I changed up the spellcasting in AD&D 2nd Edition to operate a bit differently than the standard.
Under my system. A spellcaster would study, or pray as needed when they woke up in the morning. This allowed them to refresh their spell slots. As determined in the standard way by the rulebook.
As they would go throughout the day, magic users could call upon any spell from their spellbook. Provided they had the slots to accomodate them. Clerics and the like would be able to call down any Cleric spell. Provided they had the slots to accomodate them.
In the end. I felt that this approach gave a more spontaneous feel for the players of such characters. Allowing them to choose what spells they needed on the spot. Rather than the standard way of memorizing specific spells at the beginning of the character's day to fill their slots. And it worked. My players loved it.
It should work with any edition of D&D. Any OSR game that uses the standard the old school Vancian methodology..
You wouldn't find that this overpowers the spellcasters? In a system where after low-levels, spellcasters are already somewhat overpowered?
No. I didn't find it made the spellcasters overpowered at all.
They are still using the same number and levels of spells. They just get a bit more choice in how and when they get to use them.
For my spellcaster players, it eliminated their complaints. Without really changing their character's power level.
I'm curious what other rules you were using around spells, Darrin. Were you rolling spells randomly and using % chance to learn spells for magic users, or were players picking? For clerics, was losing spell access to divine disfavor a real possibility, or glossed over? I can see those other rules making a big difference to how powerful your rule would make them.
Also, what was the highest level you played to? I played a lot of D&D back in that era that never made it above low levels. Players would move or change jobs, or the GM would get a shiny new world or game, and we'd reset and always start at 1st level again. :/ I gather that wasn't universal, but I can't believe I'm the only one who encountered it either.
Magic User players were picking spells from what they had in their spellbooks. They were still limited by that factor. The extra die rolling was eliminated at players request.
Yes, Clerics losing spell access due to divine disfavor was a real threat.
The groups got to about 14th level at the maximum. But they had a blast.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1020580I changed up the spellcasting in AD&D 2nd Edition to operate a bit differently than the standard.
Under my system. A spellcaster would study, or pray as needed when they woke up in the morning. This allowed them to refresh their spell slots. As determined in the standard way by the rulebook.
As they would go throughout the day, magic users could call upon any spell from their spellbook. Provided they had the slots to accomodate them. Clerics and the like would be able to call down any Cleric spell. Provided they had the slots to accomodate them.
In the end. I felt that this approach gave a more spontaneous feel for the players of such characters. Allowing them to choose what spells they needed on the spot. Rather than the standard way of memorizing specific spells at the beginning of the character's day to fill their slots. And it worked. My players loved it.
It should work with any edition of D&D. Any OSR game that uses the standard the old school Vancian methodology..
This was our houserule system since the late 80's, and the current Pathfinder system as well.
To me, selecting my loadout of spells beforehand is the most interesting part of playing a magic user, so I find this very unappealing. However, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1021280This was our houserule system since the late 80's, and the current Pathfinder system as well.
I haven't played Pathfinder. But if they are using it. That's cool.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021282To me, selecting my loadout of spells beforehand is the most interesting part of playing a magic user, so I find this very unappealing. However, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.
I do appreciate some utility magic usable at will, but in general I think spell selection is a good thing to have to deal with as well.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1021312I haven't played Pathfinder. But if they are using it. That's cool.
Pathfinder is using the same 3rd edition set up. There are prepared casters that get a better spell selection and normal access to new levels, but a handful of spells per day; also there are spontaneous casters that get a limited list and delayed access to new levels, but more spells per day.
This must have been a common houserule (I remember a campaign I played in in the 90s that featured it).
This is also very close to how
Earthdawn models spell-magic. Except "slots" are called "Spell Matrix Talents", each have a rank (that you can spend Legend Points on to rank up), and if a spell is complex you need to spend time "charging" it before casting (mimics the old school "casting times may cause your mage to act at the beginning of the next round" rule). But otherwise, you can cast whatever is in your matrices all day long (& the upcoming Earthdawn 4E companion will have optional rules related to "Chain Casting" i.e. "keeping the buff up while we dungeoncrawl without rolling every X minutes").
From the recent (free quickstart) "Legends of Barsaive: Characters (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/199999/Legends-of-Barsaive-Characters)" pdf:
QuoteCasting Spells
You must choose which spells are placed in your various 'Spell Matrix' Talents.
The circle of the spell may not exceed the rank of the Spell Matrix Talent. These are the
spells that you may cast safely, without risking the Taint of Horrors. These spells can
be swapped out after ten minutes of meditation or you may attempt to swap a single
spell in one round for 1 Strain.
If a spell requires one or more threads, you must take an action to weave Threads
to the spell. The turn after the minimum number of Threads is woven, the character
may make a Spellcasting test to push the spell through the Matrix and expend the
Threads woven to the spell.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1021006No. I didn't find it made the spellcasters overpowered at all.
They are still using the same number and levels of spells. They just get a bit more choice in how and when they get to use them.
For my spellcaster players, it eliminated their complaints. Without really changing their character's power level.
The thing is, it was a resource-management mechanically limiting factor for spellcasters that they had to choose spells beforehand. This meant that sometimes, they would fail to pick a spell that would have proved useful, or would choose a spell that won't actually end up being useful.
This was one of the things that helped keep them balanced compared to non-spellcasters.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1021699The thing is, it was a resource-management mechanically limiting factor for spellcasters that they had to choose spells beforehand. This meant that sometimes, they would fail to pick a spell that would have proved useful, or would choose a spell that won't actually end up being useful.
This was one of the things that helped keep them balanced compared to non-spellcasters.
In our experience, this meant that spellcasters would choose combat or combat useful spells, since combat was a frequent occurance. Magic Missile, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc. You don't have to cast Hold Portal if your opponents are all dead, you don't need Knock if you have a thief along, Or at least, that's how the thinking went.
This wasn't true 100% of the time, of course, but often enough so that we used the houserule when we realized the original rule wasn't really balancing anything.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1021701In our experience, this meant that spellcasters would choose combat or combat useful spells, since combat was a frequent occurance. Magic Missile, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc. You don't have to cast Hold Portal if your opponents are all dead, you don't need Knock if you have a thief along, Or at least, that's how the thinking went.
This wasn't true 100% of the time, of course, but often enough so that we used the houserule when we realized the original rule wasn't really balancing anything.
That has been my experience as well both as referee and player. Which is why I introduced the idea of ritual casting in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
I guess this is how we do it, too in my C&C game. "Balance" is a stupid thing, in my opinion: it's a shibboleth predicated on predictions of stuff that doesn't usually show up in actual play.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1021701In our experience, this meant that spellcasters would choose combat or combat useful spells, since combat was a frequent occurance. Magic Missile, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc. You don't have to cast Hold Portal if your opponents are all dead, you don't need Knock if you have a thief along, Or at least, that's how the thinking went.
This wasn't true 100% of the time, of course, but often enough so that we used the houserule when we realized the original rule wasn't really balancing anything.
I guess us old timers are different; we figured that anything that could be possibly handled by swords, we'd handle by swords. The MUs took some combat spells, sure, but also took a good selection of utility spells. Guys with swords can handle a dozen goblins. That FLY spell is pretty handy to cross the chasm.
And KNOCK is damn handy when you're being chased and you want to get through that door NOW.
Of course, that assumes that you don't fight the stupid wandering monsters because they have no treasure and, therefore, crap XP.
The longer your MUs spells last, the longer you can stay down in the dungeon. The dungeon had a LOT of obstacles other than monsters.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021827I guess us old timers are different; we figured that anything that could be possibly handled by swords, we'd handle by swords. The MUs took some combat spells, sure, but also took a good selection of utility spells.
The limited number of slots, especially at low levels, was a big factor in the magic users picking the biggest "bang" for their buck.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021282To me, selecting my loadout of spells beforehand is the most interesting part of playing a magic user, so I find this very unappealing. However, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.
I think probably that you are. By 1975 a rule like Darrin's was pretty common among the various DMs in the area where I was located. Balance wasn't a big concern and that rule change didn't seem to stop most people from running fighters or clerics instead of MUs.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1021830The limited number of slots, especially at low levels, was a big factor in the magic users picking the biggest "bang" for their buck.
At first or second level, yeah, SLEEP or maybe Charm Person is the choice.
By the time you've hit 6th or 7th level with the magic user, though, you should be going for a more balanced load. At least one sleep, because goblins are a pain in the ass, and a fireball, but you've got enough slots by then to change it up. And it wasn't unusual for our magic users to have spells left at the end of the adventure. Better to have a Hold Portal and not need it than need it and not have it.
Quote from: Bren;1021863I think probably that you are. By 1975 a rule like Darrin's was pretty common among the various DMs in the area where I was located. Balance wasn't a big concern and that rule change didn't seem to stop most people from running fighters or clerics instead of MUs.
I really am. And it's nothing about balance; I just find the choosing to be interesting. It's why I lose interest in magic users around level seven or eight; they have so many spells by then there are no decisions to make.
Quote from: Bren;1021863I think probably that you are. By 1975 a rule like Darrin's was pretty common among the various DMs in the area where I was located. Balance wasn't a big concern and that rule change didn't seem to stop most people from running fighters or clerics instead of MUs.
Because it really didn't change the rest of the dynamics of the game. And in my view, it didn't break the balance between character classes. So there was no functional advantage that really made Magic Users and Clerics superior to the other character classes.
When I created the thing, I wanted it to be as inobtrusive as possible. Something that people could take or leave. And not really break things if it wasn't used.
Some people like managing that kind of stuff, some don't. Just like I saw some people playing BATTLETECH and omitting the heat rules. For me, managing heat is one of the most interesting parts of the game.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021874And it's nothing about balance; I just find the choosing to be interesting.
Whereas I recall finding the using not the choosing to be the interesting portion of play.
It's like wargames with prewritten orders. Some people like them and some don't.
I like the idea of mages instead getting 'spell slots' gaining mana points per level to be used daily, depending on their primary spellcasting attribute and level, which they can use on daily basis with the more powerful spells requiring more points to cast. This I believe is a better, more plausible representation for mages than 'slots' and gives bigger flexibility for spellcasters than to just use 'slots' and spell preparation. I believe there was once a similar variant rule in a 3rd (or 3.5) Edition book, but my group used it before that as well.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021282To me, selecting my loadout of spells beforehand is the most interesting part of playing a magic user, so I find this very unappealing. However, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.
In my opinion a mage which actually learned their spells should always have access to his own memories/head and be able to cast any of the learned spells, but be limited by the amount of power they could put out daily. A wasteful mage would burn their mana in a hour, perhaps a war mage or 'siege mage' is a good example of that, while a careful mage could cast less powerful spells the whole day long and still have mana left.
A Wizard's book would work something like 5th Edition's ritual spells, a gathering of magic rituals/spells which the mage can cast without spending any (or much) power of his own on them, but would take at least 10 minutes to cast spells from the book, and would involve chalk or coal drawing.
I believe most, especially older D&D players would agree with you Gronan, but I myself can't see many limitations on spellcasters making sense.
For a priest to pray daily does make sense, as the spells are usually not considered their own to begin with, just as 'loaned/gifted' ones so for them I would say the classic method works, although I would still give a minor choice list of their own which grows with level (and/or wisdom). On the assumption the divine power gets stronger/imbued in the priest with time passing in service to a god. Something like having a cantrip of his own on level 3, a level 1 spell on level 5, and so on. This would be his personal power however.
I actually enjoy the forethought planning aspect of play as well. It was like the fighter's decision on what weapons to bring. Nowadays fighters are expected to be "one-weapon, all-day" specialists, which I cannot even... Just the thought of going adventuring without at least a melee and ranged weapon is beyond me.
And yet people whinge on how to bring a 'sword and board' fighter up to parity, because I guess carrying a ranged weapon is beyond the pale. And people refuse to look at how weapon gear lists are anemic compared to how spell widgets are vomited forth. Y'know, a fighter using a sensibly contextual weapon without that extra +1 or +2 is not the end of the world. But we'd rather tag on wuxia fightan magic than, y'know, bring the right tools and actually make preparation decisions. Oh, and we should make wizards' already flexible slots even more flexible, too, because why waste time with preparation choices.
I feel it's like old biddies with enormous tote purses -- who want to carry everything, like the kitchen sink and that hand blender *just in case* -- and expecting it all to be managed like some sort of sonic screwdriver.
It's very much not my style of play. What's so interesting about being Felix the Cat beyond farce? :( What's so interesting about being a one-weapon fighter trying to turn their lone weapon into Green Lantern's ring? :( But then I don't 'get' Supers either, so... not my idea of fun. :)
Various weapons for fighters also makes sense, except if you specifically built it around a concept, like a classic sword/shield knight, or a hoplite.
However, the comparison of non-caster fighters and mages doesn't work out well, as fighters don't suddenly stop being useful after a few swings of their weapons.
edit: While at it, why shouldn't a mage which actually learns spells not be able to cast spells based on situation like the choice of weaponry for your fighter? How is it logical for a mage to not use an ice spell against a fire elemental or fire spell against a troll only because it wasn't 'prepared', but still having learned it? D&D seems to use the word 'learn' for arcane casters (except if innate magic like for Sorcerers) but at the same time uses their books as the actual source of knowledge which any peasant could open up to cast all those spells from... but still only x amount of spells daily.
Very simple, because it is a genre conceit tied to D&D developed with an eye towards Vance's Dying Earth aesthetic. No more, no less. Just like Spell Points and "Always Readied" Spells are strongly tied to developments in video game RPG aesthetics.
And when I want to not worry about preparation beyond selecting from a menu and a single "gas meter," I play with Spell Points. And when I want to worry more about preparation in terms of choice and quantity, I play with 0.x ~ 3.PF Spell Slots. And when I want to worry about preparation in terms of choice but not quantity, I play with 5e Spell Slots. (And when I want merely drawn out argument and abuse, I "play" Solipsism: the Arguing, er, I mean, Mage: the Ascencion. :p )
And so on. :)
Quote from: Opaopajr;1022010Just like Spell Points and "Always Readied" Spells are strongly tied to developments in video game RPG aesthetics.
Except using "Spell Points and "Always Readied" Spells" in table top gaming predates their use in video games. Table top games with spell points and such predate video games like Asteroids, Pac-Man, and Donkey Kong much less any video game where you get to play a wizard on screen.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1021282To me, selecting my loadout of spells beforehand is the most interesting part of playing a magic user, so I find this very unappealing. However, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.
It certainly forces you to think laterally in some situations.
It also builds in my experience into the "Mission Impossible" model of a dungeon expedition; there are various roles and people have at least a basic idea of who can do what. Thus, a basic part of our tactical thinking was about which of our tools do we use to solve a given situation; spells, swords, other weapons, other magic items for "utility" situations, whatever? The object was to stay down in the dungeon as long as possible to maximize loot, and thus XP. So resources were hoarded. There was no "15 minute adventuring day," because you had to navigate your way IN, and you had to navigate your way OUT. Wandering monsters and all.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1022052It certainly forces you to think laterally in some situations.
If you more or less leave Cleric and other healers as per standard rules it doesn't matter much because mages will still have to get healed and all, limiting adventuring time. The exception might be necromancers, which actually makes them more useful again.
My goal in contrast to present a fantasy setting that the players can experience while doing interesting. I don't like imposing any type of preconceptions on what the players ought to be doing. Instead I put thought into what it would be like to live in such a world, work up some cultures, figure the variations, and create the NPCs accordingly.
This includes the system of magic. Over the years, I developed an idea of what magic is capable of and what it isn't. It it aligns somewhat with Gygax's idea as presented in classic D&D but it also influenced by how magic is presented in GURPS Magic. Despite their difference in how characters are setup (spells as skill versus memorization slots) they are not that far apart. D&D style magic tend to be more useful for battlefield, GURPS Magic tends to make the mage a formidable one on one combatant.
I tried alternatives like Ars Magica noun verb system and GURPS Ritual Path Magic but they never jelled the way I wanted too.
Ultimately what I settled on ten years ago was that arcane magic is a learned skill. It works by using will to channel an energy called mana. Arcane spells are cast by performing an elaborate ritual and expending material components.
Divine spells can be cast in the same way. However building their adherent's faith, the gods taught their clerics a series of meditations that allowed the cleric to memorize spells that can be released at a moment's notice. There is a certain amount of skill involved so clerics needs experience (i.e. higher levels) to case more difficult spells like Raise Dead.
It took many generations of advancement in the Arts of Magic until Arcane spellcaster reverse engineered enough to create a memorization system for arcane spells. Thus the modern magic user was born. Along the way several alternate paths were developed that proved to be dead ends.
Hence my rules reflect the details of the above. I have a skill based version in rough drafts for D100, Fudge/Fate, AGE and GURPS. Of the three the AGE variant is furtherest along. Instead of gain slots as you level, you buy slots as a talent, advantage, etc. And there are rule about how many lower level slots you have to have before buying a higher level slot.
And more recently because of how much I like Adventures in Middle Earth, I am working on a separate low fantasy variant drawing on my experience with GURPS Ritual Path Magic, Ars Magica, and other alternatives I didn't use for the Majestic Wilderlands. Has different assumptions than the above system.
The way to approach any of this to define how magic works in everyday language, make your rules reflect that, playtest, revise, and repeat. What people forget about D&D system of magic, it started as nothing more than a few typewritten pages, and then repeatably pounded on week after week by dozens of players seeking to exploit it to further their own goals in exploring Greyhawk, other dungeons, and the wilderness.
Regardless of you think how magic ought to be, that the crucible that one's idea need to pass. In my Thursday campaign the players are doing some crazy stuff and I will be making revisions for the next campaign.
Quote from: joriandrake;1021988edit: While at it, why shouldn't a mage which actually learns spells not be able to cast spells based on situation like the choice of weaponry for your fighter? How is it logical for a mage to not use an ice spell against a fire elemental or fire spell against a troll only because it wasn't 'prepared', but still having learned it? D&D seems to use the word 'learn' for arcane casters (except if innate magic like for Sorcerers) but at the same time uses their books as the actual source of knowledge which any peasant could open up to cast all those spells from... but still only x amount of spells daily.
It's really quite simple. "Memorisation" is actually "preparation". It takes 15 minutes per spell level to cast a spell, but you can do all the preparation in advance, and then hold the spell ready to release with a relatively fast, simple, final invocation.
So, sure, cast that ice spell on the fire elemental. Take out your spell book and spend the next 75 minutes doing the ritual and whamo, ice spell called upon as required.
Don't use Vancian casting if you don't want to, but it's very, very easy to rationalise in a logical and internally consistent way.
I was very careful not to use the English word of 'memorization' to avoid misunderstanding. The whole comment is only about learned spells vs loaned spells.
Quote from: joriandrake;1022204I was very careful not to use the English word of 'memorization' to avoid misunderstanding. The whole comment is only about learned spells vs loaned spells.
Well, if you're talking about the fact that the books are required, the fact that these things take 15 minutes per level to prepare (10 min/level in 2e) indicates that they're extremely complex. Clearly too complex to prepare without extensive written notes (and possibly there are patterns or symbols written in the spell descriptions that the mage needs to visualise/internalise during the process, or arcane words that simply can't be committed to memory, but need to be read from a written source), and also too complex for someone to simply pick up a book and follow the steps without a great deal of theoretical and practical experience with the workings of magic.
Grimoires (spell books) in Earthdawn have some heavy metaphysics tied to them. When a mage successfully transcribes a spell into their griomoire from another source, it is also imprinted into the mage's astral pattern. The most "vulgar" type of casting is actually just pulling mana through that part of your own astral pattern that represents the spell. This causes mana-burn/astral corruption damage, and a HUGE flare of light in astral space (dinner-bells for curious Horrors).
Enter the Spell Matrix. At fist, it was an astral construct bound to a physical object (ring, wand, etc) and held a single spell. Later magical developments allowed each mage to have a certain number of these complex knots of mana attached to their astral pattern, each holding a condensed copy of any spell they know. Mages with their books at hand and 10 minutes of peace to spare can easily swap any spell known into any Matrix ("slot"). The Spell Matrix acts as an astral filter (for damage) and dampener (for the "light-flare"), allowing safe casting again and again. As mentioned, some spells require extra mana (& Threadweaving tests to provide that mana), before Spellcasting test to see if it affects the target.
In stressful situations, when a mage needs to swap their spells out immediately, it can be attempted by a Threadweaving roll against a higher difficulty number than usual (based on the new spell). If the mage takes damage or is otherwise shocked/disrupted, they must make a Willpower test (against the # of Damage points taken). Failure WIPES all spell matrices, and they cannot be used until the mage has 10 minutes of peace to re-attune them.
Some classes get abilities that mess with spell-matrices, damaging them, or disrupting a spell out of them. The Wizard class also gets spells that directly mess with the "astral background count", i.e. they can channel "static" at other mages to reduce their Spellcasting rolls. Having a slightly more reasonable range of spell effects across the 4 mage classes also helps with this system. And the 4E rules have added "overcharging" spells by weaving an extra thread or two, or additional effects available on really good Spellcasting rolls (these include things like bouncing the lightning-bolt to another target, making a certain # of people in the fireball's target area safe from damage, etc). I really prefer this as a take on the "Vance"-style casting presented in his novels.
Regardless of anything else, there's no way about the fact that letting magic-users pick what they cast on the go, rather than front-loaded, makes them more powerful. The question is whether this turns them too powerful.
Back in my gaming heyday, of the two DM's who were running the majority of the AD&D games in our area, one enforced spell memorization, and one didn't. In the games that the latter ran, spellcasters definitely had more relative oomph, once you hit about 5th level or so, compared to the ones where you had to pick which spells you had prepared.
When I was getting my game ready, I didn't want to bother with spell memorization, as outside of Vance it didn't really match any of the fiction I had read. However, I also didn't want spellcasters overpowering non-spellcasters of equivalent level. My compromise was that any spells cast had to be declared before initiative was rolled (non-spellcasters actions can just be declared when a character's individual initiative comes up), and that the level of the spell acts as a penalty to the spell caster's initiative score (I don't bother with modifiers for most non-spellcasters actions). These two house rules, along with enforcing any damage taken by the caster prior to the spell going off as disrupting the spell, seems to keep things relatively balanced.
I never thought of the OP's 'system' as a system per se; it is just the default, 'I'm too lazy to keep up with the book keeping' way of playing mages that my group has always fallen back on. I suppose it gives spell casters more power, but if you tend to play low level campaigns that is not such a bad thing.
Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1022805Back in my gaming heyday, of the two DM's who were running the majority of the AD&D games in our area, one enforced spell memorization, and one didn't. In the games that the latter ran, spellcasters definitely had more relative oomph, once you hit about 5th level or so, compared to the ones where you had to pick which spells you had prepared.
When I was getting my game ready, I didn't want to bother with spell memorization, as outside of Vance it didn't really match any of the fiction I had read. However, I also didn't want spellcasters overpowering non-spellcasters of equivalent level. My compromise was that any spells cast had to be declared before initiative was rolled (non-spellcasters actions can just be declared when a character's individual initiative comes up), and that the level of the spell acts as a penalty to the spell caster's initiative score (I don't bother with modifiers for most non-spellcasters actions). These two house rules, along with enforcing any damage taken by the caster prior to the spell going off as disrupting the spell, seems to keep things relatively balanced.
Those are good house rules!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023178Those are good house rules!
Thanks. One of the interesting side-effects is that the spellcasters, as they've advanced in level, tend to save their higher level spells either for non-combat situations or for ambushes. Once they're in the thick of combat they tend to stick to the lower level spells.
That, and because our M-U absolutely
hates getting her spells disrupted and losing a spell slot (much more so than the actual taking of damage), she has come to love the Shield spell.
That sounds very Original School to me; the way we played back in the early 70s.
(in terms of "saving big spells for ambush or other desperate situations)
Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1023223Thanks. One of the interesting side-effects is that the spellcasters, as they've advanced in level, tend to save their higher level spells either for non-combat situations or for ambushes. Once they're in the thick of combat they tend to stick to the lower level spells.
That, and because our M-U absolutely hates getting her spells disrupted and losing a spell slot (much more so than the actual taking of damage), she has come to love the Shield spell.
Well, that's a bonus; it means your players emphasize certain tactics.