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

[hemera]

At-will is pretty much a must have for me, for the sake of imagery. If I'm a wizard, I don't want throwing darts to be my primary mode of attack. If wizards don't have an at-will spell, I'll make one. I don't care for it to be complex like some 4e at-wills. Just a simple zap like eldritch blast will do. I don't think it can break the system for everyone to have a competent basic attack of some sort, that is representative of what they've been trained in and what they do. This has been one of my complaints about every edition of D&D, including 4e.

This is what I'm thinking along the lines of as well. Remember Ray of Frost? Maybe something like that, just a little more powerful or what have you. Throwing darts as a wizard just never made any sense to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

I was thinking along a similar line recently.

First, I'd make spell slots count only for spells that you want to cast in combat. I'd make everything else an expensive, slow ritual, including some things like Overland Teleport. That's to help the LFQW problem.

Secondly, they've already got a Feat to have an At-Will spell for lower levels. (Which I approve of heartily.) I'd also give higher-level casters lower level At Wills for free. This is to offset...

Third: Ditch the old tables with a zillion spells/day. You get 3 + Ability Mod preparable First level slots to start with. (Not sure yet how I'd handle multi-classers.) As you go up in level, these slots increase in their ability to handle higher level spells. I'm often a DM, and 3e taught me to hate filling out spell charts for high-level caster NPCs. (2e should have, as well, but I was younger then.) You are, of course, free to prepare a spell in a slot at a lower level than the maximum allowed.

[B]
Caster    Slot - Maximum level of spell held                                
Lev   1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10[/B]
1     1    1    1    1*   1*   1*   1*   1*   1*   1*
2     1    1    1    1    1*   1*   1*   1*   1*   1*
3     2    1    1    1    1    1*   1*   1*   1*   1*
4     2    2    1    1    1    1    1*   1*   1*   1*
5     3    2    2    1    1    1    1    1*   1*   1*
6     3    3    2    2    1    1    1    1    1*   1*
7     4    3    3    2    2    1    1    1    1    1*
8     4    4    3    3    2    2    1    1    1    1
9     5    4    4    3    3    2    2    1    1    1
10    5    5    4    4    3    3    2    2    1    1
11    6    5    5    4    4    3    3    2    2    1
12    6    6    5    5    4    4    3    3    2    2
13    7    6    6    5    5    4    4    3    3    2
14    7    7    6    6    5    5    4    4    3    3
15    8    7    7    6    6    5    5    4    4    3
16    8    8    7    7    6    6    5    5    4    4
17    9    8    8    7    7    6    6    5    5    4
18    9    9    8    8    7    7    6    6    5    5
19    9    9    9    8    8    7    7    6    6    5
20    9    9    9    9    8    8    7    7    6    6

*Limited by 3+Ability Mod slots
As a spell level "drops off" the chart, gain
an "At Will" spell prepared at that level.

The chart above keeps the same "highest level spell you can cast" from previous editions. To reduce ability score dependence, the slots level up from the "front", so higher ability scores lets you retain a few extra slots of lower level. This makes high-ability scores more useful at lower levels, but drops off that utility as the game progresses.

Writing that chart out Old-School fashion:

Old School Progression
            Max Spells at Level
Caster                                
Lev   1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9
1     4*   0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
2     4*   0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
3     4*   1    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
4     4*   2    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
5     4*   2    1    0    0    0    0    0    0
6     4*   2    2    0    0    0    0    0    0
7     4*   2    2    1    0    0    0    0    0
8     4    2    2    2    0    0    0    0    0
9     3    2    2    2    1    0    0    0    0
10    2    2    2    2    2    0    0    0    0
11    1    2    2    2    2    1    0    0    0
12    W    2    2    2    2    2    0    0    0
13    W    1    2    2    2    2    1    0    0
14    W    W    2    2    2    2    2    0    0
15    W    W    1    2    2    2    2    1    0
16    W    W    W    2    2    2    2    2    0
17    W    W    W    1    2    2    2    2    1
18    W    W    W    W    2    2    2    2    2
19    W    W    W    W    1    2    2    2    3
20    W    W    W    W    W    2    2    2    4
*Limited by 3 + Ability Modifier                                
W = an At Will spell of that level

Even a 20th level caster has only 15 slots to fill: 4@9th, 2 each at 8th, 7th, and 6th, and "At Will" slots of 1st through 5th. (Although he may also have additional At-Wills through feats.

Anyway, that's how I'm thinking at the moment.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is what I'm thinking along the lines of as well. Remember Ray of Frost? Maybe something like that, just a little more powerful or what have you. Throwing darts as a wizard just never made any sense to me.

I agree, you trained to cast magic for most of your life and you can only cast a "cantrip" type spell 5 times a day? Uh...I think you need to go back to training!

 

[Janaxstrus]

I agree, you trained to cast magic for most of your life and you can only cast a "cantrip" type spell 5 times a day? Uh...I think you need to go back to training!

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)

 

[Ratskinner]

Wow, you have had the complete opposite experiences I have had in 2e and 3e.

We always had people wanting to play wizards in every edition (1-3), no one plays sorcerers, ever really. Sure, they cast more spells, but they are very focused. Blasty sorcerers are pretty much one trick ponies, and generally less effective than a generalist wizard and way less than some of the specialists.

IME, the "fun" of playing a caster in the earlier editions was highly DM dependent. In a game where you rarely run into other casters (and thus don't get their spellbooks as loot) and where all the magic items are swords and all the monsters just piles of HP with an occasional ability, playing a caster was a real drag. A DM I had in college for a while (using 2e) was like that. I think I saw 1 "wizardy" magic item in the months of that game...but I had 2 magic scimitars of differing special characteristics. In his mind, wizards only begrudgingly existed to rationalize a source for all the cool toys fighters should get.

The same, in reverse, was true for plain-Jane Fighters, as well. A DM who is a "Magic is awesome!" type will often disallow any of those fancy heroic maneuvers. Whenever I hear Old-Schoolers say "I do it through roleplaying without all the 4e or Bo9S stuff!" or something similar, I'm reminded of my High School DM. He punished any creative thinking on the fighters' part with foregone attacks and "free attacks" from the badguys "because you have to disengage to do that." In his mind, Fighters only existed to stand in ranks and protect the Wonderful Wizards who were doing all the real work.

While I dearly appreciate the variety of campaigns and playstyles that earlier editions supported, I'd prefer to avoid going back to the old "DM surprise!" era. I'm not saying that parity amongst all classes absolutely has to be hardwired in. (I'm not even sure that's possible, as close as 4e might have come.) However, DMs need to be made aware of the idea as a concept. At the very least, I hope 5e gives us some kind of language so that you had a clue about what kind of characters would be playable in different campaigns.

 

[n00bdragon]

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?

Because Encounter powers aren't realistic. They run on Rule of Cool. You can only use them once per encounter because you can only summon the badassery necessary to use them once per encounter. HP is not wounds. Just because you knock someone down to 1HP doesn't mean you stabbed them a dozen or more times. Think of it more as plot armor. When you "hit" someone and inflict HP damage you're really just knocking off their plot armor and maybe inflicting a cinematic wound or two. That's why they keep fighting more or less full power till the last one disappears.

 

[billd91]

Sure, 4E's encounter powers aren't a perfect portrayal of how fatigue works, but the bigger question is why would you expect a perfect portrayal in a game like DnD?

This is a game where life and death hinges on a completely abstract system with almost no resemblance whatsoever to reality (HP), yet a relatively small minor part of the game (what special abilities a martial character has available to him at any one time) that's far more concrete being just a bit abstract is problematic. I don't get it. Why is HP sufficiently realistic, but encounter powers are not?

Because hit points are sufficiently flexible for a number of different conceptualizations of combat injury and time has shown they're one of the best mechanics going as far as being non-cumbersome and useful. Plenty of games use an ablative health mechanism, or even an ablative energy/sanity mechanism. It's kind of an industry standard.

The encounter powers, by comparison, don't have nearly as much going for them. They're confining in their use (honestly, some structure like the one I suggested in this thread could substantially alleviate that issue with little effort). And they don't really fix what they are supposed to fix - the need to spam off the same ol' attacks every round. This just bumps the issue up one level to spamming off the same ol' attacks every encounter.

Besides, I think you're asking the wrong question. The question isn't why are hp sufficiently realistic while encounter powers are not. The question is why is the hp abstraction widely accepted but the encounter power abstraction not? They don't have to adhere to the same level of realism at all, but they have to be agreeable abstractions for D&D playing.

 

[Ratskinner]

But a certain subset of people cried loud enough and now we have Vancian casting again. Why bother trying to fight it? Letting the casters choose to be Vancian or AEDU won't change the fact that they are still the only classes that have that kind of design and as such not only will they start on top they will continue to get better because you can't have a proper splat book without cramming a few more pages of spells into it, even if the book isn't meant for casters.

I feel your pain, but we've already heard that melee types have some kind of maneuver system.

D&D 5E Info[/COLOR]]

• "For example, if you substitute maneuvers in for individual attacks, the fighter class plays more like a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped." - Rodney Thompson.
• "...our current vision for both the fighter and the rogue includes access to a system of combat maneuvers." - Rodney Thompson.

There's a lot of other tantalizing quotes in the Fighter section, as well. Of course, we can't know how those will stack up to spells yet...

In any case, I don't think enforcing universal system on all the classes is the only way of ensuring interesting stuff for everybody. Although it may be the easiest way to do so, from a designer's perspective, it seems to have some psychological drawbacks. While I don't necessarily agree with all of them, satisfying those that complain that all the classes are the same in 4e does present a part of the challenge that the 5e designers have taken on.

 

[billd91]

Because Encounter powers aren't realistic. They run on Rule of Cool.

That's a good point. And I think why they and the 4e power structure are so contentious. They're oriented toward a niche style - one that gives a rat's hiney about the Rule of Cool implemented in such a structured manner. There are games that are friendly to the Rule of Cool but not toward the structure. And there are games that don't care about the Rule of Cool at all. I can easily see 4e's power structure not appealing at all to players of those games.

 

[hemera]

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)

Exactly! Pathfinder did that. It made sense, cantrips at will don't really unbalance anything (save for a few, like the ones you mentioned), plus it does really fit the whole wizard/sorcerer vibe.