D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Klaus]

The math there is perhaps the turning point on wizards becoming artillery (as I mentioned above) when in the past they were not artillery. Is this true of your pre-3e gaming? Did wizards prior to 3e play as battlefield control/emergency butt-savers/deus-ex-machina as I propose or did you always try to use them as artillery? And if the latter, how did you handle the 5-minute adventure day problem?

When our group played 1e or 2e, almost no one played the magic-user/mage, because of the severely limited spells. They were mostly relegated to multiclass material, with the MU spells used for utility. The wizard-type that got most action was a half-elf illusionist/shadow mage in 2e. Half of his usefulness resided in his familiar, a shadow pseudo-dragon.

The priest-type that saw most play was a specialty priest created using the Complete Priest's Handbook, which was more of a "white wizard" type, giving up armor and weapons for more spellcasting. He played great support and control.

The 5-minute adventuring day, IME, began in 3e with the plethora of buff spells. Parties would buff up to their teeth, face an encounter, and then retreat to rest again. I had to institute a house rule that you could only take a "full night's rest" once every 24 hours, otherwise you weren't tired enough.

 

[Ranes]

Without wishing to derail, I remember attempts at short adventuring days from all the way back to my earliest experiences of 1e. These would tend to be predicated, as Hussar pointed out, by a healer who had run out spells. I italicised attempts because the good DMs would rarely let players get away with it, certainly not repeatedly. Indeed, they would exploit the dramatic opportunity the situation presented. They still do.

The only time the problem was edition-specific was when there was only one edition. And it has never been a problem for creative DMs with good groups.

"Shall we press on?"

"We must press on!"

"We can't stay here."

These three lines alone are portals to infinite opportunities for DMs and reasons for players to avoid a short adventuring day, in spite of limited daily resources. Sure, the party might want to lay low or evacuate but what happens when they try to can be as much a part of a good game session as anything that happens when they're fully charged and raring to go.

The more you reduce the tension that comes from a party at risk while low on or out of resources, the more you limit adventure to a given tempo.

 

[Roland55]

This may be one of the most interesting Threads I've read on ENWorld in years. Fairly minimal snarkiness, not too much anger or posting against individuals, very high intellectual content.

I'm getting a window into very different D&D games ... games I've not seen. And I'm seeing some attractive possibilities for change/evolution.

It's shaking up the gray matter in my old, gray head.

 

[Celebrim]

Why?

That's not meant as snarky in the slightest. I'm honestly curious.

Because high level spells in D&D tend to be significantly more advantageous than two lower level spells, which would encourage you to spend all or most of your points on high level spells.

(For example, this is the reason that empower and maximize metamagic feats are such niche abilities in 3e. Generally speaking, for almost anything that you'd want to empower or maximize, there is something 2 or 3 levels higher that is better.)

To me, for almost every gamist complaint about Vancian magic - it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day, it imbalances the classes, it makes encounters hard to design, it encourages redundancy in actual spell use, and so forth - this change would not lessen the strength of such arguments, but make them much more relevant. If it is true that Vancian magic encourages you to 'go nova', which in turn can act like a 'win button' in an encounter, but which in turn forces you to retreat to rest, then it would be more true that having a fewer number of more powerful effects would encourage 'going nova' and the 15 minute adventuring day. To the extent that spellcasters greatly outshine other classes on a per encounter basis by going nova, being able to focus their powers more sharply isn't going to help the matter. To the extent that spell casting makes encounter design difficult on the grounds that you aren't quite sure what party resources will be available, it becomes even more difficult in a system where those resources are even more amorphous. (I would go so far to say that the 15 minute adventuring day is an example of a table comprimise due to failed encounter design, and for that matter one of 4e's explicit goals was rendering encounter design easier by making available party resources more predictable.)

In short 'point buy' is not a mechanical solution to a set of problems and complaints commonly raised against Vancian magic. In theory 4e's 'at will' and 'per encounter' structure is a solution (in the same sense that some found ready access to wands an easy workaround and acceptable table comprimise), but this raises its own problems - encounters have to be harder to meaningfully challenge the party which tends to make combat run longer and slower, resource management subgames go away (which may be a feature or a bug depending on your point of view), and overall versimilitude may go down depending how you think you world should work, over balancing may lead to redundancies in game play, greater power access may have to be countered with reduced power flexibility and effect, etc.

I've tried several systems. The spell slot system may strike some as overly gamist, but I find it to be a good comprimise between narrative simulation and real game play concerns. Besides which, the Vancian system has some arcane depth to it that I think adds significantly to flavor. It suggests to me that spellcasting is more of an art (or a science) than mere innate power. Granted, the more you are going for innate power, the further you'll probably move away from it, but I like my Wizards as scholars and loremasters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because high level spells in D&D tend to be significantly more advantageous than two lower level spells, which would encourage you to spend all or most of your points on high level spells.

Which, btw, is the basis of one of the complaints I hear most often about what multiclassed PCs with multiple casting classes contribute to a party.

A PC who has a PrCl that lets him simultaneously advance the casting of 2 classes may have a metric ton of spell slots, but, the argument goes, he lacks punch. He may be flexible, but the spells he has may well be useless against level-appropriate opponents.

 

[Nagol]

Why?

That's not meant as snarky in the slightest. I'm honestly curious.

Possibly not a direct answer to your question, but here is my answer.

Older editions offered a few different mini-games for the Wizard player that have slowly been removed as conveniences for the class.

What spells do I want in my book?
Spell lists sizes were limited by Intelligence. The maximum size in 1e was 18? spells per spell-level at 18 Intelligence. It was possible to research your own spells above that limit, but the cost in time and cash was quite large weeks to months per spell, many 000’s of gp total expenditure, no guaranteed success or predictable time or cost investment. The strategic game was to determine what spells your optimal book would carry. 2e (and possibly an expansion book in 1e) gave unlimited spells to 19 Intelligence and so that became the holy grail for Wizards to aspire towards (needing 10+ Wishes or a incredibly rare Tome once 18 was reached!).

What spells can I put in my book?
There was a flat percentage chance to learn a spell that peaked at 85% for 18 Intelligence. Rerolls were possible, but unlikely. What you wanted and what you could use weren’t necessarily the same thing. The strategic game was building the best compromise book you could. 2e watered this chance down by granting a reroll every character level and 3e defanged it entirely by making it moderately easy Spellcraft check.

What spells to carry today?
Since the spells you can access are limited and the day’s plans are known, what spells best suit the situation? Each slot size was independent and you could not store a Fireball oin your 4th level slot because you thought you'd need another. The tactical game was building the most effective deck for the situation as you understand it based upon your available resources. Is there a way to adjust the plan to take advantage of a specific suite of spells?

What should I do?
Based upon the remaining deck of spells, the tactical situation, and known plans for the day, what should I cast this round if anything?

I think those conveniences helped drive both that the Wizard can replace other classes and the general power level of the Wizard class. Each convenience offered to the class appears unremarkable. Wizards don't need a limit on spellbook size; failing to learn a coveted spell isn't fun, let them learn everything; some spells have greater appeal, let's let a spell fit in any slot equal or greater in size! Combined, those conveniences greatly improve the value of the spell prepared and improve the general utility of spells known to each Wizard.

Allowing a mana point system simply adds another convenience -- and hence more ability -- to a class that already suffers complaints about its overall utility while robbing the class of mini-games I find fun.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In short 'point buy' is not a mechanical solution to a set of problems and complaints commonly raised against Vancian magic.

No it isn't. Point Buy is a mechanical solution to the simulationist problem of Vancian Magic. That it resembles nothing, not even the works of Jack Vance and playing a wizard who knows he's going to forget things when he uses them is painful. And most people don't find it helps the narrative structure either.

The fifteen minute adventuring day is an issue caused by the pacing of adventures not being fast enough. Because to be fast enough, the pacing would have to be about that of Jack Bauer in 24. 1e had its solution to the 15 minute day; rolling for wandering monsters every ten minutes. Sleeping for 8 hours in a dungeon would therefore require 48 wandering monster rolls. Not gonna happen.

But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day. To put that into perspective that's a fight before breakfast to wake you up, one mid morning, break for lunch, a fight mid afternoon, and one just before dinner. Unless you're a commando unit in hostile territory there needs to be a reason people are wasting people attacking you. And needs to be a ticking clock to prevent you forting up. This massively restricts the narratives that D&D provides strong support to - for instance hexcrawling in the wilderness. What wilderness hex is that dangerous? (Yes, I know people do it. But there's a world of difference between doing something with the rules and being supported by them). Pathfinder's Kingmaker simply encourages a near-Nova pattern for almost all combats if you run it in PF.

That said, this isn't a problem specifically with Vancian Magic - but with the resting scales of D&D. Putting the fighter on a different scale from the wizard is a mistake, as is hardcoding a wizard-rest to 8 hours. (I'd hard code the wizard-rest to 8 hours in a library and the 15 minute day vanishes).

 

[Ranes]

No it isn't. Point Buy is a mechanical solution to the simulationist problem of Vancian Magic. That it resembles nothing, not even the works of Jack Vance and playing a wizard who knows he's going to forget things when he uses them is painful. And most people don't find it helps the narrative structure either.

Okay, assuming you're right and you know what most people want, let's do that. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is widely recognised as being the smartest thing to do and usually leads to the best of everything.

But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day.

This is so not the case, I could write an essay on it. It's not - just not - rest or be attacked. Is that really the sum of options to occupy people you can consider? (I'm sure it isn't, by the way.)

Putting the fighter on a different scale from the wizard is a mistake, as is hardcoding a wizard-rest to 8 hours.

Completely agree. I think your next point about the wizard in a library is lovely but it doesn't solve the divine caster issue and I think there is still an issue there. Eight hours in a temple or at a shrine, maybe?

 

[Celebrim]

Which, btw, is the basis of one of the complaints I hear most often about what multiclassed PCs with multiple casting classes contribute to a party.

A good point, and one I should have thought of.

Yes, this illustrates the problem well. A character that is a level 10 cleric and level 10 wizard (in 3e) is very weak, because 5th level spells in no way are comparable to 7th or 9th level spells and wouldn't be even if you had more spells. Therefore, in order to allow multiclassing between two spellcasting classes you have to have a mechanism which allows you to be almost as high of spellcasting level in both classes as you would be in one. Indeed, the problem shows up with multiclassing a spellcasting class with any non-spellcasting class as well, in that you end up with spells that are too weak to make you an effective spellcaster and combat skills to weak to make you effective in combat.

Unfortunately, 3e kludged this together with a an endless variaty of 'prestige classes', one for fighters+arcane casters, another for theives+arcane casters, another for arcane caster+divine casters, another for bards specifically+divine casters, and so on and so on. It was a very ugly system.

More low level spells is weaker than fewer higher level spells in the vast majority of cases. So conversely, trading up your low level spell slots for higher ones tends to be stronger.

Looking at this in another way, it's not a 'fair trade' and bad for the system if a Psion could trade a reduction in the number of power points he has for greater effective manifestor level. It probably would be unbalancing as well as bad for game play (because the Psion if used optimally, would also always need to rest).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More low level spells is weaker than fewer higher level spells in the vast majority of cases.

Which, FWIW, is something I never had a problem with- most of my D&D PCs are multiclassed spellcasters.

So conversely, trading up your low level spell slots for higher ones tends to be stronger.

Yep. I note that many people who bar psionics from their games bring up just that point; the Psionic PCs can simply opt to use all of their potential on their most powerful abilities.