Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alpharius wrote:
People hate Vancian magic?

5E casting is a little different than what you might be used to, Alpharius. First, the casters have At Will cantrips. Second, while there are still spell slots and spells prepared per day, these things are now independent. A Wizard, for example, can prepare INT modifier + Wizard level spells (minimum one) per day. So let's say my first level Wizard has INT 16 ... and therefore can prepare four spells per day. My Wizard only has two level one spell slots per day, however, meaning she can cast any of those four spells once per each slot. She can even cast the same one twice. That is, the spell does not "dissolve" from her mind upon casting it, as per traditional Vancian casting.

Seems...odd, but familiar.

I, of course, still prefer the Vancian ways of 1E, but...

 Manchu wrote:
Importantly,

Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.

This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.

What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.

Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is skill lists are part of the problem. The early play tests didn't have them and that came with a very open feeling. When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them. (Actually well I am on the topic, why are skills in the players guide? I mean they have DCs and everything too. That seems like something that should be in the DMG or some kind of monster manual only for skills.)

nomotog wrote:
When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them.

I think you are quite right about that. And it indicates the larger issue of when the mechanics come into play: are the rules there already, waiting to be executed on by the players, or does the player describe what his character does and then the DM makes a ruling on how it is tested? Older editions entail more of the latter and newer editions entail more of the former. A long skill list is an example of rules ready to be executed, or the newer mode.

In newer editions, skills go in the PHB because they are "player options" -- a feature of character customization that you use during character generation and leveling.

 Manchu wrote:

nomotog wrote:
When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them.

I think you are quite right about that. And it indicates the larger issue of when the mechanics come into play: are the rules there already, waiting to be executed on by the players, or does the player describe what his character does and then the DM makes a ruling on how it is tested? Older editions entail more of the latter and newer editions entail more of the former. A long skill list is an example of rules ready to be executed, or the newer mode.

In newer editions, skills go in the PHB because they are "player options" -- a feature of character customization that you use during character generation and leveling.

5Ed feels like more of the latter though too. Actually the first house rule I am thinking of for 5ed is tanking out skills, or at least the skill list.

Why are the DCs in the PHB though? It would be like including the Ac of a goblin in the PHB? (OH I really really hope they do something like a monster manual for skill checks.)

A skill mechanic/skill list doesn't create the problem by itself.

So for example, Call of Cthulhu has a pretty long skill list. But I've never heard someone playing CoC say "I make a library use check." Instead, I hear players say something like, "I am searching the card catalog for any mention of strange radiation from meteors." And then the Keeper says something like, "okay, make a library use check and, wait aren't you an amateur astronomer? okay you get a bonus," etc.

In other words, CoC has plenty of mechanics "at the ready" -- including a long ass skill list -- but for whatever reason (I will have to think more on this) people seem to play it by describing what their character does and then letting the Keeper make a ruling on what they need to roll.

nomotog wrote:
5Ed feels like more of the latter though too.

Sorry, I guess I should clarify, by the "latter" do you mean the older mode or the newer mode?

 Manchu wrote:
A skill mechanic/skill list doesn't create the problem by itself.

So for example, Call of Cthulhu has a pretty long skill list. But I've never heard someone playing CoC say "I make a library use check." Instead, I hear players say something like, "I am searching the card catalog for any mention of strange radiation from meteors." And then the Keeper says something like, "okay, make a library use check and, wait aren't you an amateur astronomer? okay you get a bonus," etc.

In other words, CoC has plenty of mechanics "at the ready" -- including a long ass skill list -- but for whatever reason (I will have to think more on this) people seem to play it by describing what their character does and then letting the Keeper make a ruling on what they need to roll.

nomotog wrote:
5Ed feels like more of the latter though too.

Sorry, I guess I should clarify, by the "latter" do you mean the older mode or the newer mode?

I am thinking that 5ed is more like the older model then the newer model, but that is more from my play test experience and it's a bit of a mix.

It could just be how things are described in the book, or the impressions that exist. 5ed dose outright say you describe the action in narrative terms then pick your attribute based on what you describe.

 Alpharius wrote:
People hate Vancian magic?

This makes me sad...

"Hate" and "Vance" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence - the man is a literary genius!

Vancian magic wasn't a horrible system when it first debuted. It has since been refined in so many different ways that are superior to it.

The Wheel of Time RPG actually used a similar system, but allowed overcasting at a risk. It alleviated, somewhat, the issue of casters at low level being a "one and done" group.

5e's system seems an interesting blend between the 3.pf Wizard and the 3.pf Sorcerer: You prepare a number of spells, but can then cast any number of those spells in any combination up to your limits per day. It's an interesting blend that only increases the versatility of casters above previous levels. Which is an impressive feat in an of itself.


Also sorry for losing track of my previous conversation thread. Lost power and this thread has gained pages.

With 'Superior' being entirely subjective, of course.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
People hate Vancian magic?

This makes me sad...

"Hate" and "Vance" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence - the man is a literary genius!

Vancian magic wasn't a horrible system when it first debuted. It has since been refined in so many different ways that are superior to it.

The Wheel of Time RPG actually used a similar system, but allowed overcasting at a risk. It alleviated, somewhat, the issue of casters at low level being a "one and done" group.

5e's system seems an interesting blend between the 3.pf Wizard and the 3.pf Sorcerer: You prepare a number of spells, but can then cast any number of those spells in any combination up to your limits per day. It's an interesting blend that only increases the versatility of casters above previous levels. Which is an impressive feat in an of itself.


Also sorry for losing track of my previous conversation thread. Lost power and this thread has gained pages.

With the warlocks infinite casting for certain levels of spells like cantrips, or evocation masters level 1 and 2 spells.

Vulcan casting is something that grows on you over time. Like a fungus. It's bothersome because it doesn't work how you would expect magic to work, so the more it is how magic works, the more it feels like how magic works.

nomotog wrote:
Vulcan casting is something that grows on you over time.

I think contemporary technology has sort of changed the way people think of magic. Instead of chanting and waving your arms around and throwing powdered gith jaffers into a fire, it's point-and-click "expelliarmus!"

 Manchu wrote:
I think contemporary technology has sort of changed the way people think of magic. Instead of chanting and waving your arms around and throwing powdered gith jaffers into a fire, it's point-and-click "expelliarmus!"

Greatly depends on the person who is playing the casting character... The best group I was in, the mage player was generally high on some AWESOME medications (seriously... he kept being sent to the hospital for severe pains, the doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with him, so sort of said, "here's some vicodin, let's see if that works... no?? well, here's some percocet... Crap, that didn't work either!?...well, lets try this cockatil, and see what happens"


The plus side was, we always knew when he was talking in his "real" voice as opposed to his "character" voice (his model had to hop around like some robot chicken sketch), so yeah, naturally his mage became the Deadpool of casters.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the Deadpool of casters

So what does that mean in terms of playing a caster?

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the Deadpool of casters

So what does that mean in terms of playing a caster?

Witty, silly, deadly?

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the Deadpool of casters

So what does that mean in terms of playing a caster?

Witty, silly, deadly?

What pretre said.... Think of how (apparently) Harry Potter has to incant a particular phrase in order to cast a spell??? Well, that's what ours did... but more hilarious/witty and overall, Deadpool-esque.

Ah, point-and-click "power" style. I don't think casting in older editions was designed to simulate that. "Vancian" just describes one aspect (the disappearing memory issue). For example, older editions have spell interruption (casting is declared before initiative starts). This seems to imply that magic is more cumbersome than using a voice activated laser pointer.

 Manchu wrote:
Ah, point-and-click "power" style. I don't think casting in older editions was designed to simulate that. "Vancian" just describes one aspect (the disappearing memory issue). For example, older editions have spell interruption (casting is declared before initiative starts). This seems to imply that magic is more cumbersome than using a voice activated laser pointer.

It depends, originally that used to be so but then they dropped it eventually.

The novels were usually point and click with a vocal command and handwave as well, even the ones wrote inhouse.

Vancian magic and 'interruptible' spells go a ways towards making Magic-Users 'vulnerable'.

Are spells not 'interruptible' in 3.x and up?

They are, but if I remember right you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it- delay your action, have a prepared spell of the same school, and then roll dice.(3.x and pathfinder anyway, just now starting up a fourth campaign so I don't have much experience with fourth's magic system yet).

Could be a bit off though, because it's like sundering/tripping/disarming: no one ever does it in my games. I just occasionally use it against players to remind them of options other than "Cast spell" or "Hit it with my sword".

 Sinful Hero wrote:
They are, but if I remember right you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it- delay your action, have a prepared spell of the same school, and then roll dice.(3.x and pathfinder anyway, just now starting up a fourth campaign so I don't have much experience with fourth's magic system yet).

Could be a bit off though, because it's like sundering/tripping/disarming: no one ever does it in my games. I just occasionally use it against players to remind them of options other than "Cast spell" or "Hit it with my sword".

And of course, you still need to be a spellcaster to do it.

Also with the amount of spell-slots wizard types gained the 'amount' never really mattered too much.

I can see where a lot of the 'power problems' with magic-users is coming from...

Even the anti-Mage feats are laughable. They make it slightly harder to cast a spell when you're in a square next to theirs.

*takes five foot step* *casts spell anyway*

Best way to stop a spellcaster? Kill them.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for Urghkhkh.. flop"

 Alpharius wrote:
Are spells not 'interruptible' in 3.x and up?

Sinful Hero nicely covered 3E. I will jump in for 5E: spells cannot be interrupted in the old school sense (i.e., before the caster's initiative and before the spell has been cast). Ongoing spells (rituals and spells with Duration: Concentration) can be interrupted once they have been cast on the caster's initiative.

Being unable to interrupt a spell seems to be a ridiculous power boost for spell casters!

Spells are definitely interruptable in 3.X and onwards, and moreso in Pathfinder than the others. If someone is standing in melee range of you and you try to cast, you have to take a check and if you fail you can get attacked in some versions or lose the spell in others. In Pathfinder it's actually pretty hard to pass those checks sometimes, and fighter types can get a "step up" ability to stop you from five foot stepping away. Feats like "disruptive" up the DC of the concentration check as well.

In 4th, they weren't really interruptable specifically, but the rules included a lot of interrupt or redirecting mechanics to allow you to deal with spells. The other issue is that of course in that edition everyone had "powers", not just the wizards, so the power difference between classes generally wasn't so big.

I found the 5th edition interruption rules quite dramatic in the playtest. A player blinded a Beholder, interrupting it's Flesh to Stone effect that it had inflicted on our Gnome Barbarian, and he reanimated and gutted the unlucky Beholder.

Could you interrupt casting in Basic/1st/2nd? It's been a while.

There are several reasons 3.pathfinder is called "Caster Edition", and spell casting only being able to be cancelled by casters is just one. For a mage hunter organization I had in a campaign I had to invent ways to make them anything but a joke.

3/3.5 were definitely the height of caster power as well. (Which goes well with the PF thing...)