D&D 4E Combining Vancian and Will/Daily from 4E

[Sunseeker]

There really is no good reason you can't cast Prestidigitation or Ray of Frost dozens of times per day. They would, however, have to remove some of the cleric ones (Heal Minor and Resistance)

I like the idea that some people have presented that much like gaining spells per day of a certain level, once you get to a certain point above the spell level, you can cast it all you want. Lets say something ridiculous like 10 levels. If you're 10 levels higher than the level at which you got the spell, you can now cast it regularly.

 

[Rhenny]

What if wizard feats could be chosen to learn more within a specific school of magic? The abilities granted by the feat could be more like Pathfinder with schools (evocation, abjuration, conjuration, etc.) or cleric themes (weather, fire, nature, earth, strength, sun, etc.) Each package could grant one offensive spell and one defensive spell that could be used 3+Int Mod times per day or something like that. This could be added in addition to the normal spell slots/spell prep.

At higher levels, the feat granted spell abilities could scale, or be upgraded to more powerful versions.

If I were a wizard, I'd want to spend my feat points on something like that.

The same system could be used for Cleric and Druid too (with some restrictions based on class).

 

[Janaxstrus]

I like the idea that some people have presented that much like gaining spells per day of a certain level, once you get to a certain point above the spell level, you can cast it all you want. Lets say something ridiculous like 10 levels. If you're 10 levels higher than the level at which you got the spell, you can now cast it regularly.

Under the assumption that spells don't scale with level, but instead have to be memorized at a higher level to get better, something like this would be interesting and possibly attainable.

 

[Arlough]

First, I'm sure that these examples are how games went for both of you, in your respective games, but it is NOT what I have had and what I have seen around as the typical way that occurs.

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for your selves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: Um, I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch! .

Now that we have cleared up that we are all different, except that guy, I shall now arbitrarily claim that our experiences are exactly as common as yours.

A. I never "thought about playing wizards first and then jumped over to sorcerer." In fact the couple of times where I played either class I chose them for flavour reasons not mechanical reasons.

I, thanks to a friend of mine, was able to see early on that I made the flavor and the mechanics made... the result of a set of rules. My first Bard in 4e was just a reflavored warlord, for example. The sorcerer was chosen to have a wizardy feel without all the rule complications and binder of spell pages. While my wizard carries a spellbook, I as a player do not want to.

B. I HAVE seen that wizards are by far the more preferred class, sadly.

See arbitrary claim above.

C. Never had the "wands" thing you seemed to, in my 6-10 casters (including druids and clerics too) I have only ever carried wands in 2-3. Of those they were ALL clerics who wanted to maximize healing after their own/bigger spells were done.

Just a guess, but you may have had a different DM and group. You probably also never had someone in your group who calculated the cost of using leadersihp to hire hundreds of level 1 NPCs (more) with wands of magic missile (no miss = usable by the level 1 NPCs) to take out a BBEG in one giant Macross Missile Massacre either. (Just a note, it succeeded too.)
As soon as we figured out how cheap it was to get wands made by third parties, thus saving us the XP cost, we were all over finding new ways to survive via wands.

D. Not sure what these posts have to do with the topic.

Really, because you answered them as though they do.
The magic system in previous editions (vancian) caused players in our experience to choose to try and find workarounds. The workarounds included things that look suspiciously like 4e powers. The topic is "Combining Vanican and Will/Daily from 4E

Also, I am one of those who didn't enjoy 4e's switch to powers and probably "cried out loud" with the rest of them. I didn't especially want to see them change it back to Vancian as Vancian has its own problems too. Vancian, IMHO, is just better than 4e, so I'm glad to see them switch back. It's like politics. You may not thing your preferred party is the best, but it is certainly better than the other guy.

While I can see the logic in this, this isn't an election. This is our fantasy game we play in our leisure time. Your statement equates to "In my fantasy, I guess I'll settle for this." which I do not accept. So I am willing to try other ways of doing things, even combining a system I kinda like with one I strongly dislike in the hopes of it becoming something I really like.

Because if you stab someone, IRL, with a knife you expect them to bleed out their RL HP.

Because if you use an encounter power in real life you.... what exactly are you doing?

Does anyone else see the irony in pointing to Real Life as an example of how things should be done mechanically in a forum thread about the appropriate execution of Magic?!?!?

I have had the unfortunate experience of being in the ER when a victim of a knifing (kitchen knife at that) was brought in. He was not bleeding out RL HP. He was just bleeding, badly. Two strokes of a chef's knife and, without our amazing modern emergency response and medical repair system, he would have been dead. In fact, either wound should have done him in without aid.
IRL, wounds of the sort we supposedly would get in D&D are fatal. Especially in a world with medieval level sanitation and medical knowledge. If you want to up it to Revolutionary War tech, then you may be able to get away with being an adventurer with multiple amputations by the time you reach 5th level.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like the OP's idea. I also think that spells should be "loaded up" to a piece of equipment. -Like for instance a wand or hat. It could be nice to have a magic missile (at will) in the wand and a summon monster (encounter) in the hat.

 

[Tovec]

Now that we have cleared up that we are all different, except that guy, I shall now arbitrarily claim that our experiences are exactly as common as yours.

Uh huh, that's more or less my meaning too..

I, thanks to a friend of mine, was able to see early on that I made the flavor and the mechanics made... the result of a set of rules. My first Bard in 4e was just a reflavored warlord, for example. The sorcerer was chosen to have a wizardy feel without all the rule complications and binder of spell pages. While my wizard carries a spellbook, I as a player don not want to.

This may be a confusion in edition. My claims (in all posts) are all about 3.5 unless stated otherwise. 3.5 is my default and while I don't have the time right now to go back over the thread I will and see if that is the cause of this confusion.

However, you do talk about reflavoring whereas I was talking about the original flavour of a class.

So, when I play wizards I play them because I'm looking for the pointy hat wizard. When I play sorcerers I am looking for the flashy spontaneous character. I don't come to a character saying "I want to cast, which has more utility" and go from there.
Might just be how I play.

B. I HAVE seen that wizards are by far the more preferred class, sadly.

See arbitrary claim above.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. It is not an arbitrary claim. Look at CharOps boards they will almost always suggest wizard first and then suggest something else which might fit better for a build. It isn't a matter of opinion. Sadly it is a visible preference for people around here and elsewhere.

Just a guess, but you may have had a different DM and group. You probably also never had someone in your group who calculated the cost of using leadersihp to hire hundreds of level 1 NPCs (more) with wands of magic missile (no miss = usable by the level 1 NPCs) to take out a BBEG in one giant Macross Missile Massacre either. (Just a note, it succeeded too.)
As soon as we figured out how cheap it was to get wands made by third parties, thus saving us the XP cost, we were all over finding new ways to survive via wands.

You underestimate me and my group, we have calculated leadership to hire hundreds of 1st level NPCs. More than once. We haven't used them to craft magic missile wands. Haven't seen the need I guess. That is certainly a matter of opinion by game. We have calculated ways to create a common railgun and other similarly silly and useless things but that doesn't really seem like the point here.

D. Not sure what these posts have to do with the topic.

Really, because you answered them as though they do.
The magic system in previous editions (vancian) caused players in our experience to choose to try and find workarounds. The workarounds included things that look suspiciously like 4e powers. The topic is "Combining Vanican and Will/Daily from 4E

I know the topic was combining vancian and 4e daily/at will powers. I was replying about your preferences in playstyle for 3e and the preference between selecting sorcerers vs wizards. Neither one of the posts I was addressing dealt with the topic of "combining vancian and 4e" styles. I purposely missed the first part of that post for you Arlough because it was on topic, the rest wasn't.

While I can see the logic in this, this isn't an election. This is our fantasy game we play in our leisure time. Your statement equates to "In my fantasy, I guess I'll settle for this." which I do not accept. So I am willing to try other ways of doing things, even combining a system I kinda like with one I strongly dislike in the hopes of it becoming something I really like.

I did say: I preferred vancian.
You say, that I said: "In my fantasy, I guess I'll settle for this."

I too am willing to try new things but I don't get the point of this part of your reply Arlough.

Does anyone else see the irony in pointing to Real Life as an example of how things should be done mechanically in a forum thread about the appropriate execution of Magic?!?!?

A-ha, trapped.

I talked about a knife, and how it should work mechanically. The fact that magic exists in the same world should have no effect on the conversation.

Your point SHOULD BE that knives aren't magic yet is functioning as magic therefore it is invalid.
Not, knives are magic just like magic, problem solved.

I have had the unfortunate experience of being in the ER when a victim of a knifing (kitchen knife at that) was brought in. He was not bleeding out RL HP. He was just bleeding, badly. Two strokes of a chef's knife and, without our amazing modern emergency response and medical repair system, he would have been dead. In fact, either wound should have done him in without aid.
IRL, wounds of the sort we supposedly would get in D&D are fatal. Especially in a world with medieval level sanitation and medical knowledge. If you want to up it to Revolutionary War tech, then you may be able to get away with being an adventurer with multiple amputations by the time you reach 5th level.

See billd91 and others replies on the subject. I don't feel the need to expand beyond their replies.

I like the OP's idea. I also think that spells should be "loaded up" to a piece of equipment. -Like for instance a wand or hat. It could be nice to have a magic missile (at will) in the wand and a summon monster (encounter) in the hat.

I really like this. The problem I'm having even with pathfinder's system (which is still very nice) is that they do have so many at wills. They are at wills on things that don't really matter.

As it has been raised in earlier posts, when you are low level these at wills are decent but not great. They are just better than throwing a dart or shooting a crossbow. They aren't as nice as casting another magic missile or fireball. Worse still is that at higher levels they are ignored entirely as you get too many spells to effectively cast in a day. Yes I'm sure there are those of you who can give examples of this not being true but those are exceptions as opposed to the rule.

If I stabbed someone IRL, I'd expect them to either be down on the ground, or at least suffering some serious hindrance to their actions. After a single stab wound. I'd also expect them to bleed out, continuously until getting treatment, and not just a single chunk of "HP" all at once. None of that is reflected by the HP system. HP is completely ridiculous, but it makes for a simple, easy to use game system.

If I use an encounter power, it means I'm performing an unusually strenuous maneuver. Any real-world fighter knows the power of fatigue, and understands that pacing is hugely important. Now, is it a little ridiculous that the fatigue is localized to a specific maneuver? Sure. But my point is that that little abstraction is nothing compared to HP. It's not "realistic", but it makes for a simple, easy to use game system.

Seems to me, the more important a system is, the more detail we should expect in it. HP is a matter of life or death, yet is extremely simplified. Martial encounter powers are a relatively minor matter of a few special options for a small subset of classes, yet has an even more detailed system than HP. Why is that not enough?

Agreed, let's fix HP. Besides that however ...

If you used an encounter power, as I pointed out, it DOES NOT mean you are performing a strenuous maneuver. You are performing a maneuver you can only perform once this fight. You can do it again next fight. You can do another encounter power this fight. You can do a daily power this fight too, all after you used this "strenuous maneuver" the first time. If it is so tiring then you should gain the fatigued or exhausted condition and should not be able to do those other abilities. That doesn't happen so already there is a significant flaw in the design.

It is not realistic because the basic foundation of how the power works is flawed. HP describes a system where you do get wounded and hurt and eventually killed. Encounter powers describe how you can't do a better power more than once per fight. This doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to a lot of us.

Things should make sense, if they don't then they shouldn't exist. To a certain extent this should include magic. Magic should either have rules or not have rules, it shouldn't switch between both forms and it shouldn't be interchangeable with non-magic.

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] I don't know exactly what it is, yet, but something about Rodney Thompsons exposition about fighter scares me. I'll get back to you.

 

[Walker N. Waistz]

How to make a Vancian at-will spell.

How about some spells that work like this:

I cast Magic Missile on myself at the beginning of the day. That spell gives me the ability to fire magic missiles once per round for the rest of that day.

If I memorized that, and forgot it until I memorized it again, that would be a Vancian spell AND an at-will attack power, yes?

 

[variant]

you know that can just as easily be turned around. and people can say the idea of back to 3e or 2e vancian systems are brining back bad memories. in the hope of compramize can we not have both?

However, Wizards is trying to get the large amount of people that went from 3e to Pathfinder or never left. The 4e players are simply a minority because it sold poorly.

 

[Bluenose]

However, Wizards is trying to get the large amount of people that went from 3e to Pathfinder or never left. The 4e players are simply a minority because it sold poorly.

The last time when WotC published as many books as Paizo over a particular time period was when D&D Essentials was coming out. In that time period, D&D 4e was the top selling RPG on the ICV2 charts. It's possible the argument is not as clear-cut as you suggest.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

However, Wizards is trying to get the large amount of people that went from 3e to Pathfinder or never left. The 4e players are simply a minority because it sold poorly.

um I don't belive you...at all. Wizards is not looking to sya "well 4e players don't matter" and that can be seen in the latest rule of 3.

I find the idea that pathfinder is even close to more players then 4e laughable at best, and a sad sad attempt at edtion waring.

I would like to know what you consider selling poorly, when the DDI group has SOOO many memebers...