Non-Vancian Wizards and Casting Mechanics as a "Hook"

[KidSnide]

In this week's Rule of Three, Rodney Thompson said that major structural changes like how a class casts spells would likely require a different character class. He lists some good reasons: (1) that a new spell casting mechanic is a big enough "hook" for a class's mechanical identity and (2) it's hard to balance a class if it has two or more spell casting mechanics.

In other words, it looks like the wizard class will have Vancian spell casting mechanics, but not another form of mechanic. I appreciate the important historical role that Vancian casting plays in D&D, and I appreciate how it is central to a certain game style, often involving strategic planning and a certain "combat as war" approach. That's all well and good. I've been playing D&D long enough that I want Vancian wizards in the game.

At the same time, Vancian mechanics don't really work for me. Having wizards prepare a subset of the spells they know doesn't really gibe with the in-game fiction of my campaign. (In 2005 or so, I house-ruled all casters to a bard/sorcerer style of spell casting, and it was a tighter fit to the logic of the world.) Just as importantly, my players are older now and I don't want to spend time waiting for spell memorization. Efficient players create standard preparation lists, but that level of organization can be beyond what some players can manage. I have players who ask me to print out a fresh copy of their character sheet at the beginning of at least a third of the sessions.

I could ban wizards from my game (presumably substituting sorcerers), but that is not a satisfying answer. Wizards and sorcerers have different stories, and -- in the fiction -- there are wizards in the world. I'm looking for a wizard story (and all non-Vancian "wizardy" mechanics), but I don't want Vancian magic. I don't care if this is core, but it's a type of optional rule that has high value to my type of game.

Lastly, I think we should question the premise that a new spell casting mechanic is a good "hook" for a class's mechanical identify. You definitely can create a class like this. The 3e sorcerer is a classic example. But I don't think the spell casting mechanic is really the hook. I think the selection of spells is the hook. From BECMI to 2e, casters essentially used the same spellcasting mechanic and nobody thought clerics and wizards were the same. Psionics aren't different because they used a point system. They are different because they concentrate on telepathy and psychokinetic abilities (and whatever other disciplines are part of you edition of choice). All casters could use a point system, and you would still have clerics, druids, wizards and psions. (The game might be easier to learn if every caster used the same system too.)

What do other folks think? Are non-Vancian wizards important to your games? Do you think spell casting mechanics are a good "hook" for a class?

-KS

 

[Ahnehnois]

I like different mechanics for different classes, but I don't think class has to be a straitjacket. To me, the spell point wizard is "the" wizard. There are certainly other casting mechanics that can work with the wizard as well.

It would be a bit harder to do a warlock-style at-will character with a wizard, but possible.

Unearthed Arcana did a decent job presenting alternate casting systems for existing classes; hopefully 5e is using it as a model for this and other things.

 

[Harlock]

Non-Vancian casters are not really important to my game at all. I do agree with you that it was the difference in spells (and therefore role) that made the hook. That's why I still dislike the idea of a shared spell list (or mostly shared, or covertly shared; i.e. different spell names with the same mechanical effect) with only different mechanics. I also hope WOTC avoid the mistake of trying to make a Sorceror who is merely a spell-casting rogue, etc.

I do like specialized casters, though, something like the old illusionist, or a summoner-type, or even the fey-demon-devil-elemental bonded type caster. They just need to be different in feel, scope and play than a Wizard or Cleric (or druid, ranger, bard, etc.).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think either the traditional labels are important as traditional labels, or they are not. If they are important as traditional labels, then most things that go with that tradition--and certainly the core identity of a class, such as wizard casting, is important to retain in that class.

On the other hand, if the labels aren't all that important, then we can have AEDU "wizards" alongside Vancian "wizards" and 3E-sorcerer style casting "wizards" and Arcana Evolved magister-style "wizards" and spell point "wizards".

Pick one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) I really like Vancian Wizards*, and for me, it is one of the defining characteristics of D&D as opposed to other FRPGs. A "D&D" without it would not feel right to me.

2) I also can accept without issue the existence of non-Vancian Wizards coexisting alongside the Vancian casters.** The other styles of Wizards represent different traditions of arcane theory- just like there are many schools of martial arts, or the myriad number of tunings for guitars.









* and by Wizards, I mean the arcane (only) spellcasters who learn their craft exclusively through academic or practical study, not because of innate talents for magic, pacts with otherworldly beings, etc.

** when I run "D&D" campaigns using HERO, all kinds of casters are used.

 

[GhostBear]

I've never been fond of the Vancian style of spell casting. It doesn't capture the fantasy feel (for me), especially at low levels. Cantrips-at-will don't help. The spell memorization mechanic is also odd, though that can often be fixed simply by not using the word memorization and instead using "preparation".

There's also very little mechanical support for "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" style situations. You find a spell book with a high level spell and you can't even try to cast it? Even at the risk of screwing things up?

I've been spending the past few days (and a good chunk of change for the source books) looking into different magic systems for the d20 system.

So far, my favorite system comes from a system used in both the "Thieves' World" and "Sovereign Stone" campaign books. Essentially, any mage can cast any spell at all - even the very powerful ones. To balance this, every spell has a casting threshold.

To cast a spell you roll a d20, add the appropriate skill/ability modifiers, and build up a pool over time. Once your pool of casting points meets or exceeds the amount required for a spell it is considered cast.

This is a pretty interesting system; one of the things that it does is force magic users to choose between "a smaller effect NOW" and "a big effect in a few turns".

Depending on the system you look at, there's also the application of nonlethal damage, or Bad Things happen if you roll a 1 or something. Metamagic modifies the casting threshold. You can prepare a certain small set of spells for quick casting later. Lots of extra stuff one could add in to balance magic one way or the other (want less magic in game, up all casting thresholds by 5, for example).

Haven't tried it in practice yet, but it looks really good on paper.

What about sorcerers?

Monte Cook's World of Darkness (a d20 adaptation of WoD) uses casting thresholds, but also allows you to build spells on the fly using a combination of tables to generate the spell cost. No pre-defined spell list is necessary; if you can build it using the tables you can try to cast it. This mimics the original Mage: The Ascension mechanics where a Mage can bend reality in any way the player desires if he has high enough control over a certain aspect of reality (like time or life).

Not something for the faint of heart, though. You can have your favorites written down of course, but having the flexibility to build stuff on the fly would require a quick and creative mind. There's lots of options.

To balance the flexibility, I plan to adjust the tables so that a sorcerer's spell is more difficult to cast than a similar wizard spell. But in exchange for getting exactly what you want, I think that's a fair tradeoff.

I have used the spell point variant from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, and that works pretty well for something simpler.

But yeah, down with the Vancian style of spell casting. I know that it's a traditional sacred cow of D&D and all, but I find it to be anti-fantasy in its own way.

 

[HeinorNY]

I use and love Vancian magic because it's by far the most realistic magic system!

 

[ComradeGnull]

My hope for the alternate magic systems was that they would be alternative takes to core classes and Vancian magic, and not alongside it- particularly I'd rather not have new classes with their own non-mechanical trappings to incorporate into the game.

My preference is that in-game, the lore for a AEDU wizard or a Vancian wizard or a Ars Magica-style flex casting wizard is not different from one another- they are just three examples of the standard wizard, implemented using different mechanical systems, and with the setting/fluff material provided by the setting. You pick the system that works best with your campaign/setting/playstyle, and that becomes 'The Wizard' in your game.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think I will need to see what other casting mechanisms are on offer before I can judge whether Vancian is unique enough to be a hook.

I can see where Rodney is coming from, though: there is a danger that swapping casting mechanics between classes will lead to homogeneity, which is the enemy of flavor. But this depends on spellcasting mechanisms being diverse/flavorful in the first place.

 

[Yora]

My hope is that you can play without any vancian casters using just the Player's Handbook.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I can see the OP's problem, but I think 5e might be a system that works well for him - he can play a warlock or sorcerer (or whatever non-Vancian arcane casters are in 5e) with a Scholar background and Magic-User theme, and they'll have most of the classical wizardly tropes without the Vancian mechanics. That's with no house rules whatsoever - and while we don't have the other arcane classes to play with yet, it seems like it'd be easy enough to houserule them to make them more "wizardly" (rename some spells/powers, switch spellcasting stat to Int, etc).

 

[Kavon]

I can see the OP's problem, but I think 5e might be a system that works well for him - he can play a warlock or sorcerer (or whatever non-Vancian arcane casters are in 5e) with a Scholar background and Magic-User theme, and they'll have most of the classical wizardly tropes without the Vancian mechanics. That's with no house rules whatsoever - and while we don't have the other arcane classes to play with yet, it seems like it'd be easy enough to houserule them to make them more "wizardly" (rename some spells/powers, switch spellcasting stat to Int, etc).

While this may work for some people, it has some inherent problems.
If I want to play a non-vancian Wizard, I shouldn't be forced to accept the inherent class features of other classes, while also being forced into a specific background and theme to put more salt on the wound.
Also, there are people that prefer not to work with Backgrounds and/or Themes.

I, for one, completely agree with the OP - point for point.
I refuse to accept that they cannot make it work - that smacks of lazy design.
Should all casters be purely defined by their spellcasting system?
The Cleric certainly isn't. Each spellcasting class can have their own thing, without forcing them into a certain spellcasting system.
Give them their own spells, their own class features, their own identity.

I want the freedom to allow or restrict spellcasting systems depending on how I want everything to work in my campaign world, without banning interesting classes. These two things should be seperated from each other.
Also, I want players to be able to choose for themselves which way they want to play, and not have their character concept be soured by being forced to play in a way they would prefer not to.
This goes for all conceivable spellcasting systems, not just the Vancian one.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If I want to play a non-vancian Wizard, I shouldn't be forced to accept the inherent class features of other classes, while also being forced into a specific background and theme to put more salt on the wound.

But the Vancian spells are the ONLY class feature of the 5e wizard (unless you count "spellbook"). Familiars, class skills, etc. are all handled through background and theme. I'm guessing that the other "pure" spellcasters will be similarly stripped down: spells as the primary component of the class, with minor class abilities handled through themes. (Or feat selection, if you're ignoring themes.)

I, for one, completely agree with the OP - point for point.
I refuse to accept that they cannot make it work - that smacks of lazy design.
Should all casters be purely defined by their spellcasting system?
The Cleric certainly isn't. Each spellcasting class can have their own thing, without forcing them into a certain spellcasting system.
Give them their own spells, their own class features, their own identity.

I want the freedom to allow or restrict spellcasting systems depending on how I want everything to work in my campaign world, without banning interesting classes. These two things should be seperated from each other.
Also, I want players to be able to choose for themselves which way they want to play, and not have their character concept be soured by being forced to play in a way they would prefer not to.
This goes for all conceivable spellcasting systems, not just the Vancian one.

I really don't get what you're asking for here. Are you saying they should do multiple complete versions of every class, like rewriting the 5e wizard with 4e-style AEDU powers or magic points, so that you can mix and match your favorite flavor caster with your favorite spell system? Because that's more or less a complete rewrite of the class, i.e. a LOT of work, and honestly I'd rather see them spend their time making, say, the Psion class than jury-rigging the Wizard class to use magic points.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I really don't get what you're asking for here. Are you saying they should do multiple complete versions of every class, like rewriting the 5e wizard with 4e-style AEDU powers or magic points, so that you can mix and match your favorite flavor caster with your favorite spell system? Because that's more or less a complete rewrite of the class, i.e. a LOT of work, and honestly I'd rather see them spend their time making, say, the Psion class than jury-rigging the Wizard class to use magic points.

Well, to be honest, if you make a Vancian, Spell-point, AEDU, Fatigue-based, etc. lot of "spell" systems- and make 'em good- most people wouldn't have much of a problem changing the fluff & keywords so each and any one could be used for arcane, divine, Psionic or whatever.

(See HERO, GURPS, M&M...)

 

[Kavon]

But the Vancian spells are the ONLY class feature of the 5e wizard (unless you count "spellbook"). Familiars, class skills, etc. are all handled through background and theme. I'm guessing that the other "pure" spellcasters will be similarly stripped down: spells as the primary component of the class, with minor class abilities handled through themes. (Or feat selection, if you're ignoring themes.)

And that is a problem with the Wizard's class design.
Let's say I'd want to play the Wizard concept, but using the Cleric's spellcasting system (they're pretty similar, but I'm just using what we have, here). If I'd just need to take the Cleric and call it a Wizard to make it work, the following happens:

My Wizard has less spell slots, overall.
It can freely choose which spell to cast from the list of prepared spells (what I want).
It has.. "Channel the Arcane", which at first allows me to repel the undead.
I have spells not really fitting for a Wizard (such as cure light wounds).
I can now cast spells while wearing armor, and receive much more in the sense of weapon proficiencies.
I now suddenly use my Wisdom instead of Intelligence.

Now I can change some things, like making spells work off Intelligence, but overall, I get quite some things not befitting a Wizard.

You could say I shouldn't take the Cleric, because it uses 'Divine Magic', but that shouldn't matter - it's the spellcasting system we're talking about here, right? The point is, that the Cleric has all these other things that have nothing to do with its spellcasting system.

Also, what if I want to play a Cleric that uses Vancian spell memorization like the Wizard?

I really don't get what you're asking for here. Are you saying they should do multiple complete versions of every class, like rewriting the 5e wizard with 4e-style AEDU powers or magic points, so that you can mix and match your favorite flavor caster with your favorite spell system? Because that's more or less a complete rewrite of the class, i.e. a LOT of work, and honestly I'd rather see them spend their time making, say, the Psion class than jury-rigging the Wizard class to use magic points.

No, I'm not saying that at all. That would be exactly what I don't want.
I'm saying that spellcasting classes shouldn't be married to any spellcasting system.
Write the Wizard, or whichever spellcasting class, with its own special things, and then leave it open which spellcasting system you want to use.
Balance the different spellcasting systems so that it's internally balanced.
One class might simply get more spells, and that could be (part of) their special thing, but that doesn't have anything to do with the spellcasting system.

You're saying you'd rather want the Psion than having them force spell points as an option for the Wizard.
If the Psion is no more than a Wizard with spell points (as in, has no special features of itself that makes it different), than you have exactly what you thought I wanted to have.
But, if on the other hand, we have a Psion with its own special features, I can't make a Wizard with spell points by renaming the Psion into the Wizard, if that's what I want to play.
So, instead, I would say make the Wizard, make the Psion, but give both of them special things, and leave the matter of which way they cast spells open to the player.
The Wizard's 'thing' could be the collection of spells into the Spellbook, and getting more spellslots (or spell points, or whatever) than other classes.
The Psion could get something special that reinforces its mental prowess.

 

[Texicles]

I honestly think that a variety of spellcasting styles is one of the most important modules they can make for 5e, and I couldn't agree more with the sentiment people have expressed in this thread that a class should stand on its own, not being defined by its casting mechanic.

Each class should have features that define and differentiate it, and each class should have a significant number of its own unique abilities (and I feel that this applies to magic-users and martial characters alike). That's how you prevent homogeneity. Sure, there can be some shared spells, but it should be the exception, not the rule.

I almost think that using different casting systems in the core class designs is a bad idea. I'm not in love with Vancian casting, but I think that they would do well to make every caster use this system out of the gate. Making the module then becomes a matter of describing the different systems and listing the spells and noting whether they're A,E,D or U, how many points the spell costs, etc. etc. If you left out the descriptions and just gave the spell name and pertinent conversion info in table form, you're looking at a module that can change the game to suit a large variety of players and fit into an appendix of the PHB and/or DMG.

Do these things and classes are unique on their own merits, and you are able to enfranchise more and more varied players from the outset. That, to me, is the whole point of modular game design.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Do these things and classes are unique on their own merits, and you are able to enfranchise more and more varied players from the outset. That, to me, is the whole point of modular game design.

I'm not opposed to that strategy as a strategy. I have doubts about its execution. Namely, I want to see a prototype of this sample wizard class that is clearly a "wizard" from its class abilities, outside whatever spell module you then choose to use with it. And then I want to see the marketing plan that convinces the internet hordes that this is "still D&D".

It if it were totally up to me, what I'd do is have a traditional "wizard" class with nothing but Vancian casting. Then I'd do a "mage" class much as you guys have suggested, now secure that I don't have to sell this thing as a wizard, and thus I've got a shot at actually doing a good, clean design that will work.

 

[Kavon]

I'm not opposed to that strategy as a strategy. I have doubts about its execution. Namely, I want to see a prototype of this sample wizard class that is clearly a "wizard" from its class abilities, outside whatever spell module you then choose to use with it. And then I want to see the marketing plan that convinces the internet hordes that this is "still D&D".

It would still be D&D, because you can still have the Wizard be Vancian if that is what you want.

It if it were totally up to me, what I'd do is have a traditional "wizard" class with nothing but Vancian casting. Then I'd do a "mage" class much as you guys have suggested, now secure that I don't have to sell this thing as a wizard, and thus I've got a shot at actually doing a good, clean design that will work.

What would be the difference between the Wizard and the Mage, besides one being Vancian-only, and the other having freedom of choice?
If they are otherwise equal, why make them two different classes? Just because there are people that demand that Wizards be Vancian only?

I don't have a problem with people wanting their Wizard to have Vancian magic. I do have a problem with people demanding that it work only one way, because that's how they want it to work.
I want people to have the option to make every spellcaster Vancian, if that's what they want.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Kavon, I think we might have got our wires crossed on that last exchange.

I like the idea as an idea. I don't like its chances in the furor that it would create. Or alternately, if it did somehow stagger through the furor, it would be so mangled as to not be so great in the final product. You don't have to convince me that it's D&D.

The difference in having two classes is that some people want whatever traditional, vaguely plausible, stuff that sounds good for their wizard, and other people want a good design, even if that steps on tradition. I say, let the first group have the "wizard" and give us in the second group a clean design, under some other class name, uncontaminated by all the short-cuts, contradictory demands, balance issues, etc. Those of us in the latter group are immediately going to ban the "wizard" anyway, in favor of the cleaner class. So if you play a "mage" at my table, you can call it a "wizard" if you want, as long as you use the clean mechanics.

I think they should do this for all the classes. I nominate wizard, fighter, cleric, thief, ranger, paladin, druid, bard, etc. for the first group. We'll take "rogue" as a consolation prize, and then have warrior, mage, priest, champion, skald, loremaster, etc (or whatever set makes sense in the design).

Bringing this back around the long way more on topic, I think this is one hidden reason for why they want different mechanics to reside in different classes. They get to neatly side-step a lot of flak. (The other hidden reason is that they get to write a lot more classes and then put them in books to sell.)

 

[Kavon]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]:
Yeah, sorry, I guess you're right. This is one of the things I really feel they (WotC) should grow some backbone and actually do what they set out to do, and make it modular.

I understand that dividing the classes up like that would keep some of the potential rage down, but.. Well, let me take a shot at this.

Wouldn't it be okay if the base assumption for a certain class be that system that the first group of classes would use, and then have the options that your proposed second group of classes would have be covered afterwards - in one class writeup?
This way, people that really care will have the default be the traditional way, but people that want a variation can alter it to their preference. It would help in keeping redundancy down.

At the end of the day, if these options are implemented, there's nothing stopping the traditionalists from making things traditional.
If they have a problem with other people, at other tables, not playing the way they think the game should be played.. Well, what can I say?