Community

Sep 28, 2012 -- 1:03PM, cheethorne wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 5:17AM, CarlT wrote:

I don't trust spell point mechanisms unless the spells are specifically chosen to complement the system - most likely set-number-of-targets spells - because I think it is easly abused and potentially broken

I agree completely, just taking a limited set of existing wizard spells and letting Sorcers go crazy with it just doesn't seem like a good idea. I mean, does anyone know what effect using Cause Fear 16 times per day would have on class balance (as an example, but it really could be most spells).

If the spell is balanced in the first place, it shouldn't matter how many times you cast it.

Sep 28, 2012 -- 1:18PM, Salla wrote:

If the spell is balanced in the first place, it shouldn't matter how many times you cast it.

Didn't 4E solve this by designating spells as either at-will / encounter / daily to balance them? They obviously thought that it mattered 100% how many times you could cast a spell based on how powerful it was, and took steps to organize them. Varying degrees of power do not imbalance a game. Improperly implementing those power-levels can and does imbalance a game.

Sep 28, 2012 -- 1:18PM, Salla wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 1:03PM, cheethorne wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 5:17AM, CarlT wrote:

I don't trust spell point mechanisms unless the spells are specifically chosen to complement the system - most likely set-number-of-targets spells - because I think it is easly abused and potentially broken

I agree completely, just taking a limited set of existing wizard spells and letting Sorcers go crazy with it just doesn't seem like a good idea. I mean, does anyone know what effect using Cause Fear 16 times per day would have on class balance (as an example, but it really could be most spells).

If the spell is balanced in the first place, it shouldn't matter how many times you cast it.

PRobably true.  But spells are complex enough that no edition has ever made them all perfectly balanced relative to each other (not even 4E) so why assume 5E will start?

One of the advantages of Vancian castng is that no matter how good a spell is - you can only cast it a set number of times per day - and the rest of your spells have to be used for something else.

So if (as an example) Cause Fear is broken you can only cast it once or twice a day when you first learn it and eventually max out at four times a day under a typical Vancian system (maybe more if you learn it in higher spell slots). But in a spell point system you can find that most effecient or broken spell and cast it over and over with no limitations.


One of the often overlooked advantages of the Vancian system is that the mechanics themselves put a brake on the worse abuses due to imbalanced spells - brakes which are removed when you go to less restrictive casting systems.

Carl

Sep 28, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Sesdun wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 1:01PM, tanstaafl48 wrote:

Out of curiosity, Vancian fans, how many of you would be okay with some sort of alternate system that preserved the focus on daily resources while potentially losing the explicit spell slots?

I would be entirely okay with an alternate system providing the three things I like with vancian casting.

* Few but powerful and significant spells, contrary to spammable and relatively meaningless spells.
* That spellcasters mostly use a slowly returning resource (daily, weekly, whatever)
* That wizards take a scholarly approach to magic which involes pre-preparation of spells, learning of spells, a spellbook etc.

I want the feeling of the traditional d&d wizard, the actual system is not really important.
(But 4Es system for instance, did not capture this feeling..)

Few but powerful spells with no spammy attacks? Exactly what are spellcasters supposed to do when they don't want to waste a spell then?

I don't know about you, but you're almost describing a low level spellcaster in any previous edition where you spent levels 1-5 or so doing nothing. I remember those editions. They weren't fun.

Having weak spammy attacks fixes this problem by letting you be a spellcaster when you're not blowing things up.

I'll be up-front and admit that I love 4e. It fixed a LOT of the issues I was having with 2nd and 3rd. Sure it introduced it's own set of problems, but they were tame compared to the 2-handed combat monsters playing pet nodwick for their wizard/sorcerer/cleric/dual-progression prc overlords that 3e devolved into at the end of it's life (a lot like the multi-class abuses that plagued high-level 2nd edition. Don't get me started on the BS that was Skills and Powers...).

The only part of 4e that I think would have been better-off represented by the spell-slot system of previous editions was ritual magic.

That's it.

Take 4e, fix some of the problems the new systems introduced (too many powers per class for example...too much emphasis on playing with minis and a battle-mat...etc), drop gold-restrictive ritual magic, find some way to reintroduce random loot tables without borking balance, drop-kick skill challenges into the nether, and replace the overly long ability list for every class with a much smaller number of skills that tend to be more flexable and evolve as your character levels.

There. I just fixed 4e. Slap a 5e sticker on the cover and ship it.

The only times I won't hate on the spell-slot system are as a replacement for 4e's ritual magic system, or as an optional magic system for D&D that a) not default, and b) not core. I hate it. I will never make it onto my gaming table as a primary magic system ever again. Not for me as a player, and definetly not as a GM. I've seen it completely fail as a system too many times to ever give it another chance.