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

[pemerton]

if I'm playing a game that is actually heavy on role playing, and not just combat and only intend to have 2 or 3 FIGHTS all day, I have to make them insane, because they will be completely full when they hit those 2 or 3 fights.
Contrary to the tactical nature of some games, MANY people do have roleplaying encounters, where no spells will be used

You seem to be assuming here

(i) that combat encounters don't invovle roleplaying, and

(ii) that noncombat activity (social encounters, exploration) doesn't consuem spells.

My own experience in playing D&D (B/X, AD&D and 4e), and also Rolemaster, is that this is not true.

 

[Janaxstrus]

You seem to be assuming here

(i) that combat encounters don't invovle roleplaying, and

(ii) that noncombat activity (social encounters, exploration) doesn't consuem spells.

My own experience in playing D&D (B/X, AD&D and 4e), and also Rolemaster, is that this is not true.

Start casting a spell when you are meeting the Duke, see what happens (it involves a lot of crossbow bolts and a flamestrike from his loyal cleric).

I don't cast spells to buy goods, I don't cast them meeting royalty or the rich (it's both rude and they tend not to wait and see what it is before blasting you), negotiating with someone hiring you tends not to involve many resources, confronting a notorious crime boss to try to get information (I suppose you could cast some here, but he's a higher level rogue with a few arcane underlings who would be miffed) etc etc.

A full day of roleplaying tends to consume less spells than a single combat.

 

[pemerton]

Start casting a spell when you are meeting the Duke, see what happens (it involves a lot of crossbow bolts and a flamestrike from his loyal cleric).

Intriguing.

I've always assumed that, before meeting the Duke, you'd cast Eagle's whatever (the CHA equivalent of Bull's Strength) - otherwise what's the point of that spell? (Is it just for buffing Bard and Sorcerer attack DCs?)

And that you might use Charm, Suggestion etc on the courtiers if not the Duke himself. (Otherwise what's the point of those spells - are they just for taking control of trolls and ochre jellies in the dungeon?)

I don't cast spells to buy goods, I don't cast them meeting royalty or the rich (it's both rude and they tend not to wait and see what it is before blasting you), negotiating with someone hiring you tends not to involve many resources, confronting a notorious crime boss to try to get information (I suppose you could cast some here, but he's a higher level rogue with a few arcane underlings who would be miffed) etc etc.

A full day of roleplaying tends to consume less spells than a single combat.

That's not particularly my experience, but it depends a bit on how a PC is built. The last time I GMed a PC who was an interaction specialist was in my previous Rolemaster game. The character in question could spend nearly all his spell points in a round or two, buffing his social skills and casting near-undetectable influence spells on the person he was talking to.

He may not do this to get a better deal on grub at the pub, but would always do it before negotiating with a notorious crime boss.

Anyway, as far as D&Dnext is concerned, they won't do a very good job on balancing the "three pillars" if only one of those pillars actually consumes player resources.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Intriguing.

I've always assumed that, before meeting the Duke, you'd cast Eagle's whatever (the CHA equivalent of Bull's Strength) - otherwise what's the point of that spell? (Is it just for buffing Bard and Sorcerer attack DCs?)

And that you might use Charm, Suggestion etc on the courtiers if not the Duke himself. (Otherwise what's the point of those spells - are they just for taking control of trolls and ochre jellies in the dungeon?)

That's not particularly my experience, but it depends a bit on how a PC is built. The last time I GMed a PC who was an interaction specialist was in my previous Rolemaster game. The character in question could spend nearly all his spell points in a round or two, buffing his social skills and casting near-undetectable influence spells on the person he was talking to.

He may not do this to get a better deal on grub at the pub, but would always do it before negotiating with a notorious crime boss.

Anyway, as far as D&Dnext is concerned, they won't do a very good job on balancing the "three pillars" if only one of those pillars actually consumes player resources.

You CAN use those spells, but again, they don't consume the resources that a combat does. Duke's and other royalty also don't like being charmed or magically influenced. Don't even get me started on the legal ramifications of wanton charm person abuse

I also did qualify it this time with a TENDS, to.

 

[Zireael]

You CAN use those spells, but again, they don't consume the resources that a combat does. Duke's and other royalty also don't like being charmed or magically influenced. Don't even get me started on the legal ramifications of wanton charm person abuse

I also did qualify it this time with a TENDS, to.

They do consume resources. Depending on the edition, it's either spell slots or a power. Regardless of whether it's a magic missile or charm person, it's used.

About the original problem - maybe if we made magic less powerful and less common, the Quadratic problem would go away?

 

[n00bdragon]

Everyone in this topic has missed the biggest reason Vancian casting is overpowered and can never be balanced: It's easy to print more and better spells.

Face it, WotC is in the business of selling books. This isn't a bad thing at all. I love splat books. However, since a spell or power or other modularized piece of character-ability-power-function-box-o-crunch in a text box is easy to portion out and easy to create without pages of justifying or supporting material (or really any at all) they tend to get made by the truckload and appear in books not even slightly intended for wizards. Complete Fighter? Add some new spells to fill out those last few pages. Complete Wizard? Half the book is spells.

I'm not saying books like those shouldn't be made (they WILL, no one can seriously believe for a second that they won't) but combine the fact that the ulimited-book casters (those who have access to nearly every new arcane/divine spell) get new goodies in every book with the fact that these outlier books often do not have oversight or playtesting that core does and simply using errata to nerf to extremely problem spells is like crushing air bubbles in wall paper. 4e dealt with this problem by giving that printability to all classes, so in Martial Power when they have another page to fill they can add another fighter power or two in the same way you could a spell. That way if things are going to get broken at least everyone is allowed to be just as broken.

This is just an innate quality of vancian the vancian magic system as it's been implemented pre-4e. If they want to do away with it they MUST do away with unlimited-book casters so that options can be carefully balanced.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Here's a random thought about broken spells:

Would it help if the DMG had official rules (as opposed to role-playing suggestions) about what the DM should do if a spell is proving to be too powerful or unbalancing?

 

[Gentlegamer]

There's nothing enjoyable about playing a class that has such a limited resource.

On the contrary, there's nothing more enjoyable than playing a class with such a limited resource because the payoff is worth it.

Wizard characters aren't for everyone. Nor should they be, in my opinion. You have to be smart with your resources and constantly engaged in 'skilled play' as defined by Gygax and others.

On top of limited spells to memorize, I had a magic-user that rolled a 1 for each hit die levels 1 through 3. Surviving and contributing to my group was among the most rewarding gaming experiences in my playing career.

 

[Mattachine]

On the other hand, not everyone who wants to play a wizard (a lot of rpg players) wants that sort of complex risk-reward character and gameplay.

I hope that D&DN doesn't limit wizards to such a small subset of players. Yes, a lot of those type of players are here on EN World. But we're not typical.

At the rpg club at my school, new players were immediately turned off to wizards and sorcerers in 3e, but liked warlocks. In 4e, new players had no aversion to wizards. The big reason?

New Player: "Alright, I use my spells to attack."
DM: "You are out of magic after that first fight."
New Player: "Out of magic? I'm a wizard."
DM: "Remember when I explained the whole memorization thing?"
New Player: "I forgot how to cast spells."

and so on.

Again, I can appreciate liking the AD&D style wizard. I liked playing one myself back in the day. Players like that are rare these days, and dissatisfied players are more likely to speak up now, since they have experienced so many other systems (such as from video games).

Expectations for what a fantasy wizard should be able to do aren't really coming from Lord of the Rings or Elric anymore. For a long time, the major wizar/adventurer tropes come from games.

Yes, 4e missed the mark with veteran players, but definitely snagged new ones. A new edition must keep something of the sensibilities and tropes from fantasy video games, including "not running out of magic".

 

[Gentlegamer]

On the other hand, not everyone who wants to play a wizard (a lot of rpg players) wants that sort of complex risk-reward character and gameplay.

I hope that D&DN doesn't limit wizards to such a small subset of players. Yes, a lot of those type of players are here on EN World. But we're not typical.

At the rpg club at my school, new players were immediately turned off to wizards and sorcerers in 3e, but liked warlocks. In 4e, new players had no aversion to wizards. The big reason?

New Player: "Alright, I use my spells to attack."
DM: "You are out of magic after that first fight."
New Player: "Out of magic? I'm a wizard."
DM: "Remember when I explained the whole memorization thing?"
New Player: "I forgot how to cast spells."

and so on.

This naturally separates those with the knowledge and skill to play magic-users from those not possessing those qualities. I mean that sincerely, because to play a magic-user effectively you have to understand the rules associated with each spell. It should go without saying that the player has to already understand how the resource management aspect works. There are other classes without such demanding rules knowledge that might be a better fit for some players.

Players like that are rare these days, and dissatisfied players are more likely to speak up now, since they have experienced so many other systems (such as from video games).

I have no sympathy for this, personally.