Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[Doug McCrae]

If it's a choice between:

1) Vancian magic. Spells per day.
2) Semi-Vancian. Spells per encounter.
3) Spell points.

I'd go for option 2. You keep the simplicity of Vancian, which is its strength, but avoid the four encounters per day, which is impossible to enforce.

Follow the WoW/manga model, give everyone 'spells', including fighters and rogues. Balance all classes at all levels.

If D&D could manage this it would at last be true to what I feel Gygax was originally aiming for with the concept of the adventuring party - different abilities, equally useful. As it currently stands, WoW has been more true to that vision than any edition of D&D.

 

[McBard]

I suppose there are two distinct, elements of the Vancian system that are at issue: 1) Prepared spell casting and 2) Spell Slots. D&D 3.x addressed the first issue with the Sorcerer and Warlock (they don't have to prepare spells ahead of time). My question to those who hate the Vancian system, are you also wanting to throw out the current distinction between a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and a Warlock?

Also, I think that beyond low levels (certainly by the time of double-digit levels) Vancian spell slots (issue two) come very close, in practice, to working like spell points. Almost. I mean, how many encounters are people having at 12th level where the fighter-types aren't running out of hit points before the wizard is running out of spell slots. I guess my (slightly exaggerated) point is that Vancian spell slots only feal like clunky, out-dated, restrictive spells slots at the lowest levels. Not sure what difference my point makes other than that I think most Vancian discussions stem from its impact on low-level play.

Last question: for those advocating a per-encounter approach, how will this affect divine spell healing? Wouldn't this demand some sort of "fatigue" cost to healing, since clerics could heal all day long?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Last question: for those advocating a per-encounter approach, how will this affect divine spell healing? Wouldn't this demand some sort of "fatigue" cost to healing, since clerics could heal all day long?

If all abilities are on a per-encounter basis it would be logical to have everyone fully heal between encounters.

Healing would be in combat only or a better solution would be to do away with clerics altogether.

 

[DogBackward]

Well, I came up with a system based on some musings of Monte Cook's over at his website. I haven't done much with it yet, and it's gonna be a big project, but it would address that very concern.

At the most basic level, you have a mana pool that regenerates at the rate of one per round, as long as you don't cast a spell in that round. Simple spells cost a certain amount of mana, and consist of the simple, easy-to-use effects that aren't a big deal if they can be done all day (albeit with a rest period of a few round sin between to let your mana regenerate), such as simple damage, defense, and such things.

Then you have Complex spells, which do the more powerful or bigger effect. These include Cure X spells, summoning spells, Polymorph, and the other big ones, as well as any spell with a casting time of longer than one round (because it makes sense... they take longer to cast because they're... complex spels). The thing is, that any Mana spent on a Complex spell isn't regained until you get your 8 hours of rest.

It comes together with both ideas. You can do the basic stuff all you want, with a few rounds of rest in between. But you still have to manage your resources when using the bigger, more widely effective spells. Not only because you won't be able to use the Complex spells but so many times a day, but also because using Complex spells means you have less Mana left to use your Simple spells, as well. Best of both worlds, as it were.

The main problem is that it'll take a ton of work to get running, for just one person (me, that is). I need to either come up with a whole new list of spells designed for this idea, or go through all the existing spells and divide them into either Simple or Complex.

But if WotC used this system for 4e, I think it would address everybody's concerns on the matter. It would be slightly more complex, but I've actually tried it with a sample spell list, and it's not much more complicated than keeping track of which spells you've prepared and which ones you cast.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Last question: for those advocating a per-encounter approach, how will this affect divine spell healing? Wouldn't this demand some sort of "fatigue" cost to healing, since clerics could heal all day long?

Ah, that's my stick. I *hate* too fast healing. I abhor the Dragon Shamans Fast Healing ability. I *like* the fact, that successive encounters drain the character's resources... non-stop fighting is not something I want.

I want per-encounter spell, because I think that that arbitrarily "recharging" of spells is strange. I want per-encounter spells, because I think spellcasters should be able to contribute to the party in every encounter... and I don't like the fact, that spellcasters tend to set the party's pace.

I like:
"We're wounded and tired - we need to rest."

I dislike:
"We're out of spells - wee need to rest."

In my (dream-)world, people usually rest, because they're tired and fatigued (i.e. low hp), not because they're out of magical ammo (i.e. spells).

This means, of course, that healing spells only work over time (improve daily healing, depending on caster leve), or - the in-battle ones - drain other significant resources (the caster's hp or even his casting abilities for a *long* time, like ability burn).

YMMV, of course.

 

[FireLance]

Last question: for those advocating a per-encounter approach, how will this affect divine spell healing? Wouldn't this demand some sort of "fatigue" cost to healing, since clerics could heal all day long?

Another approach (one I'm planning to try out soon) is to make true healing very rare. However, at the start of each encounter, characters get vitality points/virtual hit points/temporary hit points equal to their full normal hit points, and only start taking "real" damage when these points are used up. Most spells and abilities that restore hit points restore virtual hit points instead, up to the character's normal hit point maximum. This way, we can still have in-combat healing, but the effects do not carry over from encounter to encounter. Characters can still wear down their actual hit points in a tough fight or if they are unlucky, but the virtual hit points provide them with some buffer in every fight.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Basically, you have four main models of resource management:

Per Encounter

HP, MP/spell slots and status effects refresh between encounters. Mook battles do not exist except as opportunities for players to show off their characters' abilities (and may be handled purely in narrative form). Every encounter worth playing is a climactic encounter, interesting in itself from a tactical perspective or dramatic because of the storyline building up to it (possibly both). Resource management occurs in the course of an encounter and can be quite complex; when it's generally understood that you only bother with the most significant encounters, those encounters are expected to take every last drop of your renewable resources. Casting Fire on the second turn, even if it eliminates an enemy, may mean you can't cast Cure on the second-to-last turn and you'll lose the battle; on the flip side, NOT eliminating the enemy on the second turn may mean you'll lose the battle because you have to cast more Cure spells earlier.

In electronic games, you see this in the vast majority of tactical games: Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem - going back as far as X-Com at the least, perhaps further.

The only things that carry over between encounters are item charges (usually one-use 'Potion' type items, although X-Com ammo is an exception), money (for buying items/equipment) and character death (many of these games, such as X-Com, Fire Emblem and Tactics Ogre, are much less forgiving about death - there's no resurrrection available and no 0 to -10 hp threshold). These expendable resources generally NEVER refresh; items must be re-bought or, if they can't be purchased, are lost forever; slain characters never come back.

Per Time Increment

The system used in World of Warcraft and most MMORPGs, as well as a few games of other types (most recently Final Fantasy 12). This is difficult and cumbersome to track in a tabletop RPG, and doesn't offer a lot of benefits over 'Per Rest Period,' which is probably why it rarely shows up in that media.

In a Per Time Increment game, encounters tend to be of the 'whittle the party down' variety, but major encounters are often also intended to challenge a full-powered party. 'Magic points' or 'technique points' and sometimes even hit points recover over time; it's not unusual to run in circles (or stand still) waiting for these points to regenerate. Unsurprisingly, these games often use random encounters. Non-point-based resources are generally refreshed with cash; resurrection in non-single-player-or-character games is almost always very easy.

This system is very difficult to balance for because it's almost impossible to predict character resources. One's resources are mostly based on one's patience.

Per Rest Period

Familiar to D&D players, mainline Final Fantasy players prior to FF12, and players of the vast majority of tabletop and electronic RPGs. It's more accurate to say 'per rest period' than 'per day' because a D&D day doesn't represent 24 hours - it represents the amount of time it takes for spellcasters to use up their spells.

In this system, individual encounters tend to whittle down party resources, the intention being that PCs will have a certain number of encounters in between rest periods. In electronic RPGs, this is often enforced by only allowing characters to rest in towns, while in tabletop RPGs it is usually enforced via a combination of time limits and random encounters.

This system is probably the second-easiest to design properly for. It places about the same number of constraints on design as per-encounter balancing, but those constraints are different. Per-encounter means removing resource-ablation encounters, whereas per-rest period mandates them. Per-rest period also requires some means of preventing characters from resting after every encounter.

Per Game

Under this extremely harsh model, all or most resources are carried over from encounter to encounter and even from rest period to rest period. 'Hit points,' if they exist at all, do not heal or heal very slowly. Staple items either have very limited effects or cannot be bought (or money is intended to be cripplingly tight); even weapons and armor wear out with use. Death is almost certainly permanent. Magic usually carries with it a permanent cost in life or sanity, or is accessed from rare single-use items.

This type of system is very hard to design adventures for, because how the characters fared in a previous scenario directly impacts their power level in the next. It's been done admirably in Call of Cthulhu (both d20 and BRP) and, in a very different style, in Wild ARMs 3 (until the last third of the game).

 

[Arkhandus]

I don't know if it will, and I don't mind WotC experimenting with alternative systems to generate interest with folks who may be bored of the traditional D&D magic system, but I sure hope they don't give Vancian magic the boot.

I'd just like to see the system simplified a bit in 4E, with psionics thrown into the core as well but using its own 'psionic strength point'/'power point'-based manifestations and simplified further. Really wouldn't be hard. Other systems like Incarnum, Truenamers, and other stuff can be updated in their own supplements later.

Example:
4E PHB includes the Bard, using spontaneous arcane magic, with a spell list of mixed druid/wizard spells and a handful of unique bard spells that replace Bardic Music and have a duration of 'Concentration' with the caveat in their descriptions that the bard must continue singing, playing an instrument, chanting, or whatever to keep these spells active. Then it also includes the Sorcerer, with no spellcasting but a warlock-esque selection of spell-like abilities, not limited to fiendish stuff. Then it's got the Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin of course, with their prepared divine spells and maybe some limited spontaneous substitution capacity (cleric for domain spells and cure or inflict spells maybe, druid and ranger for SNA spells, paladin for cure spells). Then there's the Wizard, using the occasional Spell Mastery feat to make a spell (or a couple of spells) available for spontaneous substitution if he needs it, but otherwise casting prepared arcane spells. And the Psion and Psychic Warrior, or a singular Psionicist (I really did prefer 2E's kinda-roguish-basic-stats Psionicist with limited powers over 3E's division of the class), with their own reserve of psionic strength points, or psi, or mental stamina, or whatever, and a small selection of powers to learn.

For the casters, you got a small number of spell slots. Maybe a 1st-level wizard starts with 3 slots of 1st-level available each day, before factoring in any bonus slots. No 0-level slots; just bring back the old Cantrip 1st-level spell, that covers all the neat little utility purposes of cantrips. Detect Magic and Read Magic might be combined into one spell, See Magic, or just kept as separate 1st-level spells. Wizards and maybe others might have the option to substitute these two for any prepared spells when desired, since they're so basic and integral to the learning of magic. By 5th-level a wizard's spell slots may have changed to 1 of 3rd-level, 2 of 2nd-level, and 4 of 1st-level. By 9th-level it may have changed to 1 of 5th-level, 2 of 4th, 3 of 3rd, and 4 of 2nd. Lower-level spells can still be cast with higher-level slots, so the 2nd-level slots obviate the need for any 1st-level slots at that point. By 17th-level a wizard may have 1 slot of 9th-level, 2 of 8th, 3 of 7th, and 4 of 6th. By 20th, it could be 3 of 9th-level, 3 of 8th, 3 of 7th, and 3 of 6th. There might be spells like Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer or similar that allow the wizard to cast a few lower-level spells in place of a single upper-level slot, when he really doesn't want to waste more than 1 or 2 good slots on weak spells just because they're handy utility at the moment.

So even the most advanced non-epic caster only has 12 spell slots, plus any bonus slots. Specialization probably wouldn't grant bonus slots in this set-up, but a specialist wizard would probably get some other benefits that make his school's spells slightly more efficient and potent. Domains probably wouldn't grant extra spells either, a cleric would probably just count his domain spells as extra spells known, and ones that he or she could substitute spontaneously for other prepared spells. The Healing domain, or its successor, would probably give a more significant boost to healing spells if all clerics are able to sub-in Cures in 4E (since many of its spells would already be covered by that). But I dunno. Maybe Domains would be more like the old Spheres of spells, determining the cleric's spell list rather than just granting a few extra spells known.

Psionics would be even simpler, really. Get rid of the level-based set-up that 3E added; just make 3 or 4 tiers of powers. 1st-tier would be simplest in effect; Minor Telekinesis, Telekinetic Push, Telekinetic Strike, etc. Just a handful of effects for each discipline of psionics. Another, smaller handful for the 2nd-tier; more advanced ones that might replace the lower-tier prerequisite powers, or might be used alongside them (frex, Minor TK may be much cheaper in PSP/PP cost to manifest, but Greater TK might be much stronger and farther-reaching). And another, even smaller handful of powers per discipline for the 3rd-tier, which would combine aspects of lesser powers (True TK may be like a combination of Greater TK, Greater TK Push, Greater TK Strike, etc.). If a 4th-tier is used, it'd just be a narrower and more potent step-up from the 3rd-tier.

Access to the 2nd-tier would probably be around 5th-level, 3rd-tier around 10th-level, and 4th-tier around 15th-level, or if going with just 3, then 2nd-tier at 7th and 3rd-tier at 15th. The powers would have limited augmentation capacity or something, so a standard 1st-tier power may be like a 1st-level spell while a fully-augmented 1st-tier power may resemble a 3rd-level spell but slightly weaker and less efficient, for example.

Manifesters would probably have a proportionately much smaller reserve of power points than spellcasters have slots; a 1st-level psionicist may have enough PSP/PP to manifest 2 powers of the 1st-tier each day, before factoring in bonus points, while a 20th-level psionicist may be able to afford a maximum of 4 or 5 powers per day of the highest tier, before factoring in bonus points (which may be just enough for 1 more high-tier power); while he could eventually 'nova' a bit better than a mage (only in terms of being able to use their best powers for 1-3 rounds longer), the mage would still be blasting away fairly well for a full minute or two longer of intense combat (having fewer highest-level slots, but many next-highest-level and next-next-highest level slots). The psionicist's powers would also likely be a bit less potent anyway, when it comes to blasting.

And for Pete's sake, ditch the crystalpunk and psi-does-everything-magic-does nonsense of 3.5E psionics.

 

[FireLance]

For the casters, you got a small number of spell slots. Maybe a 1st-level wizard starts with 3 slots of 1st-level available each day, before factoring in any bonus slots.

...

So even the most advanced non-epic caster only has 12 spell slots, plus any bonus slots.

Right now, I'm wondering whether it is even necessary to specify what level the spell slots are. Instead, a spellcaster can simply fill each slot with any of the spells that he knows, in much the same why that a martial adept from the Book of Nine Swords can ready any maneuver he knows up to his maximum maneuvers readied. The main limitation then will be on the number of spells known. If a spellcaster doesn't know more then two or three of the highest level spells he can cast, he won't be able to fill more than two or three of his spell slots with his highest-level spells.

 

[Rothe]

I've always seen spell casting as one of the most modular of systems.

I prefer: (a) Limited Number of Spells Memorizable, (b) Do Not Forget Them After Casting, (c) Spells "powered" by Spell Points, (d) Need Base Number of Spell Points to Cast and Extra Spell Points Can Be Used to Increase Power (within limits), (e) Non-Trivial Chance of Failure, (f) Chance of Being Injured by Failure Proportional to Spell Points put Into Spell, (g) "Slow" Flat Recharge Rate of Spell Points (i.e., resting 24 hrs is not always 100% recharge, but only x spell points. As you get more spell points it takes alot longer to recharge all of them), (h) Careful Attention to Balancing Spell Power and Spell Point Cost Across Spell Levels.

I wouldn't be a big fan of recharge per encounter.