Does Spellcasting need a broader rethink?

[Tridus]

The state of spellcasting in 2e is probably the biggest issue I have with it. I like a lot of changes and can work with a lot of the other stuff, but spellcasting is just not doing it for me at all.

Some of the problem is the overly high save DCs (which they already said will be addressed). Some of it is how badly spells were nerfed in effect and duration. But the biggest part is that spell slots were significantly cut down(*) while the core assumptions of Vancian casting were left in place.

With so many fewer spells per day and the nerfed duration on a lot of them, filling each slot with the spell you think you'll need is a lot more onerous than it used to be. Taking multiple castings of something is a very steep price when you only have 3 slots. Using spell slots for exploration mode activities is basically right out, as they don't last long enough and you don't have enough to spend on it in case you need them for combat.

This comes around to keeping the same spell prep system 1e had, but changing everything else around it. It feels much more onerous to have to plan every cast of every spell in advance with a significantly smaller number of them, as it shrinks your margin of error. When I have 6 slots in a given level, I can get one or two wrong and it's not a huge deal. With 3, each one I take that turns out to not be the right one is 33% of my slots for the level that are dead weight.

And frankly, for those of us who aren't at the top of the player skill level tree and do make mistakes on this stuff, that sucks. Part of why I was so excited about the staff rules in the focus playtest is that if you can get a decent staff, you can make this more forgiving for some spells. I really hope they keep that.

Fundamentally, a system that worked when I had at least 5 (usually 6, and sometimes even more) spells per level doesn't work nearly as well when I've got 3. If the goal is to keep these smaller spell per day numbers, a rethink of how they're prepared and cast needs to happen as well.

The most common suggestion is to switch to "Arcanist casting", where you pick the spells you can use in those slots, but don't assign them to slots. So if you wind up need one of those spells twice, you simply use the slots and don't have to have prepared a second one in advance. That certainly helps, especially with spells like Restoration where you really don't know how many you will need because it depends on how many people get hit by problematic status afflictions. I can tell you I really hate to have to tell someone "you're stuck with that condition today because I didn't prepare a third Restoration", and they don't particularly like it either. IMO, this would help quite a lot since even if I get one selection wrong at a given level, I can still use that slot for the two other spells and thus get some value out of it.

I also wonder if we could go even further and ditch spell slots entirely, in favor of a single casting pool. You get to prepare some spells, and casting them takes from the pool based on the spell level. So if I happen to end up needing eight 2nd level spells and zero 5th level spells, I just go ahead and cast them on the fly from the pool and that's how it goes. This also solves Heighten weirdness, since you simply pay the extra cost when you cast to get the Heightened effect. This is obviously a much more drastic change and I can see some people not liking it, but it would also address the problem.

Thoughts? I mostly just hope that Paizo isn't married to the idea that Vancian casting has to stay because it's always been that way. With the other changes they've made, it really doesn't work as well as it used to.

(*) The most recent survey mentioned losing an average of "one spell per level". I don't know if they ignored Clerics in that average or what, but that's only true on Clerics if you ignore both bonus spells and domain spells. The actual number is far higher, upwards of a 2e Cleric having half the spells of a 1e Cleric in a given level. Channel covers you for Heal, but not for any other spell, so if you weren't playing a healer or were doing something that didn't require a lot of healing, the loss stings hard.

[The Once and Future Kai]

I'd like a broader rethink but I'm not expecting one at this point. It's a missed opportunity in my opinion... My preference would be to let Wizards remain pure Vancian and change spell casting for all other classes. Personally, I'd be in favor of even more radical changes...but that would break the continuity goal.

This is why I'll probably switch over to Psionics after Dreamscarred Press releases Complete Psionics for Pathfinder Second Edition.

[Lyee]

So, I think any type of single-pool mana-style casting system is out before we start. It means casters can 'full nova' and chain top-level spells until it runs out, making them even more potent than current playtest or other editions in short adventuring days, and that's already their strongest point. You can definitely build a good system with it, but PF2 isn't in dire enough straits to do the type of complete overhaul of the entire magic system, and most other systems, that would require. It would drastically delay release and is a huge gamble. It won't happen.

Onto the more possible suggestion, Arcanist style casting is neat. I'd be up for it. It's also 5E style casting, though, and some people want to avoid looking like 5E at all costs for some reason.

Maybe allow spell-slot users to swap things out more freely in the '10 minute recovery sections' where repairs and treat wounds happen, Quick Study style?

[Tridus]

Lyee wrote:

So, I think any type of single-pool mana-style casting system is out before we start. It means casters can 'full nova' and chain top-level spells until it runs out, making them even more potent than current playtest or other editions in short adventuring days, and that's already their strongest point. You can definitely build a good system with it, but PF2 isn't in dire enough straits to do the type of complete overhaul of the entire magic system, and most other systems, that would require. It would drastically delay release and is a huge gamble. It won't happen.

You're probably right. :)

Quote:

Onto the more possible suggestion, Arcanist style casting is neat. I'd be up for it. It's also 5E style casting, though, and some people want to avoid looking like 5E at all costs for some reason.

That's honestly why I called it Arcanist casting and not 5e casting. :) The precident for it already exists in PF, so I would hope this isn't a barrier. But if they do want to differentiate from 5e, that is a place where it could be an obstacle.

Quote:

Maybe allow spell-slot users to swap things out more freely in the '10 minute recovery sections' where repairs and treat wounds happen, Quick Study style?

For the issues I'm having with the current system, this would actually work really well. Need a status recovery spell? Once I can get to downtime, I can get it. It still makes those selections matter in combat and any time when you're time crunched but a bad choice doesn't have to stay bad the entire day if you can get somewhere to do something about it.

It's also a relatively modest change, in that it's just adding a downtime activity and not actually changing the spell rules at all. Great idea. :)

[RazarTuk]

Lyee wrote:

So, I think any type of single-pool mana-style casting system is out before we start. It means casters can 'full nova' and chain top-level spells until it runs out, making them even more potent than current playtest or other editions in short adventuring days, and that's already their strongest point. You can definitely build a good system with it, but PF2 isn't in dire enough straits to do the type of complete overhaul of the entire magic system, and most other systems, that would require. It would drastically delay release and is a huge gamble. It won't happen.

Onto the more possible suggestion, Arcanist style casting is neat. I'd be up for it. It's also 5E style casting, though, and some people want to avoid looking like 5E at all costs for some reason.

Maybe allow spell-slot users to swap things out more freely in the '10 minute recovery sections' where repairs and treat wounds happen, Quick Study style?

I'm of the opposite opinion, that single-pool casting is more balanced. Sure, you can go nova, but that's more an end of the day thing. Most of the time, it amounts to being able to use your low-level spells more frequently. It's like how kineticists don't need to accept burn to use a basic blast, meaning they always have some sort of magical ability. But just like how a kineticist isn't going to rapidly accept burn and instead spread it out over the course of the day, it's theoretically the same thing with mana casters. It just also means that you have the ability to cast a second fireball if you really need it.

Paizo actually already implemented such a thing. It's effectively the arcanist capstone.

[MER-c]

What happens to Spontaneous casters under your proposed system?

[Tridus]

MER-c wrote:

What happens to Spontaneous casters under your proposed system?

Good question. If we're doing arcanist casting, they should have more spontaneous options (since they don't have to choose which spells to have available that day). So long as they get to have a big enough repitoire of spells to make that workable, I think it's fine. (If the Wizard can pick 4 spells of that level for the day to spontaneously cast and the Sorcerer has 8, you haven't obsoleted the Sorcerer but the Wizard can still change those 4 tomorrow.) Then you can add unique other class features to make them feel distinctive.

In a more drastic change like to a single spell pool system, I don't think the idea of seperate prepared and spontaneous caster classes exists anymore, and you'd need something else to differentiate them. Which is probably another reason why such a thing wouldn't happen.

For the more recent idea of swapping spells during downtime, I don't think anything in particular has to change.

I don't have all the answers here, I just see a problem and wanted to start a discussion about it.

[RazarTuk]

Tridus wrote:

In a more drastic change like to a single spell pool system, I don't think the idea of seperate prepared and spontaneous caster classes exists anymore, and you'd need something else to differentiate them. Which is probably another reason why such a thing wouldn't happen.

At least with psionics, you normally can't spend more power points at once than your caster level, and the equivalent of spontaneous casting is being able to spend a few points more at risk of backlash.

[Mats Öhrman]

A very nice system designed by Starfox, my GM, for a D&D 3.5 level 1-20 campaign using the Savage Tide AP:

Spellcasting did not exhaust the slot, but "locked" the spell level instead, prohibiting you from casting any other spells from that same spell level. At the end of your turn, you rolled individually for each of your locked spell levels to unlock them. Once a level was unlocked, you were free to cast any memorized/known spell of that level again. The DC to unlock levels increased, so higher levels were harder to unlock. Classes that originally were spontaneous casters got a bonus on the unlock roll.

E.g. cast a 3rd level spell, like Fireball, and you won't be able to cast another 3rd level spell such as another Fireball or a Lightning Bolt until you've managed to unlock 3rd level spells.

This system effectively eliminated the 15 minute adventuring day, stopping spells from being exhausted, while simultaneously eliminating "going nova" and overuse of spellcasting in a single combat. Cast too many spells, and soon you'd end up with all your available spell levels locked.

It was also easy to tune how much spellcasting you wanted to have by adjusting the DC you needed to unlock a level. If I recall correctly, we used 8 + spell level as unlock DC, so you needed to roll 9+ for the first level if it had been locked, 10+ for 2nd, and so on.

It often tended to encourage "creative" spell use, as the level you really wanted to use stubbornly refused to unlock. :)

[Corwin Icewolf]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

A very nice system designed by Starfox, my GM, for a D&D 3.5 level 1-20 campaign using the Savage Tide AP:

Spellcasting did not exhaust the slot, but "locked" the spell level instead, prohibiting you from casting any other spells from that same spell level. At the end of your turn, you rolled individually for each of your locked spell levels to unlock them. Once a level was unlocked, you were free to cast any memorized/known spell of that level again. The DC to unlock levels increased, so higher levels were harder to unlock. Classes that originally were spontaneous casters got a bonus on the unlock roll.

E.g. cast a 3rd level spell, like Fireball, and you won't be able to cast another 3rd level spell such as another Fireball or a Lightning Bolt until you've managed to unlock 3rd level spells.

This system effectively eliminated the 15 minute adventuring day, stopping spells from being exhausted, while simultaneously eliminating "going nova" and overuse of spellcasting in a single combat. Cast too many spells, and soon you'd end up with all your available spell levels locked.

It was also easy to tune how much spellcasting you wanted to have by adjusting the DC you needed to unlock a level. If I recall correctly, we used 8 + spell level as unlock DC, so you needed to roll 9+ for the first level if it had been locked, 10+ for 2nd, and so on.

It often tended to encourage "creative" spell use, as the level you really wanted to use stubbornly refused to unlock. :)

I really like the sound of this system, but I see some problems. Was it just a flat check to unlock the spell level? It seems like with those DCs anything else would auto succeed at high levels. And outside of combat wouldn't you basically just roll until you unlock the slot?

[Lady Melo]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

A very nice system designed by Starfox, my GM, for a D&D 3.5 level 1-20 campaign using the Savage Tide AP:

Spellcasting did not exhaust the slot, but "locked" the spell level instead, prohibiting you from casting any other spells from that same spell level. At the end of your turn, you rolled individually for each of your locked spell levels to unlock them. Once a level was unlocked, you were free to cast any memorized/known spell of that level again. The DC to unlock levels increased, so higher levels were harder to unlock. Classes that originally were spontaneous casters got a bonus on the unlock roll.

E.g. cast a 3rd level spell, like Fireball, and you won't be able to cast another 3rd level spell such as another Fireball or a Lightning Bolt until you've managed to unlock 3rd level spells.

This system effectively eliminated the 15 minute adventuring day, stopping spells from being exhausted, while simultaneously eliminating "going nova" and overuse of spellcasting in a single combat. Cast too many spells, and soon you'd end up with all your available spell levels locked.

It was also easy to tune how much spellcasting you wanted to have by adjusting the DC you needed to unlock a level. If I recall correctly, we used 8 + spell level as unlock DC, so you needed to roll 9+ for the first level if it had been locked, 10+ for 2nd, and so on.

It often tended to encourage "creative" spell use, as the level you really wanted to use stubbornly refused to unlock. :)

Seems pretty decent for purely combat magic, however what about spells used in non-combat, turning everything in to an unlimited ability is an extreme boost to narrative power of casters, which as i understand is the biggest element of disparity. It may work fairly well with an all caster party, just accepting that having magic is a superior option.

[thflame]

I think a mana system could work, assuming we used a similar system to 3.Ps healing over time for recovering mana.

It's really hard to justify going nova if it takes a week to refill mana from empty.

That is, unless your party can justify camping out in a dungeon for a week after every encounter.

[MER-c]

I think if we are to have a mana system we still need to make sorcerer and wizard distinct, so an idea I has was wizards could cast for less mana, but required an extra action to look up the spell in their spellbok, or focus their arcane devices. The Sorcerer pays a bit more than the wizard in mana, but doesn't need an extra action, both can heighten spells of course.

[LordVanya]

Not to mention that a mana-pool type system is easier to balance by adjusting the point cost of individual spells.
That's why the vast majority of all RPG video games use MP instead of Vancian.

Let's say you get 100 MP at level 20.
A level 9 spell could be set to 20 MP. You can't cast it more than 5 times a day assuming MP refreshes daily.
A level 1 spell could be 5 MP. Sure, you could use level 1 spells 20 times in a day, but if the spells are properly balanced, 20 level 1 spells would not deal even 1/2 the damage of the 5 level 9 spells.
It allows for spells that have a minimal impact on your resources that only have situational effects.

That said, I don't think they will do anything like that.

[thflame]

One of the things I really liked about 3.5 was the Versatile Spellcaster Feat.

This feat let you burn 2 slots of one level to cast a spell of one level higher.

This, coupled with being able to burn a higher level slot for a lower level spell just made casting feel more like "I have this reservoir of mystical energy that I can bend to my will" and less like, "I have a magic gun with limited ammo."

Vancian works REALLY well.... for Alchemists. It makes sense that they have to prepare their "spells" because they are literally preparing alchemical concoctions.

I always thought of wizards as really smart guys with a book of spells. They can memorize a few and look up the rest when the time calls for them and they can cast as many as they have mystical energy for.

Sorcerers are magical creatures that have a limited thematic list of spells and they can cast them at will until they run out of mystical energy, of which they have more because they are magical beings.

[RazarTuk]

LordVanya wrote:

Let's say you get 100 MP at level 20.

A level 9 spell could be set to 20 MP. You can't cast it more than 5 times a day assuming MP refreshes daily.
A level 1 spell could be 5 MP. Sure, you could use level 1 spells 20 times in a day, but if the spells are properly balanced, 20 level 1 spells would not deal even 1/2 the damage of the 5 level 9 spells.
It allows for spells that have a minimal impact on your resources that only have situational effects.

Yep. People focus on casters going nova, but it's really just another pool to manage. It's like how arcanists typically spread their arcane reservoirs over the day, bards with rounds of performance, kineticists with burn, magi with arcane pools... You can go nova, but that's more toward the end of the day, or possibly cases like fighting a boss in the morning then taking the rest of the day off. Overall, it really just results in people repeatedly using lower-level spells, similarly to how PF 1e gives unlimited cantrips.

Also, psionics already figured out an easy system for costs. Base cost is 2*Lv-1 (so levels where wizards unlock spells), augmentation is in units of spell points, and you can't normally spend more points than your caster level at once. Then the sorcerer-equivalent gets the ability to add a few free spell points (and break the normal limit) at the risk of some sort of backlash.

[lordredraven]

If we are talking radical rewrites of the spell system why not tie it into the proficiency system. Make every spell or power tied to a school/sphere Ala 2nd edition. You have a proficiency rank in every school appropriate for your spell list. The spell level of the spell is the base level for someone trained in that school. If you are untrained, the spell requires a spell slot of higher. If you are an expert it requires a spell slot lower. And that reduction continues until legendary. But getting to legendary in a spell proficiency requires specialization. So a legendary necromancer at 17 would make all 1-3 level necromancy spells into cantrips. Animate dead at the snap of a finger... Sure... You are a freaking legendary necromancer.... Seems about perfect to me. The legendary evoker could hurl fireballs all day. But at 17, that's hardly an issue. Your epic level... Be epic...

This would require a paths of power style rewrite but it would be super flavorful and reward specialist.

That being said I doubt we will see anything that radical.. I'll settle for arcanist. I think this is basically a modern assumption in New rpgs. Too much arcanist/5e/computer rpgs to put the vancian spell slots on a good place in light of these systems used elsewhere

[MER-c]

I think the issue with that is right now Fighters can basically only get a climb speed(for a feat they might not even invest toward) at the same level your proposed specialists would be throwing free to cast fireballs, thus we're back to the issue of Casters just doing everything a mundane can do, but better.

[Mechagamera]

Instead of personal mana, I would rather there is only so much magical energy in a given area (varies by type of area and type of energy), so if a wizard blasts a big spell, that doesn't leave much left. This solves the "my 4th level wizard can solo Cthulhu" problem, particularly if Cthulhu is sucking up a lot of power just by being somewhere.

Obviously no one wants to run out of juice, and what classes do is give give PC's different "batteries." Alchemists store them in formulas, wizards might become more gadget users (wand is good for X mana points, staff for Y), bards could suck some magic from nonmagic users if they are inspired by their performances, and clerics could have a ritual where their gods give them extra mana before the fight. For sorcerers, I would give them more hp's, and then let them sacrifice hp's for mana.

[Ninja in the Rye]

I said it in another thread, but I'd like to at least try out Arcanist style casting for the Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard and giving Sorcerers unlimited Spontaneous Heightening.

[RazarTuk]

MER-c wrote:

I think the issue with that is right now Fighters can basically only get a climb speed(for a feat they might not even invest toward) at the same level your proposed specialists would be throwing free to cast fireballs, thus we're back to the issue of Casters just doing everything a mundane can do, but better.

That problem's circular, though. People complain that martials are too weak, but also complain that any attempts to give them nice things are unrealistic.

[Tridus]

lordredraven wrote:

If we are talking radical rewrites of the spell system why not tie it into the proficiency system. Make every spell or power tied to a school/sphere Ala 2nd edition. You have a proficiency rank in every school appropriate for your spell list. The spell level of the spell is the base level for someone trained in that school. If you are untrained, the spell requires a spell slot of higher. If you are an expert it requires a spell slot lower. And that reduction continues until legendary. But getting to legendary in a spell proficiency requires specialization. So a legendary necromancer at 17 would make all 1-3 level necromancy spells into cantrips. Animate dead at the snap of a finger... Sure... You are a freaking legendary necromancer.... Seems about perfect to me. The legendary evoker could hurl fireballs all day. But at 17, that's hardly an issue. Your epic level... Be epic...

This would require a paths of power style rewrite but it would be super flavorful and reward specialist.

That being said I doubt we will see anything that radical.. I'll settle for arcanist. I think this is basically a modern assumption in New rpgs. Too much arcanist/5e/computer rpgs to put the vancian spell slots on a good place in light of these systems used elsewhere

This seems like a really neat idea for Wizards, for whom spell schools have long been a big deal, thematically. I'm not sure it applies as well to something like Clerics, where the school is largely irrelevant thematically because I'm pretty sure a god can figure out how to grant both Conjuration and Evocation spells effectively.

Neat idea, though! Lots of interesting ideas in this thread. It's hard to really know how ambitious to get without an idea of just how much Paizo's willing to alter at this point in development.

[Mats Öhrman]

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

A very nice system designed by Starfox, my GM, for a D&D 3.5 level 1-20 campaign using the Savage Tide AP:

Spellcasting did not exhaust the slot, but "locked" the spell level instead, prohibiting you from casting any other spells from that same spell level. At the end of your turn, you rolled individually for each of your locked spell levels to unlock them. Once a level was unlocked, you were free to cast any memorized/known spell of that level again. The DC to unlock levels increased, so higher levels were harder to unlock. Classes that originally were spontaneous casters got a bonus on the unlock roll.

E.g. cast a 3rd level spell, like Fireball, and you won't be able to cast another 3rd level spell such as another Fireball or a Lightning Bolt until you've managed to unlock 3rd level spells.

This system effectively eliminated the 15 minute adventuring day, stopping spells from being exhausted, while simultaneously eliminating "going nova" and overuse of spellcasting in a single combat. Cast too many spells, and soon you'd end up with all your available spell levels locked.

It was also easy to tune how much spellcasting you wanted to have by adjusting the DC you needed to unlock a level. If I recall correctly, we used 8 + spell level as unlock DC, so you needed to roll 9+ for the first level if it had been locked, 10+ for 2nd, and so on.

It often tended to encourage "creative" spell use, as the level you really wanted to use stubbornly refused to unlock. :)

I really like the sound of this system, but I see some problems. Was it just a flat check to unlock the spell level? It seems like with those DCs anything else would auto succeed at high levels. And outside of combat wouldn't you basically just roll until you unlock the slot?

Yes, a flat check. We tried improving the check with level, but flat worked better.

Outside combat slots would recharge so you had fresh slots for next fight - unless you wanted to keep a spell running continuously. This tied up that level, you had to roll Concentration checks to have the spell up any moment it mattered, and you risked going into combat with the slot locked and your running spell down.

[Steelfiredragon]

my opinion would be to get rid of vancian spellcasting.
its a relic of a bygone era when there was not likely a whole lot of spells.

[lordredraven]

Tridus wrote:

lordredraven wrote:

If we are talking radical rewrites of the spell system why not tie it into the proficiency system. Make every spell or power tied to a school/sphere Ala 2nd edition. You have a proficiency rank in every school appropriate for your spell list. The spell level of the spell is the base level for someone trained in that school. If you are untrained, the spell requires a spell slot of higher. If you are an expert it requires a spell slot lower. And that reduction continues until legendary. But getting to legendary in a spell proficiency requires specialization. So a legendary necromancer at 17 would make all 1-3 level necromancy spells into cantrips. Animate dead at the snap of a finger... Sure... You are a freaking legendary necromancer.... Seems about perfect to me. The legendary evoker could hurl fireballs all day. But at 17, that's hardly an issue. Your epic level... Be epic...

This would require a paths of power style rewrite but it would be super flavorful and reward specialist.

That being said I doubt we will see anything that radical.. I'll settle for arcanist. I think this is basically a modern assumption in New rpgs. Too much arcanist/5e/computer rpgs to put the vancian spell slots on a good place in light of these systems used elsewhere

This seems like a really neat idea for Wizards, for whom spell schools have long been a big deal, thematically. I'm not sure it applies as well to something like Clerics, where the school is largely irrelevant thematically because I'm pretty sure a god can figure out how to grant both Conjuration and Evocation spells effectively.

Neat idea, though! Lots of interesting ideas in this thread. It's hard to really know how ambitious to get without an idea of just how much Paizo's willing to alter at this point in development.

I think for Clerics spells you need to look at 2e D&d. Specialty Clerics could only cast spells from their gods domains called spheres. Your God didnt like fire.. You didn't get flame strike... Etc etc. I think you could divide gods domains into spheres for spell purposes. If you have the domain you are expert in it and it goes up as you level. Spells are one level less. The spheres related to the other domains in your gods portfolio that you didn't select you are trained in and go up slower.

Honest I think limiting cleric spells based on what your God does is a good way to limit the CoDzilla nonsense of yore. When D&d got away from that is when Clerics became busted beyond belief. And I think it is super thematic and a nice way to differentiate your cleric from another.

[Starfox]

Lady Melo wrote:

Seems pretty decent for purely combat magic, however what about spells used in non-combat, turning everything in to an unlimited ability is an extreme boost to narrative power of casters, which as i understand is the biggest element of disparity. It may work fairly well with an all caster party, just accepting that having magic is a superior option.

We had many buffs in this game, but they did lock up spell slots (you cannot recover the slot of a spell that is still running) so we actually had more buffs when using the normal rules in Mummy's Mask.

[Shain Edge]

How many people like the Earth Dawn system of spell casting?

The caster has a number of Matrix that he can put ready spells in, that are not quite easy to change out. Out of combat it is simple, trying to change it in combat is a bit more difficult.

Spells in a Matrix cost a pool of points based on the spell. In Earth Dawn, it was fatigue, a universal pool that included non-critical damage (Starfinder Stamina), talent costs and things like sprinting.

[Voss]

Steelfiredragon wrote:

my opinion would be to get rid of vancian spellcasting.

its a relic of a bygone era when there was not likely a whole lot of spells.

Heh. No. Spells were consistently one area (magic items were another) where writers of expansion material could just continually throw stuff in with little thought or consequence, and sooner or later almost every edition did multi-volume compilations of nothing but the additional spells that had accrued.

[sherlock1701]

Lyee wrote:

So, I think any type of single-pool mana-style casting system is out before we start. It means casters can 'full nova' and chain top-level spells until it runs out.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

[Greylurker]

Drop Vancian and you will lose a lot of people. Yeah there are a lot of different and better magic systems but Vancian is distinctly a part of D&D and by extension distinctly a part of Pathfinder. Drop it for something new and a lot of on the fence people will be done and gone.

Vancian as core and then introducing new systems later is probably their best choice. Personally I would love to see a more developed version of Words of Power from UM. It was a neat system that would have benefited from a bit more work and a few more options.

[Freagarthach]

lordredraven wrote:

Honest I think limiting cleric spells based on what your God does is a good way to limit the CoDzilla nonsense of yore. When D&d got away from that is when Clerics became busted beyond belief.

...comin' through with no remorse, from the dark you won't see me. Rise up from the sea like a CoDzilla...

[LordVanya]

The Earthdawn system sounds kind of interesting.
I'm going to have to look into it more.

[citricking]

Individual spells being weak at low levels and strong at higher levels causes lots of problems for the balance of spellcasters in combat. This causes buffing/debuffing spellcasters to be comparatively weaker at low levels and stronger at higher levels compared to classes that rely on weapon attacks whose power level grows much less dramatically.

All spells having the same DC causes this problem for spells that debuff. They are made very weak at low levels and increase in power as they get higher in level. For example level 1 fear is very weak, level 3 fear and level 3 slow are alright and level 6 slow is strong. At low levels the spells are too weak and maybe not even worth their action, while at middle levels maybe the spell power is appropriate, and at higher levels the spells are disproportionately stronger than they were before. This causes spellcasters to be very weak at low levels and increase in power dramatically as the get high level spells and their low level spells become worth using, giving them large increases to power.

Buffing spells exhibit these same problems, being far weaker at low level than high level. For example resist energy (the amount scales with level just to keep up with increased damage, but the increase in targets is a huge increase in power) and heroism. At low level very few of these spells are worth using, while at higher levels they can become powerful.

Damage/healing spells do not have these problems, because a highest level slot is always required to do level appropriate damage.

Polymorph/summoning spells should not have these problems either, if they are appropriately balanced for their level is a different issue. Summon spells of your highest level should have a consistent difference in level between the level you cast it and the level of the creature summoned, this would keep the creature the an appropriate power level if the building an encounter guidelines are correct.

Many powers have this same problem.

Have a number of spell slots per spell level makes having appropriately powerful low level spells cause higher level casters to have too many appropriately powerful spell casts. Having spell slots per spell level seems too entrenched in tradition, so a possible solution for this problem might be to have spells have different effects depending on the spells spell level and the level of the targets. So a level 3 slow could slow creatures of level 9 or lower, and a level 3 mass slow could slow multiple creatures of 2 or lower (numbers could be whatever is appropriate for the effect). This would allow low level spells to be useful, but not give higher level casters too many options. This puts buffs/debuffs on the same level as damage spells and allows spellcaster power level to grow more in line with other classes.

[Belisar]

Tridus wrote:

... The most common suggestion is to switch to "Arcanist casting", where you pick the spells you can use in those slots, but don't assign them to slots. So if you wind up need one of those spells twice, you simply use the slots and don't have to have prepared a second one in advance. That certainly helps, especially with spells like Restoration where you really don't know how many you will need because it depends on how many people get hit by problematic status afflictions. I can tell you I really hate to have to tell someone "you're stuck with that condition today because I didn't prepare a third Restoration", and they don't particularly like it either. IMO, this would help quite a lot since even if I get one selection wrong at a given level, I can still use that slot for the two other spells and thus get some value out of it.

I also wonder if we could go even further and ditch spell slots entirely, in favor of a single casting pool. You get to prepare some spells, and casting them takes from the pool based on the spell level. So if I happen to end up needing eight 2nd level spells and zero 5th level spells, I just go ahead and cast them on the fly from the pool and that's how it goes. This also solves Heighten weirdness, since you simply pay the extra cost when you cast to get the Heightened effect. This is obviously a much more drastic change and I can see some people not liking it, but it would also address the problem.
...

This is my main gripe with the Wizard/Cleric/Druid approach of preparing spells in specific spell slots. This way, many of the niche spells will never be actively prepared to not block spell slots for the more commonly used spells.

Said classes could instead prepare just a subset of their spells from their spell book/domains to be cast more flexibly (and heightened as desired). Thus fewer spell slots would be absolutely okay,

A spell points pool would be most flexible of course.

[Vic Ferrari]

Belisar wrote:

This is my main gripe with the Wizard/Cleric/Druid approach of preparing spells in specific spell slots. This way, many of the niche spells will never be actively prepared to not block spell slots for the more commonly used spells.

Said classes could instead prepare just a subset of their spells from their spell book/domains to be cast more flexibly (and heightened as desired). Thus fewer spell slots would be absolutely okay.

That sounds exactly like 5th Ed's system, clerics and wizards prepare a number of spells equal to their level + spellcasting ability modifier, and you have slots to cast them. No preparing fireball twice, as long as you have prepared it, and have a 3rd level or higher slot available, you can cast it.

[thflame]

I'll say that 5e is proof enough that Vancian magic has run it's course.

Especially if PF2 is supposed to be simpler, Vancian magic needs to die.

[Vic Ferrari]

thflame wrote:

I'll say that 5e is proof enough that Vancian magic has run it's course.

Especially if PF2 is supposed to be simpler, Vancian magic needs to die.

That could cause the game to be considered dead, for some.

For those that hate Vancian, why have you been playing D&D/PF1 all this time if you do not enjoy it, and why should the game change after 44-years because you have not liked it, when many like it and consider it integral to the D&D/PF experience?

[thejeff]

thflame wrote:

I'll say that 5e is proof enough that Vancian magic has run it's course.

Especially if PF2 is supposed to be simpler, Vancian magic needs to die.

I'd say that 5E is more evidence that at least variations on Vancian magic have plenty of life left in them. If Arcanist style casting isn't Vancian, then neither is spontaneous and that's been around since 3.0.

4E was the version that most departed from Vancian.

[Vic Ferrari]

thejeff wrote:

4E was the version that most departed from Vancian.

Yet, every class (pre-Essentials) is semi-Vancian.

[Tridus]

Greylurker wrote:

Drop Vancian and you will lose a lot of people. Yeah there are a lot of different and better magic systems but Vancian is distinctly a part of D&D and by extension distinctly a part of Pathfinder. Drop it for something new and a lot of on the fence people will be done and gone.

Vancian as core and then introducing new systems later is probably their best choice. Personally I would love to see a more developed version of Words of Power from UM. It was a neat system that would have benefited from a bit more work and a few more options.

5e doesn't use Vanican casting in it's original form anymore. It's the most popular edition of D&D ever released.

Thus, I'm not sure how the assertion that it's a required part of D&D can possibly be true. Maybe 10 years ago, but the world has moved on.

[Vic Ferrari]

Tridus wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

Drop Vancian and you will lose a lot of people. Yeah there are a lot of different and better magic systems but Vancian is distinctly a part of D&D and by extension distinctly a part of Pathfinder. Drop it for something new and a lot of on the fence people will be done and gone.

Vancian as core and then introducing new systems later is probably their best choice. Personally I would love to see a more developed version of Words of Power from UM. It was a neat system that would have benefited from a bit more work and a few more options.

5e doesn't use Vanican casting in it's original form anymore. It's the most popular edition of D&D ever released.

Yes, but it's close enough for jazz (still has slots and preparation), not a radical departure, unrecognisable to those from AD&D. Some still houserule it so wizards must prepare each slot like in 3rd Ed; one of the things I love about 5th Ed: the ultimate DIY (hack-friendly) edition.

[Tridus]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

For those that hate Vancian, why have you been playing D&D/PF1 all this time if you do not enjoy it, and why should the game change after 44-years because you have not liked it, when many like it and consider it integral to the D&D/PF experience?

Vancian is a lot easier to deal with when I have 6 or 7 spell slots per level than when I have 3. The limits it imposes are hitting me far harder in 2e than 1e because in 1e I have so many more spells and ways of dealing with it, while 2e locked all of that down significantly (fewer spells, no mid day filling empty slots, no spontaneous conversion, serious restrictions on consumables) but kept all the restrictions.

The success of 5e makes pretty clear that it's not "integral" to the game at all in its present playtest form.

As for why the game should change? The game changes every edition. People said the same thing about a large number of changes in D&D 3e compared to what came before. It worked out pretty well. The game evolves as we learn more about game design and the market grows and changes.

Quote:

That could cause the game to be considered dead, for some.

Those people exist in every edition change, ever. I know someone who still insists AD&D 2e is the best edition ever made. I'm glad he's happy playing it, but the market doesn't really support him anymore and a business has to move with the market.

[Vic Ferrari]

Tridus wrote:

The success of 5e makes pretty clear that it's not "integral" to the game at all in its present playtest form.

Not really, as I said above, it's close enough for jazz (still has slots and preparation), not a radical departure, unrecognisable to those from AD&D or 3rd Ed. Some still houserule it so wizards must prepare each slot like in 3rd Ed; one of the things I love about 5th Ed: the ultimate DIY (hack-friendly) edition.

5th Ed is not really revolutionary (as 4th Ed is, and the playtest seems to be leaning, to me), but more evolutionary, which I prefer.

I am not saying they have to stick with Vacian as it is in Basic or AD&D or anything, but some semblance of it is nice in the game, somewhere, for those that have always liked it and associate it with part of the way the D&D multiverse works.

[Tridus]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yes, but it's close enough for jazz (still has slots and preparation), not a radical departure, unrecognisable to those from AD&D. Some still houserule it so wizards must prepare each slot like in 3rd Ed; one of the things I love about 5th Ed: the ultimate DIY (hack-friendly) edition.

Well, that is one of the alternatives I gave. Another suggestion was to add an option to swap spells out during downtime. So, this doesn't have to be a total rewrite of the entire magic system to be successful. :)

What we've got right now has done something no edition has ever done: made me want to play martials over casters. And while it's cool that martials are good and have nice things, the real issue is that casters are terrible and stressful to play now.

Spell slots are so limited that getting any of them wrong just hinders you far too much.

[Vic Ferrari]

Tridus wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yes, but it's close enough for jazz (still has slots and preparation), not a radical departure, unrecognisable to those from AD&D. Some still houserule it so wizards must prepare each slot like in 3rd Ed; one of the things I love about 5th Ed: the ultimate DIY (hack-friendly) edition.

What we've got right now has done something no edition has ever done: made me want to play martials over casters.

I am not feeling that, particularly, over any previous edition. I do not like that most of your damage output comes from your +X weapon, and I was hoping Legendary would open up for some really gnarly stuff (ripping demon heads off with your bare hands, swimming for days, wrestle a giant, etc).

"...I one time wrestled a giraffe to the ground with my bare hands..."

"That never happened, Dale..."

[thejeff]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

4E was the version that most departed from Vancian.

Yet, every class (pre-Essentials) is semi-Vancian.

Proof I guess that "Vancian" is an incredibly broad term, because I've got no idea what you mean by that.

Daily powers? By that metric any not unlimited ability is "Vancian".

[Mary Yamato]

In our PF1 games we have been using what I think is the Arcanist system under discussion (we call it "Diamond Throne" as that's where we picked it up). You have a certain number of spells per level that you can prepare each day, and a certain number you can cast, chosen freely on the fly from among the ones you prepared. We allow you to keep a preparation slot open and take 10 minutes to prepare a spell in it if you choose (I basically never do this, but my spouse does).

We have a short list for each class of spells you always have access to without preparation (we call them "birthright spells"). This behaves like PF1 clerics' ability to use any slot to cast Cure. For clerics this short list contains the Cure spells and the major condition removers: Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Neutralize Poison, Cure Disease. This in my opinion makes clerics a lot more fun to play, because you can prepare some interesting spells and not worry that this is causing you to fail as a healer in a crisis.

While it may not be essential to the success of this approach, we also limit the number of spells a character can choose among when preparing (8-10 spells a level, usually) to reduce choice paralysis and make characters more different from each other. Birthright spells don't count against this limit.

I would house rule this into PF2 like a shot if I were going to play PF2. My PF2 cleric is super boring because he has to prepare the stuff on that short list, which takes up essentially all his slots. Otherwise it's "Sorry guys, I'll be a healer tomorrow" which does not really work in many scenarios.

I don't know why convert casting was dropped. I liked it and thought it was a major positive aspect of PF1. I find myself really resenting having to prepare Heal.

[Vic Ferrari]

thejeff wrote:

Daily powers? By that metric any not unlimited ability is "Vancian".

Not at all, every 1st-level 4th Ed character has a daily fire-and-forget spell/power.

[thejeff]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Daily powers? By that metric any not unlimited ability is "Vancian".

Not at all, every 1st-level 4th Ed character has a daily fire-and-forget spell/power.

Okay, so any once a day power is "Vancian". Despite not meeting any of the other standards: for example they're chosen at level up, not prepared on a daily basis.

Other limits wouldn't be, I take it.

[Oakblade]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

A very nice system designed by Starfox, my GM, for a D&D 3.5 level 1-20 campaign using the Savage Tide AP:

Spellcasting did not exhaust the slot, but "locked" the spell level instead, prohibiting you from casting any other spells from that same spell level. At the end of your turn, you rolled individually for each of your locked spell levels to unlock them. Once a level was unlocked, you were free to cast any memorized/known spell of that level again. The DC to unlock levels increased, so higher levels were harder to unlock. Classes that originally were spontaneous casters got a bonus on the unlock roll.

E.g. cast a 3rd level spell, like Fireball, and you won't be able to cast another 3rd level spell such as another Fireball or a Lightning Bolt until you've managed to unlock 3rd level spells.

This system effectively eliminated the 15 minute adventuring day, stopping spells from being exhausted, while simultaneously eliminating "going nova" and overuse of spellcasting in a single combat. Cast too many spells, and soon you'd end up with all your available spell levels locked.

It was also easy to tune how much spellcasting you wanted to have by adjusting the DC you needed to unlock a level. If I recall correctly, we used 8 + spell level as unlock DC, so you needed to roll 9+ for the first level if it had been locked, 10+ for 2nd, and so on.

It often tended to encourage "creative" spell use, as the level you really wanted to use stubbornly refused to unlock. :)

I love it!

Vancian magic is the devil.