I have lost the plot of this thread. What is this about? Wizards?
Looking at the original inspiration of D&D wizards, Vance, the D&D version has over the years gotten far more versatile compared to its source. I have to say I kinda like the original where each spell is powerful but rare over the current spamming of magic lasers. I feel casters these days have too many spell slots, and to tie back to the actual topic of D&D being a game, I also think it is more interesting game-wise if you actually need to make hard decisions about your resources.
I am sympathetic to these concerns, but there's a countervailing concern that is arguably stronger, and part of what brings people in to D&D things. (There's a reason it's one of the few things semi-common between 4e and PF1e.)
That is,
class fantasy. One of the benefits of a class-based game, as opposed to other approaches like pure point-buy or short-run "kits" you stitch together over time, is that classes offer (I would say "promise") a particular class fantasy: an
experience that the player can then embellish, alter, defy, or question. Paladin offers the Knight in Shining Armor class fantasy, the devoted servant empowered to fulfill an oath unto the bitter end (whether that oath be for weal or for woe.) Warlock offers the Faustian Bargain class fantasy, patron and client using one another, the heroic client wresting power from the hubristic patron, the villainous client inevitably undone by their foolishly biased exchange. Sorcerer offers the Inborn Power class fantasy: to awaken one day and find power flows in your very veins, and now you are connected to something both influential and dangerous without your intent. Druid offers the One With Nature class fantasy, someone who straddles the line between savage and civic, between man and beast, between material and spiritual--and blurs that line whenever it is advantageous to do so. Etc.
Fulfilling that class fantasy on the regular, not just at long intervals, is an important gamist consideration, believe it or not. The game can, and should, make you feel like these class choices really matter. (This is just one of several reasons why it is necessary to pursue asymmetrical balance in
game design, not merely aesthetic design.)
The problem is, the ultra-classic Vancian structure is directly, intentionally, incompatible with feeling that class fantasy mattering on the regular. The
whole point is that it can only matter rarely, but in a big way. This is putting all one's eggs in a single basket, with predictable results: the big moments really hit, but the duds hurt even more. Their rarity does sweeten them, but the droughts between draughts can parch, badly. Especially when you know that other players are getting to do their thing quite regularly.
If you have a better solution than simply going back to that boom-and-bust approach, I'd love to hear it, but honestly, I don't think there really is one. The whole point of the Vancian structure is to punctuate
rare dramatic moments--which is fine, because that's part of telling a prewritten narrative, where the author's whole job is making sure that those moments really
land. I don't think it translates well to TTRPGs for the same reason I don't think the structure of psychohistory (since I've recently been re-reading Asimov's work) translates well to TTRPGs. The scope is...just
off.
Some amount of concession to "actually fulfilling the class fantasy in the small moments" is unavoidable, I think. Anything less will chafe. So, what concessions are sufficient without being excessive--since you find the current situation excessive? These come to mind (but are far from comprehensive, I'm sure):
- Cantrips remain as they are or toned down a little, but spells are much more sharply limited, perhaps slightly increased in power. A Wizard deploys perhaps two or three Spells a day, but they should generally be devastating when they are. Outside of that, though, they are left with relatively weak cantrips, not useless, but clearly feeble magic in comparison to their phenomenal power. (This is, effectively, "status quo tweaked." That makes it both more likely to work out, and more likely to leave everyone dissatisfied, as such things so often go.)
- Cantrips become more like ammunition. You don't have only four cantrips a day flat, but you also can't use them indefinitely. Like having an arrow of quivers. Perhaps preparing the same cantrip twice lets you use it more often? (This is, essentially, going back to the old way with a slight tweak for approachability--and carries most of the problems associated with going back to old ways.)
- The old 3e "reserve feat" concept. That is, as long as you have a prepared spell of <type>, you can perform a cantrip-like effect. This would need to be adjusted since spells are no longer prepared into specific slots anymore, but I'm sure something could be done.
- "Recharge" or some other mechanic like that, where the Wizard can periodically (e.g., per short rest) regain some of their weaker mojo (perhaps based on spell slots they've consumed or schools they've cast that day?) through resting and meditation etc. Essentially, your power tapers off, rather than being a flash-and-fizzle situation.
- The Spheres of Power type system, where magic becomes much more focused. I rather like this approach, but it does diverge quite far from where D&D's magic system came from.
- The obvious, but IMO exceedingly unlikely, "make magic painful/dangerous to use." I personally think this is an absolute non-starter that would never appeal to enough people.
Have you any other ideas how to address this gap, between the desire for punchy-but-rare spells, and the pretty demonstrable need for fulfilling class fantasy at the table on the regular?
