The Future of D&D: Mearls talks about the 5e Non-Vancian Wizard

In the seminar, The Future of D&D, Mike Mearls mentions a Non-Vancian Wizard for 5e. He describes the efforts of the designers to integrate Non-Vancian options for the Wizard class.

Specifically, designers are looking at empowering the Specialist Wizards to spontaneously cast spells that belong to their school of magical specialization. Examples of specialists include the Illusionist, and the Evoker.

Note, all “spellslots” are arguably a “Vancian” mechanic. What Mike is describing - and what is most important to me personally - is the ability of a Specialist Wizard to escape the 24-hour “sleep” requirement.

Precise mechanics remain unclear. References to casting school spells “all the time”, but requiring “enough time and rest”, suggest encounter powers. Or more accurately, per-short-rest spellslots. However, there seems to be more at work mechanically. Specialist Wizards can cast continually spells that belong to their school, unless they cast their Vancian per-long-rest spellslots, whereon they exhaust their magic for their school spells too.

Essentially, the Wizard will be able to spellcast their school spontaneously, but will still maintain access to other wizardly schools as well.

I am happy with this development. On the one hand, I agree, spontaneous spells should feel strongly thematic, and exemplify specific tropes and a vivid archetype (similar to superhero powers). On the other hand, the ability of the Wizard to maintain access to other schools in a more academic way, helps the Specialist Wizard feel different from innate-magic classes, such as the Psion. I look forward to more developments.

It takes time for the designers to process feedback, but clearly, they are striving to integrate the desires of the wider community.
   
I transcribed the point in the discussion, below. (Note, my ideosyncratic spelling is intentional.) You can also listen to it, following the title link. 









PAX Prime 2012 Seminars: The Future of D&D
Panel: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson
2012 Sep 1, Video forward to 17:37 (Transcript by Haldrik)

 

Jeremy: [Any of the classes beyond the four core classes] needs to have a story footprint in the game that really justifies its existence.

Mike: And in alot of ways that is - well, alot of ways! - that [need for story] is what is driving our designers, as we go forward.

So for instance, just this past week - Im talking about magic systems and the changes thruout D&D. These havent been implement, but wer talking about it, is, I know:

Alot of people, who play fourth edition, really like the idea of having spells as a Wizard that - or any class, any spellcasting class - that you can get back with a short rest. Or spells that you cast repeatedly atwill. We have atwill spells in the game; we have daily spells in the game; the Warlock has those short rest spells that come back, got the encounter spells. But what about Wizards, right? What about other caster classes?

So with this approach [that focuses on story], this is the kind of thing where wev kinda looked at, What about schools - you know - specialization?

If your an Illusionist, what does that mean? What does that mean in the world of D&D? What does that - then therefore, what does that mean mechanically? The sort of things we can do is say, if your an Illusionist, what really that means is, instead of giving up some other school of magic - that D&D has done traditionally - that might mean that your just better at casting illusions. And that might be expressed as, “You can cast your illusion spells more often.” Since you know illusion magic inside and out, when you expend that spell, you dont just give out all that magic energy. You can pull some of it back in, and with enough time and rest, you can now cast that spell again.

So thats the kind of thing where taking that story thing to start with, rather than just saying, heres a mechanic - how can we justify it. Wer looking at how we can express things within the world of D&D. How that would make sense. And how that carves out unique niches for these different types of characters.

So, an Illusionist versus an Evoker versus a Wildmage, or versus a Warmage. Those guys now all start to make sense. These are guys who - theyv studied, like, that academic element to a Wizard. Theyv essentially taken different “majors” or gone to different schools to learn magic. And so, they practice it in a slightly different way. They have different affinities, and different weaknesses. So that lets us bring up something which is a mechanic, but it now has a place in the world.

So if you are playing an Illusionist - if your playing an Illusionist Wizard, you can cast Illusions all the time. Its not like, “Well, Im only an Illusionist for short periods of time. No, I, when it comes to illusions, I can trick people and create phantom images all the time. Now, if I want to throw a Fireball, thats outside of my strength. I can prepare that spell, but if I cast it, Iv lost that energy. Iv expended it.”

So, building that into the system - so its more organic. So its not just, “Hey, here are all the mechanics of D&D, and then heres the actual game.” Because usually one of the first pieces of advice that I give to people - and Im sure alot of people when you learn the game - you have someone whos kinda trying to get into the [story part of the] game first, rather, and then brought into the rules second. Thats the easiest way, right? Because D&D, its like, “Hey, you are a Fighter, and this is whats going on. What do you do?” Not, “Ok, to play D&D, you first need to learn what armor class is. And now hit dice and hit points.” You need to know that stuff eventually. But what makes the game interesting is, this idea of, “Your playing a role, and heres the situation you find yourself facing. What do you do?” So, taking that same attitude toward our design, rather than starting with, “Hey, wouldnt it be cool if you had mechanics that did x, y, or z?”

Wizards, shave and a haircut

Here the Specalist Wizard will be able to escape the “sleep mechanic” in a flavorful way.



Also of interest. Mike seems to group the specialists, “Illusionist” and “Evoker” together with the “Wildmage” and “Warmage”. Perhaps, all of these count as the Wizard “Tradtions” hinted at elsewhere?
Sounds interesting.

But if the specialist wizard gets to spam his favorite spells his spells known need to be really cut down to say, two spells at level 1 and one spell per level from his specialty. If he wants other spells he needs to scribe them from scrolls or tomes.

What's fair for the sorcerer is fair for the wizard, right? He wouldn't have the class features a sorcerer gets, but he still would have the verstility of having any spell available he'd found or choose to purchase.
Personally, I love the idea of some spells being prepare-able as short rest activities rather than long rest ones. It resolves my gripes about arbitrary nap time.
However, that's just me... regarding the "Non-Vancian" Wizard,
I think the point was missed.
I'm speaking for one of my playtest groups when I say they weren't asking for the Spell-slot Wizard to get non-spell slot or encounter spell slot options, they were asking for a non-spell slot Wizard as a module, thus being able to throw the Spell slot system into the toilet and flush it out of their game... 


Also, as I recall (playtest packet is on the other computer and the person most stoked for the warlock hated the pact too much to play it, so memory is not crisp) the Warlock is short rest refresh spell points, rather than actual Encounter Spells.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
"Hey, Mike.  Can we get a non-vancian option for Wizard?"
"Sure!  Here's two more classes, each using a different system, and loads of flavor you'll probably hate!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option for Wizard."
"Sure!  Here's some more encounter and at-will powers, which we'll lock to specialist for some reason!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option, with no spell-slots at all."
"Sure!  Here's some other damn thing you didn't actually ask for!"
"AARRGHGHRHRHRHA!"
Personally, I love the idea of some spells being prepare-able as short rest activities rather than long rest ones. It resolves my gripes about arbitrary nap time.

However, ... one of my playtest groups, ... they were asking for a non-spell slot Wizard as a module, thus being able to throw the Spell slot system into the toilet and flush it out of their game.

Yeah, for me, the problem is the sleep mechanic that creates all kinds of absurd scenarios. Now it seems, the Wizard will be able to press on - and do it with style.  



Regarding a non-spell slot system, I suppose these players mean a spellspoint system - the kind that the 3e Psion did very well.

I suspect, the 5e Psion may satisfy the need for a completely non-vancian alternative to a Wizard.

Different from the 3e Psion, one of the forumers here, GreatFrito, is exploring the use of the new Fighter dice for psionic effects.

The Psion is another class I care about. Personally, I hope 5e returns to the origins of D&D where psionic is core. I also hope it gains more medievalesque flavor, focusing on the mindforce, soul, and aura, such as a mystic or Norse witch. If so, I see the mental effects of the Bard as also being psionic, especially that of the Norse skald.

In any case, with regard to the Wizard class, I suspect I will be able to live with it. Focusing on thematic spells, then other miscellaneous spells in special circumstances.




One of the difficulties of eschewing the spellslots, there is often a gaming-balance need to limit the number of spells known. Even the 3e Psion had a sufficient but limited number of spells known. The inability to swap in new spells works less well for the academic (recipie book) approach.
I'm snipping out only the parts I have to address, no offense intended.
Regarding a non-spell slot system, I suppose these players mean a spellspoint system - the kind that the 3e Psion did very well.


One wants Spell Point, the others want fixed spells (rather than changable) with actual encounter usage (5 min prep to get your magics back in the que).

As for 3e Psionics, I'd rather not go there... it's a testy subject in our group.
I suspect, the 5e Psion may satisfy the need for a completely non-vancian alternative to a Wizard.


It will absolutely not satisfy the need for a completely non Spell slot Wizard.
A module for completely non-spell slot Wizards will do that. 
Let me put it this way, say I want a Green Umbrella.
I do not want a Green Rain Coat (even tho it will keep me dry and is green).
I do not want a Blue Umbrella (even tho it is an umbrella).
I want a Green Umbrella.
Promising me a Green Umbrella, and then offering me the two items above and expecting me to be happy is insulting.


Different from the 3e Psion, one of the forumers here, GreatFrito, is exploring the use of the new Fighter dice for psionic effects.

The Psion is another class I care about. Personally, I hope 5e returns to the origins of D&D where psionic is core. I also hope it gains more medievalesque flavor, focusing on the mindforce, soul, and aura, such as a mystic or Norse witch. If so, I see the mental effects of the Bard as also being psionic, especially that of the Norse skald.


I definately hope that whatever they decide for Psioincs, it is at least initially available, and well thought out, rather than tacked on. 
I've read a bit of the system you are refering to as being developed. It looks promising.

In any case, with regard to the Wizard class, I suspect I will be able to live with it. Focusing on thematic spells, then other miscellaneous spells in special circumstances.


One of the difficulties of eschewing the spellslots, there is often a gaming-balance need to limit the number of spells known. Even the Psion, generally had a sufficient albeit satisfactory number of spells known. The inability to swap in new spells works less well for the academic (recipie book) approach.


It's no more difficult than balancing Spell Slot style magic, it just changes the base unit of game from Day to Encounter. Which I am not convinced won't happen with daily spell slots anyway, it just becomes a single encounter day. With HP what they are currently, that's the way it largely works out anyway. It would require a module, that's about it. The module may not be compatible wtih all other modules, but such is to be expected (swashbuckling and gritty realism are also incompatible)

I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
"Hey, Mike.  Can we get a non-vancian option for Wizard?"
"Sure!  Here's two more classes, each using a different system, and loads of flavor you'll probably hate!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option for Wizard."
"Sure!  Here's some more encounter and at-will powers, which we'll lock to specialist for some reason!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option, with no spell-slots at all."
"Sure!  Here's some other damn thing you didn't actually ask for!"
"AARRGHGHRHRHRHA!"



Maybe you just need to get over your attachment with wizard? If you don't like the mechanic, there's 3 other spellcasting options in the packet, each with different spellcasting mechanics. No sense forcing wizard to become something that already exists. 
My two copper.
If you don't like the mechanic, there's 3 other spellcasting options in the packet, each with different spellcasting mechanics. No sense forcing wizard to become something that already exists. 

What?  Wartlock, Weredragon, and, uh, Healbot?

If you don't like the mechanic, there's 3 other spellcasting options in the packet, each with different spellcasting mechanics. No sense forcing wizard to become something that already exists. 

What?  Wartlock, Weredragon, and, uh, Healbot?


I understand your concerns.



The panelists mentioned one of the “bloodlines” that the Sorcerer class can choose from, is a Wizard family. And therefore, the family member has “Wizard blood”.

If a bloodline has “Wizard” flavor, does that resolve the difficulty for you?



(Note, I have various objects to the Sorcerer class. Name is wrong, sorcery meaning the opposite of innate magic. “Scion” would make more sense. The Psion is already the “innate magic” class. Innate “internal” magic means the opposite of “external” arcane magic. The existence of a Sorcerer class causes the word “arcane” to become meaningless. Is arcane like protoscience or not? How does innate magic differ from psionic magic? The Wizard spells already belong to the Wizard class, obviously. And other objections. Basically, the Sorcerer is redundant and lacks a unique tradition, and lacks a unique design concept.)
If a bloodline has “Wizard” flavor, does that resolve the difficulty for you?

If the baked-in garbage is kept minimal, and the spellcasting isn't grossly crippled "just because", maybe.
Oh, and class names aren't important.

Oh, and class names aren't important.

I disagree. Heh, Im getting tired of D&D being flat-out wrong. It isnt cute, or poetic. Its just ignorant. Simply wrong.

Longswords that arent longswords, trolls that arent trolls, sorcerers that arent sorcerers, its annoying.

Anyway, names matter. And they matter to me.

Also, 5e will focus on story, narrative - and therefore the centrality of names - baking these concepts into the mechanics. I suspect names will matter even more in 5e than other editions.
The panelists mentioned one of the “bloodlines” that the Sorcerer class can choose from, is a Wizard family. And therefore, the family member has “Wizard blood”.

If a bloodline has “Wizard” flavor, does that resolve the difficulty for you?


Probably not, no.  If the Sorcerer gets a "Wizard" bloodline, and it switches his primary stat to Int, as well as giving him full spell progression and choice(as opposed to this "you get spells slower from a heavily truncated list" crap that the Sorc has now), then what we've still got is that people who want non-Vancian Wizards have one build to use for it.  One build, against the doubtless many that will be made for the Vancian Wizard(WotC have, since they got the game, pumped out Wizard support like candy, which I don't see changing anytime ever).  That would be, to put it politely, a token gesture at best.

Why won't they just give us alternate casting modules for the Wizard?   What happened to our modular edition?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.

Promising me a Green Umbrella, and then offering me the two items above and expecting me to be happy is insulting.




Who promised you a green umbrella? Because I do not remember MM at any time saying, much less "promising" that they will make a fully spell point wizard (or AEDU or some such). Some forumers might have speculated on that, but forumers=/=MM. Having said that I still think they will make spellpoint wizards in arcana unearthed, but as far as I'm concerned for core books two alternative classes and wizard modifying traditions are plenty enough not to groan about return of vancian magic to dnd.

The panelists mentioned one of the “bloodlines” that the Sorcerer class can choose from, is a Wizard family. And therefore, the family member has “Wizard blood”.




This is awesome!

It solves so many problems. Many people want the Sorcerer to be a clone of the Wizard, but without Vancian Magic, and here is the solution. Also many people (like myself) love the flavor and feel of the (3.X) Sorcerer (not-so-much the new Hulk-Out mechanic) but don't like the limited access to spells railroading you into combat spell choices just to stay relevant in combat, here is the solution.

Want a Wizard but hate vancian magic? Wizard-Sorc!

Like the idea of innate casting but want to be utilitarian and have access to large amount of spells? Wizard-Sorc!

Love it, can't wait to see it. Will definately be interesting.



See, if you just called it the “Wizard-Scion”, I could totally get into it. I just cant get past that name.
The arguments here are pretty redundant at this point (as they have been at every turn where they crop up) as Wizards surely by now get the hint that the non vancian crowd is a crowd that cant be quietened down legally without simply succumbing to its will.

Our best bet is to just see what they come out with next (maybe not the october packet but you never know.) and see where it goes. I currently like the current iteration of wizard but I expect it to change many times over before release to cover flavour of the month whims.

I understand concerns from both camps, my main issue is that people are no longer giving feedback but going over old feedback near word for word. 


Longswords that arent longswords, trolls that arent trolls, sorcerers that arent sorcerers, its annoying.

Anyway, names matter. And they matter to me.




While I agree that names matter to a certain degree, you have to realize that names mean different things to different people.  

Pretty much everything in D&D is based on some sort of real-world mythology. But just because it is based on something doesn't mean it has to be a mirror image of it. Real-World Clerics don't shoot lasers out of their hands.

D&D has made these things its own. A D&D Elf is different than a shoemaking Elf. A D&D Troll is different than a 'Troll 2' Troll.

Not everyone is well-versed in the real-world mythologies that D&D is inspired by, and for those people Sorcerer doesn't mean the same to them as it does to you. For many people their first experience with the term Sorcerer is from D&D, and to those people Sorcerer means innate casting.

 
Right now, converting to "points" is dead easy.
The big question is, does a points-wizard cast spontaneously, or still have to fire & forget?
If you don't like the mechanic, there's 3 other spellcasting options in the packet, each with different spellcasting mechanics. No sense forcing wizard to become something that already exists. 

What?  Wartlock, Weredragon, and, uh, Healbot?


I understand your concerns.



The panelists mentioned one of the “bloodlines” that the Sorcerer class can choose from, is a Wizard family. And therefore, the family member has “Wizard blood”.

If a bloodline has “Wizard” flavor, does that resolve the difficulty for you?



(Note, I have various objects to the Sorcerer class. Name is wrong, sorcery meaning the opposite of innate magic. “Scion” would make more sense. The Psion is already the “innate magic” class. Innate “internal” magic means the opposite of “external” arcane magic. The existence of a Sorcerer class causes the word “arcane” to become meaningless. Is arcane like protoscience or not? How does innate magic differ from psionic magic? The Wizard spells already belong to the Wizard class, obviously. And other objections. Basically, the Sorcerer is redundant and lacks a unique tradition, and lacks a unique design concept.)


The Wizard Bloodline sounds awesome. Also, did you notice that Scion and Psion are pronounced the same? Could get confusing if you have two players, each of which is playing one of those classes...
Right now, converting to "points" is dead easy.
The big question is, does a points-wizard cast spontaneously, or still have to fire & forget?

It's a pretty trivial difference. spell slot and spell point are semantically divergent, but from a mechanical standpoint I REALLY don't see what everyone is complaining about. One has a long spell list with many slots and little else to play with. the other has a short list with fewer slots and a butt ton of flavor once it's gone. Resting to choose new refill spellslots and resting to refill spell points are the same thing when you can cast anything of that powerlevel or lower. As I stated in the other thread started by plaguescarred, once they show you the mechanic for specialist schools-if you really want unlimited access to any known spell- make it apply to the entire spellbook. Stop griping about it, do you really need them to 'spell' everything out for you? haha didn't see the pun till I was already typing it Tongue Out
Also, did you notice that Scion and Psion are pronounced the same? Could get confusing if you have two players, each of which is playing one of those classes...

The fun part here is that the Psion class can be easily built from the Sorcerer framework.

It's a pretty trivial difference. spell slot and spell point are semantically divergent, but from a mechanical standpoint I REALLY don't see what everyone is complaining about.

Replace a Level 5 Wizard's 4/3/2 slots with 16 points.  Right away, he's got the option for sixteen level-one spells, or three level-three spells and a level-one, or eight level-two spells.

The questions are, is points-wizard going to get screwed on points as a trade for that sudden fluidity?  Does points-wizard still prepare specific spells, or just cast when needed?  That's the unknown. 

So they're not just pronounced the same, they ARE the same...
All I heard was "Wild Mage"

I will now slaughter a fatted calf in the anticipation of 5th Edition's success.
It's a pretty trivial difference. spell slot and spell point are semantically divergent, but from a mechanical standpoint I REALLY don't see what everyone is complaining about.

Replace a Level 5 Wizard's 4/3/2 slots with 16 points.  Right away, he's got the option for sixteen level-one spells, or three level-three spells and a level-one, or eight level-two spells.

The questions are, is points-wizard going to get screwed on points as a trade for that sudden fluidity?  Does points-wizard still prepare specific spells, or just cast when needed?  That's the unknown. 




Right, and in order to get spell points or spell slots back a Full Rest must occur, which is what the definition of Vancian is. Right now both the wizard and Scorcerer are pseudo-vancian as it isn't quite fire and forget b/c they can choose what spell within a level instead of pure vancian which is prepare a specific spell. Yes the wizard still chooses which spells to add to his list for the day, but he has more of them to choose from, which he already does without spell points. and no he doesn't get reduced points b/c they are meant to correct for the lack of shapechanging into something awesome.  (edit: had to AFK) sure right now the wizard can only cast 9 spells cuz you can trade 1 level3 for 1 level 1, but again, do you really NEED WoTC to spell it out? Cuz if so then these arguements are really just from gamers that want a R.A.W. excuse. Most every post on this thread that boils down to I want R.A.W. vs. DM's fiat. they tried to pull the teeth on fiat with 4th, lost a crap ton of people, and since R.A.W. wasn't enough to sustain we now get a whole brand new version. thesis: DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE GAME, WOTC DOESN'T MIND, JUST STOP ASKING THEM TO TRY AND GET YOUR VERSION PERFECT.
Honestly by the time the actual handbook comes out I fully imagine there will be a module for a True Non-Vancian wizard.

Regarding the original topic of Mike's Specialty wizards: They sound, unfortunately, like they will be Vancian wizards still. How it sounds it will work right now is you still prepare all your spells as per the norm. However you don't expend your specialty spells as easily. So if your an Illusionist any Illusion spells you cast you get back after a short rest, functioning like an encounter power. However any other spells you cast, like a Fireball, take more out of you so you use up that magical energy, expending the spell.

Now personally, I like this. I hold no gripe with the Vancian Wizard though I do want to see a module without it in this edition, it's what the majority want and should get. But to me it helps give the other spell-casters something to hold to. Warlocks get invocations and an at-will 3d6 ray, Sorcerers being made of magic simply exert their will to cast spells and once that will begins to wane their inner magic begins to take over their body, Wizard get spells faster due to meticulous study but since they have learned magic not bought or were bred with it they must keep the complex magical equations written down each day so as to refresh their knowledge of these powerful incantations.

Judging from the PA/PVP podcasts and the PAX panel it seems like the recent packet focused on Fighters and Rogues a lot. Hopefully in October we'll get to see some of these magical traditions (and a few more Cleric Domains, Sorcerer Bloodlines and Warlock Pacts) and we can continue on from there.
In the seminar, The Future of D&D, Mike Mearls mentions a Non-Vancian Wizard for 5e. He describes the efforts of the designers to integrate Non-Vancian options for the Wizard class.

Specifically, designers are looking at empowering the Specialist Wizards to spontaneously cast spells that belong to their school of magical specialization. Examples of specialists include the Illusionist, and the Evoker.

Note, all “spellslots” are arguably a “Vancian” mechanic. What Mike is describing - and what is most important to me personally - is the ability of a Specialist Wizard to escape the 24-hour “sleep” requirement.

Precise mechanics remain unclear. References to casting school spells “all the time”, but requiring “enough time and rest”, suggest encounter powers. Or more accurately, per-short-rest spellslots. However, there seems to be more at work mechanically. Specialist Wizards can cast continually spells that belong to their school, unless they cast their Vancian per-long-rest spellslots, whereon they exhaust their magic for their school spells too.

Essentially, the Wizard will be able to spellcast their school spontaneously, but will still maintain access to other wizardly schools as well.

I am happy with this development. On the one hand, I agree, spontaneous spells should feel strongly thematic, and exemplify specific tropes and a vivid archetype (similar to superhero powers). On the other hand, the ability of the Wizard to maintain access to other schools in a more academic way, helps the Specialist Wizard feel different from innate-magic classes, such as the Psion. I look forward to more developments.

It takes time for the designers to process feedback, but clearly, they are striving to integrate the desires of the wider community.
   
I transcribed the point in the discussion, below. (Note, my ideosyncratic spelling is intentional.) You can also listen to it, following the title link. 









PAX Prime 2012 Seminars: The Future of D&D
Panel: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson
2012 Sep 1, Video forward to 17:37 (Transcript by Haldrik)

 

Jeremy: [Any of the classes beyond the four core classes] needs to have a story footprint in the game that really justifies its existence.

Mike: And in alot of ways that is - well, alot of ways! - that [need for story] is what is driving our designers, as we go forward.

So for instance, just this past week - Im talking about magic systems and the changes thruout D&D. These havent been implement, but wer talking about it, is, I know:

Alot of people, who play fourth edition, really like the idea of having spells as a Wizard that - or any class, any spellcasting class - that you can get back with a short rest. Or spells that you cast repeatedly atwill. We have atwill spells in the game; we have daily spells in the game; the Warlock has those short rest spells that come back, got the encounter spells. But what about Wizards, right? What about other caster classes?

So with this approach [that focuses on story], this is the kind of thing where wev kinda looked at, What about schools - you know - specialization?

If your an Illusionist, what does that mean? What does that mean in the world of D&D? What does that - then therefore, what does that mean mechanically? The sort of things we can do is say, if your an Illusionist, what really that means is, instead of giving up some other school of magic - that D&D has done traditionally - that might mean that your just better at casting illusions. And that might be expressed as, “You can cast your illusion spells more often.” Since you know illusion magic inside and out, when you expend that spell, you dont just give out all that magic energy. You can pull some of it back in, and with enough time and rest, you can now cast that spell again.

So thats the kind of thing where taking that story thing to start with, rather than just saying, heres a mechanic - how can we justify it. Wer looking at how we can express things within the world of D&D. How that would make sense. And how that carves out unique niches for these different types of characters.

So, an Illusionist versus an Evoker versus a Wildmage, or versus a Warmage. Those guys now all start to make sense. These are guys who - theyv studied, like, that academic element to a Wizard. Theyv essentially taken different “majors” or gone to different schools to learn magic. And so, they practice it in a slightly different way. They have different affinities, and different weaknesses. So that lets us bring up something which is a mechanic, but it now has a place in the world.

So if you are playing an Illusionist - if your playing an Illusionist Wizard, you can cast Illusions all the time. Its not like, “Well, Im only an Illusionist for short periods of time. No, I, when it comes to illusions, I can trick people and create phantom images all the time. Now, if I want to throw a Fireball, thats outside of my strength. I can prepare that spell, but if I cast it, Iv lost that energy. Iv expended it.”

So, building that into the system - so its more organic. So its not just, “Hey, here are all the mechanics of D&D, and then heres the actual game.” Because usually one of the first pieces of advice that I give to people - and Im sure alot of people when you learn the game - you have someone whos kinda trying to get into the [story part of the] game first, rather, and then brought into the rules second. Thats the easiest way, right? Because D&D, its like, “Hey, you are a Fighter, and this is whats going on. What do you do?” Not, “Ok, to play D&D, you first need to learn what armor class is. And now hit dice and hit points.” You need to know that stuff eventually. But what makes the game interesting is, this idea of, “Your playing a role, and heres the situation you find yourself facing. What do you do?” So, taking that same attitude toward our design, rather than starting with, “Hey, wouldnt it be cool if you had mechanics that did x, y, or z?”

lol, any gyrations and hand waving to avoid just plain admitting the inevitable fact that there was an overwhelming logic that led to AEDU and no amount of fudging is going to stop that logic from applying to DDN just like it did to 4e...

Come on guys. There's nothing wrong with admitting that the factors driving design in 2008 didn't magically change. The same issues will come up and you're all walking the same path now in 2012, and you'll eventually end up at the same place. You can either end up there elegantly, like last time, or with some ugly bastardized mess because you're just too proud to bend or too afraid to defend your decisions.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
So, let me get this straight.

You want non-Vancian wizards.
You consider AEDU to be non-Vancian.
They present a wizard with daily-use spells, and also at-will and encounter spells.
You claim this is not what you want.


What do you want?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I have no idea what they want (well, I have some inkling, but I don't feel like being supportive at the moment), but I do know that I'm liking the sound of those "specialist" mechanics, quite a bit.  If that's coming about because of the folks who want a non-vancian wizard, then I hope they keep complaining loudly and frequently - even if they don't get what they want, I think it's sparking some great examination, reevaluation, and experimentation with the Wizard class.
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)
sure right now the wizard can only cast 9 spells cuz you can trade 1 level3 for 1 level 1, but again, do you really NEED WoTC to spell it out? Cuz if so then these arguements are really just from gamers that want a R.A.W. excuse. Most every post on this thread that boils down to I want R.A.W. vs. DM's fiat. they tried to pull the teeth on fiat with 4th, lost a crap ton of people, and since R.A.W. wasn't enough to sustain we now get a whole brand new version. thesis: DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE GAME, WOTC DOESN'T MIND, JUST STOP ASKING THEM TO TRY AND GET YOUR VERSION PERFECT.


This isn't about a R.A.W. "excuse."  It's about being able to point at a specific, tested set of optional rules and asking your DM "These look more fun than what the class has as its default.  Can I use this instead?"  It's about WotC, who touted their game as modular, and who claim to be using the mantra of "stay out of the way" to actually deliver on their promise of modularity instead of turning "stay out of the way" into a battlecry against players who want real, supported options.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

lol, any gyrations and hand waving to avoid just plain admitting the inevitable fact that there was an overwhelming logic that led to AEDU and no amount of fudging is going to stop that logic from applying to DDN just like it did to 4e...

Come on guys. There's nothing wrong with admitting that the factors driving design in 2008 didn't magically change. The same issues will come up and you're all walking the same path now in 2012, and you'll eventually end up at the same place. You can either end up there elegantly, like last time, or with some ugly bastardized mess because you're just too proud to bend or too afraid to defend your decisions.



Would you mind sharing the overwhelming logic that led to AEDU? I'm not seeing it at all.
Assuming that the specialist abilities (plus any others since remember encounter spell options being mentioned by Mearls earlier) work out as solid encounter abilities, then you actually could create exactly an AED wizard with the at-wills you get at 1st, and then mixing up daily and encounter spells as you want for everything else. Heck, it might be possible to be ENTIRELY encounter spells.

I really love the idea of the "not-traditionally-vancian" wizard (see: AED), and this seems to be just that - you can play it traditional (maybe you DM will even give you crossbow proficiency in exchange for your at-wills ;P), or you can mix it up with something more similar to 4th. Other than a spell-point wizard (which they'll almost certainly make I think), I'm not sure what more you can ask for? The 4e wizard had daily effects that needed a long rest to recharge, and this wizard will have some daily effects that need a long rest to recharge; the 4e wizard had some encounter effects that took a short rest to recharge, and this wizard has access to some encounter effects that need a short rest to recharge. Not seeing a real difference here... and in fact this is the very first time a wizard with entirely short rest recharge to be available (assuming preparing/learning all encounter spells).
In the seminar, The Future of D&D, Mike Mearls mentions a Non-Vancian Wizard for 5e. He describes the efforts of the designers to integrate Non-Vancian options for the Wizard class.
for space


Specifically, designers are looking at empowering the Specialist Wizards to spontaneously cast spells that belong to their school of magical specialization. Examples of specialists include the Illusionist, and the Evoker.

Note, all “spellslots” are arguably a “Vancian” mechanic. What Mike is describing - and what is most important to me personally - is the ability of a Specialist Wizard to escape the 24-hour “sleep” requirement.

Precise mechanics remain unclear. References to casting school spells “all the time”, but requiring “enough time and rest”, suggest encounter powers. Or more accurately, per-short-rest spellslots. However, there seems to be more at work mechanically. Specialist Wizards can cast continually spells that belong to their school, unless they cast their Vancian per-long-rest spellslots, whereon they exhaust their magic for their school spells too.

Essentially, the Wizard will be able to spellcast their school spontaneously, but will still maintain access to other wizardly schools as well.

I am happy with this development. On the one hand, I agree, spontaneous spells should feel strongly thematic, and exemplify specific tropes and a vivid archetype (similar to superhero powers). On the other hand, the ability of the Wizard to maintain access to other schools in a more academic way, helps the Specialist Wizard feel different from innate-magic classes, such as the Psion. I look forward to more developments.

It takes time for the designers to process feedback, but clearly, they are striving to integrate the desires of the wider community.
   
I transcribed the point in the discussion, below. (Note, my ideosyncratic spelling is intentional.) You can also listen to it, following the title link. 









PAX Prime 2012 Seminars: The Future of D&D
Panel: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson
2012 Sep 1, Video forward to 17:37 (Transcript by Haldrik)

 

Jeremy: [Any of the classes beyond the four core classes] needs to have a story footprint in the game that really justifies its existence.

Mike: And in alot of ways that is - well, alot of ways! - that [need for story] is what is driving our designers, as we go forward.

So for instance, just this past week - Im talking about magic systems and the changes thruout D&D. These havent been implement, but wer talking about it, is, I know:

Alot of people, who play fourth edition, really like the idea of having spells as a Wizard that - or any class, any spellcasting class - that you can get back with a short rest. Or spells that you cast repeatedly atwill. We have atwill spells in the game; we have daily spells in the game; the Warlock has those short rest spells that come back, got the encounter spells. But what about Wizards, right? What about other caster classes?

So with this approach [that focuses on story], this is the kind of thing where wev kinda looked at, What about schools - you know - specialization?

If your an Illusionist, what does that mean? What does that mean in the world of D&D? What does that - then therefore, what does that mean mechanically? The sort of things we can do is say, if your an Illusionist, what really that means is, instead of giving up some other school of magic - that D&D has done traditionally - that might mean that your just better at casting illusions. And that might be expressed as, “You can cast your illusion spells more often.” Since you know illusion magic inside and out, when you expend that spell, you dont just give out all that magic energy. You can pull some of it back in, and with enough time and rest, you can now cast that spell again.

So thats the kind of thing where taking that story thing to start with, rather than just saying, heres a mechanic - how can we justify it. Wer looking at how we can express things within the world of D&D. How that would make sense. And how that carves out unique niches for these different types of characters.

So, an Illusionist versus an Evoker versus a Wildmage, or versus a Warmage. Those guys now all start to make sense. These are guys who - theyv studied, like, that academic element to a Wizard. Theyv essentially taken different “majors” or gone to different schools to learn magic. And so, they practice it in a slightly different way. They have different affinities, and different weaknesses. So that lets us bring up something which is a mechanic, but it now has a place in the world.

So if you are playing an Illusionist - if your playing an Illusionist Wizard, you can cast Illusions all the time. Its not like, “Well, Im only an Illusionist for short periods of time. No, I, when it comes to illusions, I can trick people and create phantom images all the time. Now, if I want to throw a Fireball, thats outside of my strength. I can prepare that spell, but if I cast it, Iv lost that energy. Iv expended it.”

So, building that into the system - so its more organic. So its not just, “Hey, here are all the mechanics of D&D, and then heres the actual game.” Because usually one of the first pieces of advice that I give to people - and Im sure alot of people when you learn the game - you have someone whos kinda trying to get into the [story part of the] game first, rather, and then brought into the rules second. Thats the easiest way, right? Because D&D, its like, “Hey, you are a Fighter, and this is whats going on. What do you do?” Not, “Ok, to play D&D, you first need to learn what armor class is. And now hit dice and hit points.” You need to know that stuff eventually. But what makes the game interesting is, this idea of, “Your playing a role, and heres the situation you find yourself facing. What do you do?” So, taking that same attitude toward our design, rather than starting with, “Hey, wouldnt it be cool if you had mechanics that did x, y, or z?”



I'm sorry, but Mike Mearls just doesn't get it. Nobody wants their fluff intermingled with our mechanics. You can see this with the backlash against the Sorcerer and Warlock fluff baked into the mechanics of that class. You either get one of two responses "I can ignore it." or "I don't like it, fix it.". I've only seen one response that was "I like it."

This design method where they take a piece of fluff then design mechanics around it is backwards design. They need to design both, and they really need to see what people want and design around that. What they need to do is what the spaghetti company did in that Ted Talks video I posted in another thread. They need to do a bunch of surveys and ask about pieces of fluff, pieces of mechanics, writing styles, and whether to mix the fluff and mechanics, and then they need to take that data and see what groups emerge. Once they do that they might find that Cleric fans really like their fluff intermingled with their mechanics, while Fighters and Wizard fans don't. Then they could really start designing a 5E for everyone.

Personally if their idea of a non-vancian Wizard is tacking on spontaneous casting, then we all know 5E will tank and it will tank badly. If they have certain weak spells like feather fall being encounter spells, then we all know 5E will tank. What they need to get into their brains is that a good portion of people want a non-vancian WIZARD, not a non-vancian Sorcerer or Warlock (though there are those too). The best most effective easisest way to do that is to separate the casting mechanics from the class and allow players to swap them out. They can go ahead and keep the defaults, but there needs to be a module in the back of the book that allows the swapping of the casting styles and explains how to do 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.
"Hey, Mike.  Can we get a non-vancian option for Wizard?"
"Sure!  Here's two more classes, each using a different system, and loads of flavor you'll probably hate!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option for Wizard."
"Sure!  Here's some more encounter and at-will powers, which we'll lock to specialist for some reason!"
"No, Mike.  A non-vancian option, with no spell-slots at all."
"Sure!  Here's some other damn thing you didn't actually ask for!"
"AARRGHGHRHRHRHA!"



Exactly...
"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.

Promising me a Green Umbrella, and then offering me the two items above and expecting me to be happy is insulting.




Who promised you a green umbrella? Because I do not remember MM at any time saying, much less "promising" that they will make a fully spell point wizard (or AEDU or some such). Some forumers might have speculated on that, but forumers=/=MM. Having said that I still think they will make spellpoint wizards in arcana unearthed, but as far as I'm concerned for core books two alternative classes and wizard modifying traditions are plenty enough not to groan about return of vancian magic to dnd.



Mike Mearls did when he promised "this will be the D&D for everyone" and "We will make the game modular so everyone can play their way"

I paraphrased, but you get the point. As it is a significant portion of people are left out in the cold by the current offerings...
"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.
Also, did you notice that Scion and Psion are pronounced the same? Could get confusing if you have two players, each of which is playing one of those classes...

The fun part here is that the Psion class can be easily built from the Sorcerer framework.

It's a pretty trivial difference. spell slot and spell point are semantically divergent, but from a mechanical standpoint I REALLY don't see what everyone is complaining about.

Replace a Level 5 Wizard's 4/3/2 slots with 16 points.  Right away, he's got the option for sixteen level-one spells, or three level-three spells and a level-one, or eight level-two spells.

The questions are, is points-wizard going to get screwed on points as a trade for that sudden fluidity?  Does points-wizard still prepare specific spells, or just cast when needed?  That's the unknown. 




You could also tie those points to spell levels, and then allow the Wizard to prepare a number of spells equal to the number of spell slots a vancian Wizard gets. This would keep the flavor and make it different enough from the Sorcerer to be usable...
"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.
Or, people can get over a hatred of any particular given casting mechanic that has gone way past functionality and reached the level of dogma by this point.

They have decided they want the mechanics to inform the structure of the default world. A wizard uses Vancian mechanics because , in their imagined default world, that's just  how wizards work. They have decided the best way to go about it is built that default world, with it's default archetypes and assumptions FIRST.

People who want to kit bash their own world will always kit bash their own world. Those people are, almost by definition, NEVER going to be satisfied with presented material because they have their own  unique and individualized vision of their game worlds. That's awesome; but there are a million of those visions and you can't make them all happy.

They are trying to establish a new brand identity, and if that means some portion of the audience has to choke down or modify something they hate in order to do that, then it seems that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

Let's be perfectly clear; the designers are not unaware of what they are doing. They know some people want interchangeable mechanics, they could do that if they wanted, and they have deliberately made an editorial/artistic choice NOT to do that. They are gambling a cohesive vision is more of a draw than an impediment.

Agree with that or not, I respect the artistic integrity of it.
It's a pretty trivial difference. spell slot and spell point are semantically divergent, but from a mechanical standpoint I REALLY don't see what everyone is complaining about.

Replace a Level 5 Wizard's 4/3/2 slots with 16 points.  Right away, he's got the option for sixteen level-one spells, or three level-three spells and a level-one, or eight level-two spells.

The questions are, is points-wizard going to get screwed on points as a trade for that sudden fluidity?  Does points-wizard still prepare specific spells, or just cast when needed?  That's the unknown. 




Right, and in order to get spell points or spell slots back a Full Rest must occur, which is what the definition of Vancian is. Right now both the wizard and Scorcerer are pseudo-vancian as it isn't quite fire and forget b/c they can choose what spell within a level instead of pure vancian which is prepare a specific spell. Yes the wizard still chooses which spells to add to his list for the day, but he has more of them to choose from, which he already does without spell points. and no he doesn't get reduced points b/c they are meant to correct for the lack of shapechanging into something awesome.  (edit: had to AFK) sure right now the wizard can only cast 9 spells cuz you can trade 1 level3 for 1 level 1, but again, do you really NEED WoTC to spell it out? Cuz if so then these arguements are really just from gamers that want a R.A.W. excuse. Most every post on this thread that boils down to I want R.A.W. vs. DM's fiat. they tried to pull the teeth on fiat with 4th, lost a crap ton of people, and since R.A.W. wasn't enough to sustain we now get a whole brand new version. thesis: DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE GAME, WOTC DOESN'T MIND, JUST STOP ASKING THEM TO TRY AND GET YOUR VERSION PERFECT.



Yeah, that only works with DMs that are flexible and we aren't asking them to make a version for us, we are asking them to make a 'module' that we can use to make the game playable and purchasable by us. You can still have your vancian Wizard, and simple fighter if you want, we want the option to play D&D how we like...
"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.
So, let me get this straight.

You want non-Vancian wizards.
You consider AEDU to be non-Vancian.
They present a wizard with daily-use spells, and also at-will and encounter spells.
You claim this is not what you want.


What do you want?



They presented a Wizard with daily-use spells, and also at-will and encounter spells that are only usable under specific circumstance with a specific 'Tradition'.

What we want is a non-vancian Wizard. I mean how much more simple can we get. Do they really need a wall of text emailed to their personal addresses by thousands of people to get the idea? I mean we are not even asking for it to be the default, we would be perfectly happy if they gave it to us in a module... I mean I don't even know how much more clear we can be...
"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.
Assuming that the specialist abilities (plus any others since remember encounter spell options being mentioned by Mearls earlier) work out as solid encounter abilities, then you actually could create exactly an AED wizard with the at-wills you get at 1st, and then mixing up daily and encounter spells as you want for everything else. Heck, it might be possible to be ENTIRELY encounter spells.

I really love the idea of the "not-traditionally-vancian" wizard (see: AED), and this seems to be just that - you can play it traditional (maybe you DM will even give you crossbow proficiency in exchange for your at-wills ;P), or you can mix it up with something more similar to 4th. Other than a spell-point wizard (which they'll almost certainly make I think), I'm not sure what more you can ask for? The 4e wizard had daily effects that needed a long rest to recharge, and this wizard will have some daily effects that need a long rest to recharge; the 4e wizard had some encounter effects that took a short rest to recharge, and this wizard has access to some encounter effects that need a short rest to recharge. Not seeing a real difference here... and in fact this is the very first time a wizard with entirely short rest recharge to be available (assuming preparing/learning all encounter spells).



How about the ability to choose to be a wild mage AND non-vancian? How about the ability to use spells that aren't super weak and situational like feather fall in encounter slots? How about a freakin' non-vancian Wizard option that is full fleshed out and doesn't come with a tax to play (taking up the Wizard tradition slot)?
"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.
Genuine side question to Lokiare:

Has there ever been an acceptably non-Vancian wizard in any edition of D&D?

And if not and you hate them so much (please understand I am genuinely curious, not-trolling), why is D&D still even on your game shelf?
Sign In to post comments