Incenjucar
Legend
4E had Vancian magic, 5E does not. Dailies were Vancian. Edit: 5E killed Vancian magic but vastly increased the number of dailies.
Last edited:
In a non-DnD game I wanted to create a character based on the Little Match girl (Hans Christian Andersen) who had survived the night and grown up to be a alchemist pyromancer - so she got to use her matches for divination (scry through fire) and arcane portal (via fires) as well as the more offensive flare, firebomb, smoke cloud and wall of fireMy design approach would be to design a number of wizard variants each with a very thematic focus. Illusion wizard, fire magic wizard, telekinesis wizard etc. etc. These core powers would be represented by a class ability that scales as you level up and which contains some degree of flexibility. For example a fire wizard shouldn't just have fireball so a fire wizard's main ability should consist of a few different fire related powers.
In addition to this, each wizard should have a small set of utility spells. These can be swapped out as needed, but the keyword is they have a small amount of these. In short: A hypothetical fire wizard would have
- A main ability that provides a few different ways to use fire both offensively and defensively. This scales with level. This includes an at-will power like a cantrip.
- A set of support spells whose number is small and which are not restricted to the theme of the wizard
You're so wrong it's laughable. Seriously are you trolling?Given that Vancian casting hasn't returned in 5e and I have literally never heard anyone complain no they weren't. 5e magic uses the 3.5 psionics system. The core problem with 4e is that the entire project was given 24 months from initiation to release - and they went back to the drawing board 10 months in while not changing the release date. 14 months simply was nowhere near enough time and 4e was released undercooked (as well as the tools being derailed by a murder-suicide).
And I'm trying to think if I've ever met someone in the real world who liked the wizard "pretty much as is". Rather than takes the wizard class because they want to play a wizard and is disappointed by the implementation. Which is another reason I think the wizard would make a fine subclass; the spellbook mechanic is a niche interest that absolutely should not be cut and absolutely would support a subclass.
Please no.What if they added a Vancian arcane caster class that was actually Vancian. I wonder if anyone would actually play one.
The only way we can finally lay to rest Vance's tortured, haunted, undead soul is to give it a body to be buried in.Please no.
Let's add a good caster instead.
Still do.What if they added a Vancian arcane caster class that was actually Vancian. I wonder if anyone would actually play one.
Bind it to the wizard, then delete the wizard.The only way we can finally lay to rest Vance's tortured, haunted, undead soul is to give it a body to be buried in.
I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying that it's what it deserves to be. It has all the range and diversity of a subclass and is a spellcaster with one central mechanic the way a sorcerer subclass should be. If we were to start from a blank sheet it's where it would be. It will, however, continue to be the single most over-supported class despite being bland because tradition.You're so wrong it's laughable. Seriously are you trolling?
Wizard as a sub-class? Put that to the vote and you'll be buried under an overwhelming vote of no!
Pick a different class if you hate the existing wizard class so much - give it a different name and have fun playing it. Who knows I may even give it a try. If you want something different then invent it but don't destroy what's already there that people love. Don't you get this?