D&D 5E True Vancian spellcasters

[Li Shenron]

The default spellcasting mechanic for 5e has spell slots and similar ways of learning spells as older edition. That's as far as it goes in terms of being "Vancian", but the preparation rules make it different from what Vancian used to mean in the past.

True Vancian could be an alternate spellcasting mechanic, tho probably won't be included in the books, but it might of course be a house rule, an option for a player who actually prefers the traditional preparation method.

The point of this thread is simply, how would you compensate the player for choosing the traditional Vancian preparation method over the default (which is clearly more flexible)?

Do you think that granting 1 extra slot per spell level would be a good compensation, or would it be too little/much?

What else would you consider a fair compensation?

 

[Cadence]

A bit off target... it's kind of funny that "True Vancian" now seems to refer to the older game mechanics than what the casters in the Dying Earth books could actually do (total number of spells didn't go up much by character level and lots of summoning).

 

[Salamandyr]

For true Vancian, I would...

Get rid of the Mage class entirely-To cast a spell would cost a feat, one feat grants the ability to cast one spell a day. So to be able to match Terjon, for instance, you would need to spend 4 feats to cast 4 spells a day.

No bonus spells for high Int, but it would still control DC's, so a character intended to be a fighter would have a different focus than someone who wanted to focus on magic.

Then, look at the spells, basically upgrade each one to basically be the equivalent of a 6-9th level spell.

You may not be able to cast often, but when you do, stuff happens.

 

[Li Shenron]

A bit off target... it's kind of funny that "True Vancian" now seems to refer to the older game mechanics than what the casters in the Dying Earth books could actually do (total number of spells didn't go up much by character level and lots of summoning).

I would just call it "Vancian" but I've noticed that people are still calling Vancian the current default, where prepared spells and spell slots are two separate things, hence the decision to call it "true vancian" in this thread. We can also call it "old vancian" if "true" sounds offensive.

For true Vancian, I would...

Get rid of the Mage class entirely-To cast a spell would cost a feat, one feat grants the ability to cast one spell a day. So to be able to match Terjon, for instance, you would need to spend 4 feats to cast 4 spells a day.

No bonus spells for high Int, but it would still control DC's, so a character intended to be a fighter would have a different focus than someone who wanted to focus on magic.

Then, look at the spells, basically upgrade each one to basically be the equivalent of a 6-9th level spell.

You may not be able to cast often, but when you do, stuff happens.

That's all good, but the purpose of this thread is to figure out how to allow the vancian spellcasting mechanic of past editions as a player's option within a 5e game, where other players are anyway using spells with the default method. You know, just like there will be an option for those who don't like the default, to replace it with spell points or something else, and still play at the same table.

The current default seems to me better than old vancian, therefore I think that, if a player wanted an old-vancian wizard or cleric, the DM should give something extra to compensate for the loss of flexibility. I want to think of an "extra" that is as simple as possible, thus I am currently thinking of 1 extra daily slot per spell level. Does that sound a balanced choice?

 

[1of3]

Do you think that granting 1 extra slot per spell level would be a good compensation, or would it be too little/much?

Maybe, but more limited. Give casters with "domains" a domain slot and Wizards a school slot, like specialist Wizards used to have.

 

[Cadence]

We can also call it "old vancian" if "true" sounds offensive.

I understand the need and certainly nothing rising close to an offense. (Maybe "traditional Vancian"?) Anyway, I hope I haven't derailed your thread!

 

[Li Shenron]

Addendum:

To get a better idea on how much the current default is actually better than the old vancian method, I've written down how many spells you can prepare with the default method vs how many you can prepare with the old vancian method (which was equal to the number of spells slots).

Level       1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prepared    2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Cle slots   2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15
Wiz slots   2  3  6  7  9  10 11 12 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 19

Thus a cleric prepares as many spells as she has slots until level 11, and after that, has more prepared spells than slots. Thus an old-vancian cleric is always straight worse than a new-vancian cleric.

A wizard has more slots than prepared spells, except at levels 1-2 and 18-20, thus going old-vancian would actually allow to prepare slightly more spells than normal, but I think that the lost flexibility still results in old-vancian being worse.

 

[steeldragons]

If a player is choosing to take this hypothetical option, then why should/would they be compensated in any fashion? This is the character/concept they have chosen. If it is somehow "not even" [yes, purposely trying to avoid the "b" word] with the default spell casting mechanic, that is the player's choice. The character exists within those limitations or restrictions.

Everyone doesn't need to "get something" for every thing the character can or can't do.

EDIT: That said, if you insist on having some compensating factor...for your suggestion of the ole "extra spell slot per day", I prefer the above suggestion that it be limited to a cleric's domain or a mage's tradition. For a mage that does not take a tradition (thus "limiting" himself to a particular school of magic) an extra spell per spell level per day does seem a bit/potentially (esp. at high levels) over-powered to me.

I might go with a meta-magic-ish solution. Maybe make the "old vancian" casters automatically get full damage/effect on any spell that has a variable effect? Actually that sounds more OP than your idea. haha. hmmm. I dunno. Since I'm not one for entitlement or demanding...the "b" word...I'm inclined to just leave it lie and not sure what is more or less in line with the existing spell mechanic./EDIT

 

[Li Shenron]

This is the character/concept they have chosen.

Not much a matter of concept, but a matter of preferred mechanic. If you say the player deserves to be penalized, would you also accept if the spell point variant (or another spellcasting variant) in the books was straight better or straight worse than the default? I don't think so, unless you specifically don't want to see that in your game, or you only want to see that.

EDIT: That said, if you insist on having some compensating factor...for your suggestion of the ole "extra spell slot per day", I prefer the above suggestion that it be limited to a cleric's domain or a mage's tradition. For a mage that does not take a tradition (thus "limiting" himself to a particular school of magic) an extra spell per spell level per day does seem a bit/potentially (esp. at high levels) over-powered to me.

I might go with a meta-magic-ish solution. Maybe make the "old vancian" casters automatically get full damage/effect on any spell that has a variable effect? Actually that sounds more OP than your idea. haha. hmmm. I dunno. Since I'm not one for entitlement or demanding...the "b" word...I'm inclined to just leave it lie and not sure what is more or less in line with the existing spell mechanic./EDIT

Yeah I also think this second option is actually even stronger than an extra spell slot.

In some way I like your and [MENTION=48555]1of3[/MENTION] 's suggestion of restricting the extra slot, but... Overall it hardly feels "overpowered" to me even if unrestricted, and actually I was rather expecting opposite comments, i.e. that 1 extra spell slot per level isn't enough.

On one hand, 1 extra spell slot is obviously good. But with the current preparation mechanic, there is a very good chance that the spellcaster will never waste any of the daily slots. That's in fact the design reason behind the changes to preparing spells in 5e, they didn't want spellcaster to have to choose between using a slot for a spell that's rarely useful, or never preparing it (3e used the scroll solution, but it doesn't work well when 5e wants to give more freedom on magic items availability).

So if the downside of old-vancian preparation (which "locks" your spell slots to exactly what you have prepared in each one) is that you have a higher chance of ending up a day with more unused slots, it seemed natural to me to compensate it with bonus spell slots...

 

[steeldragons]

This is the character/concept they have chosen.

Not much a matter of concept, but a matter of preferred mechanic.

Which, again, the player has chosen for their character. *shrug* Why do they deserve/need/want/require some special addition to the mechanics they've chosen? Or why do you feel the need to give it to them?

If you say the player deserves to be penalized,

That is not what i said. What I said was that the player is choosing this mechanic. They receive that mechanic. IF that mechanic "penalizes" them [and it is entirely debatable as to what that means], it is the player's own choice/doing. Maybe the player does not consider it a "penalty." Maybe the player wants the penalty to offer or emphasize some different/quirky facet of their character. Maybe a hundred different other things.

I see no reason why a player say, "I wanna be A...but not like it says. You have to give me X and then I'll be A." More fundamentally, I see no reason why I, as DM, would be inclined to say "Oh sure. Lemme just do that for you." If you don't like what "A" says, then either [the player] don't play "A" or [the DM] don't offer "A".

would you also accept if the spell point variant (or another spellcasting variant) in the books was straight better or straight worse than the default?

If it is, and you [as DM] allow it, then players choosing it will be "straight better or straight worse than the default." Are you going to install bonuses (if worse) or penalties (if better) for those players' choices? Why do they "deserve" that?

I don't think so, unless you specifically don't want to see that in your game, or you only want to see that.

What do you mean by the "that" I would be seeing or not seeing? You don't think I will let players take a flat out "better/worse" mechanic than default because I don't want or only want to see "that" in my game? I'm not sure what this means.