Vancian Spellcasting's Real Problem - CoDzilla

[Hassassin]

You wouldn't have to take away low level slots, just stop giveing new ones, say once you can cast spells two levels higher. So when a Wizard hits 5th they get no new level 1 spell slots.

That's pretty much the way things are in 3e - wizards only get one more 1st level slot at 7th. Stopping the progression at 3 slots would only cost wizards about 10% of their slots at 10th or 20% at 20th. They'd still have a huge number of slots at high levels.

 

[Buugipopuu]

If spells don't scale in effectiveness with caster level in 5e (which is what we've heard), there's no need to drop lower level slots, since they become less and less relevant.

The real reason why full casters got loads and loads of spell slots is that they got bonus spells from having a high casting stat, and you were going to be raising said stat to keep your DCs up anyway, so the extra spell slots were a bonus. Removing the Headbands of Intelligence +6 and the Tomes of Clear Thought +5 from the game will drop the Wizard's endurance quite a bit (by twelve spells per day at 20th level, in fact).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Or hell, do all three: give us a high-magic option (shaman, priest), a mid-magic option (druid, cleric), and a low-magic option (warden, warpriest) for each. Just resist the urge to mix and match. Trying to be all things to all spellcasters will only create balance issues. And nobody wants to see "Dungeons and Dragons V: CoDzilla Returns."

Yes. A lot of us would just as soon avoid it, but there is an analogous issue with wizards. There's nothing inherently wrong even with having a class that starts off terribly weak, gains a lot of power by toiling for it, and can't do anything but cast arcane magic. It's a bad idea for some tables or some campaigns, but it has been made to work. So as an option, it's ok.

There is something terribly, inherently wrong with saying that the only way you get to play a guy with a pointy hat and a staff who throws fire at wolves is to fit that previous, extreme pattern. The issue is more muted with clerics and druids because of that mix and matching that you deplore, but it is still there. Having druids and clerics (and wizards and bards and so forth) where you have strong limits, but you pick the exact limits from a reasonable set, is much preferable to status quo.

I was a big fan of the Dragonquest magic system.

Spells were grouped into thematic "colleges" of magic and casters only had acces to one college. Every spell started at Rank 0 and you levelled them up individually through XP expenditure. The spell levelling process scaled up the spells range, damage, and chance to hit (typically).

Spells were cast from fatigue, essentially fast recovered hit points, so casting spells inherently made the caster more fragile. But, as long as the caster has remaining fatigue he can cast any spell he knows.

Casters rolled to hit for their spells, so mechanically the spell attack sequence matched the melee attack sequence (there are some initiative order differences). And the always possible chance of backfire. Backfire was a fumble system for spell casters that kicked in if they missed their spell to hit roll by more than 30 (on % dice). For small spells, backfire was really rare but for the big if this hits you die type of spell the chance for backfire often exceeded the chance to successfully cast the spell. Made encounter ending magic a real gamble.

Not only that, the way they stopped heavy focus on one or two key abilities is sneaky genius. Sure, the high cost of continuing to improve the better abilities helps, but this only goes so far--especially considering that the character needs to attempt the abilities to be able to improve them (by DQ RAW). However, that little tidbit in the experience point gain section at the end is what really makes it work. Get 8 abilities to rank 4, gain twice as much XP per adventure. Get 8 abilities to rank 8, bump that up again. (You can, of course, house rule the exact number however you want to get a particular feel or compensate for more or less characters.) A handful of paragraphs, and it completely pulls the rug out from under the powergaming uber specialists.

 

[grimslade]

Jack Vance, Why you ruin my game?

There are two separate issues here.
Vancian Spell casting and the CoDzilla effect.
Vancian spell casting is not a power problem. It is flavor and resource management, that is all.
CoDzilla is a spell and power design problem. Long duration buffs, metamagic system, and poor magic item consideration led to God in a can our claws of fury. Beads of Karma and extend metamagic led to level breaking constant uptime buffs. And everything stacked. The only things that didn't were bonuses that were outstripped by a higher level spell.
The mechanics of Next should help. A flatter attack progression, hopefully less stacking buffs, and a smarter way of handling prayers/spells for clerics.

 

[Hassassin]

If spells don't scale in effectiveness with caster level in 5e (which is what we've heard), there's no need to drop lower level slots, since they become less and less relevant.

That's what happens with damage spells. However, buffs of any kind are usually useful even at later levels. For example, if attack and AC scale at the same speed (which may be zero), +2 to hit is always 10%-points to success chance. The same is true for many non-combat spells.

 

[Gryph]

That's pretty much the way things are in 3e - wizards only get one more 1st level slot at 7th. Stopping the progression at 3 slots would only cost wizards about 10% of their slots at 10th or 20% at 20th. They'd still have a huge number of slots at high levels.

10% might be enough. If what Monte wrote at one point (in the DDXP chat?) that spell effectiveness will be tied to spell level rather than caster level than overall effectiveness of the lower level spells will be diminished. Add that diminishing effect to the reduction in total slots and you've pulled caster dominance way down.

If the usefulness of low level spells isn't scaled back at higher caster levels then I agree with you that the total number of spell slots should be scaled way back.

A lot of moving parts in the spell system, I'm looking forward to the playtest to see how they all come together.

 

[Hassassin]

10% might be enough. If what Monte wrote at one point (in the DDXP chat?) that spell effectiveness will be tied to spell level rather than caster level than overall effectiveness of the lower level spells will be diminished. Add that diminishing effect to the reduction in total slots and you've pulled caster dominance way down.

If the usefulness of low level spells isn't scaled back at higher caster levels then I agree with you that the total number of spell slots should be scaled way back.

A lot of moving parts in the spell system, I'm looking forward to the playtest to see how they all come together.

Sure, it might work for 5e in combination with other changes. However, there are other reasons to want a lower number of slots at high levels, like reduced bookkeeping.

 

[Greg K]

IThe problem is that you need a healer even if you don't have a player that wants to do it.

No, you, actually, do not. Some people just have it locked in their minds that there has to be one. There are people that have run all Fighter campaigns. All rogue campaigns. All wizard campaigns. These single class campaigns have even been discussed in 2e Complete Class Handbooks and Dragon articles (I can't recall if the 3e Complete Handbooks discussed such campaigns). Guess what? nobody could cast healing magic and there were no cure light wound wands.

 

[Buugipopuu]

That's what happens with damage spells. However, buffs of any kind are usually useful even at later levels. For example, if attack and AC scale at the same speed (which may be zero), +2 to hit is always 10%-points to success chance. The same is true for many non-combat spells.

The obvious fix for spells which provide bonuses (which shouldn't be common, since they're dull, and usually a waste of an action anyway) is to cap the bonus at a certain value which scales with spell level. Bull's Strength would become "Target gains +4 Enhancement to Str, up to a maximum of 14+Spell Level" or whatever scaling is needed so that an Nth level caster needs to cast their highest level spell to provide a meaningful bonus to Stat X an Nth level character who's optimised to use Stat X.

Most utility spells will be the same, or provide a benefit which becomes less useful as the challenge or scale of obstacles increases. Knock gets capped at DCs which scale with level, so a mid-level Wizard can spam 1st level spell slots to open crappy doors all day, but said crappy doors are the ones the Rogue can unlock in his sleep, or the fighter can punch down without even reaching for his axe, so it's not a problem. Teleport or Locate Object remain useful, but as adventures get higher level, the scale of everything increases, so the lower-ranged low-level versions become less important.

 

[Hassassin]

Most utility spells will be the same, or provide a benefit which becomes less useful as the challenge or scale of obstacles increases. Knock gets capped at DCs which scale with level, so a mid-level Wizard can spam 1st level spell slots to open crappy doors all day, but said crappy doors are the ones the Rogue can unlock in his sleep, or the fighter can punch down without even reaching for his axe, so it's not a problem. Teleport or Locate Object remain useful, but as adventures get higher level, the scale of everything increases, so the lower-ranged low-level versions become less important.

Ok, how about invisibility, fly, detect X, water breathing... Not every spell is opposed by a monster or variable DC.