Vancian Casting and Rituals - A Solution

[DonTadow]

Uh... so your solution is to make casters even more powerful while simultaneously reserving rituals strictly for their use?

This seems to be to be the exact opposite of "solving the problem", to be honest.

Not if you severely limit the spell slot thing. See, I raeally wouldn't mind the vance system if it was really the vance system. Vance casters had a handful of spells if that prepared, not some 30 to 40 in a variety of diferent catagories.

So A wizard has a spell book and those are skill related and then he has some powerful spells he can cast without rolling (after all isnt teh problem of a wizard the fact that he can cast with no regard).

 

[Therise]

I like it. Elegant idea, and simple.

The "down side" for people insisting that it needs one: books can be damaged, they're bulky, etc.

It's not like you can pull out a tome while running from an enemy, or take it out of its waterproof container while you're splashing in a river.

Sure, there are traveling spellbooks with various protection spells. But such things are costly.

It would make finding new books, tomes, scrolls very special for a wizard. Adding to one's repertoire of spells is very core D&D and one of those things players want.

 

[GSHamster]

So if a Wizard has one 5th level spell slot, she can basically cast that 5th level spell again and again, so long as she sets up in a protected area, either through terrain, or through spells and her companions.

For example, fighting undead, cleric drops a Magic Circle Against Evil on the wizard. Wizard immediately goes into super-artillery mode, blasting her one 5th level spell every round.

To me, it seems like it is too easy to abuse. All you have to do is keep the monsters away from the wizard, or add in shenanigans with the Concentration skill, and the Wizard gets unlimited casts of her most powerful spell.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So if a Wizard has one 5th level spell slot, she can basically cast that 5th level spell again and again, so long as she sets up in a protected area, either through terrain, or through spells and her companions.

No, you misunderstand. Casting a spell out of your spellbook would still cost a spell per day of the appropriate level (whether you succeed or not). If a wizard is all out of 5th level spells for the day, for example, he wouldn't be able to cast a 5th level spell out his spellbook. Likewise, if he has one 5th level spell left for the day, he could only book-cast one 5th level spell. It is not unlike a 3e cleric's ability to swap a perpared spell for a cure spell of the same level. Effectively, this rule would allow a wizard to "spontaneously cast" (in 3e's terms) any spell out of his spellbook by taking extra time and adding a risk of spell failure (plus the risk of having your spellbook out in the middle of battle).

 

[GSHamster]

No, you misunderstand. Casting a spell out of your spellbook would still cost a spell per day of the appropriate level (whether you succeed or not). If a wizard is all out of 5th level spells for the day, for example, he wouldn't be able to cast a 5th level spell out his spellbook. Likewise, if he has one 5th level spell left for the day, he could only book-cast one 5th level spell. It is not unlike a 3e cleric's ability to swap a perpared spell for a cure spell of the same level. Effectively, this rule would allow a wizard to "spontaneously cast" (in 3e's terms) any spell out of his spellbook by taking extra time and adding a risk of spell failure (plus the risk of having your spellbook out in the middle of battle).

Why not just play a sorcerer then?

 

[LurkAway]

No, you misunderstand. Casting a spell out of your spellbook would still cost a spell per day of the appropriate level (whether you succeed or not). If a wizard is all out of 5th level spells for the day, for example, he wouldn't be able to cast a 5th level spell out his spellbook.

For me, that changes the entire flavor supporting the concept of Vancian casting. As I remember, the wizard is memorizing and imprinting magical runes in his mind's eye, so that the magic is immediately available at need. The wizard gets x spells between memorizations because there's only so many magic spells that can be memorized at a time. I liked the idea of casting out of the spellbook because it seemed intuitive to reference the spellbook instead of by memory. If casting out of the spellbook requires a spellslot, then what's happening in the Vancian sense and if the wizard's mind is clear and spell-free, then why not be able to cast out of the book? I assumed there would have to be some other limitation applied to spellbook casting, and that wizard spells are designed with the knowledge that they could be cast over and over every x minutes or so (barring limitations).

 

[the Jester]

The "down side" for people insisting that it needs one: books can be damaged, they're bulky, etc.

It's not like you can pull out a tome while running from an enemy, or take it out of its waterproof container while you're splashing in a river.

Sure, there are traveling spellbooks with various protection spells. But such things are costly.

It would make finding new books, tomes, scrolls very special for a wizard. Adding to one's repertoire of spells is very core D&D and one of those things players want.

I think this is a horrible way to balance things. For the dm to actually use this weakness, he has to completely neuter a pc in the long run (assuming that the pc doesn't have a backup spellbook). If he never uses the spellbook as a weakness, it doesn't balance anything out.

 

[SKyOdin]

For me, one of the most valuable aspects of the 4E Ritual system is that it let non-wizards have access to magic. Many spells are too generally useful and important to the game(such as teleportation) to only be used by one class. That makes that one class too mandatory.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me, one of the most valuable aspects of the 4E Ritual system is that it let non-wizards have access to magic. Many spells are too generally useful and important to the game(such as teleportation) to only be used by one class. That makes that one class too mandatory.

It is a valid point. The concept of a character (lets say a warlord) who is an expert in 'battle rituals' is kind of cool too. The flip side was that it always seemed to me that the lumping of all rituals into one massive list was a bit simplistic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think sorcerers actually work really well under the AEDU system. They seem more like rather narrow niche specialists that have only a specific set of innate powers myself. I can understand how the sort of shoehorning of the 4e power mechanics into the spellbook abstraction was a bit clunky, but the sorcerer never had a spellbook to start with, so really there's no issue there with fluff.

I think the issue with the core idea here is just the same issue that ritual casting having a strategic money cost was meant to deal with. There are a LOT of situations where 'strategic' spells basically have no innate cost. You don't care if you burned a spell slot if you are sitting in your tower casting divinations or whatever. Those things really need some sort of cost because they are wide ranging capabilities that add a LOT of 'agency' to the character, giving them a lot of power to interact with the plot/world in ways that other characters can't get. 4e's answer to that is really fairly clever, make the wizard pay in terms of cash that other characters can use to add to their gear or buy consumables etc.