Making Vancian Casting More "Linear" and Less "Quadratic"

[Falling Icicle]

I've never been a big fan of "Vancian" fire-and-forget spellcasting. But they've pretty much put their foot down and inisisted that Vancain casting will be a part of 5e's core rules, and I can't say I'm surprised. Even though alot of people dislike it, it's been one of the game's major traditions going back to the very beginning of the game. I accept that. But if they are going to keep Vancian style casting, there's two simple things they can do to make it much more balanced and address some of the major reasons people like myself dislike it.

One of the biggest problems with vancian casting in the past is what people call the "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard." Wizards at very low levels in all editions prior to 4th were, well, pathetic. Wow! Look at me! I'm a 1st level Wizard and I have ONE spell PER DAY! .... Then, on the flipside, a 20th level wizard has so many spells per day it's almost impossible for him to run out. I don't care for either extreme.

If they're going to insist on keeping Vancian casting out of tradition, I hope that they at least try to make casters more "linear." Give a 1st level wizard more than one or two freaking spells per day. Give them several, in fact. There's nothing enjoyable about playing a class that has such a limited resource. But they also should greatly reduce the number of spells higher level wizards get, so that they don't become gods. This will make wizards more balanced and fun throughout all levels of play.

The other thing I really want to see is the return of at-will basic attacks and cantrips. They've already acknowledged how popular at-will spells are, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. I find Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting is alot more bearable if I have at least a couple at-will basic attack spells and some at-will cantrips to fall back on when I don't want to waste a good prepared spell. I've had alot of fun with at-will cantrips in both 4e and Pathfinder. They don't unbalance anything at all; they're just fun little tricks that let me feel like I'm a wizard all day long.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Having played and DM'd several high level Vancian Casters I concur with the overall direction of your comments. When you have to pre-do about 7 different spell sheets of 65 spell slots (one for Nova encounters, one for general exploration, one for general combat, one for undead combat etc.), you know that the game is making you do too much work.

Having a "layer" of lower level, at-will spells is crucial here to fixing the x<1 of the y=xsquared quadratic as well as the playability of a high level vancian caster. Let's assume that cantrips by definition are always "at-will". Perhaps when you are 4th level, all 1st level spells become at will. Then at 5th level, all 1st and 2nd level spells are "at-will". And so on. Thus you only even have 3 levels of spells that require Vancian slots.

However, I don't believe that is going to completely nullify the dominance of casters from non-casters at highest levels. The devil as usual is in the details but at least it is a start.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[B.T.]

I'm pretty sure that they've confirmed at-will powers for wizards with the burning lance (or spear or something) in the playtest.

Give a 1st level wizard more than one or two freaking spells per day. Give them several, in fact. There's nothing enjoyable about playing a class that has such a limited resource.

Perhaps not for you. But there are some players who look fondly on the days when clerics didn't cast spells at first level. Personally, I'm in favor of a mixed system: most spells are daily resources, but wizards have an encounter power or two they can use, along with some at-will cantrips (as in 4e).

But they also should greatly reduce the number of spells higher level wizards get, so that they don't become gods. This will make wizards more balanced and fun throughout all levels of play.

I expect that this will be factored into the nerfing of high-level spells. It doesn't much matter if you can cast spells all day if you're casting magic missile each time.

In previous editions (2e, at least), casting spells all day was far less of an issue than in 3e for a few reasons. First of all, creatures were more likely to make their saves (no scaling save DCs), so your spell slots were likely to be wasted. Second of all, it was far more difficult to cast a spell in combat (a single point of damage causes the spell to fail and spells have long initiative counts). Third of all, many of the powerful spells had built-in limiters (costly material components and nasty side-effects like system shock). Fourthly, a wizard didn't get to choose his spells (as far as I am aware), and purchasing them to copy in his spellbook them was up to DM fiat. Finally, wizards were always in danger in combat and leveled more slowly than other classes (two strikes since they accumulated their lowly d4 HD less quickly than fighters would get their d10 HD), meaning that they were less likely to survive to higher levels, meaning the problem was less likely to creep up in gameplay.

In short, wizards being overpowered is a relatively new phenomenon. I feel that the developers learned the wrong lesson when making 4e. Hopefully they won't make it again.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Perhaps not for you. But there are some players who look fondly on the days when clerics didn't cast spells at first level.

Clerics were more of a hybrid class back then, as much warrior as caster. They got to wear armor and shields and go into melee combat and perform very well, so the spell issue was always much less of an issue for them.

 

[FireLance]

The "quadratic wizards" problem basically boils down to the following issues:

1. As a spellcaster gains levels, he gets more spells.
2. As a spellcaster gains levels, he gets access to more powerful spells (e.g. burning hands at 1st, fireball at 5th, meteor swarm at 17th).
3. As a spellcaster gains levels, his existing spells also get more powerful (e.g. at 5th level, fireball does 5d6 damage; at 10th level, it does 10d6 damage).

4e scaled down [1] and [3], and gave martial characters the equivalent of [2].

Based on what I've read in Legends and Lore and the supposedly leaked playtests, I think the scaling down of [1] and [3] will remain in 5e, although using a slightly different approach from 4e. Spell power will be tied to spell level instead of caster level (as with 4e), and spellcasters must trade off uses per day with power. In other words, a spellcaster can walk around with a few very powerful spells, or he can have a larger number of weaker spells.

In other words, if a spellcaster chooses more lower-level spells, he will be able to use them more often, but they will also be closer in power to the at-will attacks of a martial character of the same level.

I doubt we will ever see the return of the 20th-level spellcaster with 36 spells - four of each level from 1 to 9. Instead, I think we will have something along the lines of a 20th level spellcaster who can choose to have 4 9th-level spells or 32 3rd-level spells, with an at-will attack from a 20th-level fighter at approximately the same power as a 3rd-level spell.

 

[YRUSirius]

I'd like to see spells that don't scale and level 20 wizards who can cast 20 spells per day or rest (short rest) at most.

We'll get the first for sure. I'm waiting for the second.

-YRUSirius

 

[Libramarian]

Give a 1st level wizard more than one or two freaking spells per day. Give them several, in fact. There's nothing enjoyable about playing a class that has such a limited resource.

Eh...the experience of playing a level 1 magic-user in AD&D is certainly interesting.

I have a level 1 magic-user/thief in my game with one spell: Sleep. Walking around with Sleep in your brain is like walking around with a gun with 1 bullet. There's no saving throw for it. He KNOWS he can deal with one encounter, pretty much for sure. After that he's very vulnerable. Big difference!

I know that experience will be impossible in Next, and that's kind of too bad. The fighter throwing regular spears beside the wizard throwing fire spears is pretty weak sauce by comparison.

 

[Grimmjow]

my friend had a very good idea. He thinks wizards should use the cancan style while sorcs used 4e way of powers.

i like it

 

[Falling Icicle]

The "quadratic wizards" problem basically boils down to the following issues:

1. As a spellcaster gains levels, he gets more spells.
2. As a spellcaster gains levels, he gets access to more powerful spells (e.g. burning hands at 1st, fireball at 5th, meteor swarm at 17th).
3. As a spellcaster gains levels, his existing spells also get more powerful (e.g. at 5th level, fireball does 5d6 damage; at 10th level, it does 10d6 damage).

#3 in particular was a big problem for multiple reasons, all of which have to do with "caster level." For one, it made things scale rather oddly. 1st level damaging spells literally multiply several times in power as a caster goes up in level, for example. Should a 9th level wizard's magic missile be literally FIVE TIMES as powerful as a 1st level wizard's, using the exact same level of spell slot? I mean, yeah, people should get better and grow in power, but that's ridiculous. It also makes stories like the archmage who is jealous of his very talented apprentice impossible, because it's impossible for an apprentice to be better at casting a lower level spell than his master is.

The other big problems were with spell durations and spell resistance. Summon Monster, for example, is practically worthless at level 1 because it only lasts 1 round. It's, IMHO, bad design for spell durations to have anything to do with the caster's level. Just make summon spells last for an encounter or 5 minutes or whatever, no matter what level the caster is. A higher level caster can summon more powerful monsters. Isn't that enough?

Caster level also caused problems with magic items and multiclassing. Some spells were just not worth crafting as a scroll or wand because you'd have to make them at a much higher CL to be effective, while some spells, like endure elements and silent image, were as good at 1st CL as at 20th. Removing CL, as 4e did, solves all of these issues.

If they do decide to go with 3e-style multiclassing, it is particularly important that caster level not exist in the new system. Why even bother taking only 1 level of a spellcasting class when many of the spells will be useless? What is really wrong with a 19th level fighter/1st level wizard having a few full-powered magic missiles each day? Why would he ever bother to waste a turn casting a spell that only does 1d4 + 1 damage at that level? Having no CL means that everything will remain relevant throughout all levels of play and be consistent and balanced.

 

[dkyle]

I don't like Vancian either, but if we have to have something that looks like it I'd like to see something along the lines of this:

             Spell Slots
Level   Encounter | Daily
  1     0         | 1 1
  2     0         | 1 1 1
  3     0 0       | 1 1 2
  4     0 0       | 1 2 2
  5     0 1       | 2 2 3
  6     0 1       | 2 2 3 3
  7     0 1       | 2 3 3 4
  8     1 1       | 3 3 4 4
              ...
 19     4 5       | 6 6 7 7 8 9
 20     5 5       | 6 7 8 8 9 9

Encounter would just mean spells that can be re-prepared after 5 minutes of rest, instead of 6 hours rest. And most spells would be able to scale to higher spell levels.