Rule of Three - June 26th

Rule of Three
6/26/12
by Rodney Thompson

You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer.

Talk about this article here.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

3e tried to let the vancian Wizard and the spontaneous Sorcerer both use the same spells. That approach failed, demonstrated extreme favoritism toward the vancian Wizard and neglect toward the nonvancian rival. It fractured the 3e player base.



While I agree with your premise, your cast are all in the wrong roles.  Sorcerers made 3rd Ed un-playable.  Sure people didn't have to manage a spell-book, but DMs sure hated having to plan around 15 fireballs a day.

You get rid of Sorcerers you reduce the perception that casters are too powerful which gets deflected onto the vancian wizard.
I tend to agree fixing vancian casting on the wizard is probably not the best decision, if only because that component is probably the easiest concept to modularize. If I want a vancian sorcerer (which thematically is based on bloodline, not book-learning), why not? Why hard-code any casting mechanic to any given class? Present the different casting mechanics, and let the player decide which fits his/her character? Maybe I want a wizard that uses the clerics casting mechanic (which is essentially the 3.x sorcerer). What if my cleric wants to use the vancian casting system?

I ask WotC to please keep classes distinct, but the casting method isn't part of the deal. There should be more to the wizard than just "I cast spells", just like there needs to be more to the fighter than "I hit things". Example: since wizards are known for studying things, perhaps give wizards the "Knowledge (all)" skill bonus, where they can make a check to see if they know something about something. "You know, I read in a book once..." shouldn't be an uncommon occurance for a wizard on any given subject.

Sorcerers are known for their innate magic based on their bloodline heritage. Give them a feature based on that.

Now, let either class pick the style of casting: vancian, spontaneous, power points, et al. Is it that hard to split the casting mechanic from the class? I sure hope not.



All you would have to do to make a spell into an encounter from a daily is to drop its duration to 1-2 rounds, and maybe drop the damage to one die size lower. If it doesn't allow a save, give it a save for half or no effect. if it has a save make the save automatic (i.e. half damage for burning hands if used in a encounter slot)... Its not like they couldn't throw this together in less than a day... I mean I did the hard work for them already...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think how you cast should be defined by your Class.
Wizard -- Vancian
Sorcerer -- AEDU
Warlock -- Power Points

I think how you learned to do magic can be defined by your Background.
Studious (you studied hard to learn magic; gain additional benefit your spellbook)
Gifted (the magic is in your blood; reduced need for material components/implements)
Pact (you sold a bit of your soul for power; your spells take on a trait associated with your patron)



I´m fine with this. I like the way you think, puts flavor first, then mechanics to represent it.

I´m not a big fan of the Vancian concept, but sounds fine the way you put it. On the other hand I would like to see AEDU as an option, don´t see wy this is not possible. Wizards shouldn´t be inflexible with this.
1. Thank You WotC, everyone we can drop the ignorant facing rule and it won't be house ruling... Of course at the same time the 20+ module game just turned into 20+ modules and 50+ optional rules. Have fun finding a game you like without having to do a 10 page interview with each DM.



If you don't like it, don't play it.

2. Oh yay, the fighter gets to hit it and add a status effect...



Among other things.

Apparently you missed this, so I'll repeat it here for you.

Maneuvers, on the other hand, are designed to let you do those kinds of things and make your normal attack, or do things that are more exceptional.



The first part was attack and status effect, the bolded part includes things beyond just attack and status effect.



But the solution is so simple Polaris.

WotC: "The wizard is vancian. Deal with it."

Me: "Ok, the wizard is banned."

If there are non-vancian casters and backgrounds/themes cover the 'bookish' part, is there any reason not to just throw out the wizard and be done with it?



The key word is "if".  If there is a non-Vancian substitute then that's fine, but it sure didn't seem that way to me.

-Polaris



Sadly I've already given a solution that tailors to all of our wants.

Give the wizard something akin to the Thief's Schemes that allow you on character creation to pick how the wizard gains their spells. Vancian as the play test. EDU at 1st get 1 encounter (any spell just duration of 1-2 rounds add a save for half or no effect, or if already a save just make the save automatic) and 1 daily, then at level 2 add 1 utility (same as the daily ones, but having the option of lowering its power and using it as an encounter power), level 3 get another encounter, level 4 get another daily, etc...etc... until you hit 4-5 slots of each (like they did in 4E) then replace lower level spells with higher level ones. Allow the trade out at camp just like 4E. Require resting for daily slots just like vancian, etc...etc... As time goes on they could easily add more wizard schemes (probably call them techniques or traditions) like spell points, or power points, or whatever in other books...

That's the meeting you half way part, take it or leave it...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Which means that if you want to be a wizard, you have to play it Vancian or not at all regardless of what a significant portion of the customer base might want.  Sorry, I saw how that worked in 3E.  Its a deal breaker.

-Polaris



You have to be having everybody on surely?

So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, floats on water like a duck but is called a goose then all you'll do is see an empty pond?

Here's all the things you could do:

1)  Ask the DM to just houserule wizards out and just use the other non-vancian casters as wizards.

2) Get the sorcerer to wear a pointy hat with stars and moons on it and carry around a dusty tome.

3) Rip the Wizard pages out of the book and cross off the word Sorcerer/warlock and write in your best crayons 'Wizard'.

What if the alternative class is called a 'Magician'.  Would that be close enough?
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'd be satisfied with Lokiare's solution.
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...



luckily there aren't roles anymore so no class should have anything like that fully baked into it.  Especially when they are purposefully making these things to be interchangeable as each other.
1) Ask the DM to just houserule wizards out and just use the other non-vancian casters as wizards.

2) Get the sorcerer to wear a pointy hat with stars and moons on it and carry around a dusty tome.

3) Rip the Wizard pages out of the book and cross off the word Sorcerer/warlock and write in your best crayons 'Wizard'.


There is more to a wizard than just Vancian casting. All classes have unique class features and we want all of them except for Vancian casting to be available in this alternative class. I think the chances of them creating such a new class that isn't presented as a sub-class of the wizard is extremely unlikely, simply because doing so would effectively require them to reprint all of those mechanics word-for-word and people would be upset at the wasted page space to do so.

What if the alternative class is called a 'Magician'.  Would that be close enough?


He's already said that the same mechanics except Vancian casting with a new name would satisfy him.
I'd be satisfied with Lokiare's solution.



Oh, one more thing. Those spells that were sustain X in 4E, make them "concentration". Where the caster has to concentrate to maintain them, they can either give up their move to cast another spell or they can't cast spells while concentrating. Better yet just have them make a con check everytime they get hit while 'concentrating' to avoid losing the ongoing effect. So your wizard just casted stinking cloud and has a group of goblins locked down hacking and coughing, one outside the area throws a spear and hits the wizard. Bam end of stinking cloud...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...



luckily there aren't roles anymore so no class should have anything like that fully baked into it.  Especially when they are purposefully making these things to be interchangeable as each other.



Um... blaster and punisher weren't roles. The roles were both striker. Blaster and punisher were the flavor each class brought to the table. If the warlock doesn't punish enemies, it won't feel like a warlock, and if the sorcerer isn't a blaster it won't fell like a sorcerer...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I tend to agree fixing vancian casting on the wizard is probably not the best decision, if only because that component is probably the easiest concept to modularize. If I want a vancian sorcerer (which thematically is based on bloodline, not book-learning), why not? Why hard-code any casting mechanic to any given class? Present the different casting mechanics, and let the player decide which fits his/her character? Maybe I want a wizard that uses the clerics casting mechanic (which is essentially the 3.x sorcerer). What if my cleric wants to use the vancian casting system?

I ask WotC to please keep classes distinct, but the casting method isn't part of the deal. There should be more to the wizard than just "I cast spells", just like there needs to be more to the fighter than "I hit things". Example: since wizards are known for studying things, perhaps give wizards the "Knowledge (all)" skill bonus, where they can make a check to see if they know something about something. "You know, I read in a book once..." shouldn't be an uncommon occurance for a wizard on any given subject.

Sorcerers are known for their innate magic based on their bloodline heritage. Give them a feature based on that.

Now, let either class pick the style of casting: vancian, spontaneous, power points, et al. Is it that hard to split the casting mechanic from the class? I sure hope not.



This is about where I am at with casting classes-- IMO, all wizards, clerics etc. should have the option for vancian, 'spontaneous" vancian, and also power-points, AED and whatever the other options are (just like fighters should be able to be simple or "maneuver based" at a class level). If all that defines a caster class is spell type (arcane or divine) and spell delivery method (Vancian etc.)... that doesn't seem like a lot.

I tend to agree fixing vancian casting on the wizard is probably not the best decision, if only because that component is probably the easiest concept to modularize. If I want a vancian sorcerer (which thematically is based on bloodline, not book-learning), why not? Why hard-code any casting mechanic to any given class? Present the different casting mechanics, and let the player decide which fits his/her character? Maybe I want a wizard that uses the clerics casting mechanic (which is essentially the 3.x sorcerer). What if my cleric wants to use the vancian casting system?

I ask WotC to please keep classes distinct, but the casting method isn't part of the deal. There should be more to the wizard than just "I cast spells", just like there needs to be more to the fighter than "I hit things". Example: since wizards are known for studying things, perhaps give wizards the "Knowledge (all)" skill bonus, where they can make a check to see if they know something about something. "You know, I read in a book once..." shouldn't be an uncommon occurance for a wizard on any given subject.

Sorcerers are known for their innate magic based on their bloodline heritage. Give them a feature based on that.

Now, let either class pick the style of casting: vancian, spontaneous, power points, et al. Is it that hard to split the casting mechanic from the class? I sure hope not.



This is about where I am at with casting classes-- IMO, all wizards, clerics etc. should have the option for vancian, 'spontaneous" vancian, and also power-points, AED and whatever the other options are (just like fighters should be able to be simple or "maneuver based" at a class level). If all that defines a caster class is spell type (arcane or divine) and spell delivery method (Vancian etc.)... that doesn't seem like a lot.




the cleric is way different, they get nicer weapons, and armor, and healing magic, turn undead, and all for just one spell slot per level...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
All you would have to do to make a spell into an encounter from a daily is to drop its duration to 1-2 rounds, and maybe drop the damage to one die size lower. If it doesn't allow a save, give it a save for half or no effect. if it has a save make the save automatic (i.e. half damage for burning hands if used in a encounter slot)... Its not like they couldn't throw this together in less than a day... I mean I did the hard work for them already...

I was thinking of keeping spells Daily level and having Encounter casters get them 1/2 levels later (assuming they scale that quickly).  That would mean Encounter casters never get the high level spells, which makes sense as they would be really broke cast at the start of every fight.  But when I played the Sorcerer in 3rd, even waiting that one extra level to get Fireball was painful.  I couldn't recomend that system, only much much worse.

What your proposing would require spells be written either in both Daily and Encounter versions or at least playable as Daily or Encounter versions - meaning every spell is written so that it converts either way easily.

This might sound odd, but I think doing this with spells would be harder than martial attacks.  There are some spells that just slap a Condition on the target... so Conditions would need Daily and Encounter versions.  Immobilized has Slowed, maybe.

Assuming Daily casters aren't convincing the rest of their party to set up camp after five minutes of adventuring.  Assuming the only change between Daily and Encounter casters is what the spell does, and not how many spells you get at various levels for instance.  Assuming whatever else needs to be assumed...

What is the scale between Daily and Encounter caster's spells? 

Is it half damage (because that's mathematically easier than Immobilized and Slow)?  So the Encounter caster casts Burning Hands in one encounter and again in the next and that equals the Daily caster using Burnding Hands for twice the damage in the first encounter?  That sounds like Encounter casters would be casting their spells twice for every time a Daily caster casts theirs.

Even if casting Encounters twice for every one Daily casting was the right amount, I am not sure that covers the flexability Encounter casters have over Daily casters.  The ice monsters in the second encounter will take extra damage from that Burning Hands spell the Encounter caster used, extra damage the Daily caster can't match since they used their fire damage spell up earlier.

I would double it again.  Maybe quarter damage for Enconter cast spells.

Or wait...

Encounter cast spells do single die damage.  Daily cast spells do 1/2 level dice damage!  I think that would cover the number of spells each type of casters gets too.  A mid level Encounter caster has more spells than they can cast in a round.  Taken further I would make Encounter caster spells static.  Static DCs, static values, static damage - usally one hit die.  That also allows Encounter caster's spells who continue to get better spells, it allows those low level spells to get stale. 

Just some ideas.

Assuming for a moment that what the devs have said about spells before - that damage has a hard cap and the only way to scale it is to prep it in a higher slot - I don't know why it would be too much of a stretch to simply assign a point value to a spell level.  Say, for example, 1 point for 1st level, 3 points for 2nd, etc.  Then give your wizard a number of points equivalent to the total number of spell levels they can cast each day.

Boom, now you've got a "non-Vancian" spell point wizard.  If your Vancian wizard is balanced, your spell point wizard should be too.  And yes, I realize that means I could cast more high level spells than the Vancian one, but the trade off is casting fewer spells per day total.  Let the PC and the party manage that resource how they see fit.

AEDU is a bit trickier though.  If every non-cantrip spell in DDN is essentially a daily power, you would need some way to equate daily and encounter spells so you can get the correct trade off. And then you either have to make an entire suite of encounter spells or write every spell as an encounter spell and add a line for additional effects when cast as a daily.

I think that's really the devs hangup at this point.  I agree (in principle) with Polaris that there should be an effort made to allow the traditional fluff of a wizard to be attached to alternative casting methods, but that ship may have (unfortunately) sailed already.
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...



luckily there aren't roles anymore so no class should have anything like that fully baked into it.  Especially when they are purposefully making these things to be interchangeable as each other.



Um... blaster and punisher weren't roles. The roles were both striker. Blaster and punisher were the flavor each class brought to the table. If the warlock doesn't punish enemies, it won't feel like a warlock, and if the sorcerer isn't a blaster it won't fell like a sorcerer...




Reflavoring
I'd rather have something along the lines of the rogue scheme. Where you can pick at creation vancian, sorcerer, or AEDU, or any other system you can think of. Then you can have the bookish wizard and not have to create an entirely different concept. They can even have the same spells (the encounter spells would be less powerful versions of the same spell)...



This is what I thought they were doing.  (by sorcerer I'm assuming you mean spontaneous caster)

Really saddened by this Ro3. I hope this changes.  This to me is a much bigger deal than the other things discussed on the boards.

DNDNext is supposed to be about building the game you want to play.  This stance they have on vancian = "wizard" doesn't support letting me do that. I want to be able to run the game I want via options and modules, not houserules.

Not saying I won't get the core books if they do this- but if this turns into another edition I have to spend hours out of game modifying to make it do what I want it to do- I'll probably just go with a different game that doesn't.


-and "Mage" =/= "Wizard"  Calling it a different class is just class bloat.  Besides that would mean telling Harry Potter and Gandalf "You guys aren't REAL wizards- You're mages."
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Can someone clearly explain what defines a wizard other than a lack of armor and how they cast spells? I'm not getting it. And remember not to include information that has been defined as backgrounds or themes already.
All you would have to do to make a spell into an encounter from a daily is to drop its duration to 1-2 rounds, and maybe drop the damage to one die size lower. If it doesn't allow a save, give it a save for half or no effect. if it has a save make the save automatic (i.e. half damage for burning hands if used in a encounter slot)... Its not like they couldn't throw this together in less than a day... I mean I did the hard work for them already...

I was thinking of keeping spells Daily level and having Encounter casters get them 1/2 levels later (assuming they scale that quickly).  That would mean Encounter casters never get the high level spells, which makes sense as they would be really broke cast at the start of every fight.  But when I played the Sorcerer in 3rd, even waiting that one extra level to get Fireball was painful.  I couldn't recomend that system, only much much worse.

What your proposing would require spells be written either in both Daily and Encounter versions or at least playable as Daily or Encounter versions - meaning every spell is written so that it converts either way easily.

This might sound odd, but I think doing this with spells would be harder than martial attacks.  There are some spells that just slap a Condition on the target... so Conditions would need Daily and Encounter versions.  Immobilized has Slowed, maybe.

Assuming Daily casters aren't convincing the rest of their party to set up camp after five minutes of adventuring.  Assuming the only change between Daily and Encounter casters is what the spell does, and not how many spells you get at various levels for instance.  Assuming whatever else needs to be assumed...

What is the scale between Daily and Encounter caster's spells? 

Is it half damage (because that's mathematically easier than Immobilized and Slow)?  So the Encounter caster casts Burning Hands in one encounter and again in the next and that equals the Daily caster using Burnding Hands for twice the damage in the first encounter?  That sounds like Encounter casters would be casting their spells twice for every time a Daily caster casts theirs.

Even if casting Encounters twice for every one Daily casting was the right amount, I am not sure that covers the flexability Encounter casters have over Daily casters.  The ice monsters in the second encounter will take extra damage from that Burning Hands spell the Encounter caster used, extra damage the Daily caster can't match since they used their fire damage spell up earlier.

I would double it again.  Maybe quarter damage for Enconter cast spells.

Or wait...

Encounter cast spells do single die damage.  Daily cast spells do 1/2 level dice damage!  I think that would cover the number of spells each type of casters gets too.  A mid level Encounter caster has more spells than they can cast in a round.  Taken further I would make Encounter caster spells static.  Static DCs, static values, static damage - usally one hit die.  That also allows Encounter caster's spells who continue to get better spells, it allows those low level spells to get stale. 

Just some ideas.




Nah, the way I described it works well enough. At first level the AEDU character will have 2 at-wills (same as vancian), 1 encounter, and 1 daily. The vancian will have 3 dailies. So assuming 4 encounters a day the vancian would only be behind 1 spell slot total, but the AEDU caster would be down three halves of a slot (because they are half powered). So really it works out fine.

Here WotC let me do the hard work for you, so we don't have an abomination on our hands:

Alarm should be a ritual only.

Arc lightning half number of dice damage 2d6+int mod and 1d6+int mod.

Burning hands 1d4 + int mod damage.

Charm person save for all. If above 10 hp duration is 1-2 rounds.

Command all get a save, above 10 hp get advantage on the save roll.

Comprehend languages duration 1 minute. Or just turn it into a ritual only spell. Or it becomes a utility power.

Continual light should be a ritual.

Grease 1-2 round duration.

Hold person see charm person except hp threshold is 40 hp.

Mirror Image 1 image 1-2 hits on 1d4.

Shield 1-2 round duration.

Sleep everyone gets a save, 10 hp or less get a second save to avoid falling asleep.

There WotC did your work for you...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I am not sure everyone is upset that the vancian spellcasting class will be called Wizard and the non-vancian spellcasting class will be called something else or is just that every other post is from Polaris.

I think the compromise can be found in 2nd edition (and possibly earlier, I don't have those books).  Instead of 4e's power source baskets, go back to "character classes divided into four groups according to general occupations:"

Wizard
Arcanist ( aedu caster)
artificer (for those wo like eberon)
Mage
(vancian caster)
Sorcerer
Warlock

If the insult is not getting to call your character a wizard, then just call all the of them a wizard.



hope you don't mind me adding to your list.
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe. If they were in the same universe they would need different titles.
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe. If they were in the same universe they would need different titles.



Except D&D pulled from all books and legends and crammed them into a single class...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The problem is that D&DNext is supposed to be for everybody, and everybody includes a large section of the D&D community whose opinion on Vancian magic is "go die in a fire". The wizard archetype(archetype, not class) is central to D&D, and it shouldn't be limited solely to a controversial system that a significant section of the D&D community hates.

If 5E doesn't provide a robust option to play the Wizard concept(a class with a different name but the same fluff would qualify) WITHOUT vancian mechanics, that is all but a deal breaker to me and I would guess a lot of other people as well. A class with different fluff like Warlock, Sorcerer, or Artificer doesn't cut it. Neither does a minor variant like 3E's Sorcerer or how the 5E Cleric casts spells. Notice I say a robust and supported option, not some crappy variant rule out of something like 3.5E's Unearthed Arcana.
...whatever
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...



luckily there aren't roles anymore so no class should have anything like that fully baked into it.  Especially when they are purposefully making these things to be interchangeable as each other.



Um... blaster and punisher weren't roles. The roles were both striker. Blaster and punisher were the flavor each class brought to the table. If the warlock doesn't punish enemies, it won't feel like a 4e warlock, and if the sorcerer isn't a blaster it won't fell like a 4e sorcerer...



Edited for accuracy.  Both of those classes existed in other editions with other feels.
AEDU is a bit trickier though.  If every non-cantrip spell in DDN is essentially a daily power, you would need some way to equate daily and encounter spells so you can get the correct trade off. And then you either have to make an entire suite of encounter spells or write every spell as an encounter spell and add a line for additional effects when cast as a daily.



AEDU has one glaring problem, it trivializes small encounters.  You need to make sure they only get the extra spells on "real fights".

So make it so the AEDU caster has a smaller number of daily spells, and during the encounter he gains 1 "man" point each round he uses takes disadvantage on his action/grants advantage to his victims, as he pulls in ambient magcial power. 
Once he has enough mana collected up (say equal to a spell's level+1) he can cast a spell he knows without using his daily allotment and the mana resets to zero.  Mana always starts to zero at the beginning of an encounter.

Thus he only gets extra spells on longer encounters, and he pays for it beforehand-charging up.

Adjust the numbers to what works.  What do you think?

-i'd say magic missile rolls twice and takes the lowest roll when you're disadvantaged, to not let it be a loophole-
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
I think how you cast should be defined by your Class.
Wizard -- Vancian
Sorcerer -- AEDU
Warlock -- Power Points

I think how you learned to do magic can be defined by your Background.
Studious (you studied hard to learn magic; gain additional benefit your spellbook)
Gifted (the magic is in your blood; reduced need for material components/implements)
Pact (you sold a bit of your soul for power; your spells take on a trait associated with your patron)


Oooh.... now we're talking.  This is perfect.  Exactly the point behind background-class interactions, and I'm now revising what I hope for in terms of the caster design to be basically this.  Maybe not the specifics mentioned, but the general concept of the "wizard's historically fluffy bits" being shifted to background.

Oh, and if your objection to such a system is "But they only like Wizards...they get all the shiny toys and are just better!"  then I'd argue that a balanced, compelling class design basically refutes your entire premise.


It would be a correct solution, yes. Classes= how you fight, background/theme = who you are, or someting like that, would work.

The whole point of the debate is to not have designer-made unbreakable links between systems and "fluff".
The "modularity" should be all about letting the players and DMs choose the subsystems they want to use for their characters, not force players to choose between a system they don't like for a "character concept" they like, or a subsytem they like for a character concept that doesn't fit.
Either the class defines the subsystem you use, OR it defines fluffy thing like how he got his powers/spells/prayers/etc, but not BOTH at the same time.
Just like the "fighter" is " a warrior" fluff-wise, and can chose "normal" or "tactical" modules for the way he fights. Or, hopefully, a "wuxia" or "anime" or "300" or "bushido" or "grim gritty" or whatever system module...
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
All you would have to do to make a spell into an encounter from a daily is to...

Even if casting Encounters twice for every one Daily casting was the right amount, I am not sure that covers the flexability Encounter casters have over Daily casters.  The ice monsters in the second encounter will take extra damage from that Burning Hands spell the Encounter caster used, extra damage the Daily caster can't match since they used their fire damage spell up earlier.

Encounter cast spells do single die damage.  Daily cast spells do 1/2 level dice damage!  I think that would cover the number of spells each type of casters gets too.  A mid level Encounter caster has more spells than they can cast in a round.  Taken further I would make Encounter caster spells static.  Static DCs, static values, static damage - usally one hit die.  That also allows Encounter caster's spells who continue to get better spells, it allows those low level spells to get stale. 

Nah, the way I described it works well enough. At first level the AEDU character will have 2 at-wills (same as vancian), 1 encounter, and 1 daily. The vancian will have 3 dailies. So assuming 4 encounters a day the vancian would only be behind 1 spell slot total, but the AEDU caster would be down three halves of a slot (because they are half powered). So really it works out fine.

Here WotC let me do the hard work for you, so we don't have an abomination on our hands:

Alarm should be a ritual only.

Arc lightning half number of dice damage 2d6+int mod and 1d6+int mod.

Burning hands 1d4 + int mod damage.

Charm person save for all. If above 10 hp duration is 1-2 rounds.

Command all get a save, above 10 hp get advantage on the save roll.

Comprehend languages duration 1 minute. Or just turn it into a ritual only spell. Or it becomes a utility power.

Continual light should be a ritual.

Grease 1-2 round duration.

Hold person see charm person except hp threshold is 40 hp.

Mirror Image 1 image 1-2 hits on 1d4.

Shield 1-2 round duration.

Sleep everyone gets a save, 10 hp or less get a second save to avoid falling asleep.

There WotC did your work for you...

Arc Lightning on a Miss do no damage.  
Burning Hands should do Save for no Damage.
Charm Peson, Command, Hold Person, and Sleep all get saves, over HP Threshold auto save.
Grease, Mirror Image, Shield same as spell with 1 round duration.

That's closer to half powered.  And in four encouters the AEDU casts 5 spells along with the Minor spells to the Vancian 3 spells.  Encounter spells should be a little better than At-Will spells, but not even close to Daily spells.  Once the AEDU gets a second Encounter spell, they have two spells per encounter plus Dailies.

But AEDU wouldn't be my Encounter based spellcaster approach, I would go full blown Encounter only spellcasting.




I am not sure everyone is upset that the vancian spellcasting class will be called Wizard and the non-vancian spellcasting class will be called something else or is just that every other post is from Polaris.

I think the compromise can be found in 2nd edition (and possibly earlier, I don't have those books).  Instead of 4e's power source baskets, go back to "character classes divided into four groups according to general occupations:"

Wizard
Arcanist ( aedu caster)
artificer (for those wo like eberon)
Mage
(vancian caster)
Sorcerer
Warlock

If the insult is not getting to call your character a wizard, then just call all the of them a wizard.



hope you don't mind me adding to your list.

Cool.

But I really don't think AEDU as such will be in Next.  I think the non-vancians would be better served rallying behind something that might make it in.  If they don't, the 3.5 Sorcerer might be the non-vancian class you get.

It's like Republicans voting for Perot or Democrats voting for Nader.  They are not going to win and you only divide your side.

Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe.

Yeah, neither are vancian spellcasters!

Can someone clearly explain what defines a wizard other than a lack of armor and how they cast spells? I'm not getting it. And remember not to include information that has been defined as backgrounds or themes already.

That somewhat depends on what edition you use. Pre-4e, wizards were completely defined by their spells. 4e added implement-specialized build options, and school-specialized build options with essentials. Your question IMO is the same as for fighters. Is the defining point of fighters that they hit things with weapons? Are wizards simply a sack of spells? I REALLY don't want that.

I'd like to see wizards have more to them then just spells. School specialization should be more than just another free spell. Each school should give the wizard a unique feature that helps make them distinct from other schools. Sorcerers can use bloodlines for that, and warlocks honestly can use a similar model to cleric domains since they also have a patron.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I have the opposite perspective:
Wizard -- Studious (spellbook)
Sorcerer -- Gifted (bloodline)
Warlock -- Pact (patron)


I agree I would prefer the nomeclature be reversed.  But they're not going to make wizard a background, so we're stuck.

But I do think how you learned magic should be the Background.  That's what a background describes -- what you did before being an adventurer.  Did you make a pact?  Were you at Hogwart's?  Was one of your grandparents a dragon?

How you cast is your class.  The class describes what you presently do, not how you got there.  So you can have a studious spontaneous caster., a pact-bound Vancian caster, and dragonblooded mana caster.

I think though it should be something like rogue schemes.  I don't want to punish the wizard by making him use his background for his casting style.   Instead institute a magic scheme as the flavor with minor mechanics (like using int or charisma).



I think you can have a wizard with a nonmagical background.  It just means you describe how you got to magic narratively but get no mechanical benefit from it.  Sure, George Weasley went to Hogwart's, but he was like in the middle of the class, unlike Hermione Granger, who got the full Studious Caster Background.  That's because he split his studies with maintaining his skills as a Parctical Jokester.

Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E


So what?  The bard, sorcerer, and warlock all go through numerous changes between AD&D, 3e, BECMI, and 4e.  They're not going to have a separate class for every iteration of every class through the last 40 years.

They will have a sorcerer.  It may not be a 3e sorcerer.  It may not be a 4e sorcerer.  It seems like the perfect candidate for a non-Vancian caster, though.

You've raised the bar so high it's in orbit.  At no point was everyone promised every class in their favorite edition.

I think you're idea for converting dailies to encounters is a cute concept, but I couldn't judge whether it makes sense until I see it in practice.
Arc Lightning on a Miss do no damage.  
Burning Hands should do Save for no Damage.
Charm Peson, Command, Hold Person, and Sleep all get saves, over HP Threshold auto save.
Grease, Mirror Image, Shield same as spell with 1 round duration.



It looks like you guys are forgetting that with bounded accuracy, damage is going to be king.  If you are taking away damage from spells, then you are messing up the balance of 5e.  This isn't 4e where AC played a much larger role in keeping monsters alive, so making a spell do less damage or no damage on a miss was not as big of a deal.  What you guys are doing is not makig wizards equal to fighters and other classes, but rather making them worse.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E


So what?  The bard, sorcerer, and warlock all go through numerous changes between AD&D, 3e, BECMI, and 4e.  They're not going to have a separate class for every iteration of every class through the last 40 years.

They will have a sorcerer.  It may not be a 3e sorcerer.  It may not be a 4e sorcerer.  It seems like the perfect candidate for a non-Vancian caster, though.

You've raised the bar so high it's in orbit.  At no point was everyone promised every class in their favorite edition.

I think you're idea for converting dailies to encounters is a cute concept, but I couldn't judge whether it makes sense until I see it in practice.



You miss the point, that the warlock and sorcerer have their own fluff and identity, and aren't a substitute for the wizard concept at this point. The wizard concept is iconic, too iconic to be limited solely to a system a large section of the community detests. The bar is not set too high.
...whatever
The developers have said that every class that has appeared in a any initial Players Handbook of an edition will appear in the initial release of Next.  So even if Wizard is Vancian only, that still leaves Warlock and Sorcerer to occupy a non-Vancian slot.  Personally, I don't consider the 3e Sorcerer to be non-Vancian.  It had spell slots.  Each spell slot was a daily resource.  That's Vancian, to me, anyway.

I get the idea that when the developers discuss non-Vancian, they're discussing something closer to 4e's AEDU than 3e's spontaneous casting.



Problem with this is the warlock and sorcerer have their own feel given to them in 4E, so in order to get our non-vancian wizard we have to step on the toes of the 4e style sorcerer (which was a pure blaster), and the warlock (which was a pure punisher), we won't be able to get our wizard controller...



luckily there aren't roles anymore so no class should have anything like that fully baked into it.  Especially when they are purposefully making these things to be interchangeable as each other.



Um... blaster and punisher weren't roles. The roles were both striker. Blaster and punisher were the flavor each class brought to the table. If the warlock doesn't punish enemies, it won't feel like a 4e warlock, and if the sorcerer isn't a blaster it won't fell like a 4e sorcerer...



Edited for accuracy.  Both of those classes existed in other editions with other feels.



Yep as in you are ticking off half the fanbase yet again because putting vancian in core, taking away 4E style warlocks, and 4E style sorcerers. Heck why not just take away 4E fighters while your at it...oh wait...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe. If they were in the same universe they would need different titles.



Except D&D pulled from all books and legends and crammed them into a single class...

I don't think that is accurate. Gandalf is a Wizard ( Or is he really an Archon?), but Harry Potter is more like a Mage. 
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe.

Yeah, neither are vancian spellcasters!


Are you sure about Gandalf? I never saw him do the same spell twice.


Yep as in you are ticking off half the fanbase yet again because putting vancian in core, taking away 4E style warlocks, and 4E style sorcerers. Heck why not just take away 4E fighters while your at it...oh wait...



Do you have hard facts to back up those numbers or are you pulling numbers out of your rear again? 
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe.

Yeah, neither are vancian spellcasters!


Are you sure about Gandalf? I never saw him do the same spell twice.



That's because he rarely cast spells at all.  He voluntarily restricted himself from using his full power at the request of the Valar.
Harry potter and gandalf are not both wizards in the same universe.

Yeah, neither are vancian spellcasters!

Are you sure about Gandalf? I never saw him do the same spell twice.

That's and impressive amouts of spell slots then.

Sign In to post comments