, well, it wouldn't have balanced the system, but it would have been a lot closer.

The funny thing? They used Powers, something that has constantly been kicked about as a dealbreaker by the 3.5E crowd. They were clearly a proto-4E design.

P.S. No one wants to play the cleric is a holdout from AD&D where they were fairly boring in pretty much every way. Spellcasting taking long amounts of time combined with the much weaker cleric spells to make their spellcasting feel largely redundant, and while their buffs were top-notch, playing the buff/healbot is just plain boring. 4E Leaders take a much more active role in the party's success.