Would anyone prefer spellcasting to stay as it is?

[Geron Raveneye]

It's funny...this discussion reminds me of some other threads, like about bards, where one phenomenon always struck me as a bit odd...namely that in most discussions about the biggest and most popular roleplaying game, 80% of what seems to be important to people is directly linked to how a class behaves in combat. Which is VERY funny considering that the biggest concern in character development (and linked to the rumors about how classes will be sorted in 4E) is the total flexibility and customization of any character available.

I keep wondering why people want their character development to be ultimately flexible if they are only judged by how they do in combat? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't found anybody wondering how to balance the battle tanks better in light of solving complex riddles, deciphering ancient and magical writings, warning about some weird ability of a monster, quoting the legends that tell about that bad-ass magical sword they found, or mixing up some alchemical potion on the fly to counter something nasty. A wizard who considers himself a "commoner with a knife" after he fired off his last spell is really underplaying the rest of his abilities. Apart from the fact that the cry to have every class participate equally in melee will most likely lead to exactly that...a bunch of melee classes (and monsters) that focus even more on the one of a dozen possible scenarios in any RPG: combat.

 

[Nifft]

It's funny...this discussion reminds me of some other threads, like about bards, where one phenomenon always struck me as a bit odd...namely that in most discussions about the biggest and most popular roleplaying game, 80% of what seems to be important to people is directly linked to how a class behaves in combat.

The rules are there to mediate characters overcoming challenges (like combat).

I don't need rules to help me roleplay nearly as much.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WhatGravitas]

A wizard who considers himself a "commoner with a knife" after he fired off his last spell is really underplaying the rest of his abilities. Apart from the fact that the cry to have every class participate equally in melee will most likely lead to exactly that...a bunch of melee classes (and monsters) that focus even more on the one of a dozen possible scenarios in any RPG: combat.

The problem is: The mechanics barely support that aspect. The wizard's skillpoints are only acceptable, because of his usually high intelligence, but nothing else supports his role, in fact, a bard is faaaar better in the role of the knowledgeable sage, because of his bardic knowledge and skillpoints!

If you're talking 'bout "playing smart" - sure. But you can also play a smart tactician, who's a fighter or barbarian.

Personally, I don't need at will-spells, I only want an useful wizard. Give him more skills or free skill focus for certain skills or at least a bardic knowledge-like ability. Give the wizard some tactical abilities, to coordinate his friends in battle, identify monsters and their weaknesses, allowing him to use his intelligence somehow - that would be equally good.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

This explaination actually works pretty well for me, and it's the one I use in my own games. But I still haven't found a decent excuse for why a Wizard can only prepare spells once per day.

Setting aside the fact that a Wizard who's used up all his daily spells is not fatigued, exhausted, or otherwise drained in any mechanically-represented fashion, I can certainly buy that there's some hard limit on how many spells a given Wizard can prepare without resting. What I can't get past is the idea that he has to prepare all his daily spells in the morning, in a single session. Wouldn't it be logical to leave a few slots empty in case some utility spells (things like levitation or comprehend languages) are needed later on? Sure, he'd have to do the whole sit-down-with-the-spellbook-and-meditate bit all over again, but it shouldn't take nearly as long as preparing his whole set.

Well, that "leaving slots empty for later" was dealt with in 3E, which was one of the innovations I really liked (actually, a LOT of the magical innovations were to my liking ). About the wizard not being exhausted or anything...that's a matter of interpretation. I view his maximum amount of spells per day as the amount that he can store and release without suffering any undue exhaustion, so it doesn't have to be represented by a rules mechanic. If I had to come up with something like that, I'd simply have every additional spell he wants to store cause subdual damage equal to spell level, to represent the spell straining the mind of the wizard, until it is discharged. The "Once per day" limit was, as far as I see it, changed to "after 8 hours of sleep/rest/meditation"...which might still sound a tad too inflexible, but on the other hand, a lot of magical traditions add a few hours worth of mental purification and cleansing to any magical ritual, too.

And even if precasting sounds right for Wizards, it's absolute murder to justify for Clerics and Druids. "Oh mighty Pelor, if it be your will, please grant me the boons of bless, cause fear, and summon monster I some time later today, allowing as well the option that I might convert them into cure spells."

*voice of your spell delivery Archon* "If these are your wishes of our almighty lord today, so shall they be granted!"
No, seriously, I can see where it came from...at some point in the past, magic-users were either divine or arcane, and in order to not have TOO many different rules at the tabletop, they simply used similar techniques to prepare their spells. Also, if you like the fantasy trope of wizard-priests, who don't get their stuff directly from a deity, but are "divine wizards", it works as well.
Personally, I simply allowed clerics to spontaneous-cast their allowed spells in 2E...which was when we also had specialty priests who had a more limited spell selection. I didn't have anybody play a cleric in 3E so far, so that hasn't come up again. With 3E and its TONS of cleric spells, and the auto-update function clerics seemed to have on their spell list, it would have been murder, though. One thing I really miss from 2E...specialty priests.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The rules are there to mediate characters overcoming challenges (like combat).

I don't need rules to help me roleplay nearly as much.

Cheers, -- N

True...challenges like puzzles, arcane writing ("Speak friend, and enter" ), identifying a creature's special abilities, cooking up alchemical potions to whip up an impromptu "super-solvent" to unglue the rogue from the trap he got stuck to, identifying the signs of a certain spell active in an area and cloaking it, etc.

I agree...I need less rules for roleplaying my character, too. But some things simply are done with a skill check in 3E. And sometimes I have the impression that the stuff that is interesting in a dungeon beside combat has gotten the shaft at some point. There are so many scenes from movies where the "smart hero" can predict something to happen because he knows how the people who built the structure they are in thought...that could be a wizard right there.

The problem is: The mechanics barely support that aspect. The wizard's skillpoints are only acceptable, because of his usually high intelligence, but nothing else supports his role, in fact, a bard is faaaar better in the role of the knowledgeable sage, because of his bardic knowledge and skillpoints!

If you're talking 'bout "playing smart" - sure. But you can also play a smart tactician, who's a fighter or barbarian.

Personally, I don't need at will-spells, I only want an useful wizard. Give him more skills or free skill focus for certain skills or at least a bardic knowledge-like ability. Give the wizard some tactical abilities, to coordinate his friends in battle, identify monsters and their weaknesses, allowing him to use his intelligence somehow - that would be equally good.

Cheers, LT.

To quote something I heard quite often here on ENWorld...isn't that a really easy thing to houserule in? Like giving wizards 4 or 6 + Int bonus points of skill points?

 

[Thunderfoot]

From what I managed to garner at GenCon, it appears that spell caster level and spells available will now go hand in hand (a good change in my opinion). Also, the entire 'Vancian" system will not just go away. Somehow (which so far isn't all that clear), the designers took the mana system of repeated casting and the "Vancian" system of preparation and combined them. I wish I had more info on this particular aspect of the new edition, because I have the feeling that this, more than any other change will be the 'make or break' selling point.

If it can empower wizards and clerics to a more sustainable role in adventures without allowing them to 'tap the djinn bottle" so to speak, then it may be worth it, if however, every wizard becomes Gandalf or Sauramon, there may be some problems down the road.

 

[GreatLemur]

Well, that "leaving slots empty for later" was dealt with in 3E, which was one of the innovations I really liked (actually, a LOT of the magical innovations were to my liking ). About the wizard not being exhausted or anything...that's a matter of interpretation. I view his maximum amount of spells per day as the amount that he can store and release without suffering any undue exhaustion, so it doesn't have to be represented by a rules mechanic. If I had to come up with something like that, I'd simply have every additional spell he wants to store cause subdual damage equal to spell level, to represent the spell straining the mind of the wizard, until it is discharged. The "Once per day" limit was, as far as I see it, changed to "after 8 hours of sleep/rest/meditation"...which might still sound a tad too inflexible, but on the other hand, a lot of magical traditions add a few hours worth of mental purification and cleansing to any magical ritual, too.

Oh, I'll be the first to admit that Vancian magic can be made much more sensible with a little houseruling. And lot of great stuff (as you pointed out earlier in the thread) has already been done, particularly by third-party publishers. My only complaint is with the idea of traditional Vancian spellcasting as being a good fit for a baseline norm of fantasy setting magic use.

Personally, I simply allowed clerics to spontaneous-cast their allowed spells in 2E...which was when we also had specialty priests who had a more limited spell selection. I didn't have anybody play a cleric in 3E so far, so that hasn't come up again. With 3E and its TONS of cleric spells, and the auto-update function clerics seemed to have on their spell list, it would have been murder, though. One thing I really miss from 2E...specialty priests.

Oh, you and me both. There's no reason in the world that the Clerics of all gods should get the nearly-uniform suite of powers they do in 3.x. Domains are nice, but I don't see why the god of music should care so much about undead and healing.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing divine spellcasting dropped altogether, and Clerics, Druids, and Paladins given more strongly themed abilities which function according to a different (and perhaps simpler) system from arcane spellcasting. Ain't holding my breath, though.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Oh, I'll be the first to admit that Vancian magic can be made much more sensible with a little houseruling. And lot of great stuff (as you pointed out earlier in the thread) has already been done, particularly by third-party publishers. My only complaint is with the idea of traditional Vancian spellcasting as being a good fit for a baseline norm of fantasy setting magic use.

Bah, never! Whoever claims that doesn't really read fantasy....there's SO much weird stuff in that genre where "magic" is concerned. On the other hand...I'm not sure I really would like D&D to try and turn into a system that can simulate anything found in fantasy literature. But that is a matter of taste, and not really sensible as discussion topic.

 

[Nifft]

True...challenges like puzzles, arcane writing ("Speak friend, and enter" ), identifying a creature's special abilities, cooking up alchemical potions to whip up an impromptu "super-solvent" to unglue the rogue from the trap he got stuck to, identifying the signs of a certain spell active in an area and cloaking it, etc.

The things you list here are either applicable to combat (critter's special abilities, spell active in an area), or are challenges to the players (not meant to be solved via dice).

I would suggest that your character's abilities shouldn't figure too heavily in the latter.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The things you list here are either applicable to combat (critter's special abilities, spell active in an area), or are challenges to the players (not meant to be solved via dice).

I would suggest that your character's abilities shouldn't figure too heavily in the latter.

Cheers, -- N

With all due respect (and an amount of personal agreement), I have to disagree in the context of 3.X

A spell active in an area could be an illusion that covers up an entrance, an enchantment placed on a certain object waiting for somebody to touch it, or something like a permanent Gate installed in a doorway. Although the latter might also be a magical item, of course. Doesn't always have to do with combat. Be creative, mang!

If all dice rolls should either be directly related to combat, or not needed because the challenge is for the player instead of the character, we'd not need a skill system. We could go back to simple attribute checks. Skill checks make sure that classes can shine in their niches without the player being able to cite the greek mythology for Medusa's special ability, or to correctly translate the SATOR, AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS palindrome to get some important clue. As such, Knowledge skills are the second most important tool a wizard has along with alchemy and spellcraft, and a DM should make use of those to challenge any wizard in the group as much as he uses traps and secret doors to challenge a rogue outside of combat (wanna see a player simulate dodging a 10' spiked pole ), or social encounters to challenge bards outside of combat.