Does Spellcasting need a broader rethink?

[Nightwhisper]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Remembering he was arguing earlier that 4E daily powers were Vancian.

Vancianesque, very, every 1st-level 4th Ed character (pre-Essentials) has 1 daily power/spell, that they fire-and-forget.

I appreciate the attempts at gang culture, through.

I guess we have different internal definitions for Vancian. Do you consider the 3.5 Barbarian's Rage Vancian? The Paladin's Smite Evil?

To me, for something to count as Vancian, it needs to deal with slots that you interact with and discreet effects you can put in them. Preparing specific spells in slots or expending them spontaneously is Vancian. Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

But having a daily ability is not Vancian, even if that ability is a spell. Casting spells using spell points, even if they are a daily resource, is not.

The 4e Wizard is Vancian since it gets to choose between two spells for some of its powers each day. The other classes have daily abilities.

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

Yes, again, Vancianesque, and it was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design, at the time, they just ditched the recovery of Manoeuvres (powers) during an encounter.

[Nightwhisper]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

Yes, again, Vancianesque, and it was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design, at the time, they just ditched the recovery of Manoeuvres (powers) during an encounter.

So could you just answer if Smite Evil is Vancian?

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

Yes, again, Vancianesque, and it was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design, at the time, they just ditched the recovery of Manoeuvres (powers) during an encounter.

So could you just answer if Smite Evil is Vancian?

Yeah, this is an old argument point, an interrogative to try and prove a double-standard (I remember this from the WotC boards), the rage and smite bit, well, as neither are a power (spell, or manoeuvre), no.

[Nightwhisper]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

Yes, again, Vancianesque, and it was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design, at the time, they just ditched the recovery of Manoeuvres (powers) during an encounter.

So could you just answer if Smite Evil is Vancian?

Yeah, this is an old argument point, an interrogative to try and prove a double-standard (I remember this from the WotC boards), the rage and smite bit, well, as neither are a power (spell, or manoeuvre), no.

I am not really trying to prove anything, I'm trying to understand and you skipped right over a direct question in my earlier post.

I just don't see what you are using as the basis for deciding what is Vancian. My current best guess is formatting, not mechanics. So if Smite Evil was formatted like a spell, even if none of the mechanics attached to it changed, it would be Vancian to you. Would you say this is a correct assesment?

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

Even the Tome of Battle classes are Vancian, to me.

Yes, again, Vancianesque, and it was a "snapshot" into 4th Ed design, at the time, they just ditched the recovery of Manoeuvres (powers) during an encounter.

So could you just answer if Smite Evil is Vancian?

Yeah, this is an old argument point, an interrogative to try and prove a double-standard (I remember this from the WotC boards), the rage and smite bit, well, as neither are a power (spell, or manoeuvre), no.

I am not really trying to prove anything, I'm trying to understand and you skipped right over a direct question in my earlier post.

I just don't see what you are using as the basis for deciding what is Vancian. My current best guess is formatting, not mechanics. So if Smite Evil was formatted like a spell, even if none of the mechanics attached to it changed, it would be Vancian to you. Would you say this is a correct assesment?

I guess, if it's a spell, or prayer, or manouvre what-have-you, that you fire-and-forget, seems Vancianesque, to me.

Again, I am not saying Vancian is the bee's knees of magic systems, and only the original Vancian from Basic/AD&D is the way to go. It is very D&D, though, in some form, daily spell/resource management. Other systems are fine, great, I love alternate/variant magic systems (well, anything, really) in D&D, like 3rd Ed Pact magic, the aforementioned Blade magic from ToB, I even like Incarnum (I have converted all of them to 5th Ed). I also recently converted the Occultist to 5th Ed, I love that class.

[thejeff]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Remembering he was arguing earlier that 4E daily powers were Vancian.

Vancianesque, very, every 1st-level 4th Ed character (pre-Essentials) has 1 daily power/spell, that they fire-and-forget.

I appreciate the attempts at gang culture, through.

WTF? "gang culture"?

That wasn't intended as an attack. I was pointing out that since you had a different take on what "Vancian" meant, it makes sense you'll have a different take on how central it is to D&D.

I'm not even saying you're wrong about it and I'm right, just that if we're using the word to mean different things and especially if we don't realize it, then we're talking past each other.

[Nightwhisper]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I guess, if it's a spell, or prayer, or manouvre what-have-you, that you fire-and-forget, seems Vancianesque, to me.

You might want to prepare to be misunderstood in forum discussions, then. From what I have gathered, having a class ability that says "Once per day, you can cast fireball" is not a Vancian ability for most. The qualifier is not just discreet fire-and-forget spells, but also the slots you load them into. I've seen people say 5e's magic system is not Vancian because you don't prepare spells in slots of varying levels, just a total number of spells.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Again, I am not saying Vancian is the bee's knees of magic systems, and only the original Vancian from Basic/AD&D is the way to go. It is very D&D, though, in some form, daily spell/resource management. Other systems are fine, great, I love alternate/variant magic systems (well, anything, really) in D&D, like 3rd Ed Pact magic, the aforementioned Blade magic from ToB, I even like Incarnum (I have converted all of them to 5th Ed). I also recently converted the Occultist to 5th Ed, I love that class.

Incarnum really suffers from not having enough support, especially when you consider the fact that the basic version of all effects is available at 1st level. But it is a fun system, and I'm playing a dwarf Incarnate/Ironsoul Forgemaster in a long-running game.

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I guess, if it's a spell, or prayer, or manouvre what-have-you, that you fire-and-forget, seems Vancianesque, to me.

You might want to prepare to be misunderstood in forum discussions, then. From what I have gathered, having a class ability that says "Once per day, you can cast fireball" is not a Vancian ability for most. The qualifier is not just discreet fire-and-forget spells, but also the slots you load them into. I've seen people say 5e's magic system is not Vancian because you don't prepare spells in slots of varying levels, just a total number of spells.

I hear ya, I guess I think of 1/day spells and such, as Vancian-esque/pseudo-Vancian (forget after casting, for a day), I will no longer say Vancian, as that entails the prepared slots deal and all.

So, right on, take it easy.

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Incarnum really suffers from not having enough support, especially when you consider the fact that the basic version of all effects is available at 1st level. But it is a fun system, and I'm playing a dwarf Incarnate/Ironsoul Forgemaster in a long-running game.

Also, some soulmelds are so weak, and some are almost essential. A monk/incarnate with Lightning Gauntlets is rather nice.

With the proficiency bonus system, it actually slots quite well into 5th Ed.

[Nightwhisper]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I hear ya, I guess I think of 1/day spells and such, as Vancian-esque/pseudo-Vancian (forget after casting, for a day), I will no longer say Vancian, as that entails the prepared slots deal and all.

So, right on, take it easy.

Sorry if I came on hard, I was just curious. And thanks for walking me through your thought process.

[Vic Ferrari]

Nightwhisper wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I hear ya, I guess I think of 1/day spells and such, as Vancian-esque/pseudo-Vancian (forget after casting, for a day), I will no longer say Vancian, as that entails the prepared slots deal and all.

So, right on, take it easy.

Sorry if I came on hard, I was just curious. And thanks for walking me through your thought process.

It's all good, I just had flashbacks of where this conversation can go/end, so, thanks to you, too (for honestly trying to understand, converse); if only it could be like this more, around here.

[Dire Ursus]

I feel like Arcanist style casting won't fix everything. I would be fine with a completely overhaul getting rid of Vancian casting but I'm honestly not sure what would be a good alternative and I haven't seen any to my liking in this thread. I feel like this is where the devs are at as well. They know Vancian casting isn't perfect but the alternatives also have their own problems and they know that Vancian casting can work. Perhaps they should do a new spell casting experiment ala the focus points experiment happening right now. So that they don't have to completely overhaul the spells in the current playtest but give everyone an opportunity to play a few experimental ways to handle spell casting.

[Mechagamera]

EberronHoward wrote:

Mechagamera wrote:

The idea I think that is best to borrow from 4e would be that utility spells have their own spell slots. That way they could keep "utility overload" from complicating game design. Even classes that would have the highest utility to general ratio (probably bards and clerics), could have a ratio of 1:2.

If wizards picked a school, then school spells could count as general or utility for that wizard.

IDK, I'm a big fan of 4th edition D&D, and tentatively a fan of PF2, but I think that would make the two systems too similar. I'm enjoying how my spellcasting players can go from full combat spells to total utility depending on the threats facing them (or how they want to approach their challenges).

As long as the damage spells and utility spells are roughly balanced in general (fighting a monster isn't always better than Fly, Invisibility, or Charm, and vice-versa), I'm okay with a player focusing heavily on one side of the spectrum.

Utility/buff spells create more complications in game design than damage spells (although not nearly as many as summoning spells). I think this is one area that will be changed no matter what the playtest results are, although it is possible they will be limited in different ways than they are in the playtest.

[CaniestDog]

I'm not a big fan of Heightening Spells, no one I've gamed with has found it very pleasant to manage and track.

I'd rather spells gain the benefit of heightened effects based on your casting skill proficiency, although this would require a massive change to the games balance.

For example:

MAGE ARMOR SPELL 1 Abjuration
Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Duration 1 day

You ward yourself with shimmering magical energy. While wearing mage armor, you use your unarmored proficiency to calculate your AC.

Casting skill Trained Proficiency: Gain a +1 item bonus to AC

Casting skill Expert Proficiency: The bonus increases to +2, and you gain a +1
item bonus to saving throws.

Casting skill Master Proficiency: The bonus increases to +4, and you gain a +3
item bonus to saving throws.

Casting skill Legendary Proficiency: The bonus increases to +6, and you gain a +5
item bonus to saving throws.

[bro1017]

CaniestDog wrote:

I'm not a big fan of Heightening Spells, no one I've gamed with has found it very pleasant to manage and track.

I'd rather spells gain the benefit of heightened effects based on your casting skill proficiency, although this would require a massive change to the games balance.

Massive change to the balance is an understatement. The system specifically removed auto-heightening spells because it feeds into the "quadratic caster" paradigm.

Incidentally, I'm curious how your group finds the current system unpleasant to track. Spells have very set functions, which is only improved by spell slots. To me, that's way less bookkeeping than determining "fireball does this much damage at my level, my buffs can target this many people, and that changes every time I level up"