D&D 5E Spell Preparation - A Better Vancian or a Bridge Too Far?

[I'm A Banana]

Second, it seems like an incredibly easy house rule/module/variant: drop the 1+caster level prepared spells. It's strikethrough on literally one sentence of the rules, with replacement text of "you prepare spells in your spell slots." No change in power level or balance.

You're absolutely right, it IS a fix that is very easy.

Making cantrips work with the Vancian crowd is a little more work, but in terms of the whole spellcasting mechanic I think this is the best compromise: as long as a sidebar with the one replacement sentence is included.

I think one of the hardest balancing acts of this edition of D&D is going to be to avoid enshrining one version of a particular class as THE VERSION. In a modular game, players should not have strong assumptions about how a given class is going to work at a given table, but they ARE going to need a default mode for most default players. It'll be interesting to see what they do there.

 

[Li Shenron]

Its still feels pretty vancian while being more flexible

Maybe I'm odd, but to me it feels not vancian enough, and neither flexible enough

Overall, the current system is not bad per se. But to someone who wants tactical flexibility, it is still pretty restrictive. To someone who wants a D&D (bold) traditional wizard, it definitely isn't. To someone who is new to the game, it is more complicated to handle that both a 3e Sorcerer and a 3e Wizard, because you have to keep track separately of three things, the list of spells known, the list of spells prepared, and the daily slots (the 3e Sorcerer only worries about the 1st and 3rd, while for the vancian wizard the 2nd and 3rd are the same thing). I know this creates confusion to beginners, because I've just seen it with my own eyes in playtesting.

Thus overall I agree with [MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION], this is a compromise that is not at all bad per se but also doesn't please very many people. If this was just one option to choose from, then great, but as default I still prefer much more the classic vancian spellcasting system.

 

[Sunseeker]

Maybe I'm odd, but to me it feels not vancian enough, and neither flexible enough

Overall, the current system is not bad per se. But to someone who wants tactical flexibility, it is still pretty restrictive. To someone who wants a D&D (bold) traditional wizard, it definitely isn't. To someone who is new to the game, it is more complicated to handle that both a 3e Sorcerer and a 3e Wizard, because you have to keep track separately of three things, the list of spells known, the list of spells prepared, and the daily slots (the 3e Sorcerer only worries about the 1st and 3rd, while for the vancian wizard the 2nd and 3rd are the same thing). I know this creates confusion to beginners, because I've just seen it with my own eyes in playtesting.

Thus overall I agree with @ZombieRoboNinja , this is a compromise that is not at all bad per se but also doesn't please very many people. If this was just one option to choose from, then great, but as default I still prefer much more the classic vancian spellcasting system.

But your list of spells known rarely to never changes, save at specific points where you level, and in which case you add to it. Once you've chosen your spells to prepare, you can ignore it, and if you want to keep the same spells prepared(perhaps you're one of those folks who likes consistency, I dunno.) then really your list of spells known is essentially your list of spells prepared, since you're unlikely to ever change what you've got prepared.

In my experience, for people who like to play the "I can do everything you can do better!" utility wizard, this is not going to slow them down in the slightest.

 

[Li Shenron]

But your list of spells known rarely to never changes, save at specific points where you level, and in which case you add to it. Once you've chosen your spells to prepare, you can ignore it,

But this is not my point, choosing spells to add to your list of known spells takes a significant strategic effort (to a Wizard's player) but as you say, it happens only when you level up.

The difficulty I was referring to is the fact that you have to know your list of known spells when you prepare them. Maybe in a well-timed campaign and with well-behaving players, the adventuring days ends when the gaming session ends, and the players prepare their spells between sessions... but on average, you're going to get players having to prepare spells in the middle of a session.

and if you want to keep the same spells prepared(perhaps you're one of those folks who likes consistency, I dunno.) then really your list of spells known is essentially your list of spells prepared, since you're unlikely to ever change what you've got prepared.

Very rare IMXP, but I guess it can happen. OTOH in such case it might be better to have a class similar to the 3ed Sorcerer, because it would be more flexible than the current Wizard at casting time.

In my experience, for people who like to play the "I can do everything you can do better!" utility wizard, this is not going to slow them down in the slightest.

This is true of course.

 

[Nellisir]

To someone who is new to the game, it is more complicated to handle that both a 3e Sorcerer and a 3e Wizard...Thus overall I agree with @ZombieRoboNinja, this is a compromise that is not at all bad per se but also doesn't please very many people.

Having used this method in an actual 3.5e campaign, with a mix of pros and newbies, I'm pretty confident saying that this was not a difficult method to learn. And it was popular with players. Your personal taste may lean away from it, but to mine, the 3e division between sorcerer and wizard was always grating, artificial, and spectacularly dull. Exact same spells, exact same casting methods, exact same magic type...yawn. A single mechanical point should not be the only difference between two classes. A sorcerer should "feel" like a sorcerer whether they prepare spells or spontaneously cast them. It was completely cart before horse. (PF solved this by shifting the class emphasis to bloodlines instead of casting method, which made the mechanics mirror the story much more accurately.)

 

[YRUSirius]

I think I would go the whole way: Remove spell preparation and let the spellcasters use their spell slots on ALL the spells they know. For this to work I would have to limit the spells known or lower the available spell slots per day, correct? Or even keep the spell slots as is right now in the playtest packet and nerf all spells considerably, right?

-YRUSirius

 

[Li Shenron]

Your personal taste may lean away from it, but to mine, the 3e division between sorcerer and wizard was always grating, artificial, and spectacularly dull. Exact same spells, exact same casting methods, exact same magic type...yawn. A single mechanical point should not be the only difference between two classes. A sorcerer should "feel" like a sorcerer whether they prepare spells or spontaneously cast them.

Uhh... I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've played many Wizards and many Sorcerers in 3e and to me the playstyle is totally different.

It's true that the spell list was the same, and this was uncool flavor-wise. But we have to keep in mind that the real reason for this was that "Wizard" in D&D traditionally covers an enormous ground, from the magician who blasts with fire and lightning, to the subtle trickster, to the charming manipulator, to the illusionist, to the necromancer, to the summoner of fiends and so on... This is why the Wizard spell list should not be restricted (the only traditional restriction is for healing and resurrection spells), unless you want a game where the Wizard class is split up in multiple classes (which would be fine, but also keep in mind that many players still want to mix-n-match different types of spells).

If anything, it should have been the Sorcerer spell list to be a subset of the Wizard spell list. Probably they decided against it because at the time of 3.0 the Sorcerer was just an experimental spin-off of the Wizard to allow easier gameplay, so my guess was that instead of trimming down the list by removing spells that seemed out of flavor for a Sorcerer, they just went with it as it was and let the players figure out what they wanted to do with the class.

That said, Wizard and Sorcerer in 3ed were totally different to play even when you focused on mostly the same spells.

 

[Mezzer]

Your personal taste may lean away from it, but to mine, the 3e division between sorcerer and wizard was always grating, artificial, and spectacularly dull. Exact same spells, exact same casting methods, exact same magic type...yawn

I'd be willing to bet that this is the exact reason that the sorcerer was dropped from the last couple of playtests. They were trying to differentiate them a bit by fleshing out bloodlines, but they still had the 3.5 spellcasting approach, which has now found its home with the Wizard. Hopefully this will lead to a much better Sorcerer that actually stands out with his own mechanics.

 

[Nellisir]

Uhh... I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've played many Wizards and many Sorcerers in 3e and to me the playstyle is totally different. .... That said, Wizard and Sorcerer in 3ed were totally different to play even when you focused on mostly the same spells.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I said there was only one significant difference. That difference could (and did) engender different playstyles - every specialization does - but that doesn't make it good design. Paring down the spell list would have been a good and logical second step, but WotC didn't take it. The 3.5e sorcerer "schtick" rested on a single leg, which is weak design. IMO.

Multiple legs of a design allow you (ye olde Ordinary DM At Home) to tweak the class design and still have it be recognizable as the class. Tweak the sorcerer, and it's no longer a sorcerer. It's exactly what we're running into right now. There's nothing to the 3e sorcerer except her "spell slots per day" go to eleven.

(For whatever it's worth, I made the sorcerer the "martial arcane caster"; the mage was the "innate arcane caster", building on the Arcana Evolved witch class; the magician was the "trickster/illusionist arcane caster"; and the wizard was the "pure arcane caster".)

 

[Li Shenron]

Paring down the spell list would have been a good and logical second step, but WotC didn't take it. The 3.5e sorcerer "schtick" rested on a single leg, which is weak design. IMO.

Well, I wouldn't say it's weak design, because I am not sure of what were the design goals... we need to know what were the goals IMHO to evaluate if the result was good (but you may also disagree with the goals being worthwhile).

I used to think that the goals were to create arcane caster classes as vast as possible in terms of spells capabilities, and then let the players themselves decide how much they wanted to focus on one type of magic.