D&D 5E Memorized Spells and Spell Slots

[hbarsquared]

First, given the situation of multiple combat encounters, repeated use of magic missile makes sense (especially if magic missile happened to be the only combat spell the player knew/memorized)

Second, given the supposed module nature of 5e and openness to house rules and DM interpretation, I sincerely hope there is a caveat or sidebar that says something to the effect of:

"For those interested in an 'old school' approach, the DM may require wizards to memorize specific spells for specific slots."

Solves both "problems," in my opinion. I really hope the PHB (and DMG, and MM) have multiple sidrbars, scattered throughout, referencing alternative rules and playstyles).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Preparing new spells every day makes me nauseous, and it wastes valuable DM time in making sure that I don't later retcon it. With free casting like this, I would much prefer that you can just cast any spell that you know, and you just know fewer spells over all.

Back to the topic at hand, I find that you tend to use all of your slots for the same type of thing, but you have fewer wasted spell slots over all, so it's pretty much a wash when it comes to total versatility.

 

[Li Shenron]

"For those interested in an 'old school' approach, the DM may require wizards to memorize specific spells for specific slots."

Solves both "problems," in my opinion.

I wouldn't say it solves the problem, because this is not applicable on a player's individual basis. If player A uses this option, she's simply hampering herself compared to player B, and that sounds like a "punishment" for only wanting to play a Wizard like it has been in D&D for more than 30 years.

But even if accepting to use this option on a group's basis (all casters or none), if we assume the current casters are balanced with non-casters, it will be a serious downgrade. In fact, the 5e "upgrade" was paid by quite a lot less spells/day compared to previous editions. That means, to use this "traditional Vancian" option, we need to compensate the casters.

Last year I suggested in this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340467-True-Vancian-spellcasters to grant 1 additional spell slot per spell level to someone choosing to cast in the more restrictive "traditional Vancian" way. The general opinion in the thread was that this was too much, but I still have the feeling that it might even be too little.

Back to the topic at hand, I find that you tend to use all of your slots for the same type of thing, but you have fewer wasted spell slots over all, so it's pretty much a wash when it comes to total versatility.

Agreed.

It's all part of a slow trend in gaming to want decreased randomness, or less chance of mistakes. In previous editions, you had to accept that sometimes you didn't have the right spell at the right time, and the underlying idea was that the main method to improve your chances was player's effort, i.e. spending more time investigating what might await you and carefully plan how to maximize your chances.

The current trend in gaming is that people quite dislike randomness in general, and more specifically hate the idea that they might sometimes make a planning mistake. Other symptoms include: common preference shifted from random score generation to point-buy, layers or rules to save the PC from chance of death, intolerance towards characters abilities that work only on some type of monsters, and "all characters must be equally good in all pillars" mentality. Many players nowadays are very scared that their choices are wrong, but instead of thinking they can adapt their characters to the world, they want the world to adapt to their characters (i.e. blame the DM because she didn't change the campaign to suit your PC super-specialized in killing infernal robotic half-undead/half-golem flumphs). They want to play the game with a feeling that no choice is wrong.

Which is not a bad thing per se, but if you do enjoy a challenging game, finding yourself in a game where no choice is wrong actually makes it minimally challenging.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Agreed.

It's all part of a slow trend in gaming to want decreased randomness, or less chance of mistakes. In previous editions, you had to accept that sometimes you didn't have the right spell at the right time, and the underlying idea was that the main method to improve your chances was player's effort, i.e. spending more time investigating what might await you and carefully plan how to maximize your chances.

The current trend in gaming is that people quite dislike randomness in general, and more specifically hate the idea that they might sometimes make a planning mistake. Other symptoms include: common preference shifted from random score generation to point-buy, layers or rules to save the PC from chance of death, intolerance towards characters abilities that work only on some type of monsters, and "all characters must be equally good in all pillars" mentality. Many players nowadays are very scared that their choices are wrong, but instead of thinking they can adapt their characters to the world, they want the world to adapt to their characters (i.e. blame the DM because she didn't change the campaign to suit your PC super-specialized in killing infernal robotic half-undead/half-golem flumphs). They want to play the game with a feeling that no choice is wrong.

Which is not a bad thing per se, but if you do enjoy a challenging game, finding yourself in a game where no choice is wrong actually makes it minimally challenging.

I find myself disliking some of those things for reasons that don't involve survivability or being less effective in certain situations, or benefiting from planning.

I dislike random ability score generation because I generally come into the game with a character concept already in mind--even when playing a simulationist game (which is how I play D&D). I might be able to think up multiple character concepts--even within a couple of minutes--but if I'm coming with a concept, I want to play that concept, and I don't want to fight with genetics to get it. Rolling the wrong scores say my concept may not be valid. Rolling random ability scores in a game where no one comes with a character concept is fine. Heck, I'd even prefer to roll them in order. But that is a very specific type of game that is not the norm for me or my group. I really dislike characters to vary in their overall stats too. No matter how you slice it, the idea that one character just starts off more powerful than another it annoying to me. For situations where randomness is desired, I've created a system where stat are completely random but everybody's ability scores add up to exactly the same total. It's a compromise that works for me in that sort of game.

I don't mind character abilities that only work on some types of monsters as long as they are done in moderation (like golems with immunity to magic), but I strongly disliked the way sneak attack failed to work on a large chunck of the game's monsters in 3e. I wasn't even playing rogues, and it still offended me. Granted, part of that is probably that our DM for those games has an entirely different idea regarding the prevalence of undead in a D&D world than I do, and some of our most recent campaigns have specifically been undead heavy. I just think that your signature abilities not working on a certain type of creature is more satisfying when it is a rare occurrence (like the golems for magic, or weapon immune creatures for warriors) rather than a common occurrence (such as all constructs, undead, plants, elementals, etc...).

On the other hand, I particularly dislike the idea of all characters being equal in all pillars, or that anyone can get any job done. I really want classes to not only feel, but actually play very distinctly. I want player skill to have a meaningful effect on survivability, and I want planning of which spells to prepare to also matter.

So I just basically wanted to bring up that those different areas of preference aren't necessarily found together, or for the same reason.

 

[jasper]

...
I guess the question for me comes down to: Does the flexibility of spell slots vs memorized spells lead to certain spells being cast much more frequently, and thus making a PC more one-dimensional? From my opinion, an old schooler, it led to less roll playing and a less interesting combat.
..!

I am an old schooler from 1e. Long ago I change from memorized spells to spell slots. And it changed having the PC be more flexible and more interesting in and out of combat. I have not followed 5E progress. I assume if I have 10 1st level spells in my spell book, and 3 1st level slots. My magic user can cast any combination of the 10 until I out of slots. Correct?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have not followed 5E progress. I assume if I have 10 1st level spells in my spell book, and 3 1st level slots. My magic user can cast any combination of the 10 until I out of slots. Correct?

You can prepare a number of spells per day equal to your mage level + 1, in addition to any cantrips you may know (which are always prepared). You would only be able to prepare two of your 1st level spells, but you could cast them a total of three times per day in any combination.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Nope. You have to prepare a certain number of spells to have available, which is less than the number of spells you have in your spellbook. Other than that you are correct. The number of spells you can prepare is your level +1. Clerics (and some druids) also get bonus spells that are always considered prepared, so the mage gets the raw deal in that regards.

 

[the Jester]

I am an old schooler from 1e. Long ago I change from memorized spells to spell slots. And it changed having the PC be more flexible and more interesting in and out of combat. I have not followed 5E progress. I assume if I have 10 1st level spells in my spell book, and 3 1st level slots. My magic user can cast any combination of the 10 until I out of slots. Correct?

Not quite. You might have 10 1st level spells in your book, but based on your level, you can only prep so many per day. Then you have a separate number that you can cast per day, chosen from your prepped ones. So it isn't quite as flexible as your system, but it is more flexible than traditional vancian magic.