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

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think Kavon is interpreting some people's resistance to this idea as being rooted in wanting to tell other people how they "have to" play. In my case, at least, that's not it. I just think the more effort they put into making spellcasting "modular" as the OP describes, the less time they have to design and playtest different, equally exciting things. AND, the more they have to concentrate on making sure you could squeeze each new caster class into a half-dozen different spellcasting mechanics, the harder it is to make each of them distinctive.

Personally, I would much rather play a NON-Vancian caster than a Vancian wizard. But I know full well that the Vancian wizard will be core. So I say, let them focus on making classes and spells that are fully optimized for other spell mechanics.

I fully agree you should be able to play a wizardy caster without the Vancian baggage. But I think the way to do that isn't to "modularize" all spellcasting; it's to make sure that there's a "sorcerer" or "warlock" something that is close enough archetype to be easily houseruled into your new wizard. (Maybe swap in the wizard cantrips, spellbook, etc.) At least, that route seems a lot easier than reworking every spell list in the game to be fully modular.

 

[Kavon]

I think Kavon is interpreting some people's resistance to this idea as being rooted in wanting to tell other people how they "have to" play. In my case, at least, that's not it. I just think the more effort they put into making spellcasting "modular" as the OP describes, the less time they have to design and playtest different, equally exciting things. AND, the more they have to concentrate on making sure you could squeeze each new caster class into a half-dozen different spellcasting mechanics, the harder it is to make each of them distinctive.

I'll agree that there's a difference between the two outlooks, but I think both are unreasonable.
You see, the way you put it, it assumes they have put in a certain amount of time in mind for the entire process, and they would have to take design time away from something else to make this work.
At the end of the day, this is simply not true. It's in the early stages of developement, and they can make it work. The only real reason they would not do this is because it's the easy way out.
If they don't, like their direction seems to be at this point, they're stepping back from their professed modular approach, and I'm worried for what this will mean for the rest of the game.

I fully agree you should be able to play a wizardy caster without the Vancian baggage. But I think the way to do that isn't to "modularize" all spellcasting; it's to make sure that there's a "sorcerer" or "warlock" something that is close enough archetype to be easily houseruled into your new wizard. (Maybe swap in the wizard cantrips, spellbook, etc.) At least, that route seems a lot easier than reworking every spell list in the game to be fully modular.

If you can swap out the class' class abilities and spell lists to use the other class' spellcasting system in a balanced way, you effectiveley have the exact same thing I want.
It's the balancing act of comparing each class' class features and spell selection compared to how they can cast their spells, and adapting these to suit.
It just depend on where you put the focus - what's more important? The class, or the casting system?
The way I put it, the class is special, with the casting system being secondary. The other way, it's mostly about the casting system, with the class tacked on.

Also, if they tie all casting systems to a class, if they were to think up a new way, they would have to create a new class each time, instead of just making the new spellcasting system which every other spellcasting class will be able to use.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm guessing Kavon, that you're looking for a solution somewhat like what was done back in 2E's Player's Option: Spells & Magic, where they put forth systems as alternates to Vancian, such as spell points, on-the-fly memorization and the like? The wizard was still the wizard, but how he approached his spellcasting was given several options.

I wouldn't mind seeing modules for this in the PHB - Vancian, spell point (Mana), On-the-fly memorization (like 3E's sorcerer). Each usable for the base spellcasting classes, whether Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock or the like.

I'd much rather that how you cast not necessarily be tied to your class. Rather what you can cast and the perks that go with the casting should be class based. For ex., I don't want Sorcerer's only defining ability to be that he/she's a on-the-fly caster - or that the only thing different about the Warlock is he/she's an at-will caster. The Sorcerer's draconic heritage (ala Pathfinder) and the Warlock star pact (and the selection of spells) should be the more defining attribute of the class.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I'd much rather that how you cast not necessarily be tied to your class. Rather what you can cast and the perks that go with the casting should be class based. For ex., I don't want Sorcerer's only defining ability to be that he/she's a on-the-fly caster - or that the only thing different about the Warlock is he/she's an at-will caster. The Sorcerer's draconic heritage (ala Pathfinder) and the Warlock star pact (and the selection of spells) should be the more defining attribute of the class.

I don't agree with this. Things like Supernatural Heritage and Otherworldly Pacts should be themes rather than class features. The mechanics and features of a Class should determine what you do without deciding the fluff reasons why and how you do things.

What is wrong with a classes being distinguished by the mechanics behind their magic?

 

[Stormonu]

I don't agree with this. Things like Supernatural Heritage and Otherworldly Pacts should be themes rather than class features. The mechanics and features of a Class should determine what you do without deciding the fluff reasons why and how you do things.

What is wrong with a classes being distinguished by the mechanics behind their magic?

The division line is pretty arbitrary, it can fall either way. 2E did the changes to how magic was handled within the single wizard class. 3E and 4E did it with a different class for each method, and I think a lot of people probably feel the latter way is a more "natural" way to handle it - like making AC go up instead of down.

I don't mind if different classes use different mechanics to handle magic, I just don't want it to be the only thing that defines the class - like the way 3E handled sorcerers and wizards - they were basically the same with the primary difference being memorized vs. on the fly. I preferred how Pathfinder created more distinctions between the two classes, by giving sorcerers heritages.

<edit> To put it another way, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of fighter classes whose only difference is that one uses sword & shield, another uses a two-handed weapon and yet another is two-weapon fighter.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

This matches my feelings, and I can't XP you for it.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I don't think I'd have a problem with this class. If you have a wizard class and a mage class with the same spell list, access to the same special feats and magic items and different spell casting mechanics, that would be fine. That would also be effectively the same thing as having a single class with a modular spell casting mechanic.

The problem is that a separate class is supposed to be more than mechanics. It's suppose to have an in-game story identity as well. A sorcerer isn't just a wizard with different spellcasting mechanics. A sorcerer comes with all this "innate magical ability" background with a (IMO, arbitrary) focus on draconic bloodlines and the like. My concern is that pushing non-Vancian wizards into a "mage" class will also involve dumping "non-wizardly" story elements into that class as well.

-KS

 

[Sadrik]

My hope is that the base game assumes all as sorcerer style of casting. I think other systems could easily be added on to that: spellbook/vancian, psion/spellpoints, warlock/4e/at-will, and even something else. But if the base game assumes one method for all (simplest being sorcerer), then letting players opt into the other slightly more complex methods would be good for the game and will cover all bases.

Here is the thing that I am wondering though. Suppose you want to be an elemental fire wizard, because in the campaign world wizards all have to choose an element. So how do you limit the spell list for that character? Do you make this change at the class level, the background level, or the theme level? I would prefer not to see a whole bunch of new classes to accommodate this, so I would imagine background or theme would make the most sense. Background, as a profession you are a Fire Mage thus you have to select from the Fire Mage spell list. Alternately, at the theme level, you select Fire Magic theme, you now have a specialized spell list, but gain access to some pretty formidable feats that pump your fire spells and create at-will fire effects. I don't know what the right option is.

Pointing this back to the point of this thread, how does selecting your casting method (Sorcerer/Vancian/Spellpoint/At-will) work in all this? Should this be a part of your class, your background, or your theme? Idk, but I like the options presented thus far.

 

[MoonSong]

My hope is that the base game assumes all as sorcerer style of casting. I think other systems could easily be added on to that: spellbook/vancian, psion/spellpoints, warlock/4e/at-will, and even something else. But if the base game assumes one method for all (simplest being sorcerer), then letting players opt into the other slightly more complex methods would be good for the game and will cover all bases.

Here is the thing that I am wondering though. Suppose you want to be an elemental fire wizard, because in the campaign world wizards all have to choose an element. So how do you limit the spell list for that character? Do you make this change at the class level, the background level, or the theme level? I would prefer not to see a whole bunch of new classes to accommodate this, so I would imagine background or theme would make the most sense. Background, as a profession you are a Fire Mage thus you have to select from the Fire Mage spell list. Alternately, at the theme level, you select Fire Magic theme, you now have a specialized spell list, but gain access to some pretty formidable feats that pump your fire spells and create at-will fire effects. I don't know what the right option is.

Pointing this back to the point of this thread, how does selecting your casting method (Sorcerer/Vancian/Spellpoint/At-will) work in all this? Should this be a part of your class, your background, or your theme? Idk, but I like the options presented thus far.

I like your ideas, but I'm not entirley sure that making the sorcerer the base would be welcome by the playerbase. But yes, sorcerers are the simplest caster possible and the best candidate to be fine-tunned via themes. Still to me the biggest differences between a wizard and a sorcerer are mechanical and fluff based, and so I wnat them both as full classes. To me casting methods should be at the class levels, we cannot assume all groups will use themes and such themes would have to be too much front loaded to be satisfactory, (altough things like elemental casters and stuff work well as themes)

 

[Kavon]

I like your ideas, but I'm not entirley sure that making the sorcerer the base would be welcome by the playerbase. But yes, sorcerers are the simplest caster possible and the best candidate to be fine-tunned via themes.

I like it as well, and seeing as the point of the Core is to be simple, with added complexity through modular options, the sorcerer's spellcasting system is the way to go (if it is the most simple way WotC can come up with).

Still to me the biggest differences between a wizard and a sorcerer are mechanical and fluff based, and so I wnat them both as full classes.

This is why it's important for classes to be able to stand on their own, through class features, spell lists, etc - a spellcasting system just isn't a class.

If two classes are in every way the same, except for the spellcasting system, they should be merged into one class write up.
For example, in 3rd edition, compare the Cleric and the Druid classes. They are similar, they were very similar in the previous edition (both being Priest subclasses), but they both have their own special class features and their own spell lists. Now compare the Wizard and the Sorcerer.
I'm sure many disagree, but I was never content with this strange distinction - they were basically the same class, just done in slightly different ways (ok, the Wizard has some additional class features, which were basically just all bonus feats anyway). I suppose it's because the Sorcerer's spellcasting system was such a departure from what people were used to before then.
I would hope we've grown out of that by now, though, as a gaming community.

To me casting methods should be at the class levels, we cannot assume all groups will use themes and such themes would have to be too much front loaded to be satisfactory, (altough things like elemental casters and stuff work well as themes)

I'm not a fan of Backgrounds and/or Themes being required to fix everything (as a sort of feat tax). Their function is that of options, of something flexible, to make your character your own.
If people are shoe-horned into specific ones, there's something wrong.

For example: If, instead of having the option of making a Slayer Wizard, or a Healer Wizard, or what have you, I instead need to make a Spontaneous Wizard to get rid of that Vancian stuff, I'm being robbed of a Theme.
Even if the so called Spontaneous Theme would give feats that give an adequate increase of power or such, it's still taking away one of my options.

Also, if you opt out of using Themes, you still need to be able to play the way you want (an arguement that works for many different topics).