D&D 5E How to Fix Wizards and Vancian Casting

[Falling Icicle]

It's an interesting suggestion. I like it. I like the potential flexibility...it would undoubtedly be enjoyed by many and/or work well in...well, a fantasy RPG system that wasn't D&D.

The thread and all of the others like it (not meaning to single you out, Falling Icicle) discussing magic systems, in general, are working off of the flawed (however popular) premise that wizards and "vancian" magic require fixing.

If you want to use traditional D&D wizardy, all you'd have to do is remove the spell points from your game. That would be quite easy to do, and fits with the whole modular approach that 5e is striving for. That's one of the things I think is a big pro of this idea - it's easy to modify.

I still don't see the problems with vancian casting which can't be solved by good (non-static) world design which should be the default anyway.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that the mechanics of the core rules don't matter? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but that would be the rule 0 fallacy: "it's not broken if you can fix it." On the contrary, the better designed the core rules, the more attention the DM can spend on world building instead of fixing the rules.

 

[timASW]

Meh, this problem is very simple. Vancian sucks. period. it sucks. Its also a misnomer, but that doesnt really matter.

It makes low level wizards dead weight and high level wizards overpowered (not to the extent you hear about online, but still too much).

Vancian was simply a bad idea back in old, old, school and became a bad sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered.

It cant be fixed, it cant be made to work, its simply a bad idea that needs to be tossed.

It makes the flawed assumption that most campaigns go from level 1-20 when most go from 2-8 maybe 2-10 and then attempts to build a system off of that flawed assumption.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the new approach.

Maybe at some point a 3rd spell need to be added per level, but the wizard has quite a lot of spells now.

With useful 0 level spells (mage armor is quite reasonable) and rituals, you should be a lot more flexible than the vancian wizard of 2nd edition, and maybe even 3rd (not sure, as you could put your ritual like spells on wands)

 

[Herobizkit]

I'd say there's the solution right there. Rituals. 4e "got it right" when it came to balancing the Wizard. Give the wizard a handful of 'go to' spells that she can always cast, then one per encounter and one per day.

Add in the flexibility of having to choose WHICH spells those are every day, and have time consuming rituals for the Really Cool Stuff... and boom. Wizard fixed.

All IMO, of course.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'd say there's the solution right there. Rituals. 4e "got it right" when it came to balancing the Wizard. Give the wizard a handful of 'go to' spells that she can always cast, then one per encounter and one per day.

Add in the flexibility of having to choose WHICH spells those are every day, and have time consuming rituals for the Really Cool Stuff... and boom. Wizard fixed.

All IMO, of course.

While I like what they're doing with rituals, they don't really make up for a lack of spell slots. They take a long time to cast, making them unusable in combat or other emergencies, and they cost money. Also, sorcerers, who can't use rituals, are pretty much SOL if rituals are the answer to the system's problems.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Meh, this problem is very simple. Vancian sucks. period. it sucks. Its also a misnomer, but that doesnt really matter.

It makes low level wizards dead weight and high level wizards overpowered (not to the extent you hear about online, but still too much).

Vancian was simply a bad idea back in old, old, school and became a bad sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered.

It cant be fixed, it cant be made to work, its simply a bad idea that needs to be tossed.

It makes the flawed assumption that most campaigns go from level 1-20 when most go from 2-8 maybe 2-10 and then attempts to build a system off of that flawed assumption.

Speaking of flawed assumptions...

 

[timASW]

Speaking of flawed assumptions...

please, its a well established fact that very few campaigns go from 1-20.

 

[Kraydak]

Powerful spells, more than a pitiful number of spells loaded, spontaneous casting, choose two. You can't balance someone who has powerful spells, a significant number available at any given time and lots of flexibility over what they have loaded with anyone else.

If the wizard has to *choose* between Invisibility, Knock and Web, with 2 or 3 spell slots, then he can't overshadow the Rogue. He can backstop the Rogue, but he won't replace him (this assumes that scrolls/wands/etc... are expensive enough that you will stockpile them for emergencies). More, if you constrain the number of spell slots available tightly, and ban spontaneous casting, then the party can continue even when the wizard is mostly dry: encounters have to be designed assuming only modest wizardly intervention.

 

[Pour]

Vancian is Vancian. It's not broken for what it is. However, in terms of the game, there must be viable, well-established alternatives for those of us that simply don't like that magic model. The easiest way is with separate casting classes, Wizard is Vancian, Warlock AEDU, Sorcerer spell points. I personally don't need to have an AEDU Wizard or mana-based warlock or anything. I thought that is what they were doing, but then again these packets leave me a little baffled in regards to direction.

 

[Ferghis]

Can someone explain the advantage of the Vancian system? I realize that it's traditional D&D, so there is an obligation to keep it in the rules, but I'm not sure what concrete gaming advantages it provides.

We should perhaps outline the disadvantages too. What are we trying to fix?