Vancian magic is back!

Comments?


Love? Bitterness? 


How about you provide a link or image as proof?
It looks like we can expect fighters to be doing more damage at upper levels and wizards NOT being the top of the food chain. Vancian magic will make a return with wizards getting big spells less often.
I too want proof if it is I will not touch 5e for anything. Vancian casting should stay DEAD.  EVERY class should use same power progression without that the game isnt going to be balanced.
Y'know 4e essentially had Vancian wizards, right?  I mean, not pure Vancian casting, but they still had daily spells which were memorized from a (very short) list at the start of the day, then forgotten immediately upon use.

My point being: Vancian casting hasn't been "DEAD" yet, and that it is making a return is... not very informative at all - we need to know a lot more (though at the most basic level, I guess the question is: is it pure vancian casting, or some kind of hybrid?).


That aside, I hadn't realized how important wizardy at-will powers were to me, until opening this thread.  If my magic characters are only "magic" some of the time, and are just very weak crossbowmen the rest of the time... well, I wouldn't make any snap judgements based solely on that, but it would be a very strong mark against the game, for me personally.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I too want proof if it is I will not touch 5e for anything. Vancian casting should stay DEAD.  EVERY class should use same power progression without that the game isnt going to be balanced.



Well, that's not entirely true. Knights and Thieves, for instance, lacked daily powers, yet they were more than capable of competing with the best of them. Balance can always be achieved without the sacrifice of diversity, we just haven't seen the best example of that.

Anyway, I'm with the skeptics here. How can we take your word for it OP? Any proof?
the proof is on the transcript from todays seminar, straight out of montes mouth. he says something like 'vancian magic ID d&d'. the forum rules prevent me from saying anything else about it

I really like Wizards having At-Will spells that they can use all day long, even if they aren't very powerful I just don't like them having to pull out a crossbow when they run out of Dailies.


If they keep something like that in I have no issue with vancian casting. Will making classes run off of different subsystems make balance more difficult? Probably. Will it make it impossible? Of course not. Essentials showed us that classes did not have to progress the same way for balance to be maintained. Now essentials may have had some issues and not be for everyone but I think it showed that you can balance things outside the AEDU straightjacket.


I want tactically interesting fighters like 4e gave us but that doesn't mean I need a Daily Strike of Ultimate Bossmode to do it. What if Fighters had encounter based powers while Wizards had Daily vancian spells but both having At-Will options to fall back on? I think that could work.


I really like Wizards having At-Will spells that they can use all day long, even if they aren't very powerful I just don't like them having to pull out a crossbow when they run out of Dailies.


If they keep something like that in I have no issue with vancian casting. Will making classes run off of different subsystems make balance more difficult? Probably. Will it make it impossible? Of course not. Essentials showed us that classes did not have to progress the same way for balance to be maintained. Now essentials may have had some issues and not be for everyone but I think it showed that you can balance things outside the AEDU straightjacket.


I want tactically interesting fighters like 4e gave us but that doesn't mean I need a Daily Strike of Ultimate Bossmode to do it. What if Fighters had encounter based powers while Wizards had Daily vancian spells but both having At-Will options to fall back on? I think that could work.



Why cant everyone have at will encounter and daily powers? To me that's the best way.  I hate the slayer and the knight because they are boring to play they dont have real powers and no real abilities beyond basica attacks.  A character has to have more than that.  I love encounter powers for all classes everyone contributing equally.  I'm not a fan of essentials I'm much more in favor of every class using the same basic structure but using it in dif ways.  I hate dif classes having dif subsystems.
Basically what was said at the seminar is that Vancian spellcasting is back, but that spells would not increase in power as you gained levels.  So a 3rd level spell would always do 5d6 points of damage.  If you want to do more, use a higher level spell slot.

They made references to "Spell Feats" which would give Wizards at-will like powers.
Yeah, I honestly can't see how At-Wills paired with Vancian casting could be anything but awesome.  I personally don't need my L1 Wizzy to be able to spam MM, but I sure ain't opposed to it, either.  I like Vancian and I understand the people that think it sucks to lose your magical ability after a few spells.  Combining the two seems like a good idea.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

To be fair, while Monte did say that Vancian magic is iconic to D&D, he also said that they would be enabling wizards to have at-will abilities that they could use as well.

I think as long as the wizard isn't reduced to using a crossbow, and some attempt is made to rein in the wizard's ability to constantly dominate high-level play, I, for one, am more than willing to welcome "Vancian magic" back to the game. It is pretty iconic to the brand identity that IS Dungeons & Dragons. Hell, some of the individual spells are so iconic that even people who've never played the game have heard of them (magic missile, feather fall, protection from evil...).

My two cents. 
I rebember years ago when I was in a internet café where a boy was playing Newerwinter nights (the first). He was a wizard... and when he spent all spells he rested and again he had got all spells. Spending and resting, speding and resting, spending and resting..

I think the intetion of future D&D editions is a easy adaptation to videogame (and vacian systema could be a headache).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

To be fair, while Monte did say that Vancian magic is iconic to D&D, he also said that they would be enabling wizards to have at-will abilities that they could use as well.

I think as long as the wizard isn't reduced to using a crossbow, and some attempt is made to rein in the wizard's ability to constantly dominate high-level play, I, for one, am more than willing to welcome "Vancian magic" back to the game. It is pretty iconic to the brand identity that IS Dungeons & Dragons. Hell, some of the individual spells are so iconic that even people who've never played the game have heard of them (magic missile, feather fall, protection from evil...).

My two cents. 


Iconic does not mean good idea.  I'd rather have encounter powers than daily powers, or have dailies recharge on milestones rather than extended rests.  just my two cents from someone who doesn't see tradition or what happened before as having any bearing on what happens next.  Sacred cows only exist to be made into sacred hammburger, and tradition only exists to be firebombed out of the way of progress most of the time.

I really like Wizards having At-Will spells that they can use all day long, even if they aren't very powerful I just don't like them having to pull out a crossbow when they run out of Dailies.


If they keep something like that in I have no issue with vancian casting. Will making classes run off of different subsystems make balance more difficult? Probably. Will it make it impossible? Of course not. Essentials showed us that classes did not have to progress the same way for balance to be maintained. Now essentials may have had some issues and not be for everyone but I think it showed that you can balance things outside the AEDU straightjacket.


I want tactically interesting fighters like 4e gave us but that doesn't mean I need a Daily Strike of Ultimate Bossmode to do it. What if Fighters had encounter based powers while Wizards had Daily vancian spells but both having At-Will options to fall back on? I think that could work.



Why cant everyone have at will encounter and daily powers? To me that's the best way.  I hate the slayer and the knight because they are boring to play they dont have real powers and no real abilities beyond basica attacks.  A character has to have more than that.  I love encounter powers for all classes everyone contributing equally.  I'm not a fan of essentials I'm much more in favor of every class using the same basic structure but using it in dif ways.  I hate dif classes having dif subsystems.

Sorry but I love different classes having different subsytems.  Making everyone use the same mechanics is what killed 4E for me.  I don't see any point in having every class work the same way, you might as well just have 1 class, throw all the powerd in a pot and let people take whatever they want.

Subsystems is what defines a class, and if 5E is bringing those back then I see that as a step in the right direction
He made a comment that they were balancing the Vancian system through careful math and lots of play numbers about average number of encounters per day and number of rounds per combat.  But earlier, he also said that if a DM didn't want the 15-minute work day, he could take steps to reduce it's effect.

He also commented that Fighters and Wizards would not be balanced on a round per round basic.  So, the Fighter would do 12 damage for 3 rounds in a row, while the Wizard did 4 damage each of those rounds.  Then the Wizard would cast a fireball doing 15-20 damage to a number of creatures the 4th round.
Vancian magic with no "quadratic wizards" scaling... I kind of like the sound of that. 

I've never been the biggest fan of Vancian magic (except when reading the works of Jack Vance -- he describes it beautifully and it works perfectly), but at least Vancian casters are something DIFFERENT than other "heroic" characters using powers.  And, it is sort of a "D&D" thing -- Jack Vance may have invented Vancian magic, but his works are rather obscure, so chances are that anyone who knows of the conceit knows it through the older editions of D&D where it was prominant, making it one of those things that D&D does but nobody else really does.

And I am VERY, EXTREMELY glad to hear that not every class is going to use the same progression.  It's not the death knell for homogenization, but it's getting close.

Color me optimistic.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Yeah see thats crap characters should be balanced on an encounter basis and most of the time that means round by round basis.  I don't see this working this is why i hate different subsystems and using class features and different power selection to differentiate classes.
Sweet, that's means I'll be able to port over my 2E Wizard into 5E; instead of having to look at my 2E Wizard, look at the 4E rules, then throw my whole campaign in the garbage because of the system running so differently it's completely incompatible.

Why cant everyone have at will encounter and daily powers? To me that's the best way.  I hate the slayer and the knight because they are boring to play they dont have real powers and no real abilities beyond basica attacks.  A character has to have more than that.  I love encounter powers for all classes everyone contributing equally.  I'm not a fan of essentials I'm much more in favor of every class using the same basic structure but using it in dif ways.  I hate dif classes having dif subsystems.



What I didn't like about Essentials was not the removing of the Dailies but the reducing of Encounters to Power Strike. Martial Dailies aren't a bad thing but what if they simply had interesting Encounter exploits. Expanded from what they have now rather than cut down. Something like the Warblade from Tome of Battle but built into a system that cares about balance from the ground up.

Sweet, that's means I'll be able to port over my 2E Wizard into 5E; instead of having to look at my 2E Wizard, look at the 4E rules, then throw my whole campaign in the garbage because of the system running so differently it's completely incompatible.


It should be incompatible as a direct translation.  Characters shouldnt be able to directly port from one eddition to another thats why they are different edditions if it can then there's a problem.
Have you looked at the design goal of 5E ? To bring back people who are playing OD&D, 1E, 2E and 3E into 5E. Compatibility at one point has to be there. If not ? Guess what, I didn't buy a single D&D book since 4E and I will do the same with 5E. They are trying to bring in people from all editions back into the game, not driving them further apart.
we are toast then cause if it can make your 2e high level wizard
 it isnt going to work with any of my 4e ones.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Have you looked at the design goal of 5E ? To bring back people who are playing OD&D, 1E, 2E and 3E into 5E. Compatibility at one point has to be there. If not ? Guess what, I didn't buy a single D&D book since 4E and I will do the same with 5E. They are trying to bring in people from all editions back into the game, not driving them further apart.


Why should you be able to directly port a 2e character into any other eddition just make a new one, or make something that is the spirit of the character not every spell or power needs to translate just the basic concept of the character, and that i can do with any eddition.  

I also don't agree with all the goals the game should be looking forward not backwards to me nothing can be gained by looking backwards.  Tradition to me says little good i have almost no respect for it.  Or for nostalgia. 
Iconic does not mean good idea.  I'd rather have encounter powers than daily powers, or have dailies recharge on milestones rather than extended rests.  just my two cents from someone who doesn't see tradition or what happened before as having any bearing on what happens next.  Sacred cows only exist to be made into sacred hammburger, and tradition only exists to be firebombed out of the way of progress most of the time.


What about your sacred cow of encounter powers?  Does it also only exist to be firebombed out of the way?  I, for one, dislike encounter powers.

However, most of all I dislike having character classes all using the same advancement subsystem.  I welcome Vancian magic back to the game.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
Tradition to me says little good i have almost no respect for it.  Or for nostalgia. 

I do, who wins ? Good for you if you have no respect for those things, it doesn't make that a rule or a fact; plenty of other people do care about tradition and nostalgia.

Meh, I'm bailing out from posting here, sounds like there will be plenty of nerd-rage to go around with every announcement they are going to make with DnD Next. Vancian being one of them. Peace out. 

Iconic does not mean good idea.  I'd rather have encounter powers than daily powers, or have dailies recharge on milestones rather than extended rests.  just my two cents from someone who doesn't see tradition or what happened before as having any bearing on what happens next.  Sacred cows only exist to be made into sacred hammburger, and tradition only exists to be firebombed out of the way of progress most of the time.


What about your sacred cow of encounter powers?  Does it also only exist to be firebombed out of the way?  I, for one, dislike encounter powers.

However, most of all I dislike having character classes all using the same advancement subsystem.  I welcome Vancian magic back to the game.


And i hate having to learn a new subsystem every time i try to play a new class I think thats a stupid idea.  Also you cant have seperate subsystems and have them all be equal equality is what matters.
I too want proof if it is I will not touch 5e for anything. Vancian casting should stay DEAD.  EVERY class should use same power progression without that the game isnt going to be balanced.


Honestly, I don't care if Vancian magic is present so long as it isn't the only option. I would like an alternate system to be available for those of us that want something more akin to most fantasy literature.

I also don't mind if not all classes progress exactly the same so long as they progress at roughly the same rate. If a wizard gets an extra spell at level 5, I'm not going to lose sleep if the fighter doesn't get an additional exploit at level 5. However, if they are not at the same relative power level, that causes an issue.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I like what I have been reading. I am excited about the new edition. 
And i hate having to learn a new subsystem every time i try to play a new class I think thats a stupid idea.  Also you cant have seperate subsystems and have them all be equal equality is what matters.


Why not? Why could different systems not still be equal in power? Sure it is more difficult for the designers, but that's what they get paid for. I don't care about how much work had to be put into it so much as I care about the final product.

Will it be perfectly equal? Of course not, short of giving everyone the exact same abilities and having them refluff them, they will never be perfectly equal. However, an approximation of balance is what is most important. If everyone can contribute effectively and no one is obsoleting any other character, that is what matters most.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
One word: Victory!

@william: It's more than a sacred cow now, it has been killed and rose back from the dead, it's a DIVINE cow!!!
But no seriously, maybe you should consider the fact that despite you thinking it is a bad system, plenty of people are still looking up to it. Maybe you should reconsider your judgment.
I followed the twitter feeds, the chat and another source covering the DDXP panel (www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...).  As a 1st E to 3.5 E player who didn't get hooked on 4E, I was left quite hopeful.  I'm one of their lost customers looking for a reason come back on board.

Vancian magic is an essential component of the D&D experience for me.  I'm very glad to have it back.  Also very encouraging to me were some panel comments that there will be an effort to make magic feel mysterious and undefined again and to empower the DM to make outside of rules decisions. 

What I also liked that I thought I heard was that 4E style AEDU could still be used for some classes.  One thing many of us who struggled with 4E didn't appreciate was that all classes used the same mechanic.  For those of us who like different classes using a different mechanics the system felt one dimensional.  What it may be for 5E is that AEDU could be the system used by sorcerers thus making them unique from Vancian mages.  I always felt socerers too similar to mages in 3.X.  Sorcerers using this entirely different mechanic in 5E would make them very different.  4E mundane fighter having encounter and daily powers felt like playing wizards to me, but I could see a 5E monk using AEDU because they have a mystic source to power their cinematic skills and thus being very different.

With the modular approach they constantly refered back to it may very well be possible for passionate AEDU fans to run every class under that system, with the right modules.  For those very opposed to AEDU it may be possible to avoid it completely with the right modules.  Me, I'm looking forward to combining both and having more uniqueness to each player and class at the table.

Please no one burst my hopeful bubble ;)
On another note, I too am interested in hearing the source of this claim.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
we are toast then cause if it can make your 2e high level wizard
 it isnt going to work with any of my 4e ones.



it doesen't have to mean that.
also said in this tread is that spells no longer increse with level, making them the same as 4th edition daily wizard powers.
what used to be aily utility powers will be added to the same list.
rituals might remain rituals.

1st level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 1 spells
5th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 2 spells
9th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 3 spells
15th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 4 spells
19th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 5 spells
25th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell 6 spells 
29th level wizard daily powers are now spell levell  7 spells  

a wizard could spend a feat to get a at will spell these come from the list that are now at wills in 4th.
a wizard has no encounter powers, but that is of sett by having more daily powers.

he might and up  with the folowing amount of daily spells at level 30
3 spell levell 1 spells
3 spell levell 2 spells
3 spell levell 3 spells
2 spell levell 4 spells
2 spell levell 5 spells
2 spell levell 6 spells 
1 spell levell  7 spells  
the samle spell could be memorised multiple times so you could memorise the same level 1 spell 3 times, or 3 difrent level 1 spells.
 
note that the amount of spells that can be memorised  is less then in 2nd or 3rd edition, but this is becouse these are only atack spells, many spells might still be rituals and don't have to be memorised.
 
so porting a 4th edition character might just mean lose your encounter powers, you re gain access to the daily powers you swaped out for higer level powers.
( and maybe you gain more feats when creating your character 2 extra would be nice, so that when you port the character from 4th these 2 extra feats are taken up to use your 2 at will powers)
Looks like Rituals will be back as well, and usable for things like the 2E Call Lightning (a spell that took a turn, 10 combat rounds, to cast, that dropped a lightning bolt every ten rounds after that.)
I just hope every session isn't clocking in for the 15 minute workday again. 

I also hope the martial classes don't only look like the Slayer and Thief, as I didn't buy Essentials specifically because of those classes. A more Tome of Battle style is something I would be interested in, though, if not AEDU. 

With the modular approach they constantly refered back to it may very well be possible for passionate AEDU fans to run every class under that system, with the right modules.  For those very opposed to AEDU it may be possible to avoid it completely with the right modules.  Me, I'm looking forward to combining both and having more uniqueness to each player and class at the table.

Please no one burst my hopeful bubble ;)



I will help you insulate your bubble... if the recent essentials class are an indicator for most people you should be able to have well normalish Vancian magic with not a whole lot different balance swing than that... it should be fully functional along side AEDU for instance.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

To give my polite answer ...

"Well, that's points off."
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I just hope every session isn't clocking in for the 15 minute workday again. 

I also hope the martial classes don't only look like the Slayer and Thief, as I didn't buy Essentials specifically because of those classes. A more Tome of Battle style is something I would be interested in, though, if not AEDU. 



This is exactly what I'm hoping for. Tome of Battle style stuff for martial classes. Something different from AEDU but not weaker and not so heavily simplified as Essentials. 


The other thing I'd like to see is a better ritual system. Rituals were a fantastic way of reducing the impact of certain classic spells on combat without removing them completely. The system was flawed though and I've never seen them used much. I'd very much like to see it reworked into something a little better, the new rituals released in Dragon a couple months ago are an example of an improvement over the PHB rituals.



The other thing I'd like to see is a better ritual system. Rituals were a fantastic way of reducing the impact of certain classic spells on combat without removing them completely. The system was flawed though and I've never seen them used much. I'd very much like to see it reworked into something a little better, the new rituals released in Dragon a couple months ago are an example of an improvement over the PHB rituals.


I think they can be enhanced to my thinking with very simple changes, I am not interested in huge dramatic ones but... we will see.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I just hope every session isn't clocking in for the 15 minute workday again. 

I also hope the martial classes don't only look like the Slayer and Thief, as I didn't buy Essentials specifically because of those classes. A more Tome of Battle style is something I would be interested in, though, if not AEDU. 




Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards (Friday; 12:30 to 2PM EST)











Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric

Monte: Going along those lines we seperated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in there games as well.









Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes

.


somwhere in the total chat log it is also mentioned that classes that enhance their basic atack like slayer/knight would be considerd common.

so you mihgt want to stick to the uncommon or rare classes.
Sign In to post comments