5e D&D is Vaporware

[Mask_De_H]

Fucking dammit, hogarth, Vancian as in the 3rd Edition casting system, not Vancian as in the books.

Don't be a dumbfuck.

[hogarth]

Fucking dammit, hogarth, Vancian as in the 3rd Edition casting system, not Vancian as in the books.

Don't be a dumbfuck.

Not everything in 3E is Vancian (i.e. prepared) casting.

Dumbfuck.

[Koumei]

"Vancian casting" has, in D&D, come to mean "The D&D style casting where you have spells of different levels and they are each their own separate pool."

So basically "Anything that isn't everything-at-will or psionics."

And most people seem to understand this.

[Mask_De_H]

Fucking dammit, hogarth, Vancian as in the 3rd Edition casting system, not Vancian as in the books.

Don't be a dumbfuck.

Not everything in 3E is Vancian (i.e. prepared) casting.

Dumbfuck.

Cute.

Sorcerers use limited slots tiered by level with which they put in spells. That is the D&D shorthand definition for Vancian casting, as Koumei explained. I do not care if that is the Dying Earth accurate definition of Vance's method of spellcasting because the Dying Earth series is terrible and Gygax botched the full translation. That is also the definition used in the article I was referring to. Reading is fundamental.

Cocks, barrel, suck, etc.

[hogarth]

"Vancian casting" has, in D&D, come to mean "The D&D style casting where you have spells of different levels and they are each their own separate pool."

So basically "Anything that isn't everything-at-will or psionics."

And most people seem to understand this.

You might want to start "correcting" Wikipedia and TV Tropes and all the other places that say that Vancian casting means prepared spellcasting, then.

[shadzar]

Vancian means spells are "fire and forget"...until you memorize them again to cast as many times as you have "prepared" them.

assholes need to stop trying to rewrite meanings for things just because something new has come along and they want to use an old term.

that is why we have Vancian in the first place, because the term fits the function...not just a term to use for anything and change as you see fit.

anyone using Vancian for something other than "fire and forget" "prepared" magic, just has their head buried in the barrel of cocks.

[Koumei]

hogarth: shadzar agrees with you. Is that proof enough that you're wrong? Also:

"Vancian casting" has, in D&D, come to mean...

I don't actually give two shits about what Wiki or tvtropes have to say on the matter, because the first is specifically talking about Vance's novels, and the second is never relevant to anything.

[Ice9]

What Sorcerers have is simply "slot based casting" or maybe "spell-level based casting". Calling it Vancian seems pointless, because it is actually a different mechanic than Cleric/Druid/Wizard casting.

As far as "fire and forget" - I keep seeing that phrase, but has it ever been a relevant distinction?
What would be non-"fire and forget" casting? Spells that require concentration to maintain? D&D has that. Every spell with a non-instant duration requiring concentration to maintain? I'm not saying that couldn't exist, but I've never seen it in practice. It seems like a buzzword, honestly.

[Lokathor]

The slightly confusing part (to me at least) is that with weaponry, specifically missiles, "Fire and Forget" means a smart missile that can do it's own tracking to the target without any external guidance needed after firing. Since spells can also do similar things (Black Tentacles, Sacred Weapon, Entangle, etc) I often confuse "spells you can forget about directing" with "spellcasting where you forget the spell".

Maybe that's just me.

[Username17]

I'm going to break form and agree with Hogarth. Vancian doesn't just mean that your casting runs out, or that you have separate categories of casting that individually run out. It means that individual spells (or more broadly "special actions") have their own charge reserves and individually run out.

Any card-based system is generally Vancian. A character with an actual number of trick arrows of different types in his quiver would also be Vancian.

The real question is not whether characters like Sorcerers and Beguilers are Vancian (they are not), but whether the Crusader is. The Crusader has actual cards of actual abilities that he burns up that don't affect his cards of other abilities. However, his recharge method is to draw new cards every turn, making him essentially a Vancian caster that recharges every few seconds.

-Username17

[shadzar]

As far as "fire and forget" - I keep seeing that phrase, but has it ever been a relevant distinction?
What would be non-"fire and forget" casting? Spells that require concentration to maintain? D&D has that. Every spell with a non-instant duration requiring concentration to maintain? I'm not saying that couldn't exist, but I've never seen it in practice. It seems like a buzzword, honestly.

At-wills from 4th is NOT fire-and-forget.. because you always retain the ability to cast those spells.

Orisons and Cantrips when in AD&D were really NOT fire-and-forget, because they did VERY little so were allowed OUT of the riens, and you didnt have a limited number of them...they jsut didnt do anything to merit having to was preparing ahead of time for them, or take much space to wory if you have them.

now if you had cantrips take a spell slot and when you used A cantrip you lost the ability to use more until you again prepared to use them again.. then it would be fire-and-forget.

Clerics for example have never been fire and forget because they use any spell they want so long as their deity allows it to be used at that time...until 4th of course.

Clerics had a limit to spells per day sort of.. but they could choose from anywhere (unless using spheres of influence) and didnt have to do anything ahead of time to choose what spells to use.

this is why "fire-and-forget" is used for wizards, because both have levels, and both have limits to the number per day... but wizards cant just use anything anytime.. they must prepare in advance and then when they run out of say Magic Missile.. they are done until the prepare again, while a cleric can commune with animals over and over until her runs out of spell slot without having to decide in advance to have that spell ready for 3 uses.

[hogarth]

"Vancian casting" has, in D&D, come to mean...

I don't actually give two shits about what Wiki or tvtropes have to say on the matter, because the first is specifically talking about Vance's novels, and the second is never relevant to anything.

Honestly, I don't care if you think that "Vancian casting" means "fishing corn niblets out of your stool". But when Monte Cook says they're going to bring Vancian magic back to D&D, he's talking about prepared casting (which was mostly gone from 4E), not poo pickin'.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, while 4E D&D's system managed to be even worse than 3E D&D's system (though YMMV; I think that increased resolution speed in return for players sticking to a script was not a fair tradeoff), 3E D&D's system still sucks ass.

I still don't know why they just didn't move to an 'everything's At-Will!' and gave people 5-6 powers to choose from whereupon you got to change half of your weakest powers (or any half if they're the same level) at scheduled level-up intervals. It's pretty balanced, requires minimal extra writing, and reflects source material better.

[shadzar]

The slightly confusing part (to me at least) is that with weaponry, specifically missiles, "Fire and Forget" means a smart missile that can do it's own tracking to the target without any external guidance needed after firing. Since spells can also do similar things (Black Tentacles, Sacred Weapon, Entangle, etc) I often confuse "spells you can forget about directing" with "spellcasting where you forget the spell".

Maybe that's just me.

any projectile is pretty much fire and forget, because once it is launched then it goes where the wind takes it...

the use in smart weapons as a new form of the term shouldnt cause problems...if they would just quit reusing and confusing terms.

smart weapons are more "fire and dont worry" because if you fired it right, it is going to its desired target as opposed to "fire and forget" cause once you fire of the spell, its expended, so forget you ever had it as with Vancian magic.

only in America can no one speak their own language because they refuse to learn it and instead want to make up meanings for words instead, or alter them to suit a need, rather than make a new one or find an appropriate one. its more like advertising companies are doing this as some sort of sales slogan for smart weapons.

how about "cast and forget"? does that suit Vancian magic better for you, even though it has been used as "fire and forget" for some time?

[shadzar]

Well, while 4E D&D's system managed to be even worse than 3E D&D's system (though YMMV; I think that increased resolution speed in return for players sticking to a script was not a fair tradeoff), 3E D&D's system still sucks ass.

I still don't know why they just didn't move to an 'everything's At-Will!' and gave people 5-6 powers to choose from whereupon you got to change half of your weakest powers (or any half if they're the same level) at scheduled level-up intervals. It's pretty balanced, requires minimal extra writing, and reflects source material better.

why even change powers then? just have them increase in power as you level if the purpose is just to increase their damage output?

that is pretty much what 4th did, except adding some weird status effect or push-me-pull-you to it.

and the interesting spells, at least, couldnt be at-will because then you would have flying, underwater breathing, immune to fire/ice/cold/[insert keyword here], enlarged, shrunk, invisible humans running around all the time.

at-will only works to make sure the caster doesnt run out of his schtick. melee never can run out, because there is no limit to "hit it with a stick".

so what do you propose for a "power" that could be at-will and differentiate the classes?

[hogarth]

I still don't know why they just didn't move to an 'everything's At-Will!' and gave people 5-6 powers to choose from whereupon you got to change half of your weakest powers (or any half if they're the same level) at scheduled level-up intervals. It's pretty balanced, requires minimal extra writing, and reflects source material better.

That may well be an option (although I doubt the end result would be particularly palatable to you), considering what Monte said about "feats [that] represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time" and "a class that relies entirely on these magical feats instead of spells".

But considering their professed goal of being compatible with every edition (fat chance), we can be pretty sure that wizards and clerics will have AD&D-style prepared casting as the factory default. Which is a shame, since there are a number of fairly simple ways of jazzing up D&D spellcasting without reinventing it from scratch.

P.S. Personally, I think replacing old powers with new powers is lame. If you want to add new powers, add them.

[nockermensch]

"Vancian casting" has, in D&D, come to mean "The D&D style casting where you have spells of different levels and they are each their own separate pool."

So basically "Anything that isn't everything-at-will or psionics."

And most people seem to understand this.

This is new for me. I always understood "Vancian casting" as "prepare your spells beforehand".

[Lago PARANOIA]

P.S. Personally, I think replacing old powers with new powers is lame. If you want to add new powers, add them.

If you don't replace old powers with new powers then with frequent enough advancement you'll reach the situation of the 3E D&D wizard where they're clogged with a bunch of powers that they don't use.

If you're playing Shadowrun there's little reason to make getting a new power displace an old power because spells don't differ much in power level, if at all. But in D&D, the gap in power between, say, a 2th level spell and a 5th level spell is so immense that the vast majority of the time you'd use the 5th level spell if you didn't have to worry about power level rationing. Why should anyone as a level 9 wizard still hang on to Burning Hands or Glitterdust when they don't run out of Cloudkill or Dominate Monster other than nostalgia?

[shadzar]

P.S. Personally, I think replacing old powers with new powers is lame. If you want to add new powers, add them.

If you don't replace old powers with new powers then with frequent enough advancement you'll reach the situation of the 3E D&D wizard where they're clogged with a bunch of powers that they don't use.

try this then...

Wizards gets 10 spells per day and 2 at-wills

Cleric gets 10 spells per day and 2 healing at-wills

Wizard at-wills would be like a simple attack.. Magic Missile for simplicity, and some utility "power"

Cleric gets a BIG single heal and small mass heal for the at-wills.

Each must be chosen for the day for the at-wills, so you can have a big list of them and rotate in and out on a daily basis which at-will you have at the ready for that day, but are at-will to be cast.

the 10 spell slots are for ANY spell. once used you're out of spells.

so gaining new spells then just adds to your spellbook to chose those 10 from.

so a wizard, when available, can cast 10 fireballs a day if he chose fireball for each spell, or 10 burning hands....

that way you can add more without removing others, and still keep a system that lets you get more powerful spells, without the wizard getting so many spells that they overpower other characters.

the fact of gaining a level just gives access to more powerful spells, not more of them.

maybe base the flat number of spells on something from character creation like an ability score.

it doesnt really matter if you have things you cant use during this combat.. you chose it for a reason, so why not have it later?

why limit to the number of spells you can have and chose from so tightly, rather than just limit the number of spells you can cast?

the numbers of spells here was pulled out of my ass for simplicity, and to give the at-wills to a cleric so they have automatic ability to heal..though a giant heal for a single person at-will might defeat threats all together.. so this is just a LOOSE idea so you get the idea...

[hogarth]

If you don't replace old powers with new powers then with frequent enough advancement you'll reach the situation of the 3E D&D wizard where they're clogged with a bunch of powers that they don't use.

I've heard a variety of complaints about 3E wizards, but "clogging" hasn't been one of them. I doubt it would make it into the top 10 complaints, frankly.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've heard a variety of complaints about 3E wizards, but "clogging" hasn't been one of them. I doubt it would make it into the top 10 complaints, frankly.

Are you kidding me? People complained about how complicated wizards were all of the damn time. And part of the reason why they're so complicated is that an 8th level wizard needs to pick through over 20 spells minimum to put in their prepared list. And then had to do combinational sorting to see which spells fit best (this particular level 3/level 4 spell combo makes me stronger than this particular level 4/level 3 spell combo, so let's go with that) with their expected workday. If an 8th level wizard had to pick through only 8 spells and didn't have to worry about further rationing that'd be a lot more manageable.

Since D&D powers scale pretty sharply in effect it's a pretty painless fix.

[hogarth]

Are you kidding me? People complained about how complicated wizards were all of the damn time.

Not to me. We must play in different groups. In my experience, people who don't like complicated wizards/clerics/druids/whatever just play a different class and everybody's happy.

Since D&D powers scale pretty sharply in effect it's a pretty painless fix.

Unless you're somehow separating non-combat powers from combat powers (perhaps along the lines of rituals from 4E), then yes, it's a painful "fix".

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not to me. We must play in different groups. In my experience, people who don't like complicated wizards/clerics/druids/whatever just play a different class and everybody's happy.

Whee. Oberoni fallacy.

Unless you're somehow separating non-combat powers from combat powers (perhaps along the lines of rituals from 4E), then yes, it's a painful "fix".

Oh, definitely have rituals in the game. But for D&D, I'd recommend using a non-combat rituals system that depleted some extra-combat resource (like time) no matter what the base resource management system was being used. It's not a special concern for At-Wills.

[hogarth]

Not to me. We must play in different groups. In my experience, people who don't like complicated wizards/clerics/druids/whatever just play a different class and everybody's happy.

Whee. Oberoni fallacy.

Wait -- so if there's anyone in the universe who prefers not to play a particular class, then the game's broken and anyone who disagrees is using the Oberoni Fallacy?

Ummmm....I don't think so. Rule Zero (which deals with rewriting the rules) has nothing to do with different people having different preferences within the rules.

[Username17]

Yes, simply saying that you haven't seen something so it must not be common is not the Oberoni fallacy. It's an entirely different fallacy. It's the "Person Who Fallacy" if you care.

However, I am flat incredulous that hogarth or anyone who has ever played any reasonable amount of D&D in any edition has never had someone at their table complain that spell preparation was too complicated. Or too much work. Or whatever.

I mean let's be honest, when you have a forum full of fail and neckbeards like enworld, they go on for fifteen pages about how spell preparation is cumbersome.

I've never played a single campaign where someone didn't go off on a rant about how spell preparation was too complicated.

-Username17