|
You seem to miss the point.
You are saying that spell slots is the same as having a pool of mana. It is not. The Sorcerer is closer to having that sort of pool than the woeful Wizard.
The Pools that the current system has are auxiliary pools. Monk Ki pools, Magus Arcane pool and the like. This needs to be changed in the next iteration in my view, uses that these pools represent would be inherent to the class instead of tacked on like they are now.
Mana is a crutch that is fine for video games, but not for the pen and paper role play.
|
|
The main reason I disagree with that is the fact that one would need to "prepare" multiple copies of a spell to be able to cast it more than once. This, more than anything else, is the reason to veer away from the Vancian casting mold. I would rather have cool downs (1dx rounds before you can cast again) rather than forgetting the spell completely.
Why did 3.0 have both the Wizard and Sorcerer again? The only difference between the two was mechanics.
The main reason I disagree with that is the fact that one would need to "prepare" multiple copies of a spell to be able to cast it more than once. This, more than anything else, is the reason to veer away from the Vancian casting mold. I would rather have cool downs (1dx rounds before you can cast again) rather than forgetting the spell completely.
Why did 3.0 have both the Wizard and Sorcerer again? The only difference between the two was mechanics.
You're just ignoring the metaphysical implications of the magic system in favor of how you think it should work. You think spells are like maneuvers, or skills, things you learn how to do and can do them over and over again.
In Pathfinder, they're not like that. You use a complex ritual to construct a metaphysical object that you carry around on your aura. Each fireball is like an invisible magical grenade you have built. Then you use a combination of words, gestures and physical ingredients to pull the pins on those grenades.
That's not actually any weirder than a skill-based magic system. And I think it's pretty cool if you take it on its own terms.
Consider: magicians in pathfinder know that spell levels and spell slots exist. They know unambiguously how many spells they can hold on their own aura. They don't think of spells as skills, they think of them as instructions for creating magical ammunition. They certainly don't think of it as "memorizing" and "forgetting" some kind of actual knowledge, which is why Pathfinder and 3.0 both dispensed with those terms. They prepare and discharge spells.
Now, I like skill-based systems too. The PF/3e system is a bad model for clichéd magic tropes precisely because it has strange and complex rules of its own. You could have a much better system for Harry Potter magic, but that doesn't make a completely alternative system a bad one.
I agree with Mythic Evil Lincoln.
The main thing I would change about the magic system is that I'd probably want more than vancian and spontaneous even just to make the classes or forms of magic different and probably allow spell levels to convert into other level. (i.e. sacrifice two level 1 spells for an extra level 2 spell or one level 2 spell for two level 1 spells when preparing.)
I think that's my only real pet peeve with vancian casting. I accept it for wizards, magi and clerics but not really anyone else.
A spontaneous druid-type might be fun, too. But that could be solved by an archetype or alternate class (Advanced Class????).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a second level slot cannot be prepared in a first level slot but a first can be in a second second level slots are larger. Why is there not some ratio of size or complexity n/m such that n second level spells can be prepared in place of m first level spells? If it were larger than two you'd get multiple first level spells per second level slot so it must be low enough to matter.
Because one slot is one slot is one slot. (Or one point is one point, if you prefer.) The metaphysical laws say 'the first circle can rise to the second, but the second cannot sink to the first'. It has nothing to do with metaphysical 'size'.
Atarlost, you're getting trolled by TriOmegaZero. I'm pointing that out in case you want to stop.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I will describe my suggested wizard again.
Spells have a complexity value. It loosely corresponds to spell level, but does not need to be exact. This is an integer.
Wizards have a pool of concentration. This is a larger integer.
Wizards may prepare any spells they know and are high enough level to cast provided the sum of their complexities does not exceed the wizard's concentration.
There *should* be a mid-day rest mechanic where they can re-use the concentration previously spent on spells that have already been cast and had their durations expire, but so long as other classes irrationally cleave to per diem limits so must wizards. I believe no class should be so restricted and everyone from barbarian to wizard should be able to take a nap or study break and come back refreshed in the evening.
Sorcerers don't concentrate and for them the term mana is fine. They spend it as they cast their spells over the course of the day. It should ideally refresh at a steady rate. Possibly 1/16th per hour of sleep and 1/48 per waking hour.
That sounds interesting to me, but I would not be very happy if it became the system in Pathfinder.
For starters, a whole lot of published material goes down the toilet. Everyone has to relearn the game. A lot of people hate doing that. The proposed system had better be 100% abuse-proof too, or you're going to have torches and pitchforks. Actually, You'll have those anyway even if it *is* perfect, because people hate change.
Secondly, although I'm open to variant systems, I actually like the existing system. A lot of people do. I would guess we're in the majority of Pathfinder players, since that's the Pathfinder magic system. I get that we're talking hypotheticals here, but your "lots of people who hate the system" is probably fewer than my "lots of people who like it".
Your ideas are cool, but you seem to have forgotten that this is a completely hypothetical discussion. There is no place for shouting and implied swearing in this.
... except maybe at ToZ, but that has less to do with the topic and more to do with ToZ.
I am the windmill at which the world tilts.
I like the Vancian system in the game, but I wish more spellcasting classes had features like the magus's Arcane Pool and Spell Recall. I understand the mechanic wasn't around when they developed the sorcerer and wizard and cleric and druid, but it would be neat if clerics could spend a channel energy use to cast a 1st level spell, or a druid spend a wild shape use to cast a spell, etc. etc. Sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) might get more spells per day instead.
|
|
My main point, the overall concept I am trying to convey, is that a unified magic system is long overdue. It could have been done in 3.0, using the Sorcerer mechanic system wide.
The next iteration of pathfinder should, I hope, be more than a clean up of OGL and condensed rules pulled from several different areas and sources. When it comes to making a new version, a break from some of the bad tropes and mechanics that have plagued the game since 1st edition, Vancian casting being on the forefront.
|
I have an easy way to convert to a very simple spell point system. It doesn't need to have everyone re-learning the game or anything.
A spell costs as many points as it's spell level. IE, a first-level spell costs 1 point, a second-level spell costs 2, a cantrip/orison costs 0, etc. A spellcaster has as many points per day as his normal spells/day added up. A spellcaster cannot learn/cast spells that cost more points than what the normal highest level spell he can cast (scrolls aside).
Kthulhu option seems pretty good except that give caster more versatility but at this point it doesn't matter much caster already rule.
TOZ I agree with you about the current vancian is points with restrictions but I don´t like those restrictions, something like what Kthulhu propose sounds great.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the spell system, here are my thoughts.
1. It was a good first step what they did with Sorcerers to separate them from wizards.
Now it is time to take another step.
I think as is, sorcerers and spontaneous casters are perfectly fine. I think that is a good approach to reflect untrained casters, and I think a point system for them will create more problems than it solves.
Prepared casters...I think we need to take a big step back and look at the concept behind the fluff and see how we can better match it.
Essentially, the concept is that you need to spend time preparing spells each day. You put your component pouch together and then you have the spells. This has shifted conceptually to "Memorize" each day and I think that was a mistake.
So why not take the approach of making it that the act of casting the spell is really the act of completing the spell. In the case of divine, you prayed in the morning for the ability to do specific things later that day, and now those prayers are granted to you. Hence it not having spell failure. In the case of arcane, you are actually completing the spell, going through all of the motions and combinations which can be impaired by armor and such.
How is this different you ask. This is the part people won't like.
Get rid of the stuff that lets you bypass the limitation of not having the right spell memorized at the right time. Return the primary restriction of being a prepared caster, specifically that you really and truly must prepare in advance. No more pearls of power or anything that lets you get around having the right spell prepared (not memorized, prepared) the right number of times.
Change bonded weapons from being able to cast "Any spell you know" to "One spell you know per level, with the list chosen at the beginning of the day".
Get rid of abilities that let you bring back a spell you had already memorized, with the possible exception of spells that specifically allow you to cast lower level spells using a higher level slot.
2. Get rid of metamagic rods. All of them. Use the slot or don't get the metamagic ability.
3. Add risk into spells that should be risky. High level casting is hugely powerful, and so sometimes it should also be hugely dangerous. You want to scry, damage/spell effects cast on the scrying eye can effect/damage you. You want a wish? Roll a d100 to see if it turned on you.
4. Set minimum arcane caster failure for items like bucklers and shields. Enough with the cheese bucklers and other loopholes to get the intentionally unarmored into armor.
5. Stop making crafting a caster thing. Crafting wondrous items should be the domain of crafters, not scholars. Get rid of the crafting bonus feats and make them have to select metamagic feats. Change the crafting feats to be open to all, with caster level reflective of skill points put into that specific craft, and magic being added by recipe.
Because prepared magic is essentially a recipe. Wizards aren't inherently magical. That is the spontaneous caster. Wizards simply know the recipes to make magic.
Perhaps the flaming sword requires it be tempered in a dragons heart, rather than a spell being cast on it. Obviously magic items that require spells should still require the spell, but let warriors make swords and armor if they choose to make the investment.
I'll stop there, this post is long enough.
Vancian can stay just add some other options like the 3.5 Warlock to the core book or a spell point sorcerer.
On thing I have thought about is make being a specialist wizard compulsory. Maybe combine that with spell ppints so you gain versatility as a specialist but lose access to every school.
I kind of miss some of the school options from 2nd ed Spells and Magic and I did try a wizards must be specialists rule.
|
|
Get rid of the stuff that lets you bypass the limitation of not having the right spell memorized at the right time. Return the primary restriction of being a prepared caster, specifically that you really and truly must prepare in advance. No more pearls of power or anything that lets you get around having the right spell prepared (not memorized, prepared) the right number of times.Change bonded weapons from being able to cast "Any spell you know" to "One spell you know per level, with the list chosen at the beginning of the day".
Get rid of abilities that let you bring back a spell you had already memorized, with the possible exception of spells that specifically allow you to cast lower level spells using a higher level slot.
Gods, yes. +1
Wizurd fanboys will hate this. For that reason alone, it is full of win. The rest is good, too, but it seems like ever since 3.0 introduced spontaneous casters, developers have been trying to give prepared casters the versatility that they have, with absolutely no trade off.
|
|
Kthulhu option seems pretty good except that give caster more versatility but at this point it doesn't matter much caster already rule.
TOZ I agree with you about the current vancian is points with restrictions but I don´t like those restrictions, something like what Kthulhu propose sounds great.
I'm not saying it's a great system, but it's very straight-forward, easy to understand, and doesn't require rebuilding the magic system from scratch. It would also boost spontaneous casters quite a bit more than prepared, enough where the delayed spell progression actually makes sense, instead of being the "FU for not choosing a prepared caster" that it is now. Especially if you couple it with ciretose's rules.
|
|
@JTibbs - Whatever rationale you want to use, wizards and other arcane spell casters not having access to armor without spell limitation is a must have for balance purposes and flavor. Gandalf and Merlin were not in full plate for some reason. The nature of that reason can be debated, but the outcome shouldn't be.
And to be clear, I'm not say all spells need backfire chances, only some spells where it makes sense as a limiting factor. I mentioned scry and wish, Teleport used to have a chart and I would bring that back. Similarly any of the binding spells should have unavoidable failure chances.
It isn't that the design is bad, it is that dangerous magic is dangerous.
Other wizards in literature do wear armor; but there are also feats characters can take that allow arcane spellcasters to reduce or avoid arcane spell failure.
Also, you can always choose to prepare a lower level spell in a higher level spell slot. So a 9th level wizard could fill his 4th and 5th level spell slots with fireball if he so chooses; it might make some sense for him to prepare lingering fireballs in his 4th level slots and empowered fireballs in his 5th level slots, though. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire game is a Sacred Cow.
Agreed. This is why I shrug at people petitioning for radical changes. There are so many progressive RPG designs out there that are great. Why would you try to "upgrade" the one game that's main advantage is its conservative style? All you'll end up with is a half-assed system that's not actually as good as the progressive systems, and not as nostalgic as the conservative ones.
4. Re-tool Pricing: I have HOW MANY GP?
Make the items cheaper, already.
Of the changes you call for, this one is probably going to create the most problems for the least benefit. The numbers are ridiculous, but changing them will only invalidate books and confuse legions of players.
1) Spamming cantrips is fine. If there's a problem with doing so, it's because they made the cantrip a little too strong. If DM's find it a problem, nerf that one cantrip. It doesn't invalidate the entire system.
2) Prepared and spontaneous casters DO need options from the other side of the aisle. Reserve feats in 3.5 and allowing memorization or spell fetching as options are actually good compromises.
An advanced archmage class that could combine both classes would be a great acheivement/target goal for PC's.
3)Feat chains are okay as long as all feats in the chain are worthwhile. Feat Chains are designed to favor the fighter, in the same way that high level spells are designed to favor casters. The main problem is with the feats themselves, not the chains.
4) More options for Melee are important. Making casters not intrude on other classes best stuff is also important.
5) Christmas tree items are easily corrected by having them either auto-scale with the characters, or by letting the characters level them as they choose by sacrificing gold to make them more powerful. Gold starts becoming inherently valuable as the way to 'level up' items. Power components can then be added in to replace gold for these purposes.
6) Yes, please, make a difference between Crafting an item and making it magical, and don't let magic stupidly shortcut the process. It's not a video game.
7) Make multiple attacks class features instead of based on BAB.
8) Make a distinction between levelling up between monster HD and trained class levels.
9) Make what you take at first level have teeth and value that cannot be picked up without onerous effort and expenditure at later levels. Most telling is armor/weapon profs.
10) Give fighters 4 skill points and 2 good saves, or at least a great explanation why they don't need them.
11) Make universalists truly a viable choice vs specialist wizards.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A LOT OF US BLEEPING HATE SPELL SLOTS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM GONE IN PATHFINDER 2.0
There are dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots. Spell slots are one of the signature things about D&D, going back forty years. Why are you forcing all the rest of us to give up the one game where Spell slots have existed for FORTY years to play the way *YOU* want to play? I mean, why can't you play one of those dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots? Why must you force D&D into that mold, when there are so many others that went down that path(... and by and large, failed or went into obscurity)
And, there are alternate magic systems in D&D that don’t use spell slots, the Invoker for instance. Play one of those, then.
IF Pathfinder does go down a path where they give up any of the main iconic memes of D&D, then most of the rest of us will stop playing it and find a system that does have Vancian casting, etc and play that. Which oddly is exactly why PF is so very popular, since that’s what happened with the newest ed.
By demanding that Pathfinder give up the basic roots of D&D, you are asking for Pathfinder to fail and dwindle into obscurity.
|
|
2) Prepared and spontaneous casters DO need options from the other side of the aisle.
Why?
100% serious question. I feel like the is similar to saying fighters need sneak attack.
How they access and use spells is the differentiating factor between the classes. Having cake and eating it too defeats the purpose of differentiation.
And aside from that, scrolls exist.
Wizards need to prepare in advance and once a spell is used it is gone, but they get potential access to more spells and get them sooner.
Sorcerers have a limited spell list, but don't need to prepare in advance.
One of the flaws in 3.5 design at the end was the desire to make each class able to be all things to all people, and creating things that removed the intended weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A LOT OF US BLEEPING HATE SPELL SLOTS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM GONE IN PATHFINDER 2.0
There are dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots. Spell slots are one of the signature things about D&D, going back forty years. Why are you forcing all the rest of us to give up the one game where Spell slots have existed for FORTY years to play the way *YOU* want to play? I mean, why can't you play one of those dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots? Why must you force D&D into that mold, when there are so many others that went down that path(... and by and large, failed or went into obscurity)
And, there are alternate magic systems in D&D that don’t use spell slots, the Invoker for instance. Play one of those, then.
Or play Pathfinder with a magic variant! I welcome that. I wouldn't necessarily welcome it in published adventure content, but as an option for home-brews, bring it on!
I draw the line there, actually. It's fine for people not to like it because it doesn't work the way they want. It's another thing to say it *shouldn't exist* because it's not what they expect, or it's "gamist", or my favorite, "unrealistic."
It's a fictional system for doing the impossible. This one happens to have esoteric rules, whereas most systems portray magic like dancing or acrobatics — once you learn it you can just do it over and over until you're tired.
It bears repeating: a system where "magic" means the ability to construct a finite number of invisible, metaphysical objects is no weirder than a system where "magic" means you know how to wave your hand just so and stuff happens.
Or play Pathfinder with a magic variant! I welcome that. I wouldn't necessarily welcome it in published adventure content, but as an option for home-brews, bring it on!
I have no problem with it as a published varient, suc as Word casting to some extent, and I have no problems with a couple of classes, like the Invoker- that don't use it.
But to just dump the root system of the most popular FRP in existance, and bring in something else is crazy.
It bears repeating: a system where "magic" means the ability to construct a finite number of invisible, metaphysical objects is no weirder than a system where "magic" means you know how to wave your hand just so and stuff happens.
The latter isn't weird at all! I do it all the time, and stuff falls off the table!
However, yeah, this is something I wouldn't want abolished either, and I'm certainly not the biggest fan of Vancian magic as a mechanic. It's all part of what makes the game feel the way it does though - removing it would just feel wrong.
Including an alternate system (or my own preference, new caster classes that do things differently, such as a single-pool caster and a "roll for mana exhaustion" caster) would be fine.
2) Prepared and spontaneous casters DO need options from the other side of the aisle.
Why?
100% serious question. I feel like the is similar to saying fighters need sneak attack.
How they access and use spells is the differentiating factor between the classes. Having cake and eating it too defeats the purpose of differentiation.
And aside from that, scrolls exist.
Wizards need to prepare in advance and once a spell is used it is gone, but they get potential access to more spells and get them sooner.
Sorcerers have a limited spell list, but don't need to prepare in advance.
One of the flaws in 3.5 design at the end was the desire to make each class able to be all things to all people, and creating things that removed the intended weaknesses.
Because both classes have exactly the same problem - they don't have the right spell at the right time for the right reason.
For the wizard, oops, he didn't memorize it or oops, he cast it sooner.
For the sorc, oops, it's not one of spells known, or maaaaybe they ran out of spell slots.
Both suffer in that they don't have a decent spam attack, even at low power (reserve feats helped lots with this in 3.5).
Wizards get around this with fast study, pearls of power, and arcane bonds.
Sorcs get around the problem with Pages of Spell Learning, Rings of Spell Learning, and being able to memorize one shot spells.
Both can use wands and scrolls, too, but those are just like the other magic items, really.
a better analogy is that the fighter needs more skill points, and the rogue needs a better way to up his non-SA fighting damage.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because both classes have exactly the same problem - they don't have the right spell at the right time for the right reason.
I don't see that as a "problem" as much as I see it as the driving strategy inherent in playing the class.
Choices are the game. Removing the need to make difficult choices isn't a good thing, IMHO. Creating ways to get around limitations defeats the purpose of having the limitations in the first place.
|
|
An april fools announcement the next day.
The day they move to Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I move on from Pathfinder. Some of the reprinting from 3.5 to PF material for beginning players has been understandable, even necessary, but annoying.
However, I'm too invested, far too invested for them to change systems and start rehashing campaign guides, region guides, race guides. Even if they don't reprint/update the APs, there's too much material there.
Pathfinder's setting hasn't been structured like the Forgotten Realms, where the timelime continues to move forward. The structure of "core" Golarion is very loose and aside from a few products, there's very little linearity. Thus, there's little to no appeal to seeing a new edition of the setting for me.
An april fools announcement the next day.
The day they move to Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I move on from Pathfinder. Some of the reprinting from 3.5 to PF material for beginning players has been understandable, even necessary, but annoying.
However, I'm too invested, far too invested for them to change systems and start rehashing campaign guides, region guides, race guides. Even if they don't reprint/update the APs, there's too much material there.
Pathfinder's setting hasn't been structured like the Forgotten Realms, where the timelime continues to move forward. The structure of "core" Golarion is very loose and aside from a few products, there's very little linearity. Thus, there's little to no appeal to seeing a new edition of the setting for me.
I wouldn't mind too much if some of the older campaign setting books re-done in compilation form with edits, updates, and/or new material added (such as how there have been three editions so far of the main campaign setting book, or if they decided to put all the "[race] of Golarion" books together in a single volume) but I'd agree totally that ending the product line and starting afresh would annoy more than a few of us (especially those that moved to Pathfinder to avoid doing precisely that.)
I'd much rather see an evolution over time where outdated books (those that have been far too long out of print and need many changes to bring them in line with newer releases) were selectively updated/replaced in a modular fashion than doing a full edition reboot that just means everything you ever bought is suddenly out of date and needs replacing.
|
|
I'd much rather see an evolution over time where outdated books (those that have been far too long out of print and need many changes to bring them in line with newer releases) were selectively updated/replaced in a modular fashion than doing a full edition reboot that just means everything you ever bought is suddenly out of date and needs replacing.
See that's the thing right, if there's no progression in the setting, only the stat blocks are out of date. And if they're reprinting books to replace stat blocks for a new edition, it's just useless and a waste of money to me.
Anyone with any system will reach a point where they can convert any stat block to another system.. even one that's radically different because if they play a system enough, they'll get to know it well. It might not be super accurate, someone else might be able to do it better, but it won't be broken at the game table.
So reprinted books for the sake of replacing stat blocks doesn't get my money, they're as much lore books as they are rule books.
----
It's funny, because here Pathfinder is in the situation where there's no incentive to buy new books with a new edition.. where WOTC is trying to sell people on the idea that they can produce Forgotten Realms supplements that'll support any era of play... whether it be pre-4e, 4e, or post-4e verions of the Realms. I don't believe for a second they can produce books that are useful for 3 different eras separated by 120something years but we'll see.
|
|
A LOT OF US BLEEPING HATE SPELL SLOTS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM GONE IN PATHFINDER 2.0
There are dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots. Spell slots are one of the signature things about D&D, going back forty years. Why are you forcing all the rest of us to give up the one game where Spell slots have existed for FORTY years to play the way *YOU* want to play? I mean, why can't you play one of those dozens and dozens of FRP games out there without spell slots? Why must you force D&D into that mold, when there are so many others that went down that path(... and by and large, failed or went into obscurity)
And, there are alternate magic systems in D&D that don’t use spell slots, the Invoker for instance. Play one of those, then.
IF Pathfinder does go down a path where they give up any of the main iconic memes of D&D, then most of the rest of us will stop playing it and find a system that does have Vancian casting, etc and play that. Which oddly is exactly why PF is so very popular, since that’s what happened with the newest ed.
By demanding that Pathfinder give up the basic roots of D&D, you are asking for Pathfinder to fail and dwindle into obscurity.
It is not iconic, it is a relic of how magic was handled in a work of fiction that is outdated by today's standard. (Ever read Harry Potter? Imagine Vancian magic there. It wouldn't work)
You can still have a spellbook, have a fixed number of spells to use in a day, even memorize (Prepare?) a set list. My main problem is that a Wizard forgets everything. It is amazing the guy can find his own nose in front of his face.
Remove the need to memorize more than one copy of a spell in a day, have some way to be able to access spells from the spellbook in less time than a day.
I, myself, want a different system that does not use Spell points (Mana) per sey. I am all for a spell pool, but for stunts and spell use, not for a tracker of spells used.
Vancian Casting is long in the tooth, not because of age or tradition, but because the gaming rpg community has, overall, progressed past the clunky system and produced all the things you mention in your post.
The first thing that PF did when introducing new classes is provide Spontaneous caster versions of almost all the casters that still mem spells. Except for the Cleric, most I have seen in game have either been a spontaneous caster, or an archtype that mitigates the restrictions of the class.
I still question why both versions of the mechanics was put in 3.0 way back when, asking "Why have the Wizard and the Sorcerer put in this version? They are the same class."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not iconic...
If I say something about 9th level spells, people are going to instantly think Dungeons and Dragons.
My main problem is that a Wizard forgets everything.
No he doesn't. You may remember exactly how to bake a cupcake, but that doesn't mean you can eat one without preparing it again.
|
|
I still question why both versions of the mechanics was put in 3.0 way back when, asking "Why have the Wizard and the Sorcerer put in this version? They are the same class."
Monte Cook's explanation was very simple.
Too many pages of the PHB would be devoted ONLY to the Wizard if there wasn't another class that drew from the same spell pool. The Cleric has fewer cleric only spells then the Wizard.
At the end of the day, 3.5 gave use both spell points and the Warlock class, as well as a plethora of sub-optional hybrid classes that drew on the spell list as well.
|
|
It is not iconic, it is a relic of how magic was handled in a work of fiction that is outdated by today's standard. (Ever read Harry Potter? Imagine Vancian magic there. It wouldn't work)
The hilarious thing? Even some D&D and Pathfinder fiction handwaves most of the Vancian magic crap (as it should).