Spellcasting Sacred Cows

[Tilenas]

Over the years, two issues have become immanent to me that might be main reasons for caster/non-caster discrepancy:

- the "I win button". Magic often just works as intended. Wizards are able to perfectly aim their fireballs so that they hit only enemies, if that is geometrically possible. Sure, they get a save, but if a level-10 Wizard says so, Joe Average gets 5d6 damage and there's not a thing he can do about it.

- the revovery mechanic. Rest eight hours and you're back at full casting capacity. Hence, the 20-minute adventuring day.

The question now is: Are they sacred cows of D&D or can they be subject to modification in order to create a greater class balance? My personal answer is that they should be modified.

The first issue can be adressed by introducing some sort of aiming or generalized casting check, be it for area damage spells like fireball, or spells like charm person. I am not talking about reversing the save 4e-style by having casters roll against a static defense. I would like to see some kind of mechanic that determines how well the spell is cast (like a concentration or spellcraft check) before any saves are made. That's more dice rolling, but lends more mystery to magic in general.

The second issue is closely tied to vancian magic. Full recovery after resting is kind of required, because: How do you introduce an easy and reliable method for partial spell recovery if your Cleric can cast 5/4+1/3+1/3+1/1+1 spells? I have no idea. But I would LOVE to see spellcasters that have to be more careful with their magical resources. DSA, for instance, uses spell points which are recovered just like hit points. More powerful casters regain their spell points more quickly, but it's all within the same ballpark. All of a sudden, it makes sense to conserve your energy, because left-over spells are not wasted as they are now.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Over the years, two issues have become immanent to me that might be main reasons for caster/non-caster discrepancy:

- the "I win button". Magic often just works as intended. Wizards are able to perfectly aim their fireballs so that they hit only enemies, if that is geometrically possible. Sure, they get a save, but if a level-10 Wizard says so, Joe Average gets 5d6 damage and there's not a thing he can do about it.

- the revovery mechanic. Rest eight hours and you're back at full casting capacity. Hence, the 20-minute adventuring day.

The question now is: Are they sacred cows of D&D or can they be subject to modification in order to create a greater class balance? My personal answer is that they should be modified.

The first issue can be adressed by introducing some sort of aiming or generalized casting check, be it for area damage spells like fireball, or spells like charm person. I am not talking about reversing the save 4e-style by having casters roll against a static defense. I would like to see some kind of mechanic that determines how well the spell is cast (like a concentration or spellcraft check) before any saves are made. That's more dice rolling, but lends more mystery to magic in general.

The second issue is closely tied to vancian magic. Full recovery after resting is kind of required, because: How do you introduce an easy and reliable method for partial spell recovery if your Cleric can cast 5/4+1/3+1/3+1/1+1 spells? I have no idea. But I would LOVE to see spellcasters that have to be more careful with their magical resources. DSA, for instance, uses spell points which are recovered just like hit points. More powerful casters regain their spell points more quickly, but it's all within the same ballpark. All of a sudden, it makes sense to conserve your energy, because left-over spells are not wasted as they are now.

I disagree with your points.

Your first point, that magic just works when cast, is a consequence of its limited use. A fighter can try to hit all day long, but a magic user has limited numbers of spells. When one is expended, if they also had to roll to succeed with the spell, that means they might have expended one of those few spells for no good reason at all. As their spells are finite in number, it's better for them to have a definite effect when used.

Your second point, I just don't recognise. I've heard about the 20 minute adventuring day, but I've never actually seen it. In the games I've played in or run, if the magic user turns around and says, "Guys, I'm out of power," mostly others shrug and keep going until the group as a whole decides they need to rest or stop - which is usually a function of running low on hit points or meeting their objectives. I've never encountered a problem where the wizard forces everyone to stop early because they have no magic left.

 

[Number48]

An archer doesn't have to TRY to aim an arrow, so that mechanic shouldn't be introduced to magic in addition to hitting a defense or getting a save.

A possible way to do Vancian and not have the 20 minute adventuring day (which I have seen in groups), is to have a cooldown for each spell level for a number of rounds equal to the level cast. So if I start out with a 5th level spell, the best I can do next round is a 4th, the 3rd, then 2nd, then 1st and then my 5th is back off cooldown (at that point, all levels are off cooldown). It would require some tracking, which isn't fun, but brings casters in line with what was actually intended from a 3E perspective.

 

[delericho]

I think there are a number of iconic spells that must be supported - sleep, fireball, etc. And I think these must be pretty close in implementation to the 1st Ed - 3e model. (I know some of the 4e spells of the same name come into criticism for being poor shadows of their former selves - sleep in particular is a massive disappointment.)

I also think 5e must support Vancian magic in the system, although perhaps only in a supplementary module. I don't necessarily feel that's an either/or proposition, though - you could build a Vancian caster in 4e quite easily by giving the class only Daily powers, although the balancing would be tough.

Beyond that, I suspect things are actually quite flexible. I'm not sure it matters what the system allows... I think it's much more important to consider what the system doesn't allow (or doesn't support in print).

(One thing I would quite like to see would be an "alternative spellbook" - a book intended to replace, rather than supplement the "normal" spells. But that's a fairly out-there concept - it certainly shouldn't be Core! )

 

[Li Shenron]

I would like to see some rules for spells behaving erratically or posing some risks, but there are two problems:

- first, it definitely add to game complexity in a way that perhaps most gamers would not like; it is also similar to having critical misses, which most people find entertaining only for a short time and then they become boring; ergo, it might be best as an optional rule, but then this could mean

- second, at least in some case (e.g. misplaced fireball) the price is paid again by the melee fighters of the group

 

[Li Shenron]

Your second point, I just don't recognise. I've heard about the 20 minute adventuring day, but I've never actually seen it. In the games I've played in or run, if the magic user turns around and says, "Guys, I'm out of power," mostly others shrug and keep going until the group as a whole decides they need to rest or stop - which is usually a function of running low on hit points or meeting their objectives. I've never encountered a problem where the wizard forces everyone to stop early because they have no magic left.

Same here. My opinion is that this "20 minutes day problem" is mostly a mind experiment problem. Because while it is in a certain way a "smart" strategy for the characters themselves, it is an awful strategy from the point of view of the players who are going to kill their own fun. It's just plain boring.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually in ADnD we did a straight int Check to see if you can aim a fireball in a way, that the volume of the explosion exactly fills the space you desired.

In 3rd edition we just made a ranged touch attack with dexterity substituted by int to attack a certain square (with appropriate cover of course)
Actually in 3rd edition, when you needed to get the fireball through a narrow slit, a ranged touch attack was the actual rule IIRC.

So I expect 5e to have a guideline which says:
If in doubt, if an area spell can easily be aimed, make an appropriate int/dex check to see if you aim correctly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Same here. My opinion is that this "20 minutes day problem" is mostly a mind experiment problem. Because while it is in a certain way a "smart" strategy for the characters themselves, it is an awful strategy from the point of view of the players who are going to kill their own fun. It's just plain boring.

It's not just a mind experiment. IME, it's the result of a DM who tries to challenge his players without understanding the full implications of the system. This type of DM never uses anything with a CR less than +2, and +3 or +4 is more common. A lack of magical gear can also be a problem with this DM, as he probably doesn't understand the wealth per level guidelines either. Hence, an underpowered party is consistently facing overpowering encounters. They have to redline everything in a given encounter, because to do otherwise is to probably face TPK, but as a result, afterward they're in no shape to continue. They know that if they rest there's a fair chance of another (random) encounter ambushing them during the night, and so they rest while they still have the resources for one or two more fights. To do any less would be to invite TPK.

I've had the misfortune for playing under two such DMs. One eventually listened to reason and saw the error inherent in this method. The other one ran this way until he finally changed over to 4e (where it's still an issue, but much less of one).

There may be groups of players out there who want to exploit the games mechanics. Not everyone who encounters the 15 minute word day belongs in that group. Nonetheless, the 15 minute work day happens.

 

[Number48]

It's not just a mind experiment. IME, it's the result of a DM who tries to challenge his players without understanding the full implications of the system. This type of DM never uses anything with a CR less than +2, and +3 or +4 is more common. A lack of magical gear can also be a problem with this DM, as he probably doesn't understand the wealth per level guidelines either. Hence, an underpowered party is consistently facing overpowering encounters. They have to redline everything in a given encounter, because to do otherwise is to probably face TPK, but as a result, afterward they're in no shape to continue. They know that if they rest there's a fair chance of another (random) encounter ambushing them during the night, and so they rest while they still have the resources for one or two more fights. To do any less would be to invite TPK.

I've had the misfortune for playing under two such DMs. One eventually listened to reason and saw the error inherent in this method. The other one ran this way until he finally changed over to 4e (where it's still an issue, but much less of one).

There may be groups of players out there who want to exploit the games mechanics. Not everyone who encounters the 15 minute word day belongs in that group. Nonetheless, the 15 minute work day happens.

I've had the 20 minute day in my groups, and I'm a pushover as a DM. I never kill characters except for 1 TPK in a 4E game simply due to the dice. In my games the 20 minute day comes from the deep immersion style we play in. The players are genuinely worried about what is in that cave, but as long as it isn't coming out and doesn't have reinforcements, they do the logical thing. It isn't, however, the best for fun or story.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Over the years, two issues have become immanent to me that might be main reasons for caster/non-caster discrepancy:

- the "I win button". Magic often just works as intended. Wizards are able to perfectly aim their fireballs so that they hit only enemies, if that is geometrically possible. Sure, they get a save, but if a level-10 Wizard says so, Joe Average gets 5d6 damage and there's not a thing he can do about it.

- the revovery mechanic. Rest eight hours and you're back at full casting capacity. Hence, the 20-minute adventuring day.

The question now is: Are they sacred cows of D&D or can they be subject to modification in order to create a greater class balance? My personal answer is that they should be modified.

The first issue can be adressed by introducing some sort of aiming or generalized casting check, be it for area damage spells like fireball, or spells like charm person. I am not talking about reversing the save 4e-style by having casters roll against a static defense. I would like to see some kind of mechanic that determines how well the spell is cast (like a concentration or spellcraft check) before any saves are made. That's more dice rolling, but lends more mystery to magic in general.

The second issue is closely tied to vancian magic. Full recovery after resting is kind of required, because: How do you introduce an easy and reliable method for partial spell recovery if your Cleric can cast 5/4+1/3+1/3+1/1+1 spells? I have no idea. But I would LOVE to see spellcasters that have to be more careful with their magical resources. DSA, for instance, uses spell points which are recovered just like hit points. More powerful casters regain their spell points more quickly, but it's all within the same ballpark. All of a sudden, it makes sense to conserve your energy, because left-over spells are not wasted as they are now.

Personally, I think your first point is the real problem inherent in the vancian system (and yes, I realize that for some play styles it is not a problem). That, and the vast scope of the system.

Combine the two and you can find a way to automatically win in almost any situation. It's worst with divine casters, because you can at least limit a wizard via his spellbook. However, clerics and druids can memorize any spell from any book you allow at your table.

Lastly there's the issue of niche infringement. Casters should not have access to spells like Tenser's Transformation and Divine Power, that allow them to take over the role of another class, particularly when they can layer multiple buffs to be better than the class in question.

Your second point is about more tightly controlling limited resources. IMO, far worse than the 15 minute adventure day are scrolls and wands (particularly the crafting thereof). These allow the caster to flagrantly disregard the very limits that supposedly make him balanced.


I think that there are a lot of bright minds on the design team and that they'll be able to work around these issues by merely trimming the fat from a few sacred cows. I think we'll see magic that is a little more usable at 1st level (more than 1 or 2 spell slots) but spells will also be less likely to succeed automatically. Not necessarily a caster check, but rather that something like Invisibility won't render you nearly impossible to find. I also expect that we'll see more tightly restricted spell lists. If they get the mix just right, I expect they can make parties on both sides of the divide happy.