D&D 5E Confession: I Sometimes Miss Vancian Casting

[Guest 6801328]

Constraints, even stupid ones, can often lead to interesting creative solutions to get around them.

And this is exactly why I don't think that "more options are always better". Not just in spell selection, but in classes and weapons and everything else.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And this is exactly why I don't think that "more options are always better". Not just in spell selection, but in classes and weapons and everything else.

Agreed. There is definitely a "sweet spot" when it comes to the amount of options available.

It's hard to say exactly where that sweet spot is, but to me it feels like BECMI and 5th edition are the versions of D&D that are most solidly within it.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If all spels had options where they did something extra when cast with a higer slot, then a traditional (old school DnD) vancial caster might cast the spells prepared as if cast with a spell slot one level higer then actualy used.
This would compensate for losing some of the versitility you have with the neo vancien.

But unfortunately not al spells have increased efect when cast with a higer level slot, a Missed opertunity in my opinion.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Agreed. There is definitely a "sweet spot" when it comes to the amount of options available.

It's hard to say exactly where that sweet spot is, but to me it feels like BECMI and 5th edition are the versions of D&D that are most solidly within it.

Yup.

And if a game is going to miss the sweet spot I'd rather it be "too few" options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Vancian system was heavily limited, it wasn't that popular once other options became available, it didn't match anything in the way of standard fantasy tropes. In nearly all measurable ways, the pseudo-Vancian system of 5E is superior. It's more flexible, it at least slightly more closely resembles genre standard. Everyone I know likes it better. Under many circumstances, I like it better.

But...

There was something about trying to pick which spells you'd have access to.

I dunno. I don't really have a point to this, and given the choice, I wouldn't change 5E to go back. But... I do still miss it, for all its flaws and quirks.

No, you're onto something. There was some fun to be had in the challenging meta-game of picking spells in old-school Vancian. And that's changed, a lot...

Casting has become easier, less limited, safer, and/or more flexible with each edition:

• In 1e, you had few spells at low level, didn't get to pick what spells you used, memorized daily spells into slots, had to be standing upright on a stable surface and have both hands free to cast, and if anyone hit you while casting (there were two different systems in the DMG to determine whether they might) the spell was ruined, and you lost it from memory.
  • 2e slightly softened a few of those limitations, but really wasn't incredibly different, IIRC.
• In 3e, you got more spells at low level, you could spontaneously cast cures if you were a cleric, you picked the spells you started with and picked new ones when you leveled, you 'prepared' them ahead into specific slots but you could leave slots open to fill later, you could take feats to cast in armor if you really wanted to, you could cast on the back of a moving mount or from behind cover or while lying prone, you only needed one free hand and maybe a spell-component pouch, you could make 'concentration' checks to cast in a grapple or in melee without getting hit, if someone did hit you while casting you got a concentration check to get the spell off, if you failed the spell didn't work, but you didn't lose preparation of it.
• In 4e you picked your spells at first level, and when you leveled, could re-train one when you leveled, and got at-will and encounter spells as well as (far fewer) daily spells. You could wear armor if you gained proficiency and still cast. There were spells that didn't provoke ('close') and others that did (ranged/area, just like any ranged attack like a bow), but even if you were 'interrupted' by an OA or readied action, the spell still went off with no problem unless you were dropped or stunned or something by the attack. Being grabbed didn't prevent casting at all, no roll required. All you needed to cast was one free hand and an implement.
• In 5e, you pick your spells at first and when you level, and can learn more, you pick spells to prepare, then spontaneously cast them using slots, which you have many more of, as well as at-will spells (cantrips) and maybe getting some spells back at a short rest, you can cast in armor if you're proficient, need just a free hand and a component pouch or focus, you might even be able to cast with a shield that counts as a focus. You can cast freely in melee (even using a normal ranged attack in melee is Disadvantage, so it's easier to cast in melee than use a bow), and even in a Readied attack hits you, your spell goes off without a hitch.

Some editions reigned in the power of spells, but almost never enough to make up for the increased ease of casting.

And, while never having a spell fail and never wasting a slot makes it easier, you're right, it doesn't necessarily always make it more fun.

 

[Artifact]

Took me a little while to get used to 4e's AEDU powers, but the system eventually grew on me.

By the time 5e came along, I was mostly just holding out for a return of Vancian casting. Vancian-flex is close enough .

 

[77IM]

First, I ask "Why?" because spending a slot on those spells instead of something else means that's all - no big shiny fireballs (or whatever else you want).

Then I ask, "What do you mean by 'can't run out'?" because there is actually a very strict limit on how many spell slots of at least 3rd level the party wizard can get.

I guess I mean, "Whichever spell of a given level is optimal, will be spammed repeatedly."

In the case of my party's wizard, he has a tendency to counterspell or dispel any serious magical effect -- which makes the game kind of boring. It means the first few rounds of a mage duel are spent just burning off each other's spell slots with counterspell to no real effect. Then the warriors wade in and finish the poor NPCs off.

I would love for the wizard to say, "Well I might want to save my one counterspell for later so I'll just let him conjure those animals... at least they will be nicely clumped for this fireball!"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A thought in passing:

While spellcasting has gotten easier with each edition in D&D, and spells have gotten more ubiquitous to the point that practically everybody in 5E is a spellcaster, it must be admitted that the magic system is one of D&D's big draws and it makes some sense to leverage it.

I could play a 5E campaign with lots of vanilla human martial arts action and social intrigue and no spellcasters, and it might be awesome... but I would also wonder why I wasn't playing that campaign in GURPS instead, because frankly it is better and more intricate/interesting when it comes to martial arts. (Yes, that is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.) But when I play a GURPS game with fantasy magic, I wonder why I'm not playing (A)D&D instead, because it is frankly better and more intricate/interesting when it comes to magic.

You can still have too much of a good thing of course, and 5E may have crossed that line. Maybe 5E makes spellcasting too cheap, easy, and ubiquitous. I dunno. Some things aren't properly appreciated when you don't pay a price--I could certainly stand to see AD&D rules on spell disruption brought back into play. But the magic system is definitely one of the good parts of this game and it isn't really surprising that the 5E designers leveraged it.

 

[MostlyDm]

I guess I mean, "Whichever spell of a given level is optimal, will be spammed repeatedly."

In the case of my party's wizard, he has a tendency to counterspell or dispel any serious magical effect -- which makes the game kind of boring. It means the first few rounds of a mage duel are spent just burning off each other's spell slots with counterspell to no real effect. Then the warriors wade in and finish the poor NPCs off.

I would love for the wizard to say, "Well I might want to save my one counterspell for later so I'll just let him conjure those animals... at least they will be nicely clumped for this fireball!"

Just imagine it like the wizard duel in one of the Conan flicks. Two wizards staring at each other with really intense expressions, groaning, until eventually one of them slumps in defeat and his side falls back.

Or not.

That scene always cracked me up.

 

[Dausuul]

In the case of my party's wizard, he has a tendency to counterspell or dispel any serious magical effect -- which makes the game kind of boring. It means the first few rounds of a mage duel are spent just burning off each other's spell slots with counterspell to no real effect.

You do know that it's possible to counterspell a counterspell, right? The 5E reaction rules specifically state that you can take reactions on your own turn.

As an action, the NPC wizard casts fireball at the party.
As a reaction, the PC wizard counterspells the fireball.
As a reaction, the NPC wizard counterspells the counterspell, and the fireball goes off as intended.

Now, you don't get your reaction back until the start of your next turn. By using counterspell to force your own spell through, you sacrifice the opportunity to counterspell the other wizard's spells. In theory, then, you might allow the other wizard to counter your spell in order to keep that option. In practice, though, that's a losing bet*, because the other wizard will just force a spell through on you using the same trick. You might as well take the opportunity to strike first.

[size=-2]*Unless you suspect you have more 3rd-level slots than the other guy. In that case, after counterspelling you, the other wizard might not have the juice to cast a power spell and burn a counterspell to defend it.[/size]