Where 4e fails the fans of vancian magic is in it's use of the same system for more than just spells. Specifically, martial characters, like fighters, who also get dramatic daily exploits, as well as 1/encounter and at-will exploits. If martial characters aren't distinctly inferior to magic-wielding ones, the sense of magic being special and powerful - thus 'magical' is lost. While 'vanician' is something of a rallying cry, I'm sure many would be just as happy with AEDU, if it were a caster-exclusive system (and if rituals were a lot cheaper and faster).
*sigh*
Once again, the people who want different systems for different power sources (myself included) don't see it as a power issue; the "everyone who doesn't like 4e that much is a whiny caster player who feels his toys were taken away and hates being on even footing with the mere mortals" stereotype is getting old. I don't care if the fighter has a bunch of fancy, powerful moves that rival the power of a wizard's spells--in fact, I'm all for the martial classes getting a powerup. What I don't want to see is a martial power system that doesn't make sense, and martial dailyies don't make much sense to me.
We've had this debate before, so I won't rehash it, but basically it comes down to the fact that while you
can provide multiple justifications for a martial daily, none of them is bulletproof and the lack of a single coherent explanation is problematic. If daily powers were supposed to be these big dramatic events, make them "per scene" instead of "per day" and define a scene appropriately. If they were supposed to be luck-based, make them use action points and give the martial classes more of them. If they were supposed to be fatigue-based, make them use healing surges. Do
something besides per day, and I'd be perfectly happy with them.
Many people (again, myself included) feel that different mechanics are just as important as different flavor in differentiating classes. I love tinkering with different subsystems, and having different casting systems for, for instance, the 3e wizard, sorcerer, and shadowcaster really helps drive home the differences in the power sources and flavor, even if they're all basically Vancian to one degree or another. My favorite alternate magic system in 3e was the binder because the flavor was amazing and the mechanics matched the flavor very well; I didn't like incarnum as much because, while the mechanics were interesting in and of themselves, they didn't really match the flavor of "channeling peoples' souls" that well.
And I'm saying that this isn't true. At 9th level or so they have to change the game and give the fighter a castle and followers simply because the wizard is too powerful and versatile. Even in 1e. And Gary has gone on record saying he made the apparently overpowered Unearthed Arcana classes like the Cavalier to try to balance them with casters. (Or more specifically he agreed with this when Raven Crowking stated it as his reason).
The wizard is too powerful because of the effects he has access to at that level,
not because of the number or frequency of them. 4th level spells are a major turning point in every pre-4e edition because it comes with a lot of firsts (first teleportation spell, first SoD, first polymorph spell, and so on). A 7th-/8th-level wizard is a force to be reckoned with. The 1e caster has a lot of spells given lots of time, the 2e caster has more spells given the same amount of time, and the 3e caster has yet more spells given much less time...but all three of them can still blast their way into a room, turn everyone inside into frogs, and teleport away before they can react.
The game changes due to the powers available. If wizards gained spells every third level (and so didn't gain 4th and 5th level spells until 10th and 13th level) the game would change more slowly, even if you increased the number of slots at lower levels. To "fix" the Vancian casters in any edition, one must change the spells before the caster chassis. As much as the changing of saving throws and initiative and casting in combat buffed the 3e casters, they were buffed even more by their spells becoming cheaper (gold- and age-wise) and more reliable with the removal of drawbacks.
The majority of the time, no they aren't. They aren't the 6 second re-writing of reality with trivial cost that old spells were. But with a creative player checking his ritual list they can be extremely useful. As a player I've avoided encounters and disrupted and forced a re-write of sessions using rituals. And as a DM I've had it done to me. But what this took was actual genuine creativity rather than the caster's fingers and using a spell for exactly what they are designed for. To me that's creativity far more than digging through your toolbox to find exactly the right tool.
Rituals can be game-changers, but much of the time their casting time and cost prevents them being worth it. There are plenty of rituals that even all of the people I know who only play 4e will never use, and there are plenty of spells that I've found useful in AD&D and 3e that don't have the same utility anymore.
As well, the creativity often comes in with the combination of spells even if you feel individual spells aren't creative enough. Making a big illusion of a demon to scare away dozens of bandits, for example, isn't creative; it's a fairly common strategy. However, if you're faced with more skeptical opponents, summoning a single real demon for them to interact with, making an illusion of lots of demons, using ventriloquism to make them make lots of noise, and maybe hiding inside an illusion and chucking a few more spells to seal the deal is a lot more creative and requires actual thought.
And my question to you is, how is using a 4e ritual "actual genuine creativity" and using a Vancian spell "exactly what it was designed for"? They're basically the same effects in terms of what can generally be accomplished, the difference being casting time and cost. Does taking 5 minutes and 100gp suddenly make an illusion creative?
I'm going to question your assertion. 4e has many of the spells on that list. Grease (and yes it doesn't give all the ramifications any more than B/X), several variants on Fly, and Wall of Force. And a decent although even less powerful silent image encounter spell (which is just as well as I broke silent image - although at least it wasn't Phantasmal Force). I'm pretty sure Fire Trap is a ritual. Which means that the only spells I can't think of an analogy for are reduce person and telekinetic sphere - and the latter is an 8th level spell.
My point wasn't that they don't already exist in 4e, but rather that the majority of 4e powers are directly combat-focused, with those that I listed either being the minority of powers or rituals. I'd like it to be possible for a wizard to have those sorts of effects as the majority of his spell loadout and not have lots of fun stuff over in the ritual system.
Necromancy I agree with. However there is no orthodox build that says "you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat". Every build that's officially supported (and this emphatically includes Illusionists and Enchanters - both in Essentials by name) is fully combat capable. And there are enough utility powers for both to be effective.
I haven't gotten my hands on Essentials, so perhaps they improve it there, but before that the Illusionist is very poorly represented. The very first illusion powers released were on DDI and were basically attack powers with psychic damage and illusion flavor, and all of the rituals were mid-level and too limited for their cost.
The only two spells on the list you presented that are left, however, are Delayed Blast Fireball, and Fire Trap. The rest are (with the arguable exception of Wall of Force) definitely top half.
First of all, really?
Reduce person is top half?
Fly is top half? I mean, I know the 4e devs saw flight as this super-unbeatable strategy because their characters never thought to pack any backup weapons, but seriously.
Second of all, I'm not asking for spells to be ported over directly. I'd like it if they
were, but it's not a requirement. I'm just asking for the same capabilities.
Silent image can be a person-size image requiring concentration and all of my actions to change and maintain for all I care as long as I can be an illusionist who casts actual honest-to-Pelor illusions from level 1.
Fly can be a spell with a lower flight ceiling that leaves you unable to cast and flat-footed while it's in effect and requires actions to sustain for all I care as long as I don't have to wait more than half the game to be able to fly or make someone else fly and I can take to the air on a moment's notice.
As long as you allow rituals to build things for later (and sometimes shape the world), you can do every single one of those things in 4e. You have the flexibility you crave. You just don't have the raw power.
With 10 minutes notice, you can. You can't turn the corner,
disguise self, and say "Guards! The prisoner went that way!" You can't
arcane lock the door right behind you as you dash through to prevent the monsters from getting in. You can't have multiple minions for more than 5 minutes at a time--actual creatures, not sort-of creatures that have limited actions and require yours.
Flexibility isn't just "Can I do this?" it's "Can I do this on a time frame and at a cost that I care about?" Demon summoner isn't really a valid archetype before level 5ish in AD&D/3e because it takes longer than normal to cast and summons don't last all that long. Warding an area with
forbiddance or
hallow isn't often a valid option for PCs because it costs a metric ton of gold. Likewise, if I'm an illusionist and all of my signature spells cost cash and multiple minutes, what's the point?
Basically, it comes down to this: "an illusionist wizard" and "a wizard who happens to cast a lot of illusion rituals" are different. If the party needs to disguise their hideout and a
major image takes hours to cast and tons of gold, they can just get a scroll and have the wizard--or even the fighter, if he's a ritualist!--cast it. There's no role/theme separation for utility magic the way there is for combat magic. Oh, yeah, you want to cast some druid spells? Easy, just multiclass druid. It's
possible, but no one does it, because the cost is too high for the benefit and a druid does it best. Oh, yeah, you want to cast some illusion spells? Easy, just plop down money and time. You can't be an illusionist, you can be a person who casts illusions in their spare time.
Again, this may have been mitigated by Essentials, as I don't have access to those books. But the state of utility magic in the core is sadly lacking, and I want to see that fixed in 5e.
Within one theme and a set power level. "Can re-write reality however he wants" is a theme.
No, that's a statement of power level, just like "Can kill anything with one slash of a sword" is not a theme. "Pyromancer" is a theme, "Summoner" is a theme, "Warpriest" is a theme.
1e and 2e were barely passable to the point that EGG himself deliberately raised the power of non-casters. And wanted to break the wizard into pieces. Calling them "very good" is taking things far too far. 4e, especially post-essentials is much much better at this.
I didn't say it limited their power, I said it limited their breadth. Limiting options doesn't matter if each of those options is too powerful.
And that's one reason I believe Vancian should die. Either that or the flexibility and customisation of all non-casters needs to be massively raised.
I strongly favor the latter.
There's a difference between "figuring your way around" and "snapping your fingers and making the challenges irrelevant using things trivially presented to them by the game".
If your game is full of things that a single spell can solve, your DM really isn't trying hard enough. I run many high-power games with several casters in the party, and have since 1e. I've only very rarely had casters simply solve encounters and challenges with a snap of their fingers and a single spell because I know what spells can do and I know how to challenge them.
Yup. To me pre-4e D&D has always been about casters and sidekicks - just the pagecount and level of detail is enough to show this. And I don't think most people intentionally sign up to play sidekicks in D&D. In Ars Magica this isn't a problem as the game tells you what you are getting in for. But nowhere in D&D does it explicitely say that much more time, care, attention, and agency is given by the rules of the game to the players of spellcasters.
I agree that casters are better in pre-4e D&D; however, it's not the casters who are the problem. Caster countermeasures for monster tactics scale at roughly the same rate, most spells have the right level of power and player agency with comparatively few broken exceptions, and there are plenty of interesting and quirky options to allow players creativity and flexibility; martial types die to the less-straightforward monsters, have practically no ability to shape the world sans DM fiat, and are flat and one-dimensional in build. Don't nerf the casters down to the martial level, bring the martials up to the caster level, or do a bit of both to have them meet in the middle.
Of course this is a problem with the recovery rate rather than the parts of casting that are called Vancian and a lot gets fixed if wizards only get to recover their spells in a lab or library, or priests in a temple. If you need a few days of solid preparation you keep all the advantages of vancian casting while destroying this problem,
I've been saying this since the beginning. If casters once again have to spend a solid 1.5-2.5 days or so to get all their spells back like they did in 1e, many of the problems go away.
