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

[Gentlegamer]

This is a key point.
Are we making DND here, or are we making a game to attract newbies?
I believe the goal is to do the former.

Like it or not; Vancian is in.
The question is how to make it less quadratic.
How do you take the fire and forget spell mechanic, and make its resulting power linear, rather than quadratic? There ARE ways.

I see no problem with slowing down the spell progression of 3E. For example, you might gain a new spell level every 3 class levels, rather than every 2. This also has a benefit of pushing spell levels up past 20th class level. Thus making the 'epic levels' of 3E not feel as odd because the progression won't stop quite so suddenly. And it comes with a potentially hidden benefit. If the PHB1 only goes up to 20th level, that means we can drop 8th and 9th level spells from PHB1, thus leaving more room for something other than spells.

Another potential solution is to reduce the number of spells per day that a wizard might have at high levels. Picking a random number for my example: If the wizard only ever has 15 spells memorized, but they move up the spell level tree as he levels up, he will have much less power over-all. To ensure that low level spells are still available, state they you can always memorize a lower level spell in a higher level spell slot.

And of course, there's the question of reducing or eliminating the caster level issue by removing the 1d6 per caster level stuff. If fireball always does 5d6 damage, then being able to cast 10 of them at high level isn't quite as devastating.

Finally there's the question of re-organizing the spell charts. Aside from Magic Missile and maybe Fireball, I'm not really fixed on any particular spell being any particular level. Therefore things like invisibility and fly could easily be pushed up to a higher spell level without upsetting me. I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but I for one am much happier with reallocating spells across levels than I am with removing spell slots or instituting encounter powers etc.

These are all acceptable 'changes,' even to my old-school sensibilities. I've always believed there are too many spell levels, for instance. I'd be fine with instead of a spell level every 2 levels there were more 'metamagic' feats/abilities the magic-user could use to increase or tweak the effects of spells he can cast as he gains experience to make lower level spells keep utillity as he advances. I think such 'metamagic' abilities is a good place for wands, staves, and other wizard implements to have fun effects as tools of his craft.

None of these require a spell point system, or at-will powers, etc. Other tweaks can be made as long as they maintain the 'Vancian D&D' magic feel of the game, which is comprised of these general elements, in my opinion:
1. Spell memorization (fire and forget, directly from Vance and elsewhere)
2. Written words holding power (scrolls, spell books, Lovecraftian tomes of forgotten knowledge)
3. Sympathetic magic (spell components, The Incompleat Enchanter)

All of these allow for powerful magic while containing checks on that power and providing interesting 'fluff' for how magic works in the D&D universe.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic. I don't see the problem with a 1st level wizard having to use weapons most of the time, like throwing daggers or using a sling. After all, the 1st level wizard is just an apprentice, not a master of the arcane.

If WotC decides to put "at-will" casting in the game, I hope that it's in a module and easy to simply ignore/disallow.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic. I don't see the problem with a 1st level wizard having to use weapons most of the time, like throwing daggers or using a sling. After all, the 1st level wizard is just an apprentice, not a master of the arcane.

If WotC decides to put "at-will" casting in the game, I hope that it's in a module and easy to simply ignore/disallow.

I think that it will be a feat, so you could just disallow it. tbh, I have no problem with the basic 0-lvl spells being at wills, as for other spells being at-will I'm still on the fence with that one.

Warder

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic. I don't see the problem with a 1st level wizard having to use weapons most of the time, like throwing daggers or using a sling. After all, the 1st level wizard is just an apprentice, not a master of the arcane.

If WotC decides to put "at-will" casting in the game, I hope that it's in a module and easy to simply ignore/disallow.

"Cheapens" magic? D&D magic has been dirt cheap ever since the wizard class was invented. If you want magic to be other than cheap, take the entire wizard class out and shoot it. Gandalf is often thought to be a powerful wizard - and he is. He cast maybe half a dozen spells in the entire Lord of the Rings (or about the amount a third level 2e or 3e wizard can cast in one single day - the power's a good match too).

If you want magic not to be cheap, if you're playing D&D at all you need there to be no class centred round casting spells. Take the wizard, cleric, and druid out, and shoot all three of them (along with the sorceror). You might be able to keep the Bard as the pinacle of spellcasting but even that is questionable.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic. I don't see the problem with a 1st level wizard having to use weapons most of the time, like throwing daggers or using a sling. After all, the 1st level wizard is just an apprentice, not a master of the arcane.

If WotC decides to put "at-will" casting in the game, I hope that it's in a module and easy to simply ignore/disallow.

Yes, please.

 

[FireLance]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic.

Well, a pro basketball player with enough skill and accuracy to shoot basket after basket may not think he's doing anything special, but the rest of us might have a different view.

Broadly speaking, I believe that most game systems assume that magic is a scarce resource. The only difference is whether it is a scarce resource even for the spellcasters or it is a scarce resource except for the spellcasters.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Cantrips (3e style) at will would be fine with me.

Bump Ray of Frost to 1d6 + Int ranged to hit
Make Acid Splash 1d4 + Int ranged touch, no SR (thes are just numbers based on 3e, we don't know what damage will look like in 5e)

Something like that would be fine with me, as it would also give things like Light, Prestidigitation, Detect Magic, etc at will. Making mages more magey, but not being overpowering.

 

[Zustiur]

I don't care too much for the "at-will" magic abilities. Being able to throw a weak magic attack every single round cheapens magic. I don't see the problem with a 1st level wizard having to use weapons most of the time, like throwing daggers or using a sling. After all, the 1st level wizard is just an apprentice, not a master of the arcane.

I'm beginning to wonder if the divide here is more a playstyle thing.
Could it be that those who want 'magic all the time' wizards, are also the players who want 'You are already heroes' play style?
I typically run games where you start out as not much more than commoners, so not being able to sling infinite spells around makes sense in my games.

"Cheapens" magic? D&D magic has been dirt cheap ever since the wizard class was invented. If you want magic to be other than cheap, take the entire wizard class out and shoot it. Gandalf is often thought to be a powerful wizard - and he is.

You think 1 spell per day, total, is cheap? Being able to cast magic all of the time at 1st level, is very different from having a lot of spells available at 20th level. I really don't see where you're coming from with this outburst. *puzzled*

People keep mentioning Gandalf, and how few spells he casts. Tell me avid LOTR fans, how many battles was Gandalf actually in? I do not recall many, but I've only read the books once.
Gandalf is not the central character of the book. The hobbits are. The book revolves around the hobbits and their experiences, Gandalf is missing for long stretches of time. Of course he doesn't cast many spells.

It is clear that DND doesn't use Gandalf as a key example of a mage. For starters he uses a sword.

Granted, I never read Jack Vance either. I got my impression of wizards not from reading, but from playing the game. The closest I got to reading fantasy in my formative years was Narnia and Dragonlance. I don't bring book expectations of wizardy to my DND. Narrative magic and DND magic rarely work the same way - books don't have to ensure equal 'play time' between all party members. Books don't have to worry about balance. Games do.

 

[Mattachine]

For me, it's not playstyle at all. Simply, I don't want a low-level character to be primarily an also-ran who does not usually get to use signature class features.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm beginning to wonder if the divide here is more a playstyle thing.
Could it be that those who want 'magic all the time' wizards, are also the players who want 'You are already heroes' play style?
I typically run games where you start out as not much more than commoners, so not being able to sling infinite spells around makes sense in my games.

That depends on the world. Being able to sling a minor cantrip like ray of frost makes you little more powerful than simply being able to throw a dagger. But it changes the tone.

You think 1 spell per day, total, is cheap? Being able to cast magic all of the time at 1st level, is very different from having a lot of spells available at 20th level. I really don't see where you're coming from with this outburst. *puzzled*

I think that one spell per day hasn't been true even at first level literally for decades. Second edition specialist wizards could manage two and third edition three at first level. (This ignores cantrips). And yes, even one spell per day that is (a) completely reliable and (b) contains no risk. And (c) just takes a small amount of time to prepare and can be cast in a single action. You might not get much of it, but that doesn't make it other than cheap. Expensive magic is WFRP style (2e or 3e). Where using magic has a risk of demons coming to either posess you or eat your face. Or magic Call of Cthulu style where using magic costs sanity - an almost non-renewable resource. As it is, every day you are allowed for trivial effort and no long term consequences to re-write the rules of reality.

People keep mentioning Gandalf, and how few spells he casts. Tell me avid LOTR fans, how many battles was Gandalf actually in? I do not recall many, but I've only read the books once.

D&D 3.X is balanced round four major encounters per day - an almost obscene rate. If we work on the principle that the average encounter holds one opponent per PC (which given some are likely to be really large) an average PC under this balance is going to kill over a thousand people per year. Life is obscenely cheap with that setup. Which doesn't make magic anything other than cheap. And not all D&D spells are combat spells - Overland Flight or the like would certainly have helped the trek to (or even round) Moria.

It is clear that DND doesn't use Gandalf as a key example of a mage. For starters he uses a sword.

Granted, I never read Jack Vance either.

I have. And with Jack Vance, an archmage could hold maybe six spells in his head. (And from memory also use swords).

What D&D mages are derived from is tabletop wargaming battlefield artillery.

I got my impression of wizards not from reading, but from playing the game. The closest I got to reading fantasy in my formative years was Narnia and Dragonlance. I don't bring book expectations of wizardy to my DND.

Then possibly you're unaware how much of an outlier D&D mages are. A mid-level mage could take on a Harry Potter mage and probably win (especially as Harry Potter mages aren't that tactically smart).

Narrative magic and DND magic rarely work the same way - books don't have to ensure equal 'play time' between all party members. Books don't have to worry about balance. Games do.

And every single edition of D&D has failed at balance because magic has been too cheap. Gygax explicitly said that he made the seemingly overpowered martial classes in Unearthed Arcana to try to balance casters with non-casters, and other than Robilar (who had many one on one sessions with the DM), almost every famous character at Gygax's table was a spellcaster. 2e had its problems - being able to cast Phantasmal Force twice per day (at level 1!) is pretty overpowering. 3e - half the tier 1 classes are the primary spellcasters in the PHB - and the non-casters don't often make it up to tier 3 (and those that do tend to be classes like those in the Book of 9 Swords).

The point you miss by bringing up balance is that (as 4e has demonstrated) there is no balance issue with wizards being able to cast magic missile at will rather than falling back on a crossbow. It's a way of feeling cool even if the crossbow bolt is technically stronger. And there's nothing wrong with feeling cool. Where the wizard dominates is that the fighter basically starts with the ability to get somewhere on his own two feet or whatever he rides, and his end goal is to stick a sharpened piece of metal in someone. The wizard starts off much the same - but it's the long distance teleports, the major illusions, invisibility, charm person, etc. that gives them far more power than the fighter in the long run. To hit someone with a sword you need to reach them...