Inspired by a number of D&DNext “I want” threads in reference to spellcasting, I had an idea. Many probably know that I’m protective of spellcasting classes, and a detractor of the old-style Vancian magic system. I far prefer 4E’s approach to magic that still rings of Vancian roots but moves away from it, albeit too far for some.
I propose a system of spell slots for each type of spellcaster, 0 through 9, as in prior editions. Level-0 spells are Cantrips which are available to all casters of that class. These “spells” can be cast at-will by the character. For Wizards these include spells such as “Read Magic”, “Detect Magic”, “Mage Hand”, “Prestidigitation”, etc. For a Cleric, “Heal Light Wounds”, “Turn Undead”, “Divine Might”, etc. are listed. Abilities such as “Turn Undead” or a Paladin’s “Lay On Hands” are a “spell-casting ability” therefore limiting them to spell-style use. A player would need to choose from her Cantrip list taking a limited number of spells or spell-like abilities per day. This could mean a Cleric making the choice between a “Cure Light Wounds” spell or a “Turn Undead” spell as an at-will.
Spells have multiple versions. “Magic Missile” is expanded to encompass “Magic Missile”, “Arcane Lance” and “Arcane Canon.” The “Missile” form is an at-will spell, doing simple low-level damage (Ex. 1d4, auto-hit), which you memorize in an available 1st-level slot or higher. The “Arcane Lance” iteration is a 3rd-level “rest spell” which you can re-memorize any time you take a rest, short or extended. This version does an intermediate amount of damage (Ex. 3d4, auto-hit), but is only available to cast as many times as it is memorized or refreshed in a slot of 3rd-level or higher. Upon attaining the ability to cast 5th-level spells, you gain the ability to memorize its “Canon” form. This is a true Vancian-style spell that is only available as many times as you’ve memorized it in a slot of 5th-level or higher, and can only be memorized once per spell slot, per day. This powerful spell does significant damage or perhaps mid-level damage with additional effects such as forced movement. I won’t go into trying to design something here for that level.
These 3 spell types correspond to the 4E paradigm of At-Will, Encounter, and Daily, yet they also harken back to earlier systems. These spells and spell-like abilities allow for each player to make the determination on how to play their character. A traditional “Fireball” is available as “Scorching Burst” at 1st-level as an at-will. At 3rd-level, it becomes “Flame Burst”, and at 5th-level a 6d6 “Fireball”. If you want a massive “Fireball”, that matches one thrown by a Wizard player in the 1980s, you can have it. If you want one, like I do, that you can throw smaller versions of, all day long, you are free to do so as well. A Cleric player, knowing that her character is entering a crypt, might choose to memorize her “Turn Undead” invocation as both a level-0 at-will and a level-3 “Destroy Undead.” When her level is high enough to invoke her power from a level-5 slot, she might memorize “Control Undead” as a Vancian-style prayer and choose to memorize her curing spell in her at-will slot.
The number of slots for each class is reflective of pre-4E systems. A Wizard, being completely dependent on spell selection, has more slots than a Cleric, and bonus slots are dependent on Intelligence or Wisdom scores for these classes. Spell lists are shared as in older editions as well. A Sorcerer or Bard receives access to a selection of Wizard spells as appropriate. However, classes such as Bard have spell-like abilities such as “Inspiring Song” which is unavailable to a Wizard just as “Magic Missile” has no analog for the Bard. A Sorcerer has more low-level, especially 1st-level, slots than a Wizard. This reflects their versatility, whereas the Wizard’s larger number of high-level spells slots reflects the powerful Vancian-style magic such characters wield. All are effective in combat at all times, however, which is critical to the game.
In this system, Rituals are carried forward and combined with Utility spells from 4E. Non-offensive-combat-related abilities have their own slots or “per day” uses. Rather than the high entry cost of Rituals, it is balanced by only having the stamina to perform a limited number over the course of a day, dependent on character level. All spells such as “Knock”, “Commune with the Dead”, “Bless” etc. are available to a caster who has learned that spell, but only a limited number of those spells/prayers may be cast/invoked each day.
This system could be expanded to encompass other class styles as well. A Fighter wouldn’t have 0-level abilities, but perhaps she has a handful of daily slots where she can augment an attack for extra damage or perhaps an additional rider (ex. forced movement). I can see people balking at the idea but I believe it’s the most intelligent design idea class-wise in 4E. The Essentials-style characters’ ability to modify attacks is simply genius.
What do you think of this system? Is this something you’d be interested in playing? If not, how would you modify it? I’m not looking for completely alternative ideas here. There are more than enough of those around the internet. Also, please keep in mind, this hasn’t seen any playtesting or honestly even more thought than occurred while I was writing the post. I’m not trying to develop the entire magic-using system for D&DNext here. I’m just trying to present the groundwork for a design paradigm. So talk back to me in the comments and let me know what you think!
I think this would work better as an optional module.
It doesn’t really help people who want to play a spellcaster without having to learn complex rules, in the same way that the core 4e fighter was not so friendly to players who just want to hit things with a sword and not play a tactical game.
The response to those players shouldn’t be “too bad”, it should be to design a core spell system that’s simple and easy to understand, with the option for increased complexity with slots and memorization and different levels of the same spell.
@Dominic Matte: I’m not sure how you can make a spellcaster without any manner of complex rules. Even Basic “Red Box” D&D had moderately complicated rules for magic-users. Such is the nature of playing a spellcasting class.
That said, I could see this being a modular system. Actually, it already is. You’d be under no obligation to play with “upgraded” spells. You could simply stick with whatever has already worked for you if you choose to. You could simply add new spells when your level goes up just as you always have in D&D.
Thanks for the comment!
I have a lot of experience with 3rd ed. and 3.5 but little beyond that. I never got into 4th edition because, well, it doesn’t matter. That’s a topic for another place. The point is, I have high hopes for D&D Next and have been enjoying the articles and blog posts over at the WotC site regarding their pursuit of the new system and I think the magic system you suggest here would be an excellent bridging of the old vancian magic and the 4E magic system (which was actually a step in a good direction).
I always felt there should be certain things spellcasters should be able to do at-will such as reading or detecting magic as in your example. You mentioned that you haven’t tested any of these mechanics – I used to allow players to cast 0-level spells for free without expending spell slots and it never seemed to have any detrimental effects on the game. Players enjoyed playing spellcasters more (especially at low levels) because they were able to really feel like a wizard/sorcerer/etc. because they could detect magic, ray of frost and mage-hand stuff all day long.
@Jason Exactly! You feel much more “wizardly” when you can at least do the “simple” things at-will. Let’s be honest, any mage worth a fraction of his training is able to feel the presence of magic in an area, read a simple scroll/arcane symbol, or conjure an ethereal hand to carry a vial from across the lab to him. In addition, you would assume that after centuries of teaching and experimentation that every budding apprentice would be taught something like “Magic Missile” or as you said “Ray Of Frost”, if for no other reason than to have something to fall back on when all other hope is lost!
This isn’t that much different than 4E, and requires a number of 4E mechanics in order to implement. I think Pathfinder does it much better – cantrips are like “at will” powers that you have to choose a certain number of each day, and the rest are just like they have been in all editions other than 4E.
I think that “DnD next” needs to avoid being a tweak of 4E. All other editions had a lot of similarities, each felt like an evolution of the previous version, and they would be relatively easy to create a unified version of. For that matter, you could just take Pathfinder or 3.5E and add a few options to duplicate rules from earlier versions, and quickly have a “everyone plays the version they want at the same table” that WOTC says they want to make. I’m not saying that 4E is a “bad” game, but it is a completely different game that doesn’t have much in common with any other version of D&D. There is more difference between 3.5E and 4E than there is between 3.5E and AD&D. WOTC is going to have to choose whether to base 5E on either 4e, or on every other version of the game. If they base it on D&D, they can probably shoehorn in enough to make 4E players comfortable, but if they base it on 4E they might as well not waste their (and our) time because it is not going to work well with any other edition at all.
@Norcross Without getting into the whole edition war thing, I’ll say that I disagree with you. 4E players aren’t going to be happy if they’re simply shoehorned in. I’m one of those people, and I chat regularly with others like myself who are scared we’ll be ignored in the coming edition.
The fact is, they’re trying to build a game, through modularity, that satisfies the breadth of the D&D spectrum. To do that, they’re not going to simply rehash any edition. It’s going to be a new game. It shouldn’t be a tweak of 4E, Pathfinder, 3.5, AD&D or any edition. It should (and I’m fairly certain it will) be an entirely redesigned system from the ground up.
@AlioTheFool Not trying to get into the “edition war thing”. 4E is a perfectly good game in its own right, it’s just a completely different animal than all other versions. It’s almost closer to WHFRP and its kin than to any other version of D&D. 4E is the proverbial “odd man out” if you are trying to consolidate editions.
Not saying they shouldn’t try to include it, but so many 4E players seem to want 5E to be based on 4E and I don’t think that is a good idea. All other editions from the Red Books through 3.5 can be consolidated easier than 4E can be with any version. 4E should be included, but it should not be the basis of the game.
3E was a redesign of the game, based on previous versions and expanding on them. Although it’s not my favorite game, it did go on to become one of the most popular RPGs ever. 4E was a redesign also, but ignored the previous versions in order to be more modern. The result is that even a no-name knock-off of 3E (Pathfinder, which I am one of the few people it seems that has not played) is more popular than the official version of 4E. In order to succeed, I think that the new version needs to take as its starting point the things that made D&D work for so long. If the starting point of the new game is encounter powers and extended rests, even if the result is good it’s going to turn off a whole lot of potential players.
I think you’re headed in the right direction here, encompassing both Vancian and EADU type magic is doable.
I like the system but it feels to much like 4e’s power system to warrant calling it “Vancian”.
What I would purpose, is giving each spellcaster a simple at-will spell-like ability that allows them to make a “magical attack”. Then give them a list of 0-9th level spells just like in Vancian Magic. They are all fire and forget, but each one comes with a rider that can modify your “magical attack” to emulate the spell you have prepared. Put another way, your character is using the stored energy of his prepared spell to modify his most basic magical maneuver.
So a Wizard’s Magical Attack class feature might be an Intelligence based attack vs the target’s Dexterity Save (or something) that deals 1d4+Int damage. A simple punch with magic that is effective in a pinch. But lets say the Wizard has memorized Fireball today and he’s up against two enemies. He needs to hit both, but feels a full blown Fireball would be too much. So instead he reaches into that internal store and then tacks on the modification that comes along with Fireball to his basic Magical Attack and turns it into a burst 1 that deals 1d6+Int fire damage. In essence a mini Fireball.
Or on the other side of that spectrum would be the Cleric that has Cure Minor Wounds prepared. The modification for that one allows her to target an ally with her Magic Ability and heal 1d4+Wis damage instead of it’s normal effect (which might be granting a +1 to defenses or something). In essence, invoking a simple prayer to transform her usual ability into a minor heal.
Using a modification in this way could temporarily remove the spell from memory (until 5 minute break, or perhaps until the wizard can preform the necessary rituals or whatnot). But modifications could only be used when the spell is at the ready – so simply having the spell in a spell book is not enough. This is cool because it gives the sorcerer less Modifications (due to less spells known) but he could choose freely from any modification as long as he keeps one open spell slot of the appropriate level.
It’s close to what you’ve suggested – allowing spells to be cast at different strengths – but it keeps the feel of true fire and forget magic. You get to pick simultaneously your “Encounter” and “Daily” spells with the same action.
Obviously not well thought out but I think it could be cool! :D
I think the idea of spells “leveling up” their frequency of use as the character levels is interesting. However, it creates some specific game balance problems.
Imagine a low/mid-range Fireball spell. In 4e, this would be high Heroic, in 3.x, it’s like 3rd level spell. For ease of reference, we’ll call it Fireball III.
At some point in a spellcaster’s career, Fireball III is going to be a run-of-the-mill at-will spell. Powerful characters will get to throw Fireball III around whenever they want to. However, the same spell will also function as the most powerful spell for a low-level spellcaster: the big guns, the encounter-changer. The fact that one spell must simultaneously occupy both design spaces creates a lot of tension.
For example, the low-level spellcaster wants his newest, most awesome spell to be awesome. Huge range, huge damage, huge effects, whatever. But it needs to have something fantastic about it. 3.x gave Fireball a much bigger AoE than anything before it. 4e offers daily spells with a variety of splashy stuff. But to make that same spell exciting for the low-level guy is going to likely make the spell hard to balance, if not overpowered, for the high level guy. Either the range is too big, the damage is too big, the status effects are too big, etc. for a spell castable at-will. Imagine high-paragon Invokers in 4e tossing around Silent Malediction at-will – it’d be nuts!
So while I like the mechanic of spells becoming easier to cast and of spells having upgraded versions of themselves, I think there are a lot of issues that make it too hard to design an entire system of balanced yet interesting spells.
@PolaroidNinja Interesting take. I still prefer the flexibility I wrote about, but this is a reasonable twist. Thanks for commenting!
@Juzaba I think you may have misunderstood me. Fireball would start off at lower levels as an equivalent to 4E’s “Scorching Burst” in the system I’ve outlined. It would be a relatively weak “at-will” version, but when you finally gain the ability to cast a full “Fireball” it would be a true Vancian fire-and-forget big-blast spell, as it has always been.
Does that make more sense?
@Norcross I don’t want to come off as dismissive. I would just rather not discuss the differences in editions here. I would like to keep the conversation streamlined to the system I presented. Thanks for your input though!