D&D 5E What Magic System do you prefer?

[Tony Vargas]

The question here is basically neo-Vancian or variant (and if so, which one). So Sorcerer/Warlocks/etc aren't the focus.

Do you like Druids, Clerics, & Wizards to use by-the-book neo-Vancian (prep any known spells, cast with slots spontaneously), or is there an alternate system you like better?


Edit: The distinction that I tried to draw between old-school and 3.5 'Vancian' was that under old-school, you literally 'memorized' and 'forgot' spells, while in 3.5 you 'prepared' a spells, performing most of it in advance, then triggered or finished it to cast. I remember 'memorization' being very controversial back in the day, and 'preparation' seemed like a big difference. Maybe it's not as significant a distinction as I thought.
Also in 3.x you had cantrips with their own slots, while cantrips were a late addition to classic and were memorized 4 to a 1st level slot. Cantrips seem to be an issue for some folks.
Anyway, it's nothing to do with 3.5 Spontaneous casting.

Edit: It seems doing away with at-will cantrips is not as big as some of the discussions here might have made it seem.

 

[rooneg]

Honestly, for the purposes of Playing D&D my favorite is the 5e system as written. It solves so many problems I previously had, I can't imagine going back.

That said, I think it's a stupid way to represent magic as actually seen in most Fantasy Fiction, but we're talking about Playing D&D here, which is different. If you want magic as seen in non-D&D fiction you need something specifically crafted for the particular fictional magic system you're talking about. D&D doesn't try to do that sort of thing though, so I'm not going to judge it for failing at it.

 

[Mercule]

I utterly loathed the original "Vancian" system and pretty much refused to play a caster using the system. The 5E neo-Vancian (nice phrase, BTW) is playable but still pays homage to the sacred cattle.

I'm not a fan of spell points and am unaware of another 5E alternative. If you want me to go back to previous editions, I did enjoy the 2E fatigue variant from Spells & Magic quite a bit for the Transmuter I played.

Looking at your poll options, it's probably worth remarking that I always described old-school slots as being "hung", per the Amber novels, so I never actually noticed that 3E had changed it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not so much the casting that's an issue to me, as it is the twelve different ways to determine which spells you have access to at any given moment.

That being said, I find the old Vancian system to be too stressful and inefficient to make for an enjoyable game. One of the (many) reasons I quit Pathfinder was that I was tired of playing Oracles, but they were the only class that could cast the standard variety of healing spells without dealing with the Vancian stuff.

 

[iserith]

I'm good with what we have now in D&D 5e. My only complaint is having to cross-reference spell lists from monster stat blocks, but it's not that big a deal. (I don't use a lot of spellcasting monsters it seems.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Could someone explain the practical distinction between the Old School Vancian and the 3.5 Vancian please?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For D&D, what 5th edition presents as standard is my favorite of all the systems I've tried thus far (which happens to include every magic system presented in any official D&D book from about 1983 onward).

However, there are magic systems that I prefer over the D&D system but would not use in D&D because they cause a distinctly different feeling that I don't feel is a good fit for what I play D&D to get (specifically the magic systems from Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, and Mage: the Awakening).

 

[MechaPilot]

As it relates to the resource part of the system, I prefer some manner of points; either some kind of "magic points" or some kind of "fatigue point" system.

As it relates to the actual casting of spells, I prefer if the caster makes some kind of check related to her skill at using magic to cast her spells and to determine how potent or effective the spells are.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Could someone explain the practical distinction between the Old School Vancian and the 3.5 Vancian please?

The old-school version involved different default spell slots and a reduced presence of bonus spells (only clerics got them, if I recall correctly - I know for sure that wizards didn't get them), as well as "clerical spells" only having 7 levels while "wizard spells" had 9 levels. Plus there was a slight favoring of clerics by them having more base spell slots than wizards (likely to account for the need to prepare any healing spells, as spontaneous casting hadn't yet been implemented).

The two versions kind of match up in the mid-range of levels, but 3.5 had significantly more spell slots available to casters in the low-range, and often in the high-range of levels too because of access to higher ability scores and the bonus spell slots provided.

And the 3.5 version incorporated the sorcerer class, while there was no "less spells more often" arcane caster in the prior standard rules.

 

[mellored]

All of the above, depending on the class. except "memorise", which just seems stupid to me.

Wizards get 3.5 style.
Sorcerer's get 5e style.
Psions get lemon curry points.
Warlock get to be special snowflakes. Charging their power based on what they do for their patron.
Clerics should also be special snowflakes. Charging their power based on what they do for their diety.


Really clerics and warlocks can be the same class.