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

[Bluenose]

In my experience with AD&D and 2E, it was definitely more difficult to keep low level Wizards/Magic users alive based on their lack of hit points, inability to wear armor, and small number of weapon options.

And then you run into the situation that at higher levels, the things you're opposed to have excellent saving throws, and the payoff you get at high level isn't so extreme. I've got no problem with the way AD&D, 2e, and BECM played; but I don't think 3e played that way, it being easier to survive at low levels and the payoff at high being so much greater.

And incidentally, Vancian casters included Clerics and Druids. Who are noticeably closer to a Fighter-type in terms of surviveability. And non-casters included Thief/Rogue, who are somewhat closer to the Wizard/MU/Mage in survivability.

 

[Janaxstrus]

"Encounters" have always existed in DnD. You know those monster descriptions that had a "Number Appearing: 4-40" in them? That's an encounter.

5E doesn't have to internalize encounter-based design as much as 4E did, but it wouldn't be DnD without encounters. What is wrong with a spell that can be re-prepared after a 5 minute rest, instead of a 6 hour rest? Encounter is just short-hand for that; perhaps they could use "Minor Spell" instead, if "Encounter" rankles people so much. Seems like everyone is fine with at-wills in a Vancian system. What's wrong with a middle ground?

What is wrong with it, is that it isn't Vancian style magic then. You memorize it once per day, fire and forget it, as a wizard. Rememorizing spells wasn't part of that.

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, what's the problem with spells that can be prepared in a 15 minute short rest?

Okay it might not be classic vancian magic, okay. So it is neoclassic vancian magic. The wizard Vance said: "Hey guys, I devised a new way to cast spells, cool, isn't it?"

-YRUSirius

 

[dkyle]

What is wrong with it, is that it isn't Vancian style magic then. You memorize it once per day, fire and forget it, as a wizard. Rememorizing spells wasn't part of that.

At-will spells are an even greater deviation from Vancian, but everybody seems to be OK with those.

By your standards, 3.X is not Vancian-style magic, because it isn't fire-and-forget; it's prepare after resting, and complete to fire.

If we tweak the spell progression so high level casters don't have dozens of spell slots any more, is it still Vancian-style?

If spells don't automatically improve with caster level anymore, is it still Vancian-style?

Seems to me, both of those are at least as significant as tweaking the rest-time for some spells. Yet both seem to be pretty widely accepted.

 

[Janaxstrus]

At-will spells are an even greater deviation from Vancian, but everybody seems to be OK with those.

By your standards, 3.X is not Vancian-style magic, because it isn't fire-and-forget; it's prepare after resting, and complete to fire.

If we tweak the spell progression so high level casters don't have dozens of spell slots any more, is it still Vancian-style?

If spells don't automatically improve with caster level anymore, is it still Vancian-style?

Seems to me, both of those are at least as significant as tweaking the rest-time for some spells. Yet both seem to be pretty widely accepted.

How is resting, memorizing, finishing the casting and then forgetting (which is what happened in 1,2 and 3) different than fire and forget? It's not.

I also don't care for at-will either. I'll accept it, but it's not ideal.
Vancian style magic involves resource management. If you can just re-memorize spells and / or change them mid-day after a 5 minute break, it would seem you are simply trying to re-fluff the failed 4e magic system of encounter powers.

Tweaks, such as fewer spell slots isn't fundementally changing how Vancian magic works. That is like claiming a wizard with a 16 intelligence is somehow different than one who has more spell slots because he has an 18 int. # of spells has never been a hallmark of the Vancian style. The number of spells a wizard could have at one time has changed in every edition. That is a terrible argument.

Scaling spell power via caster level generally has been part of the system. It is one area I feel comfortable with change, because wizards/clerics/druids need some toning down. Requiring a fireball to be memorized in a 4th level slot to be more powerful than the standard fireball, instead of scaling it automatically, I'm good with. It also doesn't change Rest, Memorize, Cast, Forget. It merely tweaks the power of the spell.

 

[Melkor]

And then you run into the situation that at higher levels, the things you're opposed to have excellent saving throws, and the payoff you get at high level isn't so extreme. I've got no problem with the way AD&D, 2e, and BECM played; but I don't think 3e played that way, it being easier to survive at low levels and the payoff at high being so much greater.

And incidentally, Vancian casters included Clerics and Druids. Who are noticeably closer to a Fighter-type in terms of surviveability. And non-casters included Thief/Rogue, who are somewhat closer to the Wizard/MU/Mage in survivability.

I'm not sure I am following - Are we disagreeing about something here?

I was just stating that I enjoyed the way Wizards played in AD&D and 2E. Surviving low levels was a satisfying reward on its own, although I can't remember playing a Wizard above 10th level in our 1980s and early 90s games, I do remember the payoff in spells being quite nice once the characters attained higher levels and started throwing Fireballs and Lightning and whatnot.

I honestly can't recall Cleric and Druid power in AD&D/2E, because I never played one to high levels. Were their spells equivalent in power to those of the Wizard?

I wasn't referring to 3E at all, as my only experience with Wizards in 3E was low level, or simply reading forum discussions about how over-powered they were compared to other classes (as well as the CoDzilla thing which I never experienced personally).

 

[Dausuul]

"Encounters" have always existed in DnD. You know those monster descriptions that had a "Number Appearing: 4-40" in them? That's an encounter.

5E doesn't have to internalize encounter-based design as much as 4E did, but it wouldn't be DnD without encounters. What is wrong with a spell that can be re-prepared after a 5 minute rest, instead of a 6 hour rest? Encounter is just short-hand for that; perhaps they could use "Minor Spell" instead, if "Encounter" rankles people so much. Seems like everyone is fine with at-wills in a Vancian system. What's wrong with a middle ground?

The question is not what's wrong with it, but what's right with it. What is the purpose of this middle ground?

I'm in the anti-Vancian camp, and I see nothing that appeals to me in this system. It's still spell preparation, which I hate--I like spells to feel like knowledge in my wizard's head, not homemade magi-grenades that she's toting around. Whether it takes me a day or five minutes to make a new grenade is immaterial. Furthermore, this adds another layer of fiddliness and complexity to the Vancian system.

On the other hand, those who like the Vancian system often cite elements such as having to prepare strategically ahead of time. Encounter-level spell prep diminishes that effect. See Janaxstrus above.

Wizards who want to be sure of having something to do at all times can pick up at-will caster feats. Encounter-level spell prep does not serve that purpose (after all, you still only get to cast the spell once per encounter), and seems like it would please no one and annoy almost everyone. Better to simply have Vancian wizards, and a separate non-Vancian arcanist class, and then both camps can have exactly what they want.

 

[dkyle]

How is resting, memorizing, finishing the casting and then forgetting (which is what happened in 1,2 and 3) different than fire and forget? It's not.

A 3.X Wizard does not "memorize" or "forget" spells. They start casting them, with the aid of the spell book, during an hour preparation time, leaving a final trigger step for later.

I also don't care for at-will either. I'll accept it, but it's not ideal.
Vancian style magic involves resource management. If you can just re-memorize spells and / or change them mid-day after a 5 minute break, it would seem you are simply trying to re-fluff the failed 4e magic system of encounter powers.

And having some spells with 5-minute rest times, and some (most, even) with 6 hour rest times still involves resource management. Lots of it. Even those short-prep spells are a significant resource to manage. It's a little different, sure. But if that's the extent of your argument, that it's different, so it's bad, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

And as far as I'm concerned, pure-Daily Vancian is a failed system... so let's table talk of which things are failures and which are not.

Tweaks, such as fewer spell slots isn't fundementally changing how Vancian magic works. That is like claiming a wizard with a 16 intelligence is somehow different than one who has more spell slots because he has an 18 int. # of spells has never been a hallmark of the Vancian style. The number of spells a wizard could have at one time has changed in every edition. That is a terrible argument.

The numbers have changed, sure, but the scaling rate has always been roughly the same. Without really changing that rate, dozens of spells at high level is pretty much inevitable. Suppose 5E's spell progression includes spell slots of a certain level being lost, as new spell levels are gained, so that more powerful spells are gained at some levels, but necessarily more spell slots. It has never worked that way in the past (except sort of in 4E). Would that still be Vancian-style?

It also doesn't change Rest, Memorize, Cast, Forget.

My suggestion tweaks the specific numbers for Rest, for a small subset of spells.

3.X completely killed Memorize and Forget, and replaced them with something else.

What "Cast" means changed fundamentally, from 1E/2E (where casting times longer than melee attacks were the norm, and easy to interrupt) to 3.X where most cast in a single action, same as an attack, and a spell was nearly impossible to interrupt.

But yeah, the thing that looks kind of like 4E. Can't have that.

 

[dkyle]

The question is not what's wrong with it, but what's right with it. What is the purpose of this middle ground?

Basically, they replace the dozens of lower level spell slots. They serve a similar purpose of having less powerful spells to use throughout the day, that are still better than at-wills, without having to track dozens of slots.

Whether it takes me a day or five minutes to make a new grenade is immaterial.

Well, I hate traditional Vancian because I think it's a lousy mechanic, not because I don't like the fluff behind it. So I guess I could see what a significant mechanic change, without really changing the fluff, wouldn't appeal to you.

Furthermore, this adds another layer of fiddliness and complexity to the Vancian system.

I think two categories of spells with a couple slots in one, and 6 in the other, is incredibly less fiddly and complex, at the table, than the 3.5 spell progression with dozens of slots. I don't see how differing prep-time is such a big deal. We've had variable casting times forever; what's the difference?

 

[Blackwarder]

Personally, one thing I would love to have back is casting time and damage that stop the casting of a spell, I liked having to think in 2e about how to protect our group Mage from the charging horde (I'm talking several dozens here) while he finished casting his fireball with all the arrows flying around those were the good old days.

Warder