Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5956484" data-attributes="member: 54710">In this week's <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120626" target="_blank">Rule of Three</a>, Rodney Thompson said that major structural changes like how a class casts spells would likely require a different character class.&nbsp; He lists some good reasons: (1) that a new spell casting mechanic is a big enough &quot;hook&quot; 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.&nbsp; I appreciate the important historical role that Vancian casting plays in D&amp;D, and I appreciate how it is central to a certain game style, often involving strategic planning and a certain &quot;combat as war&quot; approach.&nbsp; That's all well and good.&nbsp; I've been playing D&amp;D long enough that I want Vancian wizards in the game.At the same time, Vancian mechanics don't really work for me.&nbsp; Having wizards prepare a subset of the spells they know doesn't really gibe with the in-game fiction of my campaign.&nbsp; (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.)&nbsp; Just as importantly, my players are older now and I don't want to spend time waiting for spell memorization.&nbsp; Efficient players create standard preparation lists, but that level of organization can be beyond what some players can manage.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Wizards and sorcerers have different stories, and -- in the fiction -- there are wizards in the world.&nbsp; I'm looking for a wizard story (and all non-Vancian &quot;wizardy&quot; mechanics), but I don't want Vancian magic.&nbsp; 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 &quot;hook&quot; for a class's mechanical identify.&nbsp; You definitely can create a class like this.&nbsp; The 3e sorcerer is a classic example.&nbsp; But I don't think the spell casting mechanic is really the hook.&nbsp; I think the selection of spells is the hook.&nbsp; From BECMI to 2e, casters essentially used the same spellcasting mechanic and nobody thought clerics and wizards were the same.&nbsp; Psionics aren't different because they used a point system.&nbsp; They are different because they concentrate on telepathy and psychokinetic abilities (and whatever other disciplines are part of you edition of choice).&nbsp; All casters could use a point system, and you would still have clerics, druids, wizards and psions.&nbsp; (The game might be easier to learn if every caster used the same system too.)&nbsp; What do other folks think?&nbsp; Are non-Vancian wizards important to your games?&nbsp; Do you think spell casting mechanics are a good &quot;hook&quot; for a class?-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5956484, member: 54710"] In this week's [URL="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120626"]Rule of Three[/URL], 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification