Would you play in a spontaneous-only spellcaster game? FT: Should complexity vary...

[Remathilis]

Forked from: Should complexity vary across classes?

That got me thinking...

There are only three classes with "unlimited" options in 3e: cleric, druid, and wizard. What a coincidence they are considered the most "broken" or "abusive" classes in 3e as well...

Compare them with their three "spontaneous" cousins: favored soul, bard and sorcerer. Each loses handily. No favored soul can match the sheer "yes I can!" power of a fully-prepared cleric (which grows quadratically with each supplement littering the clerics "I know that" list). and no sorcerer can solve the myriad of problems a wizard with a loaded spellbook can (which most wizards have good spellbooks come 7th level, they have the gold to invest in research or purchasing scrolls by then). An no bard, jack-of-all-trades be damned, can match the druids "I can heal, I can nuke, I can maul you as a bear" power.

A lot of complaints about sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) was levied at them being "too weak". I think they were probably balanced against other classes (like fighters or rogues, who are flexible at char-gen, but set during play) but not against prep-casters, who could rebuild themselves to suit whatever problem came along, given 24 hours advance warning.

What 4e did was effectively turn clerics and wizards into favored-souls and sorcerers. You have limited choices (picked at char-gen) but near-constant ability to use them. (With the added side-benefit of turning many problem-solver spells into rituals, which are castable as long as you have gold to pay).

I never got to try this out, but I'm sure many, if not all, problems with casters overshadowing other characters could be fixed with replacing them with spontaneous-only counterparts. In essence, by limiting clerics, druids and wizards to 45-55 spells max (0-9th level) you could remove a lot of potential problems.

Problem being, I think most dedicated spellcaster-type players with chafe, if not outright revolt, at the idea of wizards and clerics being knocked down a peg or three.

Well, do you chafe?

Specifically, lets set up a scenario.

Your DM is starting a new campaign. Its going to be mostly-normal D&D, but he's made a few adjustments to the caster classes.

* There is no wizard class. Sorcerers replace them.
* The same goes for Clerics. Its replaced either by the spontaneous variant in Unearthed Arcana, or the Dragonlance Mystic.
* Druids are replaced with the spontaneous variant in UA.
* Paladins and Rangers are either limited in spells known akin to the hexblade/spellthief table or use the spell-less variants in Complete Warrior.
* Prestige-classes are on a case-by-case, but any that grant their own pool of spells known will be limited accordingly (probably using the assassin spells known)
* Metamagic would no longer require a full-round action to cast, just the higher spell slot.
* Bards, fighters, barbarians, rogues, and monks stay as-is.
* Magic Items, monster CR, and such would be typical core.

Well, would you play? Would you be a spellcaster? Why or why not?

 

[Crothian]

I've played and ran this game. It was fine, no issues.

 

[JeffB]

Good campaign setting ?

a good DM?

equal emphasis on exploration, mystery, story, and combat?

I'm in.


That's all I really care about when it comes to playing D&D. I'd play a sorcerer if I felt like it or whatever else struck my fancy that was allowed.

 

[Delta]

Okay, fundamentally that's what's done in my "Diminutive d20" (link below -- really just using UA's Generic Classes which does the same). The only spellcaster is the Wizard using spontaneous casting. For flavor issues I would like more frequent "re-studying" via a spellbook, maybe be able to swap out your list after 1-4 weeks of study or something. But for new-player ease I like not having to evaluate and tick off spells from a larger list every morning. (Probably need more playtesting to see how happy I am with all of that.)

However, I also playtested spontaneous diving casters, thinking it would down 3E Clerics a peg, which I think we're in dire need of. But holy crap, in my playtests it made them MORE powerful! Pick a couple good healing spells, one or two good 3E blasting spells, and you're off to the races. Perfect efficiency in how much nonstop blasting/healing you want to deal out. Now, maybe someday you'll need an exotic curative like "remove curse" or "cure blindness" and not have it accessible, but on an encounter-by-encounter basis, spontaneous casting made 3E Clerics even MORE powerful from what I could tell.

The other minor logistical thing is there's something nice to prepared spells in play for the DM, just crossing off spells as they're used (also providing record of what was used). With spontaneous casting, you have to keep side tally marks in the margin or something, not quite as elegant.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I voted yes, and I would play a spellcaster. I played a caster in a really fun GURPS game once where the only magic at all was improvisational. There were no defined spells, those with magical talent had to create unique manifestations of magic on the spot. Power level of the effects were based on skills with different elements and how creative and entertaining the effect was. Magic was never boring or predictable.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd be entirely in favor of this, and I would play a sorceror.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I voted "Yes, but I would play a non-caster" because even spontaneous casting isn't enough to get me to play a D&D spellcaster. However, I said Yes because if I did play a D&D spellcaster I'd rather play a spontaneous one.

Also I prefer the idea of magic being spontaneous rather than acting like grenades you make each morning.

 

[Voadam]

This is my preferred spellcasting style in general.

I've played spontaneous caster druids and clerics in games where the normal one was the default option but the DM agreed to let me play the variants.

 

[Whitemouse]

Good campaign setting ?

a good DM?

equal emphasis on exploration, mystery, story, and combat?

I'm in.

Ditto.

That's all I really care about when it comes to playing D&D. I'd play a sorcerer if I felt like it or whatever else struck my fancy that was allowed.

Ditto again.

As long as everything is planned and well thought out and the DM has a handle of these things it makes no never mind.

 

[Greg K]

I would play depending upon the DM, the group's gaming style, and the supplements (if any) being used. It already sounds similiar in many ways to the type of game I run:
- divine casters use the Unearthed Arcana spontaneous divine casting and have a more restrictive spell list.
- Paladins and Rangers have the option to receive bonus feats instead of spells.
- Very few PrCs are used.

And, while I would normally use either Elements of Magic or UA spellpoints w/vitalizing and a trimmed down spell list for arcane casters, I have also toyed with the idea of removing wizards as a base class (making a Wizard PrC) and just using sorcerers.