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

[triqui]

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.

In my experience with AD&D 2e and 3.X, it was much easier to keep alive a low level cleric than a low level rogue, based on having more hit points, better armor, use of shields, arguabiliy higher weapon options, better saving throws, plus the ability to cast spells. Druids had all of those, and a pet that could defeat the rogue in 1vs1

On the bright side, once the group was high level, the vancian caster also added the ability to literally cast miracles to even out the score

 

[Janaxstrus]

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.

Which is just like memorizing.

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.

Hey, a battle is looming, better memorize attack spells.
Ok, battle is over, there is a door, better memorize knock now instead.
Well, we got through that room, better memorize more attack spells instead.

That sounds to me more like having everything you want to do at any time, only 5 minutes away. Not managing your resources, planning ahead etc.

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.

34 of the 38 years D&D has existed points to you being wrong.

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?

Not really. I wouldn't care for that at all.
I also wouldn't like a fighter who could trip someone for 5 levels, but at level 6 he forgets how to trip people and can only trip AND stun them at the same time. Changing how spells increase in power is enough (requiring a higher level slot to increase the power of the spell). Removing lower level spell slots isn't a good fix in my opinion.

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

Yes, it does, and I disagree with it. Memorize once, cast once is my preference. Encounter powers being reskinned, is not something I want to see.

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

Incorrect, it worked the exact same way. The wizard/cleric/druid/bard had the spells imprinted on their mind, and when the spell was cast, it was lost for the day (or for spontaneous caster, that slot was lost). You can say the fluff changed, but how it worked did not change at all.

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.

How long to cast a spell doesn't mean the definition of "cast" changed. It means the time it took to cast a spell changed. The time to swing a sword changed too, does that mean that the definition of "swinging a sword" changed? No, it merely changed the time involved.

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

This part we are in agreement on.

 

[dkyle]

Hey, a battle is looming, better memorize attack spells.

Walking around unprepared for battle, assuming you'll have 5 minutes to prepare before any battle, sounds like a pretty big risk to me. Not seeing what the problem is here.

And again, it's two spells, at most. Those per-day higher level spells are still the bigger guns.

Ok, battle is over, there is a door, better memorize knock now instead.
Well, we got through that room, better memorize more attack spells instead.

I'm assuming that stuff like Knock is going into the Ritual system, that they've said they'll have.

If necessary, I'd restrict the spells that can be memorized as "encounter" to spells which typically wouldn't be useful if you had to wait 5 minutes to swap them out.

That sounds to me more like having everything you want to do at any time, only 5 minutes away. Not managing your resources, planning ahead etc.

It's (up to) two slots, for low level spells. Next to (up to) 6 daily slots for higher level spells. Your summary is disingenuous. It's not everything.

34 of the 38 years D&D has existed points to you being wrong.

I couldn't care less how long a design failure has "existed".

Removing lower level spell slots isn't a good fix in my opinion.

I'm assuming that low level spells could be memorized into higher level slots, so it's not like the Wizard is actually losing anything as they level; just gaining more options for what their spells can be.

Would you be OK with a Wizard that has 1 1st level spell at level 1, and gains only a single spell slot at odd levels (up to 17), at a new spell level? That would mean 9 spell slot at high level. To me, many more slots than that, and we're back to ridiculous numbers.

Not being able to remove lower level slots is a huge design constraint, and makes it extremely difficult to have progression through 9 spell levels, without having excessive progression in number of slots. I'm not sure why the constraint is necessary.

How long to cast a spell doesn't mean the definition of "cast" changed. It means the time it took to cast a spell changed. The time to swing a sword changed too, does that mean that the definition of "swinging a sword" changed? No, it merely changed the time involved.

Yet changing the time it takes to rest means the definition of "Rest" changed? Seems to me, the change of how Casting worked in 3.X is at least as impactful as allowing for a few short-Rest spells.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So, are characters from non-Vancian classes easy to keep alive at low levels? Is it only low level Vancian cassters that are hard to keep alive? If so, there might be some justification for this. If that's not the case, then balancing everyone's difficulty in surviving at low levels by giving some of them powerful abilities at high level might not be easy to justify.

A typical wizard: AC: 10, HP 3
A typical fighter: AC: 3, Hp 6

So yeah, it's a bit harder for a wizard to survive.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

"Encounters" Seems like everyone is fine with at-wills in a Vancian system. What's wrong with a middle ground?

No, not everyone.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Would you be OK with a Wizard that has 1 1st level spell at level 1, and gains only a single spell slot at odd levels (up to 17), at a new spell level? That would mean 9 spell slot at high level. To me, many more slots than that, and we're back to ridiculous numbers.

No, I wouldn't be ok with 9 spells. Would you be ok with a fighter who can only swing his sword 9 times in a day?
If you change spells so that they don't scale with level, it effectively makes low level spells less effective. Magic Missle in a 1st level slot - 1d4+1
Is that going to break the game if the wizard has 5 of those memorized? No.
2nd level invisibility - You receive a +20 to hide for 1 minute. (Assuming it's scaling with the slot, I would make 3rd level a "true" invis) Will that break the game? Probably not.

What it does do, however, is make the wizard feel like a wizard. "I have these magic things I can do!" Giving them "Firelance" all day makes them a warlock or a reflavored crossbow. If a 20th level wizard has 4 1st level slots with 1d4+1 magic missiles, who cares. If he has an endure elements? Great. It doesn't scale with level anyway, and it's a nice flavor spell.

Not being able to remove lower level slots is a huge design constraint, and makes it extremely difficult to have progression through 9 spell levels, without having excessive progression in number of slots. I'm not sure why the constraint is necessary.

Why do they need fewer spells? Because in 3rd edition, a 3rd level fireball did 10d6 at 10th level. A Cone of Cold scaled to 15d6, though the slot never changed. Will it really be a game changer in 5th if the wizard has 3 5d6 fireballs in his 3rd level slots? Not even a little. After save that's likely 8-9pts of damage. Whoopty do.

Yet changing the time it takes to rest means the definition of "Rest" changed? Seems to me, the change of how Casting worked in 3.X is at least as impactful as allowing for a few short-Rest spells.

Rest isn't changing, you are wanting to change how memorizing spells work. AKA, you have X slots which means memorizing X spells. Not You have X slots, which you can then spend 5 minutes rememorizing, giving you X+Y spells for the day.

In 3rd edition you could already memorize a spell in 15 minutes during a rest....IF you left the slot open to do so. You didn't get extras to refresh. It's reskinned encounter powers, and it's not that subtle.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

The mechanic has not changed in any significant way as far as I'm concerned. I do not like having to "load up" my spells in advance. Five minutes in advance or twenty-four hours, I don't care. Contra 4E, there is actually a significant relationship between mechanics and concepts in the game world, such that "re-fluffing" is not an adequate solution to every problem with the latter.

 

[YRUSirius]

Hey, a battle is looming, better memorize attack spells.
Ok, battle is over, there is a door, better memorize knock now instead.
Well, we got through that room, better memorize more attack spells instead.

That sounds to me more like having everything you want to do at any time, only 5 minutes away. Not managing your resources, planning ahead etc.

What if you only got 4 effective short rests per 24 hours, that heal your hp and let you memorize/prepare your 'rest/encounter' spells? But the fifth short rest isn't effective anymore, so you'll need a long 8 hour rest. Bam! Ressource management is back in the game and you get 'vancian encounter' spells instead of 'vancian daily' spells.

-YRUSirius

 

[Janaxstrus]

What if you only got 4 effective short rests per 24 hours, that heal your hp and let you memorize/prepare your 'rest/encounter' spells? But the fifth short rest isn't effective anymore, so you'll need a long 8 hour rest. Bam! Ressource management is back in the game and you get 'vancian encounter' spells instead of 'vancian daily' spells.

-YRUSirius

Sounds like healing surges for wizards. No thanks.

 

[dkyle]

No, I wouldn't be ok with 9 spells. Would you be ok with a fighter who can only swing his sword 9 times in a day?

No, that's why the Wizard is getting at-wills.

I'd be perfectly fine with a Fighter who can only do crazy awesome stuff 9 times a day, and do regular sword swings all day long.

If you change spells so that they don't scale with level, it effectively makes low level spells less effective. Magic Missle in a 1st level slot - 1d4+1
Is that going to break the game if the wizard has 5 of those memorized? No.

Break it? No. Make it ridiculous and cumbersome? Yes. As has been borne out in every pre-4E high level Wizard.

Also, is it really so much more "resource management" to choose 20 low level daily spells, instead of 2 low-level encounter spells? Seems like the latter is a much tougher decision to make than the former.

Having tons of spell slots makes the bookkeeping more difficult and cumbersome, but as far as making real, meaningful decisions? The fewer slots, the better.

Rest isn't changing, you are wanting to change how memorizing spells work. AKA, you have X slots which means memorizing X spells. Not You have X slots, which you can then spend 5 minutes rememorizing, giving you X+Y spells for the day.

Same thing. I'm tweaking the time it takes for a slot to become available for re-memorization. Some come back after 5 minutes of rest, others come back after a full-night's rest.

It's reskinned encounter powers, and it's not that subtle.

I'm not really trying to be subtle... it's a way to do Encounter powers (which I think are great, and will not play 5E without some form of them) without raising verisimilitude and metagame issues. If you simply hate the idea of having mechanics than enable casting and re-preparing spells throughout the day, there's not really much that can be done here, other than having a Wizard that one of us will hate.