Vancian Spellcasting's Real Problem - CoDzilla

[Frostmarrow]

What's a bard if not a people-person?

Naturally the bard can be a people-person. But so can anyone else too.

The bard can fight in a flamboyant manner and quickly create a ritual by singing or telling stories.

If Rituals are skills that require time and exotic ingredients I think it fits the bard nicely. The bard needs an audience, a musical instrument and time to perform in order to, for instance, mislead the youth.

 

[Hassassin]

The problem isn't specific to Vancian spellcasting. If you had a 4e class that was almost as good as the fighter, the rogue and the wizard in the things those classes do the best, it would be overpowered.

I think some tighter designer guidelines for what certain classes of spells can do are in order. If that means an iconic spell no longer fits a class it did, either drop it, scale its power back or make it significantly higher level.

 

[Minigiant]

To me this is not a vancian spellcasting problem.
It's a design focus problem.

It just seems that certain aspects of the cleric and druid were created too much in a vacuum. It doesn't matter if it is a pencil & parer game, a video game, or trading card game, too narrow a focus just asks for unexpected consequences.

 

[Frostmarrow]

The problem isn't specific to Vancian spellcasting. If you had a 4e class that was almost as good as the fighter, the rogue and the wizard in the things those classes do the best, it would be overpowered.

I think some tighter designer guidelines for what certain classes of spells can do are in order. If that means an iconic spell no longer fits a class it did, either drop it, scale its power back or make it significantly higher level.

The problem isn't as much as a broad class is almost as good in a tight class' niche as a tight class. You only have one action anyway so if you use that to swing a sword or cast a spell matters little. The "problem" is that adventuring is a group activity and the cooperation of differing characters is what makes the game fun. In fiction with a solo hero that hero is versed in a lot of areas. Solo heroes doesn't fit in a role-playing game because they are self-sufficient.

Characters in a role-playing game need to depend on each other. It's at the very heart of the activity. I have a strong urge to create self-sufficient characters but I mustn't be allowed. In a way the players must share what a single fictional hero can do. If this creates characters that are one dimensional so be it.

I think the broad classes need to find a niche or be left out. Broad classed characters are often suggested to be the fifth character in a party, but that strikes me as an afterthought.

I like a notion in Essentials. In the first book there were four classes that created a whole. In the second book there were four classes that created a whole in a different way. Maybe classes should be designed in sets of four? Just a thought.

 

[Hassassin]

The problem isn't as much as a broad class is almost as good in a tight class' niche as a tight class.

Yeah, I should have put "overpowered" in quotes. You explanation covers what I essentially meant.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To me this is not a vancian spellcasting problem.
It's a design focus problem.

It just seems that certain aspects of the cleric and druid were created too much in a vacuum. It doesn't matter if it is a pencil & parer game, a video game, or trading card game, too narrow a focus just asks for unexpected consequences.

In 3E clerics could do it all. Healing was regarded as a chore so they gave clerics a lot of capabilities as compensation. Now we know healing isn't a chore. Some players love to be the healer. The problem is that you need a healer even if you don't have a player that wants to do it. I think Wizards have thought a lot about how you can live without a healer. Basically you have two pools of hit points (monsters' and heroes'). If you add to one or deduct from the other matters little balance-wise. Quick natural healing inbetween combats is still the answer to the "must have a cleric"-problem. Surges were bland, healing potions became a staple so maybe we can introduce food? Food is interesting, diverse and a natural necessity.

 

[Minigiant]

In 3E clerics could do it all. Healing was regarded as a chore so they gave clerics a lot of capabilities as compensation. Now we know healing isn't a chore. Some players love to be the healer. The problem is that you need a healer even if you don't have a player that wants to do it. I think Wizards have thought a lot about how you can live without a healer. Basically you have two pools of hit points (monsters' and heroes'). If you add to one or deduct from the other matters little balance-wise. Quick natural healing inbetween combats is still the answer to the "must have a cleric"-problem. Surges were bland, healing potions became a staple so maybe we can introduce food? Food is interesting, diverse and a natural necessity.

That is fine and dandy to make the healer class interesting.

But whose idea was it to make a class with fullcasting, stat-switching shapeshifting, and an animal cohort (druid) in the same game with a character who gets a few more hit points and feats (fighter)?

Or a fullcaster with all armor proficiencies and warrior copying spells (cleric) with a class who can deal extra damage to enemies sometimes (paladin)?

Some times it feels like some games are made by four guys who don't talk to each other after the brainstorming session. Some times I don't get how these things sneak in.

 

[FireLance]

That is fine and dandy to make the healer class interesting.

But whose idea was it to make a class with fullcasting, stat-switching shapeshifting, and an animal cohort (druid) in the same game with a character who gets a few more hit points and feats (fighter)?

Or a fullcaster with all armor proficiencies and warrior copying spells (cleric) with a class who can deal extra damage to enemies sometimes (paladin)?

Some times it feels like some games are made by four guys who don't talk to each other after the brainstorming session. Some times I don't get how these things sneak in.

You have to look at things in context.

The 3e cleric (and possibly druid) was a reaction to the "nobody wants to play the healer" syndrome which was (presumably?) prevalent in 2e and earlier editions. Fighters and paladins actually got a power-up from 2e to 3e. It's just that clerics (and druids) inadvertently got even more of one based on the (not always incorrect) assumption that they would expend most of their spells healing and supporting the party.

Frankly, if I were to point to the one factor that may have subconsciously influenced generations of gamers to accept class inequality, it would be that one scene in the Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf tells the Fellowship, "Swords are no more use here," before he proceeds to face the balrog alone (admittedly dying in the process, but hey, he got better). Even though we (should) know that Gandalf was more like an angel than a D&D wizard, I think it somehow registers as "Magic rules, fighters ... don't" on a visceral level.

 

[Balesir]

Characters in a role-playing game need to depend on each other. It's at the very heart of the activity. I have a strong urge to create self-sufficient characters but I mustn't be allowed. In a way the players must share what a single fictional hero can do. If this creates characters that are one dimensional so be it.

I don't think party-based or adventure-based are necessary assumptions for a roleplaying game at all - but I do think that this is just a case of the (fairly common) conflation of "D&D" with "roleplaying game".

I have played plenty of RPGs where solo play works exceptionally well, and where cooperation between characters and "niche protection" were totally redundant concepts. But those games weren't D&D; for D&D I absolutely agree that classes with restricted roles are an important tool to generate the expected game play.

I think it may be critical for the WotC folks to make it crystal clear that D&DN is intended to allow all playstyles of D&D to be used, not all conceivable playstyles of roleplaying games (which is far too vast a field for any one system successfully to encompass).

 

[Frostmarrow]

That is fine and dandy to make the healer class interesting.

But whose idea was it to make a class with fullcasting, stat-switching shapeshifting, and an animal cohort (druid) in the same game with a character who gets a few more hit points and feats (fighter)?

Or a fullcaster with all armor proficiencies and warrior copying spells (cleric) with a class who can deal extra damage to enemies sometimes (paladin)?

Some times it feels like some games are made by four guys who don't talk to each other after the brainstorming session. Some times I don't get how these things sneak in.

I think the designers didn't expect the druid to become as powerful and versatile it became. It took awhile before it caught on. In the early days of 3E my friends where all excited about feats, and so fighter became the preferred class for quite sometime. When players began exploring the possibilities of the druid and posting builds on the net things got out of hand and wildshape had to be nerfed in 3.5. Fixing wildshape became a design goal that was pursued for years. Maybe the concept of quadratic casters hadn't begun sinking in just yet?

It was a mistake to say druids can turn into monsters and then proceed to publish monster books with increasingly powerful and versatile monsters. It must be mentioned that during this time there was this idea that anything a monster can do a character should also be able to learn.

In a way it's kind of sad that all these fantastic abilities that are possible in a fantasy context become too powerful to use. Wouldn't it be great to be able to fly? Let's explore that. –No. Too powerful.