Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?
Different, yes, but not objectively better.
Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?
They are both very much needed members of the party and both have very much to do. It's a bunch of nonsense that mages outshines the fighter. They're both huge contributors to a party.
But you know what? I've now realized that there is one great balancing factor that people are overlooking.
That is spells run out and casters, especially mages, are at their weakest when they have no spells to cast. When this happens they can only use slings daggers and staff. They can't really wear armor. It also takes them at least a quarter of the day.
A fighter does not have this problem. Hit points be damned, because casters have far less hp than fighters. A Fighter has a d10 in comparison to a d4. Barbarians have a d12. Not including their Constitution bonuses or any other bonuses from things like feats (for 3.5e) or abilities. You can take away a fighter's equipment, but they can still defend themselves and dish out a lot of damage. And, when it came down to it, without the spells a mage would lose to a fighter type every time.
Clerics do have some fighting abilities, but that is not their focus. Their focus is on the spells they get from their deity they serve. And parties will last a lot longer if the Cleric has healing magics. In 1e and 2e their roles were primarily the medic.
Basically, fighters would be infantry and front line soldiers, clerics would be medics, and mages are artillery.
So this entire thing is absolutely nonsense.
Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.Reasonable. However is it a subjective statement rather than an objective truth. For example, you could substitute any other magic system for vancian in the above paragraph and it would remain equally reasonable (and subjective).
So, it all comes back to personal preference ... something that you can't easily convince folks to change no matter how superior your preference might seem to be to you.
Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard.Vancian magic is not at all about gradual energy expenditure over time in the way spell points are... it's going for a completely different angle. It still represents your total available mojo, and it's expenditure, however. If your available mojo/energy is represented by nine apples, and you allocate 2 for breakfast, 3 for lunch, and 4 for dinner then eating breakfast doesn't stop you having your four at dinner time.
I understand that, but you can't cast the same encounter power more than once per encounter as opposed to having x amount of "encounter power mojo."Keep in mind what "encounters" actually are: intense action punctuated by a short rest. A more descriptive name for "Encounter powers" would be "Power that you can use once per short rest". I find keeping that concept in mind really helps with the narrative around encounter powers. Likewise "daily" powers are simply powers you can use once between extended rests.
To be fair to the Vancian system, that's not so much the problem with Vancian magic itself, but the spells that are alloted for those spell slots, which contributes to the exponential change. I could see that, in theory, the Vancian system could provide a more linear progression of power. But to do so would require dumping (or converting into ritual spells like in 4E) some of those upper level spells and stretching out the upper level spells to make for a more linear power progression that matches.Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.
Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.
Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.
Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard.
After 2 years of 4e's design to give everyone something to do in every situation, I vehemently disagree with this. I very much prefer a rotating spotlight approach.
If everyone is special, then no one is special.
I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide. And I've never seen the problem of "Everyone is special, nobody is." And this includes 4e.
RE: Balance:
D&D has long been balanced under three assumptions. First, balance over levels. Second, balance over day. And lastly, balance over the encounter.
The idea behind the first is that wizards at low levels would be weak, while reigning supreme at high level.
The idea behind the second and third is that wizards are balanced around having so many spells each "day" and that, while they can rock an encounter rather hard, they can't rock the whole day due to limited resources.
The problem with the first is that nobody likes to be useless. People generally don't want a character that just sits on the sidelines and does nothing - nobody plays a game of football and actively wants to be water boy. Balance over levels actively encourages this - as a wizard you have to wait and wait and wait for your time to shine.
As a fighter, it's even worse - every fight and every level you grow closer to being utterly obsolete. This is what lead to the idea of the "sweet spot" - the point in the game where all players could enjoy playing. Of course, the existence of the "sweet spot" means the opposite also exists - those levels that are utterly not-fun.
The problem with the second is that "day" is nebulous. If you have one fight in the day, then some classes are going to grow magnificently powerful, as was seen in the fifteen minute workday.
Hypothetically, if you have fifty fights in the day, then wizards are back to side-lining, though in practice this turned out to not be true, with a mix of vastly numerous spell slots and fighters being unable to replenish their HP.
To help fix this, 3.x set out to create a "standard adventure day." Four encounters of roughly equal CR, where equal CR represents a fight that should take out roughly one fourth of your resources. 3.x was then - again in theory - balanced around this. Now, did they succeed or fail? That is to some measure up to personal belief; however, that both 4e and Pathfinder changed both CE and numerous spells that were "balanced" in this system speaks considerably.
The problem with Vancian is that it is inherently built on the first two methods of balance, and on all their inequalities.
It is centered around balance by level - it's where the concept of linear fighters vs quadratic wizards originates from.
Spells increase in power vastly faster then extraordinary or supernatural abilities. Vancian is also by definition a daily-originated power, which means the number and strength of fights are put to the challenge of being vaguely mapped about to the number and potency of spells.
What makes this so difficult is how much easier it is to capsize the boat with the first two methods of balance. 3.x provides that example perfectly. In theory wizards start very weak but end strong. In practice, even in the PHB, there is a wide variety of spells that even at level end simply end the encounter immidietely.
In theory wizards use their spells when they are most needed and not at other times, but with wildly fluxuating numbers of spell slots, wizards can either be starved or, as is far, far more likely, they can have so many spells they're just throwing them around as the stride on.
Even worse, the concept of the "day" is broken exceedingly fast by spells that allow you to essentially rest on command, such as Rope Trick, leading to the fifteen minute work day.
Mind you, all of this is just combat balance. It's not even touching balance outside of combat.
I'll tell you this though - I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide.