Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wacky pseudo-Vancian casting sytem (long)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5907869" data-attributes="member: 70709"><p>I think the primary benefits are five-fold:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It lets the caster make a consequential tradeoff between immediate powerful casting and long-term (especially >1 day) spell flexibility, and hopefully makes the entire spectrum in between viable. In particular, if one day a character chooses one extreme and his party member chooses the other, they will both wake up the next day with a difference in potential effectiveness closer to that across a gulf than an ocean...they're probably still on the same continent anyway. This empowers different playstyles, campaign paces, and valuations of spell resources. Moreover, it has greater ability for the players to adjust these to the fictional circumstances. Nevertheless, it hopefully nudges people away from extremes which have historically impeded gameplay. Namely, the caster who always goes nova and the (less common) caster who hardly ever casts for fear of not having a spell when truly needed. Note that this benefit doesn't really depend on how the stacks progress, which could be very simple or (as in my example) more complex.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It provides greater but not unlimited ability to match the circumstances of the situation to the raw power actually exercised. Necessary overkill ("I cast Greater Teleport to go 15 feet!") is occasionally frustrating for the player and less-than-elegant in the fiction. Such situations aren't an unqualified problem (often they are tense, fun, hilarious, and usually filled with relief) and eliminating them entirely could be very boring, but my opinion is that a traditional Vancian system, especially one with very few slots, doesn't strike the right balance.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It provides a greater depth of possible casting for the same amount of spell preparation decisions. If a system has 5-10 fire-and-forget spell slots that means there are at most 5-10 chances to be magical with them. The proposed system increases the opportunity to behave magically without moving to pure at-will magic (which has an entirely different feeling) or an overabundance of slots (which requires more decision-making in preparation, sometimes too little practical differentiation from at-will magic, and usually a host of balance problems.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Each stack supports its own little casting theme, granting a range of potential abilities. I think this makes it easier for the character to establish their character's aptitudes during play compared to a traditional Vancian system with few slots. If the stack progression is non-uniform (as in my original example) it also helps people weight those spellcasting themes. A traditional Vancian system with enough slots can support the same feeling, but they are also much more likely to turn into flavorless collections of spells. I have nothing against the concept of the generalist wizard, but I'd like him to be more like a traditional Swiss Army Knife, and less like some 100-function monstrosity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It does the above without making book-keeping a nightmare, at least as far as I can tell. If stacks can be of different levels at the same time it is roughly equivalent to a traditional Vancian system with twice as many slots. If all stacks have the same level, it is roughly equivalent to a Vancian system with the same number of slots.</li> </ol><p>A simpler choice for stack progression would still have these basic features. Fixing the number of stacks and making sure they all increased in lockstep is perfectly reasonable. I chose the more complex progression in part to see if the math could be made to work for something that looks like pre-4e D&D spell progressions, because I figure 5e is probably going to return to something that looks like it, and because I generally like the idea of keeping the broad base of abilities afforded by many spell slots while closely limiting (at least in principle) the number of really powerful spells that can be cast.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for asking, it is a question that should be answered in depth for any system that adds complexity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5907869, member: 70709"] I think the primary benefits are five-fold: [LIST=1] [*]It lets the caster make a consequential tradeoff between immediate powerful casting and long-term (especially >1 day) spell flexibility, and hopefully makes the entire spectrum in between viable. In particular, if one day a character chooses one extreme and his party member chooses the other, they will both wake up the next day with a difference in potential effectiveness closer to that across a gulf than an ocean...they're probably still on the same continent anyway. This empowers different playstyles, campaign paces, and valuations of spell resources. Moreover, it has greater ability for the players to adjust these to the fictional circumstances. Nevertheless, it hopefully nudges people away from extremes which have historically impeded gameplay. Namely, the caster who always goes nova and the (less common) caster who hardly ever casts for fear of not having a spell when truly needed. Note that this benefit doesn't really depend on how the stacks progress, which could be very simple or (as in my example) more complex. [*]It provides greater but not unlimited ability to match the circumstances of the situation to the raw power actually exercised. Necessary overkill ("I cast Greater Teleport to go 15 feet!") is occasionally frustrating for the player and less-than-elegant in the fiction. Such situations aren't an unqualified problem (often they are tense, fun, hilarious, and usually filled with relief) and eliminating them entirely could be very boring, but my opinion is that a traditional Vancian system, especially one with very few slots, doesn't strike the right balance. [*]It provides a greater depth of possible casting for the same amount of spell preparation decisions. If a system has 5-10 fire-and-forget spell slots that means there are at most 5-10 chances to be magical with them. The proposed system increases the opportunity to behave magically without moving to pure at-will magic (which has an entirely different feeling) or an overabundance of slots (which requires more decision-making in preparation, sometimes too little practical differentiation from at-will magic, and usually a host of balance problems.) [*]Each stack supports its own little casting theme, granting a range of potential abilities. I think this makes it easier for the character to establish their character's aptitudes during play compared to a traditional Vancian system with few slots. If the stack progression is non-uniform (as in my original example) it also helps people weight those spellcasting themes. A traditional Vancian system with enough slots can support the same feeling, but they are also much more likely to turn into flavorless collections of spells. I have nothing against the concept of the generalist wizard, but I'd like him to be more like a traditional Swiss Army Knife, and less like some 100-function monstrosity. [*]It does the above without making book-keeping a nightmare, at least as far as I can tell. If stacks can be of different levels at the same time it is roughly equivalent to a traditional Vancian system with twice as many slots. If all stacks have the same level, it is roughly equivalent to a Vancian system with the same number of slots. [/LIST] A simpler choice for stack progression would still have these basic features. Fixing the number of stacks and making sure they all increased in lockstep is perfectly reasonable. I chose the more complex progression in part to see if the math could be made to work for something that looks like pre-4e D&D spell progressions, because I figure 5e is probably going to return to something that looks like it, and because I generally like the idea of keeping the broad base of abilities afforded by many spell slots while closely limiting (at least in principle) the number of really powerful spells that can be cast. Thanks for asking, it is a question that should be answered in depth for any system that adds complexity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wacky pseudo-Vancian casting sytem (long)
Top