|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 4:34PM
#31
|
|
|
Actually, I think most of my grudges are tied to vancian itself, but they aren't among your issues/fixes, so perhaps that's another discussion.
Is it a mechanical issue or a flavor issue?
If it's flavor, then there's not much the game designers can do about it other than having non vancian casters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 4:52PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
The way I see it is that players won't use the 5 minute workday trick if you don't give them a reason to. I really blame this on the lack of viable options you can use all the time.
I don't. I blame it on the existence of daily powers that are superior to at-will powers, because that's the reason to do it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 5:04PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2011
|
Here is the best way to balance and control Vancian magic. Turn all Vancian casting into encounter based spells. During each short rest you study your spell books, pray to your god, commune with nature, etc and choose what spells you want to use for the next fight. As long as these spells are properly balanced and the caster can only prepare 5 or so spells at a time, then Vancian casting works. The casters will still have a lot of utility because they can switch spells with a short rest, but the nova, the 5 minute work day, and the god spell issues all go away.
That's TRUE vancian magic! I love the idea. I tried to create a thread on this once. I got insulted by 4th edition fans and pre 4th edition fans alike...
On the one hand, I got people saying "Meteor Swarm every round, broken madness!"
And on the other, "don't you dare touch my verasimilitude".
This is my favorite option but sadly the game designers already announced that casters will have traditional D&D vancian magic.
I'm so glad we finally agree on something!
As much as I love 3rd edition magic for so may reasons... This can actually work. I'd say that the number of spells you can prepare change with levels, let's say 2 at first level, 3 at 3rd or 4th and so on, but a higly limited amount of spells prepared in exchange with a low time recharge can actualy be good. Something like 2 minutes per spell prepared, that makes sense... And this encounter power think makes a lot more sense for spells than for martial abilities in my opinion! (I never saw a reason why a warrior could use a cool move just once every some minutes)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 5:47PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2003
|
If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that all classes get at-wills that scale with level, while non-casters get the equivalent of encounter powers with no dailies and casters get Vancian spells but no encounter powers.
More importantly, I'm suggesting that a fighter's encounter power should be as powerful or more powerful than a caster's vancian spell.
OK, that works.
The only added value of the vancian caster is versatility but the cost of this versatility is that you might not have the option when you need it.
Too much versatility and you've got a serious case of decision paralysis.
A basic attack with a push (or whatever level-appropriate effect) is not even close to having the encounter-winning power of a Sleep (or whatever) spell. And even if fighter maneuvers were balanced with wizard spells, giving one an encounter power mechanic while giving another a daily mechanic requires a relatively narrow range of encounters per day to remain balanced.
You start with a push at level 1 because a fighter that can use a sleep maneuver once per encounter is not exactly balanced compared to a wizard that can cast sleep once per day. But the moment the wizard has enough spell slots to be able to cast sleep once per encounter (i.e. 5 times per day), then the fighter should be able to use his sleep maneuver once per encounter.
This contradicts your recommendation that fighter special maneuvers be equal in power to spells.
And since I think versatility is worth a lot, I think that by the time the wizard can cast sleep 3 times per day (not even once per encounter), the fighter should be able to use his sleep maneuver once per encounter
At which point, the wizard has something even more awesome that he can use once per day. Making power/frequency of use tradeoffs is only balanced in limited cases within a single character build (do I choose an encounter or daily utility power at this level?) not entire class subsystem mechanics.
The other problem with Vancian spellcasting as a whole is that the preparation mechanic leads to HUGE amounts of decision paralysis. Which spells do I prepare today? What mix of combat and utility spells? How many of each spell? This was the main reason lots of people (including me) couldn't stand playing a wizard back in the day.
That's why it's important to have other classes that don't use the vancian mechanism.
My favorite class in 3e was the sorcerer. But the 4e wizard is still light-years better than the 3e sorcerer. Note, however, that having the option of non-Vancian classes doesn't solve the decision paralysis problem. The player who chooses to play a Vancian class still has to take some time at the beginning of every adventuring day to pick his prepared spells. And the rest of the party has to wait for him to do it. Once you bring the number of spells you have to pick down to a manageable level, you're back at something resembling the 4e wizard.
Being free from that decision paralysis (while still being able to throw down big spells) meant that 4e was the first edition I had fun playing a wizard.
The decision paralysis is because you have to chose between your 'good options' and 'no option'. If your only choice is cool option (encounter/vancian spell) vs. boring but as effecient option (at-will), then you don't have decision paralysis. Either it's the right moment to use your cool spell and you use it, if you don't see any use for any of your spells, you just attack with your at-will.
Problem with that is, if you're having a long adventuring day with more encounters than spell slots, one or more encounters turn into boring (but efficient!) at-will spam. This becomes worse if the spells you did prepare turn out to be unsuitable for the encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 7:12PM
#35
|
|
|
What if we split engines? Combat engine and exploration engine.
Wizard gets at-wills and encounter attack spells in combat (Vancian style). And Dailies (also possibly rituals - though those should be available across spell-casting classes and/or theme dependent). Dailies for exploration/non-combat.
He'd have to prep an encounter suite and recharge after. He'd also have to prep a daily suite of spells that focus more on travel, dungeon delving, social interaction, etc. comparable to 4th Ed utility spells but non-combat.
The fighter would also get at-will and encounter exploits for combat. Out of combat he would have a supply of perhaps effort-based at-will exploits such as extreme athletics or high strength. Maybe he gets healing surges and others don't.
Now we have parity, interesting fighters, and vancian wizards.
(rough draft, obviously. Dependent on combat mechanics. Gives the fighter his expertise in fighting. Let's the wizard be versatile but not obviate the need for a fighter. Let's the wizard prep interesting spells AND not be a combat schlub. It IS a little 4th-y, I admit).
Revisions?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 12:19AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Count me in as "I like encounter Vancian magic". Spells can be about as powerful as fighter techniques which means no overshadowing. Out of combat stuff will be rituals, including spells that grant long lasting benefits - like divinations. Having a huge library of spells can still be an issue, but a hard cap on known spells can solve the issue of extreme versatility if all spells are balanced. And of course, less spells prepared are fast to change.
I like that system.
Although you should note that it looks much more like 4E than like 3.5 :P
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 1:23AM
#37
|
|
|
Too much versatility and you've got a serious case of decision paralysis.
Possible. But there are other classes for you to play if you find these vancian spellcasters overwhelming.
This contradicts your recommendation that fighter special maneuvers be equal in power to spells.
It just means that if your wizard has Sleep at level 1, your fighter will get it at level 2 or 3.
At which point, the wizard has something even more awesome that he can use once per day. Making power/frequency of use tradeoffs is only balanced in limited cases within a single character build (do I choose an encounter or daily utility power at this level?) not entire class subsystem mechanics.
The wizard has something even more awesome that he can use exactly once per day. Is it a huge deal if your wizard has 2 Sleep spells and 1 Scare per day when the fighter has Sleep once per encounter?
Unless you're using symmetric mechanics like in 4th edition, you're not going to get perfect parity. I don't think perfect parity is the goal here, it's having something good enough.
Spells of one level higher are not significantly better than spells exactly one level lower. This is even more true if the save DC of your spells doesn't depend on the level of the spell like in AD&D or 4th edition.
My favorite class in 3e was the sorcerer. But the 4e wizard is still light-years better than the 3e sorcerer.
I find both of these extraordinarly boring to play. But hey, it's fine right? Not everybody needs to like the same stuff.
Once you bring the number of spells you have to pick down to a manageable level
And that's the deal breaker for the old school players. If your vancian class has "vancian magic" like in 4th edition, then you're not trying to solve the problem, you're avoiding it. 10-25 spells per day is mandatory.
What I'm trying to show here is that not liking something doesn't make it broken or underpowered. Abdul managed to convince me that a 4th edition wizard is better than a 3rd edition one. Why do I still want to play a 3rd edition one? Flavor. The 4th edition wizard does some hardcore crowd control spell every round, my 3rd edition wizard does something cheesy.
Problem with that is, if you're having a long adventuring day with more encounters than spell slots, one or more encounters turn into boring (but efficient!) at-will spam. This becomes worse if the spells you did prepare turn out to be unsuitable for the encounter.
Hey don't worry. The old grognards that want to play a vancian spellcasters know what they're getting themselves into. That's the way we have been playing for 30 years. Having a boring at-will attack is an improvement to our caster experience.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 1:28AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Too much versatility and you've got a serious case of decision paralysis.
Possible. But there are other classes for you to play if you find these vancian spellcasters overwhelming.
Mostly, we just "settled in". Pick some spells, and just memorize those every morning, give or take a "get in the DM's head" slot or two.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 5:47AM
#39
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to recreate a vancian system, it's worth identifying what "people who like vancian" like about it. Now, I'm not one of them, so I'll try not to be unfair.
1) very strong resource management. If you blew your dailies too early, you could be horribly punished.
2) spells with many uses("open ended"). Charm person, for instance, could get you out of a fight, get knowledge, get an ally, etc.
3) allowed you to cast repeatedly with no long term (more than 1 day) costs
4) implementation allowed for very powerful spells
5) allowed for preparing ahead, and having just the right spell for the occasion.
6) spells often had no defined rules, making them "feel magic" (charm person "feels less magic" if it is implemented as "+10 to diplomacy roll" rather than th original, which there were no rules for "what a friend would do for you")
It seems the encounter based vancian misses much of this - by refreshing every encounter, you kill #1 and #4.
By suggesting nincombat is rituals, you removes 3.
I just don't see you bringing in the old school crowd with your system, even though I agree it has merit.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 5:47AM
#40
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to recreate a vancian system, it's worth identifying what "people who like vancian" like about it. Now, I'm not one of them, so I'll try not to be unfair.
1) very strong resource management. If you blew your dailies too early, you could be horribly punished.
2) spells with many uses("open ended"). Charm person, for instance, could get you out of a fight, get knowledge, get an ally, etc.
3) allowed you to cast repeatedly with no long term (more than 1 day) costs
4) implementation allowed for very powerful spells
5) allowed for preparing ahead, and having just the right spell for the occasion.
6) spells often had no defined rules, making them "feel magic" (charm person "feels less magic" if it is implemented as "+10 to diplomacy roll" rather than th original, which there were no rules for "what a friend would do for you")
It seems the encounter based vancian misses much of this - by refreshing every encounter, you kill #1 and #4.
By suggesting nincombat is rituals, you removes 3.
I just don't see you bringing in the old school crowd with your system, even though I agree it has merit.
|
|
|
