PDA

View Full Version : Vancian Magic: Yea or Nay



Pages : [1] 2

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 06:56 PM
Related to a point brought up in another thread, a simple vote.

Do you like Vancian Magic or would you rather have something else.

(Something else includes, but is not limited to: Vestiges, Incarnum, Invocations, Shadowcasting, Power Points/Mana Points, Truenaming)

It doesn't even have to be something that currently exists, just if you want *something*... *anything* other than Vancian, say so.

Vancian Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) -
Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28gaming%29)

Galathir
2007-12-19, 06:59 PM
I, for one, love Vancian magic. Sure it might not make much sense, but to me, it is D&D magic. Wizards just would not be the same without it. I've played with other magic systems, but I still like Vancian the best.

brian c
2007-12-19, 06:59 PM
Something else, kinda. I'm okay with vancian for wizards, since they must have some sort of systematic approach based on how they learn it. I'm okay with it for clerics, since the gods must have some sort of system to determine which worshippers are allowed to use which spells. For sorcerers, there's no justification; I favor spell points. I also like the magic recharge system.

Amiria
2007-12-19, 06:59 PM
Amiria loves Vancian Magic ! http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j179/Kotzgeist/amiriasmiley.gif

KIDS
2007-12-19, 07:01 PM
While it has been the mark of D&D for many decades, I for one would rather see it replaced. Pretty much all of my prepared characters never roleplayed magic that way either and if no one mentioned it I would as often try to forget about it. Vancian casting by its very "planned" design encourages a lot of planning and doesn't lend itself well to cinematic or spontaneous scenes - I would much more like to see it replaced by mana (power) points or even sorcerer spell slots method.

Azaul
2007-12-19, 07:04 PM
I will have to vote for both. Vancian magic for certain classes, like Wizards, and something else for other classes. I believe even novice gamers can pick up multiple systems since they likely only learn one class at a time.

EvilElitest
2007-12-19, 07:05 PM
Related to a point brought up in another thread, a simple vote.

Do you like Vancian Magic or would you rather have something else.

(Something else includes, but is not limited to: Vestiges, Incarnum, Invocations, Shadowcasting, Power Points/Mana Points, Truenaming)

It doesn't even have to be something that currently exists, just if you want *something*... *anything* other than Vancian, say so.

Vancian Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) -

I want wizard and other such casters to use vancian magic, other types (shadow magic ect) should have their own catagory)
from,
EE

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 07:05 PM
Vancian's good.

Virtually every gaming system out there does at will abilities, selectable abilities, or point-based systems; Vancian magic, in the gaming community, is essentially unique to D&D. Okay, it's got some headaches involved for those who don't like planning - but then, current D&D also includes the Sorcerer, Psion, and others for those interested in the less day-to-day planning of the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid. Vancian magic is just one of the things that sets D&D apart.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-19, 07:06 PM
Nay and I say thee nay and I say thee NAY a third time!!! It sucks as a system, part way between "magic's just a system of thought", "magic's just a system of preparing energy beforehand" and "Magic's just amazing and we desperatly need something to rein it in".

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-19, 07:07 PM
Personally I really enjoy my spell-like abilities, but I have nothing against Vancian casting as such.

It has worked well for many a wizard for several editions now, but for other casters other systems might be more appropriate.

Prophaniti
2007-12-19, 07:08 PM
I don't much like vancian magic, I prefer power points/mana or at least spontaneous casting a la sorcerer, but there is something about the system that feels definitively D&D. Wizards in D&D would just be wierd without it... not to mention horribly overpowered unless they toned down some of those high-level spells.

Valairn
2007-12-19, 07:08 PM
Vancian magic is the reason I hate playing wizards... Spells are the reason I play them anyway... sigh.

Inyssius Tor
2007-12-19, 07:12 PM
Yea. Vancian casting is an interesting and unusual system, and I like it.

I really like what 4E appears to be doing--giving wizards some traditional Vancian spells, and then letting them use warlock-style magic on the fly. That's the ideal system for me, since it fits well with how I think wizards should work.

EDIT: From what I remember, that's actually not too far off from how Vance's wizards actually worked--they had the complicated stuff prepared ahead of time, but could cook things up on the fly if needed.

rankrath
2007-12-19, 07:14 PM
Vanician magic is what makes D&D fun, (to me at least), as it helps keeps classes balanced. The wizard may be able to whip out "win combat" every time, but if he needs to do something else, (open a door, hit something, ect), he's SOOL. If the same type of thing was done in a power point system, the wizard could do just about anything, with less planning needed.

Glawackus
2007-12-19, 07:14 PM
Vancian magic is why I tend to shy away from any variety of caster. Thumbs down.

Felius
2007-12-19, 07:15 PM
I hate it with my whole heart and soul.

I'd really prefer if they made a spell point/mana system.

Albonor
2007-12-19, 07:17 PM
I prefer the Vancian system for non-spontaneous casters. For the others, a Warhammer-like system which allows you to cast as often as you like but with a fair amount of risk.

Me and my best friend (who usualy are the DMs) also use a variation of the Vancian that uses a point from 2ed: It takes 10 minutes per level of the spell (5 minutes for cantrips) to memorise it and you can do it anytime*, unless you're fatigued or exausted. It prevents level 1-4 casters from having to go to sleep every 2 hours because they are fresh out after 2 encounters but nerfs the higher level ones: a level 20 wizard specialists with a 20 Intel must study and make small rituals for...40 hours to regain all of his spells if he used them all.4 long 10h days! Trust me, the party wizard isn't that eager to steal the show and the fighter is QUITE useful when Time Stop really is a last resort...

*To really separate Wizards from Sorcerers, we decideed that wizards were more similar to the witchraft lore, preparing long rituals in order to cast a single spell, drawing runes on a piece of paper and burning it, etc. It gave us a more interesting feel about them than: read for 1h- blast/batman- sleep- repeat.

Saph
2007-12-19, 07:20 PM
Yea.

As things are, you can play a Vancian caster (wizard, cleric) or a spontaneous caster (sorcerer, favoured soul) or an MP caster (psion, psywarrior) or several other flavours.

So the players who like Vancian can go Vancian, and the ones who hate it can do something else. Choice is good.

That said, it's hard for new players to get used to, since it takes a long time for them to get the hang of planning ahead each game day. I generally try to steer new players towards spontaneous casters rather than Vancian ones.

- Saph

fendrin
2007-12-19, 07:20 PM
Nay-ish.

I would like to see a system flexible enough that it could be Vancian or non-Vancian.

You have spells/melds/powers/vestiges/whatever, they have a 'level' based on how much incarnum/power points/whatever you invest in them.

When you 'cast' your spell, you have the option to 'burn' some of the points invested in it to make it more powerful (maybe metamagic burns points?).

maybe points can be reallocated with a full action of concentration, which can be shortened with feats (down to a swift action, like incarnum), but once a point is 'burned' it is gone until the next day...

A system like that would allow casters to 'prepare' spells and just use them, like a wizard, burning all of the points in the spell would make it no longer useable. It's also like having built in reserve feats. On the other hand, you could never burn points (investing your feats to allow you to move points around) to make it like incarnum. There could also be 'spells' that summon and bind other beings to your will, granting a variety of minor powers, that last for 24 hours, but you have to burn a large number of points in the process. This would be like binding a vestige. With the right vestige(s) you would be able to simulate a warlock.

beyond that, there are flavor elements of 'spells' versus 'truenames' versus FF style summons. That's all fluff and flavor that can be done as a current D&D caster, if so desired.

I wish I had thought of this a while ago. It's just not worth it to me to put the effort into developing this now, with 4e right around the corner. Otherwise I would, because I really like the idea.

I think we all know that 4e is not going to be like my idea...
though it may not be too far off.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 07:21 PM
Vancian casting is annoying and a bother, to me, and a mechanical nightmare. Half the reason many spells are considered broken is because they are not appropriately leveled, and this is directly correlated to Vancian casting and it's lack of rules for defining where exactly spells should be leveled.

Vancian casting also represents a plausibility issue: why is a spellcaster limited to strict limits of what he can and cannot cast per day?

In addition to these, Vancian casting scales inappropriately: I'd rather be able to increase the power of a lower-level spell by expending more energy on it (a la psionic augmentation) rather than learning a whole new more powerful spell.

My last beef with Vancian casting (which is really more a beef with 3.x, but that's neither here nor there) is that the power curve of the spell levels isn't linear: it's exponential. A second level spell is twice as powerful as a first, and a third is twice as powerful as a second. This means that a 9th level spell is roughly 256 times more powerful than a first level spell, rather than something more reasonable, like 9 times more powerful.

Methabroax
2007-12-19, 07:25 PM
I support Vancian 100 percent. It's what makes magic in DnD what it is. Power point systems never achieve the type of balance that arbitrary assignment achieves. Besides being the mechanical heart of magic, it's provides a ton of flavor to the world by forcing the choice between equally powerful options that might have nothing to do with each other. Having your 5th level wizard choose between being able to fireball his opponents or being able to fly is a heartbreaker in mountainous terrain where mobility is as valuable as damage.

Without the distinct quality that the system has, what remains of the essence of the game that we have played for so long? THACO is gone, proficiencies are gone, it would be a shame to remove the last elements that make DnD distinct.

just my two cents,

Methabroax

Kizara
2007-12-19, 07:25 PM
I like it, but sometimes I enjoy using other magic systems. I find warlocks and such fun to play.

Most of the balance issues in the magic system (that I precieve) result from certain spells then the system on a whole.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 07:28 PM
I like it, but sometimes I enjoy using other magic systems. I find warlocks and such fun to play.

Most of the balance issues in the magic system (that I precieve) result from certain spells then the system on a whole.

Not really. The main reason spells are so powerful in comparison to mundanity is that the power curve for spells is exponential, rather than linear. And many of the ZOMGBROKENZ spells are really just mis-leveled, which is another issue with the Vancian system: there's no rules (or even guidelines) for determining spell level. It's an even more imprecise science than determining LA.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-19, 07:28 PM
I love this system, personally. Mana points get out of hand too easy, and this way you can't just chug a potion and get a refill. With times/day, you still can keep track of how much 'mystic energy' is left and roleplay appropriately, but it's not as cheesy or difficult to track as mana points.

Mojo_Rat
2007-12-19, 07:29 PM
I like the system. Although i refuse to refer to it as 'vancian' whatever its origins. Im not aware that any D&D book has ever called it that. Most D&D players that do not read say here or the wizards forum would have no idea what the 'vancian' system is.

anyhow regardless the requirement for planning is a balance system there isnt anything wrong with It Power points have serious issues that the people who dislike the normal casting system choose to ignore.

I dont personally think the othr systems are bad but your magic system and game design has to be designed around it.

Saph
2007-12-19, 07:30 PM
Vancian casting also represents a plausibility issue: why is a spellcaster limited to strict limits of what he can and cannot cast per day?

It's actually explained fairly well, but you have to read the books of - surprise, surprise - Jack Vance. :P

It's a while since I last read them, but I think the gist of it was that much of a wizard's apprenticeship is actually memory training, enabling a wizard to keep in memory things that would send a normal person insane. One wizard tells a would-be apprentice at one point that before he can start to cast spells he should be able to imagine a tree in his head with enough detail that he can count each leaf individually, then recount them and get the same number.

- Saph

Kantolin
2007-12-19, 07:30 PM
Yea

I'm a big fan of Vancian casting, although I'm not fond of how astonishingly powerful wizards are. I'd like vancian without that.

Thus I'm a bit hesitant about 4.0, but I'll have to see.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 07:30 PM
I love this system, personally. Mana points get out of hand too easy, and this way you can't just chug a potion and get a refill. With times/day, you still can keep track of how much 'mystic energy' is left and roleplay appropriately, but it's not as cheesy or difficult to track as mana points.

Enlighten me as to how a spell point system automatically means "buckets of points" or "refillable with a potion." Psionics--a spell point system--is largely considered to be more balanced than Vancian casting in the 3.5 milieu and allows for neither mid-day refills (something a Vancian caster can do!) or metric tons of points.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 07:32 PM
anyhow regardless the requirement for planning is a balance system there isnt anything wrong with It Power points have serious issues that the people who dislike the normal casting system choose to ignore.

Would you care to enumerate the problems with a power point system rather than being vague?

DraPrime
2007-12-19, 07:34 PM
I say yes to Vancian magic. It's always had that proper dnd feel. Sure, it doesn't have the most sense to it, but it's a sound system that works very well, and is almost exclusive to Dnd.

martyboy74
2007-12-19, 07:37 PM
I personally dislike vancian casting, but recognize it's importance to the system. It does fit some character types very well (read:wizard). However, I think that some other types of characters would work better with a MP/PP based system. I wouldn't mind having it, as long as there were other spellcasting options in core.

Dausuul
2007-12-19, 07:49 PM
I detest Vancian magic. My preferred magic system involves a mix of at-will abilities, and more powerful rituals requiring a limited resource whose supply can be directly regulated without affecting other areas of the game. I actually went to the extent of building a whole new Iron Heroes class and feat trees around this mechanic... then I found out D&D 4E was coming along to make it (I hope) obsolete. :smallbiggrin:

Dark Tira
2007-12-19, 07:57 PM
Well, i came here to pretty much say everything Fax already said. So it's a big Nay for me. I especially hate the flavor of Vancian spellcasting. It seems very counter-intuitive to be able to memorize the same thing 3 times then forget one but still remember the other 2. I don't care how well Vance may have rationalized it in his books, it's not something that someone new to D&D will pick up and say "that makes sense."

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 07:58 PM
Well, i came here to pretty much say everything Fax already said.

I get that a lot. :smalltongue:

Vectner
2007-12-19, 08:04 PM
I'm old school, I like it!

mostlyharmful
2007-12-19, 08:08 PM
one of the things that I hate about Vancian casting is that casters either know what they'll be facing (either by good guesswork or by in game scut work) will overwhelm their challenges with an accurately picked spell selection, or they slip up and prepare something wrong, in which case their character will be penalized. without vancian casting magic use can be balenced on the face of what they're confrounted with rather than what they prepared for (and if what they prepare for doesn't happen they fall flat on their face)

Admiral Squish
2007-12-19, 08:13 PM
Enlighten me as to how a spell point system automatically means "buckets of points" or "refillable with a potion." Psionics--a spell point system--is largely considered to be more balanced than Vancian casting in the 3.5 milieu and allows for neither mid-day refills (something a Vancian caster can do!) or metric tons of points.

There's all kinds of psionic items that offer additional power-point reserves. You can even make your psicrystal hold extra power points for you, with the right feats. Mindfeeder weapons, manifester shields, eyes of power leech, skin of the psion, psicrowns come with their own reservoir, and you can always use power stones to manifest some for free, if you just want a few.

Wordmiser
2007-12-19, 08:16 PM
I can't stand the system. It requires too much guesswork on the player's parts, it requires too much paperwork (even if it could be worse, it could be much better), it doesn't work to maintain game balance and it isn't intuitive for new players.

EvilElitest
2007-12-19, 08:17 PM
Enlighten me as to how a spell point system automatically means "buckets of points" or "refillable with a potion." Psionics--a spell point system--is largely considered to be more balanced than Vancian casting in the 3.5 milieu and allows for neither mid-day refills (something a Vancian caster can do!) or metric tons of points.

I think that the Vancian system is considered unbalanced because of the spell's levels not the system itself. Also, i like most of the magic system, i'd hate to see on go
from,
EE

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 08:18 PM
There's all kinds of psionic items that offer additional power-point reserves. You can even make your psicrystal hold extra power points for you, with the right feats. Mindfeeder weapons, manifester shields, eyes of power leech, skin of the psion, psicrowns come with their own reservoir, and you can always use power stones to manifest some for free, if you just want a few.

...and did you fail to read the section of the rules that says you can't intermix power point sources? If you use power points from an alternative source, you have to spend only points from that source for manifesting that power. That makes power stones et al essentially into very weak scrolls.

Further, the list of items you speak of largely have direct Vancian equivalents. Weapons, shields, and other items that carry SLAs, wands, staves, scrolls, spell theft, mnemonic enhancer, etc.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 08:20 PM
Vancian Magic works well for certain things. Having your spells scale with level more or less requires either Vancian magic or increased costs (like the system in ExPsi) to avoid the problem of "I spend tiny amounts of power for a 1st level spell that's gotten uber because I'm sixth." I think it would've been interesting if they'd fixed durations at equivalent for their first level available... Bull's Strength at 3 hours would make it very useful, but not a game-breaker.

3rd edition had, IMO, one major problem with its implementation of Vancian magic. It made regaining spells too short of a process, allowing spellcasters to expend power freely without a real consequence (nine hour rest, at maximum). Earlier editions severely limited regaining upper-level spells with time restrictions.

Overall, I like Vancian magic for Dungeons and Dragons, but think that having other options is also a good idea.

EvilElitest
2007-12-19, 08:24 PM
Vancian Magic works well for certain things. Having your spells scale with level more or less requires either Vancian magic or increased costs (like the system in ExPsi) to avoid the problem of "I spend tiny amounts of power for a 1st level spell that's gotten uber because I'm sixth." I think it would've been interesting if they'd fixed durations at equivalent for their first level available... Bull's Strength at 3 hours would make it very useful, but not a game-breaker.

3rd edition had, IMO, one major problem with its implementation of Vancian magic. It made regaining spells too short of a process, allowing spellcasters to expend power freely without a real consequence (nine hour rest, at maximum). Earlier editions severely limited regaining upper-level spells with time restrictions.

Overall, I like Vancian magic for Dungeons and Dragons, but think that having other options is also a good idea.
seconded
from,
EE

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 08:35 PM
I especially hate the flavor of Vancian spellcasting. It seems very counter-intuitive to be able to memorize the same thing 3 times then forget one but still remember the other 2. I don't care how well Vance may have rationalized it in his books, it's not something that someone new to D&D will pick up and say "that makes sense."
If you stop and read the more recent flavortext (I think they brought it in for 3.0), it's not memorization anymore.

Ah, here it is - 3.0 PHB, page 154-155, under the Spell Selection and Preparation section, a few sentences in:


The act of preparing a spell is actually the first step in casting it. A spell is designed in such a way that it has an interruption point near its end. This allows a wizard to cast most of the spell ahead of time and finish the spell when it's needed, even if the character is under considerable pressure. The wizard's spellbook serves as a guide to the mental exercises the wizard must preform to create the spell's effect.

The Wizard doesn't memorize the spell - the Wizard pre-casts the vast majority of it.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 08:41 PM
The Wizard doesn't memorize the spell - the Wizard pre-casts the vast majority of it.

Which is part of why the new, shorter times don't make sense.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 08:48 PM
Which is part of why the new, shorter times don't make sense.It's still a per-day allotment, not the maximum of a 9-hour break you make it out to be.
Edit:
Sorry, let me expound on that:

Rest: To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.(Emphasis added)


Bonus Spells: Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.(Emphasis added)

Nowhere does the book say you can just drop for eight hours and then spend one gaining back all those spells - you still have to wait for the next day.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-19, 08:55 PM
...and did you fail to read the section of the rules that says you can't intermix power point sources? If you use power points from an alternative source, you have to spend only points from that source for manifesting that power. That makes power stones et al essentially into very weak scrolls.

Further, the list of items you speak of largely have direct Vancian equivalents. Weapons, shields, and other items that carry SLAs, wands, staves, scrolls, spell theft, mnemonic enhancer, etc.
Duly noted. But why bother to mix them when you get all you need right from that source? I'm not saying to take power points from each source to make a bigger spell, just use what you get from each. managed effectively, and you get plenty of extra juice.

And try again, I don't see any items that offer additional spells/day that you get to choose the use for. Yeah, there's some that grant their own powers, but that's a limited selection. With psion powers, it's anything you want.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 08:55 PM
It's still a per-day allotment, not the maximum of a 9-hour break you make it out to be.

...and to me, "per-day" is a ridiculous limitation on usage. What, the sun mystically recharges me when it rises each morning? What's the actual definition of "a day" anyway? 24 hours? What about on planes/planets where the day is longer or shorter than 24 hours? There's just to much about a "day" that can vary from person to person and place to place. Per-minute and per-hour make more sense, and even those are rather arbitrary.

Leicontis
2007-12-19, 08:55 PM
I'm going to have to go with "Nay" on Vancian, at least in its current form. The general stuff I'm hearing about 4E actually sounds like a more reasonable magic system. For now, I think I'll stick with psionics and warlocks.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 09:02 PM
Duly noted. But why bother to mix them when you get all you need right from that source? I'm not saying to take power points from each source to make a bigger spell, just use what you get from each. managed effectively, and you get plenty of extra juice.Large quantities of "free power points" are incredibly expensive. Manifester Shields, for instance, give you 3 PP, which essentially means an unaugmented second-level power, for 18000 gp. That's nowhere near cheap. Mindfeeder is a +3 bonus, meaning its at least 16,000 on a weapon and you can't put more frequently usable abilities on it--Mindfeeder is once-a-day, after-crit only.

Even Skin of the Psion only gives 7 PP (one unaugmented 4th level power) and power resist 21, for 151,000 gp. That's expensive, especially since figuring out the price of the item comes out to be 61,000 gp for the power points alone.


And try again, I don't see any items that offer additional spells/day that you get to choose the use for. Yeah, there's some that grant their own powers, but that's a limited selection. With psion powers, it's anything you want.

It's any power you already know, which is an important distinction. It may mean you have slightly more stamina in the long run, but it also means your versatility is drastically less. And as for spells/day you get to choose? How about pearls of power?

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 09:08 PM
If you stop and read the more recent flavortext (I think they brought it in for 3.0), it's not memorization anymore.

Ah, here it is - 3.0 PHB, page 154-155, under the Spell Selection and Preparation section, a few sentences in:

The Wizard doesn't memorize the spell - the Wizard pre-casts the vast majority of it.

That actually makes the case for the rationality of Vancian casting even weaker.

Consider this: It takes every Wizard, regardless of levels or spells known 1 hour to go from empty to full. Always. It takes less proportionately to refill, if they have some spells left etc.

Now if we go with the belief that a Wizard "casts" the spell during that time until it is "near it's end" then there is a serious problem...

If Wizard A "prepares" (pre-casts) Magic Missile 10 times (or any other 1 action casting time spell) then it would stand to reason that of his one hour of "preperation" he spends 6 minutes "pre-casting" each Magic Missle. Thus the "near it's end" point is just before casting the 1 standard action right?

Now, if Wizard B "prepares" Identify 10 times (or any other lengthy casting time spell) he spends that same 6 minutes "pre-casting", yet it takes him a full hour to finish casting the spell? If he was "near the end" of casting Identify, why so much extra time?

Now if we extrapolate that since most 1st level spells are 1 standard action to cast, and that the Wizard must have spent at least 15 minutes preparing it (the minimum time listed) then we can safely say that (1 action = 1 round = 6 seconds; therefore 10 rounds = 1 minute) preparing the spell took 151 rounds to actually cast. Taking that logic to it's conclusion, it should take ~1500 hours for the Vancian caster to "pre-cast" Identify.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 09:15 PM
...and to me, "per-day" is a ridiculous limitation on usage. What, the sun mystically recharges me when it rises each morning? What's the actual definition of "a day" anyway? 24 hours? What about on planes/planets where the day is longer or shorter than 24 hours? There's just to much about a "day" that can vary from person to person and place to place. Per-minute and per-hour make more sense, and even those are rather arbitrary.
It's a game, and one where it is essentially a mental construct of those involved. By definition, the entire thing is arbitrary to some degree or another. How is this a problem? You've just reached a personal break in verisimilitude, is all.

If you're the DM (or the DM is okay with you making up your own fluff) you can make any justification you want for the why of the mechanics in game (sorta like how Animate Dead has the [Evil] descriptor, and the skeletons/zombies it produces are Evil, even though the skeletons/zombies have an intelligence score of -, and as such, are incapable of moral judgment, and nothing in the description of Animate Dead indicates it does anything more evil than does Animate Objects). Perhaps there's some soul burn involved in initial preparation by normal means that takes a full day to recover. Perhaps the sun (or maybe the moon) IS magically recharging your *magic*.

Why is it eight hours of rest give you 1 hp per HD, while a full day - 24 hours, only gives you 2 hp per HD - shouldn't it give you 3 hp per HD back? Shouldn't you be able to just divide your hit dice by 8 to get the per-hour rate (so that the 8th level Fighter gets 1 hp per hour back if he's resting)? The game works with whole numbers - you're always going to have such granularity issues. Sorta like how a housecat is statistically likely to take down the level-1 commoner in a fight.

As you mentioned on the per minute and per hour versions "even those are rather arbitrary" - it will always be so, no matter how you set it up. What portions of it are "not arbitrary" are pretty much by definition based on the fluff - which is arbitrary.

If you pick at it, it will only get worse - any codified gaming system will have such issues if you look at it closely enough.

Edit:

That actually makes the case for the rationality of Vancian casting even weaker.

Consider this: It takes every Wizard, regardless of levels or spells known 1 hour to go from empty to full. Always. It takes less proportionately to refill, if they have some spells left etc.

Now if we go with the belief that a Wizard "casts" the spell during that time until it is "near it's end" then there is a serious problem...

If Wizard A "prepares" (pre-casts) Magic Missile 10 times (or any other 1 action casting time spell) then it would stand to reason that of his one hour of "preperation" he spends 6 minutes "pre-casting" each Magic Missle. Thus the "near it's end" point is just before casting the 1 standard action right?

Now, if Wizard B "prepares" Identify 10 times (or any other lengthy casting time spell) he spends that same 6 minutes "pre-casting", yet it takes him a full hour to finish casting the spell? If he was "near the end" of casting Identify, why so much extra time?

Now if we extrapolate that since most 1st level spells are 1 standard action to cast, and that the Wizard must have spent at least 15 minutes preparing it (the minimum time listed) then we can safely say that (1 action = 1 round = 6 seconds; therefore 10 rounds = 1 minute) preparing the spell took 151 rounds to actually cast. Taking that logic to it's conclusion, it should take ~1500 hours for the Vancian caster to "pre-cast" Identify.
Nah, better skilled Wizards are simply able to perform more exercises simultaneously than less skilled wizards.

Think about it:
That level-20 Wizard who leaves one spell slot open takes fifteen minutes to fill it, and cannot do it in less time.

That same level-20 Wizard who leaves one spell slot per spell level takes fifteen minutes to fill all of them, and cannot do it in less time.

Conclusion: The time for preparing spells is not entirely an additive or linear function; spell preparation is done in paralell.

EvilElitest
2007-12-19, 09:19 PM
...and to me, "per-day" is a ridiculous limitation on usage. What, the sun mystically recharges me when it rises each morning? What's the actual definition of "a day" anyway? 24 hours? What about on planes/planets where the day is longer or shorter than 24 hours? There's just to much about a "day" that can vary from person to person and place to place. Per-minute and per-hour make more sense, and even those are rather arbitrary.

Accually, in many cultures, the time frame was considered holy, so maybe it has traces back to the source of magic, holy number ect. In the standard D&D world there is a 24 hour period
from,
EE

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 09:30 PM
Nah, better skilled Wizards are simply able to perform more exercises simultaneously than less skilled wizards.

Think about it:
That level-20 Wizard who leaves one spell slot open takes fifteen minutes to fill it, and cannot do it in less time.

That same level-20 Wizard who leaves one spell slot per spell level takes fifteen minutes to fill all of them, and cannot do it in less time.

Conclusion: The time for preparing spells is not entirely an additive or linear function; spell preparation is done in paralell.

Right except the examples I gave never discussed the levels of the spellcasters, since it was implied they were the same levels since I gave them both the same allotment of spells (10 First).

There is no better skilled or less skilled it is just a logical fallacy. Vancian makes no sense.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 09:33 PM
It's still a per-day allotment, not the maximum of a 9-hour break you make it out to be.

Nowhere does the book say you can just drop for eight hours and then spend one gaining back all those spells - you still have to wait for the next day.

I didn't mean to imply that. However, you can cast all of your spells, and recover them completely after 9 hours of rest (8 "sleeping", 15 minutes to 1 hour studying or meditating). This holds true at 1st level, and at 365th level.

In 2nd edition, it required sleep ("a full night"; usually interpreted as 6-8 hours), and 10 minutes per spell level to memorize spells.

A 17th level wizard in 3.x can completely recharge after 9 hours, everything from basic cantrips to spells that rewrite the very nature of reality. He spends 1 hour pre-casting 34 + intelligence bonus spells (a minimum of 38 if capable of casting 9th level spells); his 1st level apprentice takes an hour to pre-cast 1 spell. A 2nd edition wizard with the same basic spells (ignoring intelligence bonus) would require 1320 minutes... 22 hours. It takes him 10 minutes per level to memorize spells he's been casting since his apprenticeship. Thus, I think the 2nd edition numbers make more sense for the 3.x rationale... memorization should take less time if you're familiar with the spells than if you're just beginning your career, while pre-casting spells so they'll go off in an instant should take some time.

However, the time difference significantly changes wizard's tactics. A 3.x wizard can afford to burn off all his spells, because it will take him 9 hours to get them back. A 2.0 wizard would have to be a bit more conservative with his spells... casting all of them will take him several days of work to recover, and leave him somewhat vulnerable as he's recovering.

horseboy
2007-12-19, 09:41 PM
I vote no. It's the main reason that low level wizards are "teh sux" and at higher levels it really doesn't matter how many times that they can cast something, since they have so many slots.

My preferred system is Matrix casting, but I'm not sure how to implement it in D&D.

Tengu
2007-12-19, 09:48 PM
I don't like Vancian magic. It's very counter-intuitive, simplistic in a bad way, doesn't make a lot of sense for casters that aren't book-learned wizards and is not balanced ("completely own one encounter and then suck at the next one" is not balance). It's mana for me any day, or "infinite magic but with a twist" systems like Earthdawn or WoD's Mage.

Deepblue706
2007-12-19, 09:49 PM
Nay.

I like GURPS magic. Each spell is a seperate skill, and you need lower forms of magic to learn higher ones in the same school - before you can learn Fireball, you need to learn Create Flame - so you actually have to devote yourself to a field if you want the best spells of a specific type.

Plus, there are spell mishaps. Those are fun. And there's no penalty for wearing armor. That's also fun.

GURPS magic can get pretty crazy in high-powered games, but it's not that hard to keep in check.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 09:51 PM
Right except the examples I gave never discussed the levels of the spellcasters, since it was implied they were the same levels since I gave them both the same allotment of spells (10 First).

There is no better skilled or less skilled it is just a logical fallacy. Vancian makes no sense.
Oh, would you prefer I instead said that the only possible break-point for Identify to still function was considerably earlier into the casting?
Or perhaps that a full casting of Identify requires the tracing down of magical pathways in the item which require the item to be present, and the full attention of the caster after that certain fifteen minute point, while Magic Missile is basically just point and click on the final options?
Seriously - you can make it make sense fairly easily - you're just not trying, is all.

I didn't mean to imply that. However, you can cast all of your spells, and recover them completely after 9 hours of rest (8 "sleeping", 15 minutes to 1 hour studying or meditating). This holds true at 1st level, and at 365th level.

In 2nd edition, it required sleep ("a full night"; usually interpreted as 6-8 hours), and 10 minutes per spell level to memorize spells.

A 17th level wizard in 3.x can completely recharge after 9 hours, everything from basic cantrips to spells that rewrite the very nature of reality. He spends 1 hour pre-casting 34 + intelligence bonus spells (a minimum of 38 if capable of casting 9th level spells); his 1st level apprentice takes an hour to pre-cast 1 spell. A 2nd edition wizard with the same basic spells (ignoring intelligence bonus) would require 1320 minutes... 22 hours. It takes him 10 minutes per level to memorize spells he's been casting since his apprenticeship. Thus, I think the 2nd edition numbers make more sense for the 3.x rationale... memorization should take less time if you're familiar with the spells than if you're just beginning your career, while pre-casting spells so they'll go off in an instant should take some time.

However, the time difference significantly changes wizard's tactics. A 3.x wizard can afford to burn off all his spells, because it will take him 9 hours to get them back. A 2.0 wizard would have to be a bit more conservative with his spells... casting all of them will take him several days of work to recover, and leave him somewhat vulnerable as he's recovering.
Err... that's more like 2 days of actual down-time, tops, with the 2.0 recovery mechanic you listed (10 minutes per spell level) - a 20th level Wizard with four spells per spell level - and let's say it averages out to one bonus spell per spell level - has 190 spell levels (counting cantrips as 1/2). That's 1,900 minutes - 31 hours, 20 minutes. Taking 8 hours of rest each day, he's got two 16 hour periods (32 hours) to cover it over two days. Yeah - it's longer - but really, it's not that bad, and it's pretty rare for a high level Wizard to be able to burn through all their spell levels in a day anyway - simply because most of them will end up unused due to the inefficiency involved in needing to know what you'll need ahead of time. Instead of needing 9 hours dedicated to nothing else, he needs 48. Yes, it's a power boost for the Wizard over the edition change - so were teleport spells without the insta-death clause, so were touch attacks.

Ashes
2007-12-19, 09:52 PM
My preferred system is Matrix casting, but I'm not sure how to implement it in D&D.

Explain, please. What is this?


Also, I can go either way with spellcasting. I just hate having to adjust my spells each day, so I usually go with a Beguiler instead. Much easier.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2007-12-19, 10:00 PM
In my setting, I use vancian casting for Wizards and Clerics, and a homebrewed non-vancian casting for Sorcerer's and druids. In essence, to cast a spell, you roll a special check, the DC getting incrementally harder the higher the spell level, and the more spells you have cast prior.

Wizard casting only goes up to level 6. Clerics aren't martial. There is no natural spell feat. my Non-vancian is weaker then vancian, toning down the power level of Magic.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 10:03 PM
Just for those keeping track at home, so far I have.....

{table]Yea|Nay
16|17[/table]

Now that doesn't include any of the "both" or kind of wishy-washy with no clear definition. The ones that were in the middleish but seemed to be saying that Vancian was ok in some cases all went to Yea.

Trying to keep it clean.

If you feel these numbers have been reached in error, please let me know.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 10:05 PM
[QUOTE=Jack_Simth;3682711]Oh, would you prefer I instead said that the only possible break-point for Identify to still function was considerably earlier into the casting?
Or perhaps that a full casting of Identify requires the tracing down of magical pathways in the item which require the item to be present, and the full attention of the caster after that certain fifteen minute point, while Magic Missile is basically just point and click on the final options?
Seriously - you can make it make sense fairly easily - you're just not trying, is all. [QUOTE]

And every other spell that has a weird casting time? Your system has absolutely no internal consistancy or logic if you need to make up an arbitrary excuse for the several dozen exceptions to the "rule".

Suzuro
2007-12-19, 10:09 PM
I personally prefer the current magic system, and, even though I don't play a single magic class (Too confusing for a good old fashioned fighter boy like me), I would hate to see it go for no other reason than it feels D&D. Sure, the spell levels need changes to make some spells less game-breaking, but I personally would not want them to trade it out..unless it's a specific class feature or something.



-Suzuro

Tengu
2007-12-19, 10:14 PM
Explain, please. What is this?


It's the spellcasting system Earthdawn uses. I'm too tired to explain it in detail, so I'll say in short that it's like Vancian magic, except that you have much fewer spell slots, casting a spell from a slot does not make you forget it, and you can change what spells are in your slots by meditating for a short time instead of having to wait for a rest.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 10:15 PM
Isn't Earthdawn's also skill-based?

horseboy
2007-12-19, 10:17 PM
Explain, please. What is this?


Also, I can go either way with spellcasting. I just hate having to adjust my spells each day, so I usually go with a Beguiler instead. Much easier.

It's the system they use in Earthdawn. Magician adepts have astral constructs that hold the "pattern" for the spell. He can cast any spell in his matrix as much as he wants. If he wants to change the spells, he can either spend 1/2 an hour "reattuning" the matrix to a new spell's pattern, or try and do it in one turn by taking a point of damage and hoping for a really good roll for his Thread Weaving talent. Or, if you're REALLY desperate, you can try an cast the spell "raw" i.e. without the matrix. If you're lucky you'll only take massive damage.

For examples, your starting Elementalist will know between 6-8 spells. He'll have 2 matrices. So he can have two spells "loaded". Usually one of those will be the buff "air armour". It's a nice spell that adds 3 to physical armour. They can keep that up on the party all day even at 1st level by casting it every 10 minutes or so.

Bonus limiting factor: Threads. Some spells are more complex than others of their level, so the caster has to add extra info, called threads. It takes a round to weave a thread. So, the first circle "attack" spell earth darts requires 1 thread. So he has to roll to see if he successfully weaves the thread, and then next turn rolls his cast to see if he effects the target.

There's a little more, like enhanced or armoured matrices, grimouires, and the like, but that's the gist.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 10:19 PM
And every other spell that has a weird casting time? Your system has absolutely no internal consistancy or logic if you need to make up an arbitrary excuse for the several dozen exceptions to the "rule".
They're not exceptions. The spells have the break point where they can. Not all have possible break points late enough that they have the potential to be cast in parallel with other spells. With most spells, the break-point is late enough that it's just a word or two left. There's a couple of oddball spells (generally, ones that make long-running effects, or go out of the normal limits of spells) where the break-point simply can't be that close to completion. The underlying physics of magic aren't defined to that level - just the rules we work with.

Tengu
2007-12-19, 10:19 PM
Isn't Earthdawn's also skill-based?

Mostly. They have levels, but the only things you gain at higher level is access to more powerful talents (class features, you could say) and spells for spellcasting disciplines (classes) and sometimes a minor bonus, like +1 to one of your defenses or the ability to use karma when making a certain type of test.

Also, getting new levels is the other way around than in DND - you improve your talents (among other things) with experience points, and if you have enough them on high enough level, you can get another level in your discipline - which also requires finding a teacher to train you and persuading him to do so.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-19, 10:20 PM
Nay. I'd back Inquisitor style Psykana (especially with the metric ton of adjustments made by the people at the Conclave forums) over Vancian any day.

Skill based, extremely powerful, but very, very, dangerous and unpredictable.

Cybren
2007-12-19, 10:28 PM
NO NO NO NO NO DARTHVADER NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Vancian magic was selected because Gygax thought it would be the easiest to model.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 10:29 PM
NO NO NO NO NO DARTHVADER NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Vancian magic was selected because Gygax thought it would be the easiest to model.

Gygax also thought that look-up tables and d100 rolls were wonderful.

horseboy
2007-12-19, 10:30 PM
Mostly. They have levels, but the only things you gain at higher level is access to more powerful talents (class features, you could say) and spells for spellcasting disciplines (classes) and sometimes a minor bonus, like +1 to one of your defenses or the ability to use karma when making a certain type of test.

Also, getting new levels is the other way around than in DND - you improve your talents (among other things) with experience points, and if you have enough them on high enough level, you can get another level in your discipline - which also requires finding a teacher to train you and persuading him to do so.

I usually use an analogy to Morrowind. Build up your talents to go up levels, build up your skills to increase your character.

herrhauptmann
2007-12-19, 10:30 PM
I like Vancian casting as far as priests and other divines are concerned, I consider the spells to be gifts from your God in exchange for the different prayers, homilies, and hymns you sing/speak in the morning.

For wizards, spell preparation seems to be like cramming a math equation or word definition the morning of a test, then having it gone after reciting it once. I can't speak for others, but when I cram like that, it's in my head until I totally relax (sleep, drunk, or vegged out in front of a TV/computer)
I'd prefer a mana pool style of magic for most arcanes, with a geographic leyline influencing your spells.
ie: Here in siberia 400 miles from any leyline most high level and some midlevel spells aren't even possible in general. However, ice themed spells and effects are easier to produce and more effective in general than other elements, especially anything fire based.

But most of my problem from vancian wizards comes from the perspective of a badly struggling author. It provides a really good way of emasculating a wizard: "We'll have to climb down then up that ravine 30 feet wide because I didn't prepare Fly or Teleport"
2 decent examples of how I think leylines and wellsprings would work are in Coldfire Trilogy by C.S. Friedman, and the Shadow War Trilogy by Chris Claremont and George Lucas (Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn, Shadow Star)

Cybren
2007-12-19, 10:30 PM
Gygax also thought that look-up tables and d100 rolls were wonderful.

Yes, exactly. If I want to play an anachronistic game mechanic i'll at least play hackmaster so I can have fun doing it.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 10:34 PM
Err... that's more like 2 days of actual down-time, tops, with the 2.0 recovery mechanic you listed (10 minutes per spell level) - a 20th level Wizard with four spells per spell level - and let's say it averages out to one bonus spell per spell level - has 190 spell levels (counting cantrips as 1/2). That's 1,900 minutes - 31 hours, 20 minutes. Taking 8 hours of rest each day, he's got two 16 hour periods (32 hours) to cover it over two days. Yeah - it's longer - but really, it's not that bad, and it's pretty rare for a high level Wizard to be able to burn through all their spell levels in a day anyway - simply because most of them will end up unused due to the inefficiency involved in needing to know what you'll need ahead of time. Instead of needing 9 hours dedicated to nothing else, he needs 48. Yes, it's a power boost for the Wizard over the edition change - so were teleport spells without the insta-death clause, so were touch attacks.

It depends on how you break it down. Most consider a day of work to be 8 hours, with 10 hours being pushing it. If you go with that, it's two and a part days. However, even if you allow someone to work every moment they're not sleeping, it's still a couple days in which they are severely down on spells.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 10:34 PM
Yes, exactly. If I want to play an anachronistic game mechanic i'll at least play hackmaster so I can have fun doing it.

Honestly, that's my biggest problem with Vancian casting, the same problem I have with turn undead: it's a clunky, outdated, needlessly complex mechanic.

horseboy
2007-12-19, 10:36 PM
2 decent examples of how I think leylines and wellsprings would work are in Coldfire Trilogy by C.S. Friedman, and the Shadow War Trilogy by Chris Claremont and George Lucas (Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn, Shadow Star)

There's always the MYTH series. Oh, and Rifts. :smallamused:

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-19, 10:38 PM
They're not exceptions. The spells have the break point where they can. Not all have possible break points late enough that they have the potential to be cast in parallel with other spells. With most spells, the break-point is late enough that it's just a word or two left. There's a couple of oddball spells (generally, ones that make long-running effects, or go out of the normal limits of spells) where the break-point simply can't be that close to completion. The underlying physics of magic aren't defined to that level - just the rules we work with.

Right, but if the rules of magic also call for a Wizard to be able to create his own spells, why doesn't every Wizard simply create their own version of, say, Identify or Explosive runes with a break point closer to when they want to cast it, like say 1 standard action, or even as a free action?

I'm sure you will say that "They could, but it would be higher level." However, that really makes no sense at all, since you have already outlined your belief that the prep time covers "pre-casting" the spell.

Swordguy
2007-12-19, 10:40 PM
Nay.

Shadowrun magic is the shizznit. You can cast whatever spells you have (and you've got a lot less spells, 30 different spells is a huge number), whenever you want, but you'll start getting fatigued and eventually take physical damage from the exertion if you keep it up for a significant length of time. More powerful spells hurt you more.

Magic should have a price.

psychoticbarber
2007-12-19, 10:40 PM
Put me down as "Nay" for essentially the same reasons as Fax.

SpiderKoopa
2007-12-19, 10:41 PM
I'm a bit torn. I really enjoy the system because it just seems to fit in d&d. But when it comes to fighting a vampiric red dragon, (I like to play blasters, sue me) it makes me one sad Snuffaluffagus. It makes me wish I could convert my fireballs, lightning bolts, cone of colds, etc, into more buff spells on the fly instead of... "Lol, I'm out of my usual lv1-2 buff spells I usually prepare for you guys so I'm just going to wait in this corner until you've beaten this thing!":smallannoyed:

fendrin
2007-12-19, 10:54 PM
Regarding extra PP for psi-folk...
Psi-users can get extra PP through the Psionic Talent feat, but even still, Vancians get Extra Slot. Debatable which is better. PT can be taken from level 1, and has a really good effect at low levels. ES requires level 4, but is much more useful at higher levels (you have to take PT a 14th time to get enough PP from one feat to manifest an 8th level power)

Collin152
2007-12-19, 11:22 PM
Right, but if the rules of magic also call for a Wizard to be able to create his own spells, why doesn't every Wizard simply create their own version of, say, Identify or Explosive runes with a break point closer to when they want to cast it, like say 1 standard action, or even as a free action?

I'm sure you will say that "They could, but it would be higher level." However, that really makes no sense at all, since you have already outlined your belief that the prep time covers "pre-casting" the spell.

Quite obviously, if it could be done, why would the slower ones still exist? Mechanically, this takes the form of the fact that the DM must give the thumbs up to any independant spell.

Chronicled
2007-12-19, 11:34 PM
While I agree that Vancian casting is distinctly D&D, I much prefer using power/mana points. Vestiges are great too; the Binder was a terrific idea.

And to everyone claiming that you can have either Vancian casting or power points, as your preference: ha. Ha ha ha. Good luck finding a DM who allows or encourages psionics. Take a look on the PbP recruitment boards, for instance. DMs allowing psionics are about as rare as those allowing Tome of Battle; you're lucky to find 1 in 10. :smallsigh:

Cybren
2007-12-19, 11:39 PM
Honestly, that's my biggest problem with Vancian casting, the same problem I have with turn undead: it's a clunky, outdated, needlessly complex mechanic.

Yeah really. Why can't turn undead be like, a spell or something?


Frankly I dislike any game mechanic introduced solely as a game mechanic, rather than as an adaptation or abstraction of the physical rules of what the game is representing. (Then again that means I dislike pretty much the entire design principal behind D&D, especially 3.x)

Chronicled
2007-12-19, 11:45 PM
Also, though I haven't tried it, I really like the idea of Shadowrun's magic system.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-19, 11:47 PM
Right, but if the rules of magic also call for a Wizard to be able to create his own spells, why doesn't every Wizard simply create their own version of, say, Identify or Explosive runes with a break point closer to when they want to cast it, like say 1 standard action, or even as a free action?

I'm sure you will say that "They could, but it would be higher level." However, that really makes no sense at all, since you have already outlined your belief that the prep time covers "pre-casting" the spell.
Because it would take a significantly greater complexity spell to do so. This is already in existing spells. Greater Scrying takes a lot less time to cast and lasts a lot longer than regular Scrying. That, the spell level, and the reliability of a small handful of spells that sometimes work with the regular version of scrying, is the sum total difference between the two.

Analyze Dweomer does everything Identify does, and more, and faster, and in some cases, more reliably. It is also a higher level spell.

Shadow Conjuration can do Sepia Snake Sigil - sure, the Shadow Conjuration version grants an extra save... but it's a higher level spell that can do the exact same effect (although less effectively). Shadow Conjuration is also a higher level spell.

Greater Shadow Evocation can do Contingency ... and is a higher level spell.

Wish and it's Limited brother do not inherit the casting times of the spells they duplicate ... and they are higher level spells than what they can duplicate.

Yes, you can research a version of the spell that takes less on-site effort... but to do so, the spell itself has to handle a lot more of it - which means the spell itself needs more complexity (read: Higher spell level).

For the most part, though, the spells that have the longer casting times are spells that aren't usually particularly useful in situations where you would need to do something quickly - rather than making the spell harder to use, the researchers opted for something that works and is easier to do.

Sleet
2007-12-20, 12:10 AM
I find the mechanic unsatisfying from a flavor point of view, but I have to admit that it's relatively simple and it works. I like "simple and works."

Crow
2007-12-20, 12:28 AM
Nay.

Shadowrun magic is the shizznit. You can cast whatever spells you have (and you've got a lot less spells, 30 different spells is a huge number), whenever you want, but you'll start getting fatigued and eventually take physical damage from the exertion if you keep it up for a significant length of time. More powerful spells hurt you more.

Magic should have a price.

I would only throw out the Vancian system for a Shadowrun-esque system. I prefer a system that allows you more flexibilty, which is why I like Sorcerers.

But mark this as a "Yes" on Vancian casting. It's simple and it works.

Zeful
2007-12-20, 12:30 AM
Well I like Vancian casting. It's issues are less in the mechanics itself and more in the spells.

In any magic system that has recharges it's not per day/hour/minutes/rounds/etc. it's when ever the DM/GM tells you. It's like that in psionics, shadowcasting, binding, inarcanumm ToB etc. It is the DM's job to determine when you recharge your spells/ powerpoints/manuvers/whatever, so it doesn't matter what the recharge duration is, because the DM determines when the duration elaspes, period. If it doesn't elaspe then you can't recharge spells.

Also narcolepsy strategies only if the DM ignores the fact that spells cast in the 8 hours before you start preparing spells count against that 'day's' spell slots. So you have to waste 16 hours utilizing 'the world worst strategy'. That doesn't make much sense does it?

Jannex
2007-12-20, 12:34 AM
Nay.

It's counterintuitive, and I don't like having to play guessing games with my class features.

MrNexx
2007-12-20, 12:36 AM
Nay.

It's counterintuitive, and I don't like having to play guessing games with my class features.

How is it counter-intuitive? I don't get this argument in relation to Vancian magic. Yes, it requires planning, but it doesn't act in a way that fails to make sense that I can see.

Wordmiser
2007-12-20, 12:51 AM
How is it counter-intuitive? I don't get this argument in relation to Vancian magic. Yes, it requires planning, but it doesn't act in a way that fails to make sense that I can see.Most players that I've introduced to the game have absolutely detested the idea of trying to "read" the DM every 'day' during spell preparation. People seem to be more familiar and comfortable with heroes who have a limited number of super-powers rather than a list that renews and reforms daily only to be lost once the abilities are actually used.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 12:59 AM
How is it counter-intuitive?

"I hammered this board into place, but now I've forgotten how to use a hammer."

Crow
2007-12-20, 01:08 AM
"I hammered this board into place, but now I've forgotten how to use a hammer."

The classic example of limited understanding.

This all started with the insistance on calling it "memorization", when that isn't what Vance's wizards did at all.

Basically, what we all call memorization now, is wrong. The wizard isn't memorizing his spells and forgetting them. The spell actually takes a while to "cast". While preparing spells from his spellbook, the wizard is casting the spell almost to it's completion, storing the potential energy of the spell within himself until he completes the invocation with the final gestures and utterances (or material components).

He hasn't forgotten anything, he just has not prepared that spell to be cast immediately.

Jannex
2007-12-20, 01:10 AM
How is it counter-intuitive? I don't get this argument in relation to Vancian magic. Yes, it requires planning, but it doesn't act in a way that fails to make sense that I can see.

Wordmiser and Fax said it well, but for my part, I just don't think Vancian casting fits in with the way archetypal magic-users are portrayed in the genre in general. In my experience, wizardy-types know how to cast certain spells. They might have a large number of spells they know how to cast, or they might only know a few, but they always know how to cast them. Regardless of the justification, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a wizard can still have a great deal of magical power left to draw on, but be utterly unable to cast that one simple spell that he just cast five minutes ago.


Basically, what we all call memorization now, is wrong. The wizard isn't memorizing his spells and forgetting them. The spell actually takes a while to "cast". While preparing spells from his spellbook, the wizard is casting the spell almost to it's completion, storing the potential energy of the spell within himself until he completes the invocation with the final gestures and utterances (or material components).

I guess the other thing that doesn't make sense to me, with that explanation, is this: A wizard has to prepare or "pre-cast" most of a spell in advance of casting it, but a sorcerer simply casts the same spell on the fly, with no advance preparation. Both spells take the same amount of time to complete when cast; therefore, it seems that the wizard takes much more time to cast the same spell, which is identical in every other way to the one the sorcerer cast. This seems odd to me.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 01:11 AM
The classic example of limited understanding.

This all started with the insistance on calling it "memorization", when that isn't what Vance's wizards did at all.

Basically, what we all call memorization now, is wrong. The wizard isn't memorizing his spells and forgetting them. The spell actually takes a while to "cast". While preparing spells from his spellbook, the wizard is casting the spell almost to it's completion, storing the potential energy of the spell within himself until he completes the invocation with the final gestures and utterances (or material components).

He hasn't forgotten anything, he just has not prepared that spell to be cast immediately.

Oh, I get it. But the book calls it "memorization" and most new players won't get the nuance involved there and get lost. Really, it's more, "I've hammered this board in, but now I've run out of nails."

Frankly, my main issue with Vancian magic is the mechanics. Certainly, they're simple and functional, but they're also fraught with the problems I've displayed earlier in the thread.

MrNexx
2007-12-20, 01:32 AM
Wordmiser and Fax said it well, but for my part, I just don't think Vancian casting fits in with the way archetypal magic-users are portrayed in the genre in general. In my experience, wizardy-types know how to cast certain spells. They might have a large number of spells they know how to cast, or they might only know a few, but they always know how to cast them. Regardless of the justification, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a wizard can still have a great deal of magical power left to draw on, but be utterly unable to cast that one simple spell that he just cast five minutes ago.

Ok, I think it was a vocabulary disconnect, then. I wouldn't have explained that as counter-intuitive; 2nd edition ACs, where getting smaller was better and a plus to your AC meant the number went down I see as counter-intuitive. This I would call "genre inappropriate", I suppose.

Incidentally, this is one thing I really liked about Earthdawn's system. You knew X number of spells, and could cast them all at any time. However, only by filtering them through spell matricies would they be "safe"... to cast them "raw" was to risk exposing yourself to harmful energies from astral space.



I guess the other thing that doesn't make sense to me, with that explanation, is this: A wizard has to prepare or "pre-cast" most of a spell in advance of casting it, but a sorcerer simply casts the same spell on the fly, with no advance preparation. Both spells take the same amount of time to complete when cast; therefore, it seems that the wizard takes much more time to cast the same spell, which is identical in every other way to the one the sorcerer cast. This seems odd to me.

That is basically the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. A sorcerer, through virtue of his natural ability, essentially does all the pre-casting by breathing. If the prep times for wizards were longer, this would be a significant advantage... as it is, sorcerers have a 45 minute head start, and that's it.

Sebastian
2007-12-20, 04:04 AM
Me and my best friend (who usualy are the DMs) also use a variation of the Vancian that uses a point from 2ed: It takes 10 minutes per level of the spell (5 minutes for cantrips) to memorise it and you can do it anytime*, unless you're fatigued or exausted. It prevents level 1-4 casters from having to go to sleep every 2 hours because they are fresh out after 2 encounters but nerfs the higher level ones: a level 20 wizard specialists with a 20 Intel must study and make small rituals for...40 hours to regain all of his spells if he used them all.4 long 10h days! Trust me, the party wizard isn't that eager to steal the show and the fighter is QUITE useful when Time Stop really is a last resort...


IMHO, removing that rule from 3rd editon was one of the worst thing they could do. It was one of the main weakness of the casters for 2nd edition. They removed it and then were surprised when the wizard come out overpowered? (Even if, to be fair, you must note they removed all the other weaknesses, too.)

Khanderas
2007-12-20, 05:00 AM
How is it counter-intuitive? I don't get this argument in relation to Vancian magic. Yes, it requires planning, but it doesn't act in a way that fails to make sense that I can see.
Take someone that has not heard of this system. Explain how Vancian magic works.
Chances are he will NOT say: "Ah that makes sense".
Counter-intutive as in, does-not-make-sense-until-you-forced-yourself-to-consider-it-making-sense. It doesn't make "natural" sense.

Especially the part where "I did this spell 200 times, and now I forgot it again. I gotta sleep it off and teach myself the spell in the morning."


Personally to make semi-sense, I consider the fresh-mind preparing the actual casting. Analogy with a gun.
Preparing the spell is making the magic. The bullets. Metaphysically stored in the brain of the wizard.
When the wizard wants to USE the spell he just fires the gun.
It STILL takes the same amount of time to relearn 50 spells as it is one. It is not perfect.

Tyrael
2007-12-20, 05:11 AM
What IS Vancian magic?

Orzel
2007-12-20, 05:17 AM
I love Vancian Magic but dislike its implementation. Good idea with bad rules.

Khanderas
2007-12-20, 05:28 AM
What IS Vancian magic?
Some writer named Vance -something wrote a book / world where the casters had X of spell Y "loaded" in the morning.
At some point in DnD, this was adopted and that is why wizards use X spellslots of level 1 spells and so on, that you "learn" every morning.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-20, 05:52 AM
I love it, its part of what makes D&D gameplay what it is.

What I dislike is people saying it makes no sense despite countless explanations having been offered.

I see it this way: Wizards can open X "command lines" each day, as they grow in power they can open longer "command lines" and thus store longer sequences of commands in them, when a wizard "memorizes" a spell, he actually "opens" a "command line" and writes the "code", but does not "presses the key" to run the "program". Casting a spell is merely going to a specific command line and pressing "Enter", the "program" runs once and the "command line" closes, leaving the wizard without the ability of using that code again until he can open another Line and copy/paste.

The only problem in the system is that a wizard that leaves a line empty/uncompiled should be able to fill and use it at any point in the day, although it should take him a significant amount of time.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 06:01 AM
What IS Vancian magic?

Go back to page 1 and read the OP. I put a link to Vancian Cating, put the definition and even linked to an OOTS strip that was relevant to Vance.

Laurellien
2007-12-20, 06:10 AM
Thumbs down.

1) It makes no sense
2) The name is rubbish
4) Spells scale inappropriately
8) It is too rigid.

Talic
2007-12-20, 06:12 AM
Take someone that has not heard of this system. Explain how Vancian magic works.
Chances are he will NOT say: "Ah that makes sense".
Counter-intutive as in, does-not-make-sense-until-you-forced-yourself-to-consider-it-making-sense. It doesn't make "natural" sense.

Especially the part where "I did this spell 200 times, and now I forgot it again. I gotta sleep it off and teach myself the spell in the morning."


If that's how it was explained, then it was explained incorrectly. It's more accurate to say, "I've stored up this spell within me, as I have 200 times before this. I've unleashed it's force, as I have 200 times before this. Now, if I need to unleash it again, I must store it up within me again."

Wizards are like batteries. They hold a charge, and release it in a controlled fashion. More accurate would be, "I've taken 20 pictures with my digital camera, why can't I take another? Doh! That's right, the batteries are dead, lemme go recharge them."

Vancian magic has a few things going for it. First, it's simple. You get flexibility in choice, while not having to rechoose so often it's inconvenient. Once a day, you can change things up. Great.

While the idea that all memorizations take equal time IS counterintuitive, Vancian magic, at its core, isn't.

I say, some parts should use Vancian magic, such as Wizards. Other classes, not so much. Warlock, for example, uses SLA's. Great, non vancian. How about Sorceror? spontaneous classes should get a different system than prepared classes. Simply because Vancian magic centers around the idea of preparing spells. If sorcerors gained SLA's, usable once a day, or could increase the number of castings of an SLA on level advancement, it'd be an interesting blend.

Psions, well, they could have a points system with slowly regenerating points, but that's a lot of paperwork and complexity. Sleep recharging the mind is definately simpler, so stick with that.

Other classes, who knows? But more than one class can gain magic, and all can do it differently. Why limit ourselves here?

Sebastian
2007-12-20, 06:25 AM
About the OP question, It depend on the implementaion, 2nd edition magic system is one of my favorite magic system from those I know, but 3rd is the one I find the dullest and less interesting, and if you think this is contradictory maybe you don't know the two systems well enough. ;)

About it not making sense, BS, it is like preparing scroll, only the wizard use his mind rather than paper..

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 07:17 AM
About the OP question, It depend on the implementaion, 2nd edition magic system is one of my favorite magic system from those I know, but 3rd is the one I find the dullest and less interesting, and if you think this is contradictory maybe you don't know the two systems well enough. ;)

About it not making sense, BS, it is like preparing scroll, only the wizard use his mind rather than paper..

I mean overall, conceptually and pretty much however you want to interpret it. Either you like Vancian or don't. Some people have given an exposition of that (Ex: "I like Vancian in these cases.." or "I don't mind it that much but would rather see something else")

Starsinger
2007-12-20, 07:23 AM
Not particularly no. I think of Vancian magic an exercise in double think. It doesn't feel like magic to me, and thus I don't think of it as magic, but when I'm playing D&D it is magic, because WotC says it is. So even though I don't personally think it's magic, I have to accept and act like I think it is, even begin to think it is, because WotC told me it's magic.

And to elaborate on the fact that it doesn't feel like magic.. you can totally take the fluff from Vancian magic and change it to a guy brewing all kinds of potions. "I'll take a Potion that explodes (Fireball), two potions that turn me invisible, a potion that makes me strong, a potion that makes people weak.. and maybe a potion that tastes like almonds." Although we know that Wizards can't actually craft the latter... :smallamused:

Maroon
2007-12-20, 07:57 AM
I like the fluff, but not the mechanics. I rather see something more in the vein of Incarnum and Psionics, where a Wizard invests spell points in a specific spell, and can then either unleash the spell (after which it is lost), or 'channel' unbound spell points through it to get a different, but related effect. More powerful spells require more time to bind, simple spells might not need to be bound at all but just require spell points. Spell points regenerate at a certain rate per time period, like casting stat modifier per hour. Max number of spell points are determined by level/casting stat/etc.

Morty
2007-12-20, 08:34 AM
I say yes. It's unique, gives wizards good and real limit as to what they can or can't do, and gives the feel that casting a spell is something serious instead of just swinging magic around. I reall don't get why people claim that "it doesn't make sense". Why doesn't it? You don't "forget" a spell when you cast it, because you've already started casting it during preparation and now you're just finishing it. Because y'know, casting a spell takes longer than just 6 seconds. Use your imagination people, that's what RPGs are supposed to be about.:smallsigh: But one note: Vancian casting is good for wizards, but don't make sense for divine casters. So may response is: yay for wizards, nay for clerics. And it could use shorter preparing time, possibly multiple times/day.
As to "counter-intuitive" argument- what's wrong about it? With Vancian casting, wizard usually prepares versatile set of spells, unless s/he knows what s/he is going to face or have got some certain task to perform. And so what if it doesn't fit your generic fantasy wizard? Should everything be bland and generic?

raygungothic
2007-12-20, 08:53 AM
I like it. Put me down as a Yea.

I'll consider a lot of different magic systems, in different games, but at the moment what I want from D&D is traditional Vancian casting.

I do agree with Albonor about learning time though. In 2e it was 8 hours + 10 min / spell level, leading to TERRIBLE sleepy wizard syndrome. They abandoned the 10 min / spell level in 3, but I wish they'd abandoned the 8 hours instead - so a first-leveller can top up in a spare hour or so, but a 20th is in for a week of hard work to replenish everything. I am playing around with houseruling it that way and it seems nice. The consequences of not sleeping for wizards are then the same as everyone else, i. e. being crap until you make up the lost time, but no worse.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 09:05 AM
My current tally is:

{table]Yea|Nay
25|26[/table]

Again, if you feel this has been reached in error, please let me know.

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 09:24 AM
Nay.
Why it works the way it does makes sense. How it works makes sense.
Why they chose, what is in my opinion, that horrible idea for use of magic that in no way is reflective of how the setting novels are written... makes no sense.

I understand the concept, I don't like it.

On the other hand, I rather enjoy how the sorcerer works. Since you can use a lower level spell for a higher level slot freely - the versatility yet distinction of power and function works rather well for me.

I like magic that requires immense study (I normally change the flavor slightly of my sorcerers) and understanding to use. Not necessarily wisdom or intelligence.
I like the concept of being able to understand it, sort of, while it is still foreign completely. beyond this, how you use it is up to you.
I also like playing grapple checks with the laws of physics.

Oo, that can be an interesting system. You just make grapple checks with physics and casters get a bonus to this. :smalltongue:

MagicPrime
2007-12-20, 09:43 AM
Nay.

I am more in favor of flowing magic, like Harry Dresden magic.

Albonor
2007-12-20, 10:27 AM
I do agree with Albonor about learning time though. In 2e it was 8 hours + 10 min / spell level, leading to TERRIBLE sleepy wizard syndrome. They abandoned the 10 min / spell level in 3, but I wish they'd abandoned the 8 hours instead - so a first-leveller can top up in a spare hour or so, but a 20th is in for a week of hard work to replenish everything. I am playing around with houseruling it that way and it seems nice. The consequences of not sleeping for wizards are then the same as everyone else, i. e. being crap until you make up the lost time, but no worse.

Somebody finaly agreed with me! Woooooo! But more seriously, that part justified a lot more the Vancian system (no matter the dubious wording or "memorisation").

For things like Identify, that take 100+ times to cast than to "learn", see it like the necessary sub-spell needed to start the ritual. Nevertheless, the system NEEDs to be revamped but it is a lot more necessary for sorcerers and bards than wizards and cleric because it can be explained in their case.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-12-20, 10:52 AM
A system that can be logically explained is not of identical merit with a system that is intuitively obvious.

Vancian magic, putting aside all questions of wording, can be explained, but is not, in my view, intuitively obvious; beyond, obviously, the works of Vance himself, and works that reference D&D specifically, we very seldom see mages that resemble wizards.

Mages in fiction simply 'cast a spell', perhaps draining some inherent resource of their being, a la mana, while doing so- even if they utilize a magical tome to do so, the same implied mechanic is generally used. I have yet to see a fictional depiction of a magical being or magic-user forming almost-completed spells in their mind; and if I haven't remembered one, that's certainly a point against it being resonant.

The milieu in which 'magic' as a concept exists, and gaming magic in particular, is fantasy literature. Those concepts that are most resonant in fantasy literature, therefore, can be held to be most resonant in fantasy gaming. Vancian casting is not among those concepts.

Vancian magic can be logically explained, but does not meet the criterion of being intuitive; it is not a 'natural' system in its milieu.

In addition, of course, the mechanical issues of the aforementioned exponential power curve of spells, and the issues with the implementation of the mechanic vis-a-vis recovery of spells, make it problematic for DMs, while the book-keeping involved reduces the ease-of-entry for players.

A system does not have merit simply by virtue of being unique.

I have yet to hear another substantive advantage.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-20, 10:53 AM
I think it was Ultima 8: Pagan that used a 'true' Vancian magic system for the Avatar. You had to collect the proper ingredients and prepare your spells in a special thaumatergical circle with cndles and all sorts of stuff...then you got a 'rune' you placed into your inventory that you could 'use' to trigger the spell you cast.

Now...if that just represented spells you prepared and stored in your head with the 'runes' being the final completion of those spells...then boom...you have DnD magic pretty much.

Most magic systems, no matter what world or source impose some sort of limit on a spellcaster. Most likely as a sort of balance or as a way to avoid the problem of magicians being able to just run amok. I mean...if any mage has unlimited power and will never wear down and can just do anything...what would stop them other than another mage?

Even Harry Potter, which didn't impose many restrictions on the use of magic, did show that skilll and training were needed to preform magic...that ot only did you need to memorize the exact was to do any spell you were going to try (lest bad stuff happen), but you also needed the correct strength of will and focus to achieve the proper result. (certian spells just wouldn't work even if you did them properly if you didn't have the right mindset or raw magical power).

Other wizard systems had some sort of mana or stamina based drain on the caster that left them fatigued or could even kill them if they used too many spells or ones beyond their capability to cast/channel.

I never really minded the Vancian system...but I will enjoy playing a wizard that is an actual 'wizard' all the time at low levels...rather than just an archer or very weak staff wielder who happens to have a spell or two every now and then.

I wonder if they will make 'spell training' a feat like they did 'force training' in SW Saga...every force user could do some simple things (equivalent to cantrips I think, or really weak 1st level spells), but if you took 'force training' you got access to some very nice powers..

Citizen Joe
2007-12-20, 10:55 AM
The scuttlebutt is 'at will' powers, 'per encounter' powers and 'daily' powers.

So, the most taxing abilities would need a good night's rest (or possibly longer) to recover from the use of the magic. The iconic wizard was supposed to be all blasty like while the iconic cleric was a healer... except Batman and CoDzilla have made mockeries of both.

I'd like to see the iconic aspects turned into 'at will' powers (maybe using a focus like a wand or holy symbol) where you grab raw magic energy and direct it. That brings us to the Vancian magic. These would be what we are currently calling 'spells'. These would generally involve harnessing magic into small 'fetishes' or material components which take a while to prepare but could be triggered on the fly. These would essentially be your 'per encounter' power, since you could take time to prepare the spell again. The most powerful powers end up channeling magic through the caster himself, which is very taxing, but it allows the most control over the magic itself.

So yea, or nay? I think one of each...

puppyavenger
2007-12-20, 11:01 AM
NAY I don't like it for any of the classes.
For Wizzards, Can anyone imagine a stock fantasy wizzard (merlin, Gandalf, Dumbledor(sp) pug, Elric etc.) Saying "While, I'm all out of spells. We'll need to hole up for 8 hours so I can get I good nights rest and then prepare alll the spells I think we'll need for the day."
Clerics,
Cleric, please oh mighty God of loyalty, healing and good. Please heal my Paladin compnion of his horrible soul crushing disease that he was cursed with by the high priest of your nemises.
diety, No. You should of thought of that this morning when I ws handing out mirecles by power level.
Sorceror,
Pyromaniac sorceror, I shall BURN you all!
casts six fireballs
Pyro sorc, um I'm justr going to slink away now
and so on.

wormwood
2007-12-20, 11:43 AM
Seeing how I helped spark off this thread in the wishlist for 4e, I guess I should post. I quit playing D&D for about 10 years because I thought Vancian magic was the worst magic system I could imagine and they refused to get rid of it. Yes, it is the traditional system of magic in D&D. No, that does not make it better.

Many of the arguments I've seen here in favor of it suggest that it is well suited to reigning in the power of the casters. I suppose that it serves that purpose, a small bit. There are other ways to do this without requiring that low level casters be commoners with a one-shot power. I don't like the flavor of it or the mechanics.

In short, add me to the Nay tally.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 11:53 AM
As to "counter-intuitive" argument- what's wrong about it?
It's like THAC0, once you understand the internal logic of the system, it makes sense, until then you just stare blankly, and have to nod and accept it as a game mechanic. How long you have to play with it before you fully "understand" or "accept" will vary from person to person. Hence, it's counter-intuitive (and a pain to explain to) newbies, not that we veterans don't understand it.

Artanis
2007-12-20, 12:03 PM
Nay.


I don't like trying to plan for something if I don't know what said "something" is. Having a certain number of spells per spell level (a la sorcerer) is tolerable for me, because at least then I know I'll be able to react on the fly. But the way a Wizard chooses all the day's spells before he even knows what's coming is a surefire way - for me, at least - to wind up totally useless when I have nothing appropriate available.

hamlet
2007-12-20, 12:03 PM
It's like THAC0, once you understand the internal logic of the system, it makes sense, until then you just stare blankly, and have to nod and accept it as a game mechanic. How long you have to play with it before you fully "understand" or "accept" will vary from person to person. Hence, it's counter-intuitive (and a pain to explain to) newbies, not that we veterans don't understand it.

So, wouldn't it behoove you to actually read the book and understand the internal logic rather than operating under the assumption "if I can't understand it within six seconds it's crap"?

Inyssius Tor
2007-12-20, 12:11 PM
I have yet to see a fictional depiction of a magical being or magic-user forming almost-completed spells in their mind; and if I haven't remembered one, that's certainly a point against it being resonant.
The last five Amber novels, although the main character could also use other forms of magic... and another example that I can't remember at the moment.

I don't know why, but to some extent Vancian casting just seems right to me. It wasn't because of the Amber novels, since I read them after forming that opinion. It wasn't because of D&D, for the same reasons, and I only started reading Vance this year. Hm. :smallconfused:

EDIT: But, again, only to some extent. The fluff seems right, but the mechanics are god-awful.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 12:21 PM
So, wouldn't it behoove you to actually read the book and understand the internal logic rather than operating under the assumption "if I can't understand it within six seconds it's crap"?

The assumption is, "If a brand-new player can't understand the mechanic without either being (a) a veteran gamer who just hasn't played D&D before; or (b) someone who has read Vance; or (c) of a particular mindset on how magic should/does work; and instead has to discuss things for thirty minutes with the DM to deven figure out how this whole Vancian casting system is supposed to make sense, then the mechanic is flawed."

Telonius
2007-12-20, 12:36 PM
Qualified Nay. There should be a limit on how many high-powered things that a Wizard can do in a day. But memorization and strict "spells per day" shouldn't define that limit. Trivial magic (prestidigitation, blowing magic smoke rings, detecting magic, reading magic, etc) shouldn't have limits. That's the sort of thing that a wizard or a sorcerer ought to be able to just do, whenever he wants, to impress whatever local schmuck is doubting his power. There also ought to be at least one minor offensive spell that can work all the time (I nominate Magic Missile).

malagigi
2007-12-20, 12:44 PM
I'm going to throw a nay on this one.

It's greatest merit seems to be it keeps the casters from getting out of control. The next greatest being that its familar. That said, there are other systems that have the same merits with fewer of the detracting elements.

So I'll say again: Nay.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-20, 12:53 PM
The fact its hard to figure out is part of the reason it is perfect for magic, a non-wizard player who hasn't fully grasped the concept and is still confused with it will be roughly as knowledgeable in the area as one would expect of a character with no Spellcraft ranks.

Remember that 1 point of INT = 10 IQ, there's a reason all these wizards need their crazy int scores.


And I like how the system forces you to play a guessing game (Mostly because I have only ever guessed wrong 7 times over 5 years =P )
It makes wizards harder to play, and wizards *need* to be as hard to play as possible while still being playable/fun, its a way to keep their power level down.

internerdj
2007-12-20, 12:55 PM
Yea, if it is done well. It makes sense that an adventuring caster is going to shortcut his spells as much as possible to limit in action casting time. It shouldn't be the only option since there are multiple popular archetypes for casting.

Morty
2007-12-20, 12:55 PM
It's like THAC0, once you understand the internal logic of the system, it makes sense, until then you just stare blankly, and have to nod and accept it as a game mechanic. How long you have to play with it before you fully "understand" or "accept" will vary from person to person. Hence, it's counter-intuitive (and a pain to explain to) newbies, not that we veterans don't understand it.

No matter what system you play, you always have to learn mechanics before you can use them. Especially in case of magic, as it can vary from system to system on enourmous rate. And Vancian casting in D&D is childishly simple- you've got spell slots, you put spells in them.
But while complains about mechanics I can understand, sometimes I get the impression that people don't like Vancian casting because it's too original and doesn't fit all other casting systems.

Artanis
2007-12-20, 12:56 PM
The fact its hard to figure out is part of the reason it is perfect for magic, a non-wizard player who hasn't fully grasped the concept and is still confused with it will be roughly as knowledgeable in the area as one would expect of a character with no Spellcraft ranks.
So you're saying that new players should be forced to play melee characters, and completely barred from fully half the game?

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 12:57 PM
The fact its hard to figure out is part of the reason it is perfect for magic, a non-wizard player who hasn't fully grasped the concept and is still confused with it will be roughly as knowledgeable in the area as one would expect of a character with no Spellcraft ranks.

Remember that 1 point of INT = 10 IQ, there's a reason all these wizards need their crazy int scores.


And I like how the system forces you to play a guessing game (Mostly because I have only ever guessed wrong 7 times over 5 years =P )
It makes wizards harder to play, and wizards *need* to be as hard to play as possible while still being playable/fun, its a way to keep their power level down.

I completely agree.
For the same reasons that a master sword fighter are the only ones that should be allowed to play a fighter focused on sword and board. Or should at least have enough strength to understand the character.
[/sarcasm]

I really don't think this should be an appropriate balance of a class...

MrNexx
2007-12-20, 12:59 PM
Me and my best friend (who usualy are the DMs) also use a variation of the Vancian that uses a point from 2ed: It takes 10 minutes per level of the spell (5 minutes for cantrips) to memorise it and you can do it anytime*, unless you're fatigued or exausted. It prevents level 1-4 casters from having to go to sleep every 2 hours because they are fresh out after 2 encounters but nerfs the higher level ones: a level 20 wizard specialists with a 20 Intel must study and make small rituals for...40 hours to regain all of his spells if he used them all.4 long 10h days! Trust me, the party wizard isn't that eager to steal the show and the fighter is QUITE useful when Time Stop really is a last resort...

I'm not sure if I get this, but I think I do and I think I like it. Let me try an analogy, and see if I have it right.

A wizard is somewhat like a revolver with a number of chambers equal to the number of spells he can cast. He can load these up however he wishes; if he has 3 1st level spells, he can put 3 Magic Missiles, or Magic Missile, Sleep, and Color Spray, or whatever combination of spells he knows into those slots. If he "shoots" his spells (say, rattling off three magic missiles in a combat), he can reload those (or any other he chose) without resting, but has to take 10 minutes per spell level to do so? If an 8th level wizard cast Mage Armor, he could then study for 10 minutes to refill that slot, giving him 7 hours and 50 minutes of useful time with his Mage Armor?

How does this work for sorcerers? Do they just need to meditate for those 10 minutes/spell level, or what? How does sleep figure into this?

I like this solution. It's a good balance between flexibility and planning... a wizard CAN change at any time, but it takes him a significant amount of time to do so.

Castaras
2007-12-20, 01:02 PM
Iirc, one roleplaying system I've seen does the system that ^ is suggesting. It works well, with their mages being able to prepare while traveling, without having to prepare all the spells every morning.

Nay for Vancian magic here. While I'm not that good with rules and such, the Nay arguments are definitely more convincing, mechanics wise, than the Yea arguments.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-20, 01:06 PM
Artanis: No, they are just a difficult class to master, and should be.
Take a look at M:TG or Guild Wars, some classes/decks are much better then others, but playing them is very difficult, and thanks to the level of complexity the "inferior" classes will defeat the "superior" class if its player does not fully utilizes it.

SweetRein:
Thats hardly the same, D&D is a Tactical Role Playing Game, your example would work for a LARP.

I never said new players shouldn't be allowed to play complex classes, these classes just have a much steeper learning curve due to their playstyle and offer a greater challenge for the new player.

And about the balancing thing: Why not? Paladins are balanced by Ethics (except that they suck in 3E so they are actually nerfed harder)

Drascin
2007-12-20, 01:06 PM
Add another Nay to the tally here. Yes, I can work with Vancian, and have grown pretty accustomed to it, despite my relative newbiness. No, I don't really think it should be the system for any class other than wizards. It just doesn't click, is a pain for newbies (I still remember staring in amazement at a D&D computer game and trying to play a mage, and being completely unable to understand just how the hell the spells were supposed to work. That the manual pretty much assumed you knew a fair bit of D&D didn't help - "what are these "spell slots" this thing mentions?"), and the separate layers of power that the system creates makes it uncomfortable to fine-tune custom spell level.

Artanis
2007-12-20, 01:11 PM
Artanis: No, they are just a difficult class to master, and should be.
Take a look at M:TG or Guild Wars, some classes/decks are much better then others, but playing them is very difficult, and thanks to the level of complexity the "inferior" classes will defeat the "superior" class if its player does not fully utilizes it.
Yes, but a new player is still allowed to use all the cards. To continue the M:TG analogy, you're saying that a player who's new to the game should be completely banned from using Blue, White, Artifact, and non-basic Land cards.

internerdj
2007-12-20, 01:17 PM
Yes, but a new player is still allowed to use all the cards. To continue the M:TG analogy, you're saying that a player who's new to the game should be completely banned from using Blue, White, Artifact, and non-basic Land cards.

I really didn't get that at all out of what GP said.

Reinboom
2007-12-20, 01:17 PM
To continue with the M:tG analogy...
They still ban things. For a reason.
Also, look at the old Ravager decks. Almost any new player could pick it up and win a tournament or two.

The reason I think the comparison is completely flawed however:
MtG is a competitive game. I can't speak for Guild Wars (given by the name, it sounds very competitive as well), but, that is something that D&D is not. You don't compete with your team mates. The idea is to play alongside them.

A system shouldn't be inherently 'complex' like so.
Anyways, if it's the complexity you want, the vancian magic system isn't the full issue. Spell selection is much more complex of a task.
The system itself is rather simple - just needlessly pointless.

Part of this conversation is leading to be VERY off topic, and should warrant a new topic.

Indon
2007-12-20, 01:18 PM
The last five Amber novels, although the main character could also use other forms of magic... and another example that I can't remember at the moment.


I'm pretty sure I exclaimed aloud while reading the moment it clicked that Logrus magic was Vancian.

Also, a number of video games, such as some of the early Final Fantasy games, featured Vancian casting.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-20, 01:18 PM
Yes, but a new player is still allowed to use all the cards. To continue the M:TG analogy, you're saying that a player who's new to the game should be completely banned from using Blue, White, Artifact, and non-basic Land cards.

No, I am saying that it is only fair that Heartbeat is twice as hard to play as Gruul and twice as powerful.

A new player can pick a Heartbeat or a Gruul, but he'll likely fare better with the Gruul until he gains more experience - on the other hand, if he is gifted/dedicated he can pick up a Heartbeat and kick ass harder then he would with the Gruul, D&D is still a roleplaying *game* and should reward skill (even if it is not learned).

Wordmiser
2007-12-20, 01:36 PM
A new player can pick a Heartbeat or a Gruul, but he'll likely fare better with the Gruul until he gains more experience - on the other hand, if he is gifted/dedicated he can pick up a Heartbeat and kick ass harder then he would with the Gruul, D&D is still a roleplaying *game* and should reward skill (even if it is not learned).

Why should the newbies only have access to the weakest classes (that appears to be what you're trying to imply)? If anything, the more powerful classes should be more intuitive for new players to reduce the disparity between characters belonging to newbies and veterans (though why this is posed as a competition is beyond me).

And why should a player need to be familiar with a game's rules to play the character that he wants? This is a blatantly stupid concept for game design; it discourages new players to actually play the game.

MrNexx
2007-12-20, 01:36 PM
Incidentally, I do suggest picking up Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" books... not only to look at the history of the game, but because he uses language so wonderfully. I actually get a little giddy reading them; his turns of phrase are hilarious.

And you'll also find that D&D magic is Vancian in name, but there's some differences (see the end of "Eyes of the Overworld", and the repeated fate of Cugel for that).

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 01:37 PM
Update #3:

Current Standings:

{table]Yea|Nay
29|35[/table]

Dark Tira
2007-12-20, 01:37 PM
No, I am saying that it is only fair that Heartbeat is twice as hard to play as Gruul and twice as powerful.

A new player can pick a Heartbeat or a Gruul, but he'll likely fare better with the Gruul until he gains more experience - on the other hand, if he is gifted/dedicated he can pick up a Heartbeat and kick ass harder then he would with the Gruul, D&D is still a roleplaying *game* and should reward skill (even if it is not learned).

So you're saying that new players don't deserve to be wizards until they can abuse them? Your analogy somewhat breaks down because power is not the same as skill in D&D. Building a playable wizard is far easier than say a fighter or monk and yet even a poorly played wizard is usually far more powerful. Experienced players don't need an inherent power advantage in their characters, they can create superior characters through skill. This is all getting a bit off topic though.

Attilargh
2007-12-20, 01:39 PM
Nay. I don't like how it makes the Wizard feel like a walking bag of scrolls. I much prefer the spontaneity of Psionics.

Collin152
2007-12-20, 02:22 PM
Oh, and I say Yea!
Holding on to little pockets of world shattering power? Much more believable than having an unorganized pool that you can jusst shape as desired within limitations in the same amount of time.

fendrin
2007-12-20, 02:44 PM
Just to be clear, my 'nay-ish' should really be considered a 'nay'.


Also, a number of video games, such as some of the early Final Fantasy games, featured Vancian casting.
Uh, no.

The early FF games were NOT Vancian. Yes, there were spell levels (9, IIRC), but you knew a maximum of 3 spells of each level (and could learn 3 as soon as you got that spell level) and had a limit on how many times you could cast a given spell level.

Similar, but not the same.

I once reverse engineered FF1 and ran a game using it's mechanics. Not too difficult, actually. Of course, I had a lot more time on my hands back then...

Oh, and there is a reason they moved away from it: it makes no sense!

Pauwel
2007-12-20, 03:19 PM
I despise vancian casting because it doesn't feel like magic. Never have I seen a film or read a book where magic worked like it does in DnD, and if I did, I'd find it just as utterly uninteristing.
Internal logic can't make it a good system by itself and neither can uniqueness. The mechanic is boring, annoying to work with and doesn't let you feel like a wizard.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-12-20, 03:29 PM
Amber is of debatable status as an iconic work of fantasy itself; I'm inclined to classify it as cross-genre- it's certainly a fantastic series, but what kind is open to debate.
Its treatment of magic could be considered Vancian, but is generally described as an effort of conscious will and mental focus; I don't feel that the use to which the Logrus or Pattern is put in Amber is entirely consistent with spell slots et. al.

I'll also go on record as stating my disdain for The Dying Earth itself. Despite its position as source material for the game, I consider its influence predominantly negative, and am manifestly unimpressed from a literary standpoint.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 03:54 PM
Remember that 1 point of INT = 10 IQ, there's a reason all these wizards need their crazy int scores.

According to what, exactly?

Starsinger
2007-12-20, 04:28 PM
Also, a number of video games, such as some of the early Final Fantasy games, featured Vancian casting.

Are Sorcerers Vancian casters? Cuz mages in the early Final Fantasy games (it should be noted that 2's magic system is more akin to the Expanded Psionics Handbook rules than even resembling D&D) cast like Sorcerers. I have 3 level 1 slots, and I can either spend all three of them on Fir1, all three on Lit1, or a combination of the two. I don't have to go to the inn, and decide that I want two copies of Fir1 and one copy of Lit1.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-20, 04:58 PM
Wordmiser and Fax said it well, but for my part, I just don't think Vancian casting fits in with the way archetypal magic-users are portrayed in the genre in general. In my experience, wizardy-types know how to cast certain spells. They might have a large number of spells they know how to cast, or they might only know a few, but they always know how to cast them. Regardless of the justification, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a wizard can still have a great deal of magical power left to draw on, but be utterly unable to cast that one simple spell that he just cast five minutes ago.

Okay - finally getting somewhere - it doesn't match your expectation from books/stores/movies/et cetera you've read/heard/watched/et cetera.

Of course, if you want to think about modern magicians, yeah, there's some tricks they can do repeatedly all day ... but the nifty ones require props that need to be restocked between uses of the trick. If you don't have that rabbit up your sleeve, you can't pull him out of the hat ... and there's a limit to the number of rabbits you can put into your clothing without it being noticeable.


I guess the other thing that doesn't make sense to me, with that explanation, is this: A wizard has to prepare or "pre-cast" most of a spell in advance of casting it, but a sorcerer simply casts the same spell on the fly, with no advance preparation. Both spells take the same amount of time to complete when cast; therefore, it seems that the wizard takes much more time to cast the same spell, which is identical in every other way to the one the sorcerer cast. This seems odd to me.
Modern chemical processing can make every enzyme your liver produces. Your liver weighs in at just a few pounds; the chemical plant needed to make all the same stuff your liver can is very, very big. There's a lot of things where biological processes are a lot more efficient than mechanical ones. A wizard does things by mechanics and rote - a Sorcerer does not.


Oh, I get it. But the book calls it "memorization" and most new players won't get the nuance involved there and get lost. Really, it's more, "I've hammered this board in, but now I've run out of nails."

The 3.X books call it preparation. Vance's books call it Memorization. There might be a couple of spots where they missed a copy/paste change into the 3.X, but it's preparation in 3.X.


Frankly, my main issue with Vancian magic is the mechanics. Certainly, they're simple and functional, but they're also fraught with the problems I've displayed earlier in the thread.What problems with the system? The ones you've listed are not problems with the basic mechanics, but of the spells themselves - let's see.... ignoring, for the moment, where you've called it clunky, outdated, or needlessly complex (especially as others have called it "simple"); you've brought up:
spells not being appropriately leveled - which is an issue with the spells, not the basic system.
That there's a lack of rules on how to properly level a spell - again, this is not an issue with the spellcasting type; it's an issue with how units are placed into the spellcasting type. Point-based or skill-based systems have similar issues - and point-based systems are a lot more subject to abuse (we have a point based system - Epic spells - that demonstrates this quite easily).
Scaling issues: Again, this is a matter of the spells themselves, not the system they're plugged into. It wouldn't be too hard to (for instance) make a few fixed-damage spells, then give all spellcasters a bonus self-stacking metamagic feat that adds +2d6 damage to the spell for a +1 level adjustment. It's still Vancian casting - you're preparing the spell in advance for the effect - but the scaling issues suddenly vanish.


Thumbs down.

1) It makes no sense
2) The name is rubbish
4) Spells scale inappropriately
8) It is too rigid.
1) Sure it does. It's just a matter of adjusting the fluff to something that fits; it isn't difficult.
2) Most names are, when it comes down to it. The name of the system comes from the name of the person who dreamed it up (or at least made it known) - which is where names for a great many systems come from. Ever used the Pythagorean theorem? Pythagoras was a specific person. It's his theorem.
4) That's an issue with the spells in the system, not with the system itself. You'd have that with Psionics, too, except that most of the powers that are based off of spells were toned down in one way or another... of course, they totally blew some of the more unique ones that they added in (for instance, there's a combination of two powers that can refuel two psion's power point pools without resting in the XPH - if they work together at it).
8) That's a matter of taste - and quite frankly, more flexibility is a boost in power - and Wizards are already one of the more powerful classes in the game.

Zeful
2007-12-20, 06:00 PM
NAY I don't like it for any of the classes.
For Wizzards, Can anyone imagine a stock fantasy wizzard (merlin, Gandalf, Dumbledor(sp) pug, Elric etc.) Saying "While, I'm all out of spells. We'll need to hole up for 8 hours so I can get I good nights rest and then prepare alll the spells I think we'll need for the day."
Clerics,
Cleric, please oh mighty God of loyalty, healing and good. Please heal my Paladin compnion of his horrible soul crushing disease that he was cursed with by the high priest of your nemises.
diety, No. You should of thought of that this morning when I ws handing out mirecles by power level.
Sorceror,
Pyromaniac sorceror, I shall BURN you all!
casts six fireballs
Pyro sorc, um I'm justr going to slink away now
and so on.

I'm going to say that this is a silly interpretation using a very limited scope.
First: Wizards who go nova and waste 16 hours of the characters' time will either be left behind to find a more competent caster, or the BBEG who is designed like a real villian (i.e. he's not standing around waiting for the PCs to stop him, he's actually going about conquering the world/killing all the dwarves/gnomes etc.) will just kill them with the MacGuffin Superweapon your party was supposed to stop him from getting 8 hours ago! So stupid wizard+narcolepsy tactics=TPK (or should).

Second: Cleric's, druids, paladins and to a lesser extent get their divine powers from a divine source who regulates which of his followers get his powers. It's not his/her fault you chose poorly and didn't at least prepare a token cure disease. Also Vancian casting makes the most sense for divine caster.
God/Ideal: "For your faith and determination I give you (insert spell slots here) to use my power choose wisely."

Third: Sorcerers aren't really Vancian casters so they aren't involved too much in this thread.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 06:38 PM
will just kill them with the MacGuffin Superweapon your party was supposed to stop him from getting 8 hours ago! So stupid wizard+narcolepsy tactics=TPK (or should)."Flash, Flash I love you! But we only have 24 hours to save the Earth!" Sorry, there's only so many times you can go down to that well.


Second: Cleric's, druids, paladins and to a lesser extent get their divine powers from a divine source who regulates which of his followers get his powers. It's not his/her fault you chose poorly and didn't at least prepare a token cure disease. Also Vancian casting makes the most sense for divine caster.
God/Ideal: "For your faith and determination I give you (insert spell slots here) to use my power choose wisely."My preferred system for divine casters is Harn's. You might get a Piety Point for going to church, might get one depending on how much you donate. You'll get one if you come to the aid of the church and for cleaning the churches latrines. But you had to actually put in effort for the deity's behalf, not just dress in funny clothes.

Crow
2007-12-20, 06:45 PM
My preferred system for divine casters is Harn's. You might get a Piety Point for going to church, might get one depending on how much you donate. You'll get one if you come to the aid of the church and for cleaning the churches latrines. But you had to actually put in effort for the deity's behalf, not just dress in funny clothes.

Yeah, D&D has never really required much piety from it's divine casters.

"I am like unto a god! I slay dragons single-handedly! In my god's name...."

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 06:46 PM
The 3.X books call it preparation. Vance's books call it Memorization. There might be a couple of spots where they missed a copy/paste change into the 3.X, but it's preparation in 3.X.
What problems with the system? The ones you've listed are not problems with the basic mechanics, but of the spells themselves - let's see.... ignoring, for the moment, where you've called it clunky, outdated, or needlessly complex (especially as others have called it "simple"); you've brought up:
spells not being appropriately leveled - which is an issue with the spells, not the basic system.

That there's a lack of rules on how to properly level a spell - again, this is not an issue with the spellcasting type; it's an issue with how units are placed into the spellcasting type. Point-based or skill-based systems have similar issues - and point-based systems are a lot more subject to abuse (we have a point based system - Epic spells - that demonstrates this quite easily).
Scaling issues: Again, this is a matter of the spells themselves, not the system they're plugged into. It wouldn't be too hard to (for instance) make a few fixed-damage spells, then give all spellcasters a bonus self-stacking metamagic feat that adds +2d6 damage to the spell for a +1 level adjustment. It's still Vancian casting - you're preparing the spell in advance for the effect - but the scaling issues suddenly vanish.
Not entirely. There are also scaling issues with how many spell slots are possessed by a character, among other things.

The system also involves a lot of table-checking, something I personally abhor. Check your class table for your spells per day, then give yourself virtual levels granted by prestige classes. Don't forget to check the table in a different chapter for your bonus spells. Now, go look on another table, if you're a sorceror, bard, or other spontaneous caster, and do the same thing for your spells known.

I don't truck with table-searching.

The system is inelegant as well, stemming partially from the spells and partially from the structure itself. A spellcaster's spells increase pyrimidally (that is, lots at the bottom but few at the top), but the pyramid is too small at the bottom and too wide at the top.

There's also very little room for customization within the bounds of the casting system. If you look, essentially every full-caster uses the same basic mechanics, with very little versatility between them. Their only real differences are their methods of spells known, spell lists, and method of spell recovery. Actual casting, large portions of the spells, and even methods of spells known largely remain the same even between disparate classes.

There's no downside to Vancian casting either, at least not beyond potentially running out of spells--but resource management is a problem with all classes, and well it should be, else the players would never stop. But since there is no real downside (even melee has a downside: getting up close and personal puts one at serious risk of death), there's no reason to not be a spellcaster. I can hear it now: "But this isn't a problem with the Vancian casting system!" It is, fundamentally, because it is tied to the increase in power acquired from new spell acquisition, which is a fundamental of the spell system itself. Resource management in Vancian casting is too easy.

On a more personal level, to me spellcasters should never "run out of power". They might reach their limits as to what they can channel, but they should be able to overcome that at personal risk to oneself. I think the Warlock and the Dragonfire Adept take great strides towards this end, but don't go far enough. Magic, to me, is not something you "run out of": it's something you tame.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-12-20, 06:51 PM
Only read page 1 here, but...

I think Vancian Magic is good, albeit it could do with some fixing. However, there's tons of systems aruond, and Vancian seems appropriate for Wizards. If you don't like it, you can always play something other than a Wizard. Like a Psion or Warlock.

Also, As stated earlier, one of the main problems is levels, and the fact the effects "scale for free" Whereas the more balanced Psionicist has to pay for his spells...

If I did it, I'd probably make it 20 levels of spells instead of just 9... And make various effects worth a "level". 2d6 damage is a level, weak save effects are a level, more potent effects or Higher DC's are more levels, etc.

Belteshazzar
2007-12-20, 07:25 PM
I prefer Vancian it for Wizards, Power Points for Psions with the numbers filled off (oops I mean Sorcerers) and would like to see the old divine spell spheres returned to clerics (perhaps modified to work more like binders or warlocks.)

EvilElitest
2007-12-20, 07:40 PM
While I agree that Vancian casting is distinctly D&D, I much prefer using power/mana points. Vestiges are great too; the Binder was a terrific idea.

And to everyone claiming that you can have either Vancian casting or power points, as your preference: ha. Ha ha ha. Good luck finding a DM who allows or encourages psionics. Take a look on the PbP recruitment boards, for instance. DMs allowing psionics are about as rare as those allowing Tome of Battle; you're lucky to find 1 in 10. :smallsigh:

Well i allow all of those in my game, plus a good deal more, so stop generalizing.
I like vancian magic, but I allow all other systems
from
EE

Sucrose
2007-12-20, 07:55 PM
I personally vote nay, just because it doesn't feel like I think magic should.

I understand the logic behind it, and it is internally consistent. However, in just about all stories that I've enjoyed reading, the mages don't "pre-cast" the spells before going adventuring; they have a certain degree of power, and can shape that power using what incantations they know. They wear out eventually, either from physical or mental exhaustion, and do better for certain spells with special foci or components. Lastly, the really big, earth-shattering stuff requires complex rituals and great arcane strength.

My ideal system is one of power points or exhaustion for general, everyday magic effects like throwing fireballs, speaking to animals, and flying, and other spells, like leveling a city, or imbuing all the weapons of your army with the power of God, require difficult-to-acquire magical foci or components, the acquisition of which is a quest in itself, and then a long, complex, and easily-interrupted ritual for casting the spell itself.

horseboy
2007-12-20, 08:13 PM
Well i allow all of those in my game, plus a good deal more, so stop generalizing.
I like vancian magic, but I allow all other systems
from
EE

It is a valid generalization, though. Even highly vaulted Herald certified DM's blanche when you mention an interest in psionics.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-20, 10:39 PM
Not entirely. There are also scaling issues with how many spell slots are possessed by a character, among other things.

Assuming for the moment that you'd agree both the Wizard and the Chameleon (working with an Arcane focus) are Vancian casters, it's not the system itself that controls the number of spell slots. +/- X spells per day per spell level doesn't change the type, any more than changing the Psion's power points per day would change the Psion's casting type.


The system also involves a lot of table-checking, something I personally abhor. Check your class table for your spells per day, then give yourself virtual levels granted by prestige classes.
... which is just a matter of zipping down the table X levels based on the PrC. Seriously, how is that aspect much different from, say, a PrC that advances Wildshape for a Druid? You check the table to see what base wildshape abilities and per-day uses are, add virtual levels from your PrC levels....

Don't forget to check the table in a different chapter for your bonus spells.
You can actually get the bonus spells mathematically - it's a completely predictable pattern. Grab your spell casting attribute bonus; that's the highest spell level at which you get a bonus spell (if your bonus is +0, you don't get any bonus spells at that spell level). You get +1 bonus spell slots at that level, and the three spell levels below that (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells). For the next four spell levels below that, it's +2 (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells). For the next four spell levels below that, it's +3 (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells), and so on.

You don't need to hit the table - it's just there for if you can't follow patterns.

Now, go look on another table, if you're a sorceror, bard, or other spontaneous caster, and do the same thing for your spells known.
That you just do once per level - when you're selecting new spells known. Otherwise, you're just looking at the spells you know, which is a fixed list for those classes.

Compare to the Psion: If you're making a Psion from scratch, you have to stop and think about what powers he could know of each level - the 1st or 2nd level Psion can only know 1st level powers - so those 3 or 5 powers must all be 1st level. If you're creating a Psion at 3rd or above, however, you pretty much have to stop and level the character you're creating through each level to retrieve the correct number of powers known per power level. Goes much faster with the table all pre-laid out like it is for the Sorcerer.


I don't truck with table-searching.

That must be painful when you need to know how many times per day your barbarian can Rage. Or how good his rage is. Or what this does to his attack and damage bonus. Most the specifics in D&D are pulled off a table somewhere. Sure, a lot of them can be calculated (a pure-classed Rogue's sneak attack dice are (class level/2, round up)d6, for instance) but in practice, you're checking a table somewhere. If this bothers you, you're probably playing the wrong game. The spellcasters are a little more table-check heavy than the other classes, but they all have to do so.


The system is inelegant as well, stemming partially from the spells and partially from the structure itself. A spellcaster's spells increase pyrimidally (that is, lots at the bottom but few at the top), but the pyramid is too small at the bottom and too wide at the top.

The number of spells per day aren't inherently tied to the style of casting; that can be changed, readily enough.

For that matter, the bonus spell system widens the base (except for cantrips). It's a steep slope after the top few levels, but it still slopes.


There's also very little room for customization within the bounds of the casting system. If you look, essentially every full-caster uses the same basic mechanics, with very little versatility between them. Their only real differences are their methods of spells known, spell lists, and method of spell recovery. Actual casting, large portions of the spells, and even methods of spells known largely remain the same even between disparate classes.

... you mean like how the attack mechanics are basically the same for all melee weapons, or how the attack mechanics are basically the same for all bows, or how the everyone uses the same save mechanic with different bonuses? And the same skill mechanics with different numbers of ranks?

Likewise, so the spontaneous/prepared divide isn't enough variety, neither is the arcane/divine, nor the spell lists? Well, WotC has added supplements for that kind of thing - you can get point-based systems out of the XPH or Unearthed Arcana, at-will casting from the Warlock, skill-based magic by way of the Truenamer, item-based magic by way of the Artificer, slot-based magic by way of Incarnum... really, you can pick your flavor if you're unsatisfied with current mechanics. Why remove something as unique as Vancian spellcasting?

Further, though, if you put in six fundamentally different casting systems, you're going to have even more of a balance nightmare than we already have in Core, and you'll need to do more looking up of things on tables (which os something you "don't truck" with).


There's no downside to Vancian casting either, at least not beyond potentially running out of spells--but resource management is a problem with all classes, and well it should be, else the players would never stop.
Actually, with lots of wands of Cure Light Wounds (or equivalent for nonstandard races), the non-spellcasters can go for a long, long time with a little break between exertion. Depending on level and what sources you've got available (and a DM ruling), a Persistent Mass Lesser Vigor can let the melee-types do that all day, while the spellcasters still burn out.

But since there is no real downside (even melee has a downside: getting up close and personal puts one at serious risk of death), there's no reason to not be a spellcaster.
No more so than there's also no reason not to be an archer.

Of course, you're usually at serious risk of death in D&D combat if the DM's doing his job - doesn't much matter if you're standing in the back or not. Mirroring tactics tends to make that happen right quick.

I can hear it now: "But this isn't a problem with the Vancian casting system!"
More likely your subconscious trying to tell you you're on the wrong track.

It is, fundamentally, because it is tied to the increase in power acquired from new spell acquisition, which is a fundamental of the spell system itself. Resource management in Vancian casting is too easy.
Other than the much more sharply limited power point pool, so's the point-based Psionics - and you can simulate the sharply limited power-point pool fairly readily just by cutting back on the spells-per-day within the vancian system.


On a more personal level, to me spellcasters should never "run out of power". They might reach their limits as to what they can channel, but they should be able to overcome that at personal risk to oneself. I think the Warlock and the Dragonfire Adept take great strides towards this end, but don't go far enough. Magic, to me, is not something you "run out of": it's something you tame.
Ah, so you prefer something more like GURPS's magic skill system, where there's always a chance (even if slim) that something rather bad will happen.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 10:55 PM
Assuming for the moment that you'd agree both the Wizard and the Chameleon (working with an Arcane focus) are Vancian casters, it's not the system itself that controls the number of spell slots. +/- X spells per day per spell level doesn't change the type, any more than changing the Psion's power points per day would change the Psion's casting type.

... which is just a matter of zipping down the table X levels based on the PrC. Seriously, how is that aspect much different from, say, a PrC that advances Wildshape for a Druid? You check the table to see what base wildshape abilities and per-day uses are, add virtual levels from your PrC levels....

You can actually get the bonus spells mathematically - it's a completely predictable pattern. Grab your spell casting attribute bonus; that's the highest spell level at which you get a bonus spell (if your bonus is +0, you don't get any bonus spells at that spell level). You get +1 bonus spell slots at that level, and the three spell levels below that (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells). For the next four spell levels below that, it's +2 (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells). For the next four spell levels below that, it's +3 (except in 0th level slots or at spell levels where you get - spells), and so on.

You don't need to hit the table - it's just there for if you can't follow patterns.

That you just do once per level - when you're selecting new spells known. Otherwise, you're just looking at the spells you know, which is a fixed list for those classes.

Compare to the Psion: If you're making a Psion from scratch, you have to stop and think about what powers he could know of each level - the 1st or 2nd level Psion can only know 1st level powers - so those 3 or 5 powers must all be 1st level. If you're creating a Psion at 3rd or above, however, you pretty much have to stop and level the character you're creating through each level to retrieve the correct number of powers known per power level. Goes much faster with the table all pre-laid out like it is for the Sorcerer.

That must be painful when you need to know how many times per day your barbarian can Rage. Or how good his rage is. Or what this does to his attack and damage bonus. Most the specifics in D&D are pulled off a table somewhere. Sure, a lot of them can be calculated (a pure-classed Rogue's sneak attack dice are (class level/2, round up)d6, for instance) but in practice, you're checking a table somewhere. If this bothers you, you're probably playing the wrong game. The spellcasters are a little more table-check heavy than the other classes, but they all have to do so.I think you misunderstand what I mean by table-searching. I should never have to stop play to look in a book and compare to a table. It's an incredible slowdown that shatters the continuity of the game.


The number of spells per day aren't inherently tied to the style of casting; that can be changed, readily enough.

For that matter, the bonus spell system widens the base (except for cantrips). It's a steep slope after the top few levels, but it still slopes....except we're talking about Vancian casting as presented in the PHB, aren't we? Or are we arguing about 'theoretical Vancian casting'?


... you mean like how the attack mechanics are basically the same for all melee weapons, or how the attack mechanics are basically the same for all bows, or how the everyone uses the same save mechanic with different bonuses? And the same skill mechanics with different numbers of ranks?Those are all one simple mechanic: 1d20+mods. Vancian casting is far from a simple mechanic, one that cannot be expressed as simply as the d20 mechanic.


Likewise, so the spontaneous/prepared divide isn't enough variety, neither is the arcane/divine, nor the spell lists? Well, WotC has added supplements for that kind of thing - you can get point-based systems out of the XPH or Unearthed Arcana, at-will casting from the Warlock, skill-based magic by way of the Truenamer, item-based magic by way of the Artificer, slot-based magic by way of Incarnum... really, you can pick your flavor if you're unsatisfied with current mechanics. Why remove something as unique as Vancian spellcasting?Because being unique for uniqueness' sake is arrogance.


Other than the much more sharply limited power point pool, so's the point-based Psionics - and you can simulate the sharply limited power-point pool fairly readily just by cutting back on the spells-per-day within the vancian system.Really, I'd rather replace it with a system I feel makes magic into what I've always felt it should act like than fix one I don't like at all.


Ah, so you prefer something more like GURPS's magic skill system, where there's always a chance (even if slim) that something rather bad will happen.I do. Magic is dangerous or limited, sometimes both, but never neither. Personal risk should be involved, and Vancian magic does not carry that at all.

Dausuul
2007-12-20, 11:29 PM
Why I don't like Vancian casting:

#1. It's too rigid on the tactical level. A certain amount of resource management and advance prep can be good, but Vancian casting takes it to a ridiculous extreme. There's very little room to adjust your tactics on the fly, which to me is a large part of the fun of combat.

#2. Conversely, it's too versatile on the strategic level. Vancian casting gives the caster a colossal toolbox to work with. Any time you have twenty-four hours to prepare for something and you know what's coming, you can arm yourself with exactly the right tools for the job. This is a nightmare for a DM, especially a less-experienced one, who is trying to come up with ways to challenge the Caster Who Has Everything.

#3. It slows down the game. Every morning, the wizard has to ponder what she's likely to face that day and decide what spells to prep. Some novice wizard players actually prep their whole spell list from scratch daily. Experienced players usually have a "standard loadout," but that loadout regularly gets tweaked depending on what the wizard expects to face. And while the caster is sitting there puzzling over her spell list and trying to decide whether she's likely to need two dimension doors today or whether she can get by with just one, and whether it's worth using the higher-level slot for an Empowered version of enervation, the rest of the players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

#4. A corollary to #3 is that wizard players tend to get overly cautious, not to say paranoid, because they know that their effectiveness is absolutely dependent on their picking the right spells for the day and then conserving those spells as long as possible. The game encourages wizards to push for resting as often as the party can spare the time to do so--and this has nothing to do with going nova and burning all your spells on one encounter. Even if the wizard conserves her spells carefully, there's still a huge incentive to rest as often as possible, because you never know when you're going to need another of that spell you just cast. While all classes have some incentive to rest, Vancian casters have far more, because every spell they cast is a unique resource to be replenished.

#5. My biggest problem with Vancian magic: It doesn't feel like magic. It feels like technology. Vancian spells are, as Fax said, totally predictable and reliable; and you prepare them every day as if you were loading a gun. If that were what I wanted, I'd be playing a science fiction game. I want magic that feels organic, not mechanistic--more than that, I want magic that feels dangerous. Powerful magic should have a will of its own.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-21, 12:30 AM
I think you misunderstand what I mean by table-searching. I should never have to stop play to look in a book and compare to a table. It's an incredible slowdown that shatters the continuity of the game.

The spells per day issue basically only matters on level-up (which is generally done outside the game, no?) or when your equipment loadout changes significantly (like that headband of intellect getting sundered). The rest of the time, there's a little spot on the character sheet where you list out your spells per day.


...except we're talking about Vancian casting as presented in the PHB, aren't we? Or are we arguing about 'theoretical Vancian casting'?

We're talking about Vancian style casting, which is what the OP asked.


Those are all one simple mechanic: 1d20+mods. Vancian casting is far from a simple mechanic, one that cannot be expressed as simply as the d20 mechanic.
Sleet disagreed with you on that aspect earlier on:

I find the mechanic unsatisfying from a flavor point of view, but I have to admit that it's relatively simple and it works. I like "simple and works."
We may just have different measures of what is and is not simple - I see vanvian magic, even as presented in the PHB, as being fairly simple to use.


Because being unique for uniqueness' sake is arrogance.

... I go through a list of several options that are available, and ask why to remove something unique from the list, and you respond that it's arrogance? So we need to kill all the unique things, then, because they're arrogant?


Really, I'd rather replace it with a system I feel makes magic into what I've always felt it should act like than fix one I don't like at all.

I do. Magic is dangerous or limited, sometimes both, but never neither. Personal risk should be involved, and Vancian magic does not carry that at all.
Okay, that's amusing.

One of your issues with Vancian casting is that it is "outdated" - and yet, here you are, saying that magic should be inherently more dangerous than it is in 3.X - something that was actively moved away from in the 2nd to 3rd edition transition.

Dausuul
2007-12-21, 12:42 AM
One of your issues with Vancian casting is that it is "outdated" - and yet, here you are, saying that magic should be inherently more dangerous than it is in 3.X - something that was actively moved away from in the 2nd to 3rd edition transition.

There are different ways of creating danger. 2E's preferred method was "usually this works fine, but there's a small chance that you just up and die." This is not a good approach; either it doesn't hit you and you never feel the impact, or it does hit you and you die an arbitrary death. The player needs to have some way to balance risk with power, and while a botched spell should cause problems, they should be problems which the character can cope with or overcome.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-21, 06:52 AM
I commented somewhere else how my group played back in AD&D. They were pretty much like th sorcerers from 3.x. Limited number of spells known (still a lot compared to sorcerers), and you could just cast any spell you know, as long you had a spell slot left. It never broke the game. Often, someone would ask the wizard what spells he knew, and how many "daily uses" of some spell level he had, not ask what he had prepared. Truly, we never bothered with memorization.

I'm thinking of getting rid of sorcerers and have wizards do that in 3.5. Just add some limits to spells known, keep the bonus feats, and that's it. Metamagic may need some work, but I think it balances them a bit.

For clerics, use spontaneous casting too, giving a limit of spells known as well (albeit a way wider array of spells than a wizard). Bards will remain the same, maybe just allowing them to cast 1st level spells from 1st level.

Reinboom
2007-12-21, 06:56 AM
I remove Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Archivists from my campaigns - to reduce possible power and remove preparation vancian.

I then tweak the sorcerers (http://pifro.com/dnd/index.php?Class=sorcerer&Site=Normal&FClass=Modified) a little bit, encourage favored souls, and introduced the Palero (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Palero) for druid needs.

If my players want to be a wizard, they can play as a sorcerer... or whatever they want and call themselves a wizard. As a DM, I do the same in reverse. Adds to the mystery and removes from the metagaming.

Talic
2007-12-21, 07:04 AM
For those who abhor tables, bear in mind that a table is pretty much the most efficient way to store information on paper. To put it in other forms usually doubles the space it takes, and makes it less easy to reference.

Well, that, and the fact that all D&D classes are represented in table format.

Reinboom
2007-12-21, 07:09 AM
For those who abhor tables, bear in mind that a table is pretty much the most efficient way to store information on paper. To put it in other forms usually doubles the space it takes, and makes it less easy to reference.

Well, that, and the fact that all D&D classes are represented in table format.

Most of the table hate isn't finding your core values (ie: a class table is fine and preferred even).

The table hate is having to refer to a table in the middle of the game.

Talic
2007-12-21, 07:47 AM
Odd, only time I have to is at level up. Most of the time, I write down my spells per day at each level(the number) and keep it with my character sheet. The same as I do for the other table stats, such as saves, BAB, and the like.

Morty
2007-12-21, 08:04 AM
#5. My biggest problem with Vancian magic: It doesn't feel like magic. It feels like technology. Vancian spells are, as Fax said, totally predictable and reliable; and you prepare them every day as if you were loading a gun. If that were what I wanted, I'd be playing a science fiction game. I want magic that feels organic, not mechanistic--more than that, I want magic that feels dangerous. Powerful magic should have a will of its own.

Strange. For me, Vancian casting feels perfectly like magic is supposed to be, because it gives a feeling that casting a spell is something time-consuming and serious- wizards can't just wave their hands and do what they want, they have to prepare a spell earlier. I like the feeling that magic is dangerous and it's something I miss in D&D, but it's not mutually exclusive with Vancian spellcasting- and it doesn't look like magic will be inherently more "organic" and dangerous in 4ed either.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 08:24 AM
Today's update:

{table]Yea|Nay
32|38[/table]

And to whoever said back on Page 5 that their Nay-ish should be listed as a Nay, I originally did; my reason being that you said.. Nay...ish. :D Had you said Yea-ish I would have listed it as a Yea. The only ones I haven't been counting are the Both votes and similar answers without a clearly defined like/dislike.

On the other hand, the more generically couched answers of "I have no problem with Vancian and use it and others..." I have been adding in as Yea votes.

fendrin
2007-12-21, 09:14 AM
Why I don't like Vancian casting:<snip>

Quote for truth! Well said!


And to whoever said back on Page 5 that their Nay-ish should be listed as a Nay, I originally did
Excellent! Thank you sir.

Wow, I seem to be in a a good mood today. :smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis
2007-12-21, 12:19 PM
The spells per day issue basically only matters on level-up (which is generally done outside the game, no?) or when your equipment loadout changes significantly (like that headband of intellect getting sundered). The rest of the time, there's a little spot on the character sheet where you list out your spells per day. And it's something you need to reference every time you prep your spells, which, as Dausuul said, takes far too much time already.


We're talking about Vancian style casting, which is what the OP asked.See, that could be part of the problem. I'm talking about Vancian casting as presented in the 3.5e PHB.


Sleet disagreed with you on that aspect earlier on:

We may just have different measures of what is and is not simple - I see vanvian magic, even as presented in the PHB, as being fairly simple to use.Everything else in D&D uses The d20 Mechanic™: why doesn't magic?


... I go through a list of several options that are available, and ask why to remove something unique from the list, and you respond that it's arrogance? So we need to kill all the unique things, then, because they're arrogant?No, I said "uniqueness for uniqueness' sake". Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better or even worthwhile. I've personally come up with a few methods that I feel better present how magic should work and I've found more in different games (Everway's magic being my current favorite, but that's something else entirely) that also do a very good job of presenting how I feel magic should be.


One of your issues with Vancian casting is that it is "outdated" - and yet, here you are, saying that magic should be inherently more dangerous than it is in 3.X - something that was actively moved away from in the 2nd to 3rd edition transition.And it shouldn't have been. But Dausuul did say why 2e's idea of "dangerous magic" wasn't particularly good, and I agree with him. Dragonlance 3e did a better job with spell fatigue (and is a more elegant mechanic, as far as mechanics go), but it still isn't quite right.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 02:56 PM
1) Sure it does. It's just a matter of adjusting the fluff to something that fits; it isn't difficult.
2) Most names are, when it comes down to it. The name of the system comes from the name of the person who dreamed it up (or at least made it known) - which is where names for a great many systems come from. Ever used the Pythagorean theorem? Pythagoras was a specific person. It's his theorem.
4) That's an issue with the spells in the system, not with the system itself. You'd have that with Psionics, too, except that most of the powers that are based off of spells were toned down in one way or another... of course, they totally blew some of the more unique ones that they added in (for instance, there's a combination of two powers that can refuel two psion's power point pools without resting in the XPH - if they work together at it).
8) That's a matter of taste - and quite frankly, more flexibility is a boost in power - and Wizards are already one of the more powerful classes in the game.

1) But where, except in the literature of Vance, whom I have only heard of because of this magic system, do wizards ever cast spells like this? LOTR is spontaneous and subtle, any other book, film or saga has spellcasters casting spells on the fly deciding on them as they need them, not sitting down the night before and learning what they seem to forget. It makes sense when you are forced to use it, but when you first encounter it, the instinctive reaction is "but magic doesn't/shouldn't work like that".
2) I know where it comes from, but the term used by Wizards is not Vancian casting, and as far as I see it, the name is just used to make it sound better and the people using it more intelligent.
4) Yes, but systems like Psionics are better able to be balanced than systems like prepared spell casting, as they are not as rigid.
8) More flexibility is a boost to power, but you name a spellcasting class which doesn't use vancian casting and is a better spellcaster than a wizard or an archivist.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 03:24 PM
Personally, I like Vancian casting for wizards. But only because I'm used to it.

A well-developed power points-type system would work fine. As long as the mechanics work well, I don't care what they are.

Attilargh
2007-12-21, 03:45 PM
1) But where, except in the literature of Vance, whom I have only heard of because of this magic system, do wizards ever cast spells like this?
Amusingly, I can't recall a single example from any of the various D&D novels (admittedly, only the really popular stuff that gets translated to Finnish) where the spellcasters actually go Vancian. Could be my memory's failing, but I doubt it.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-21, 04:14 PM
I personally feel that "instant casting" for Intelligence Based casters cheapens magic, it makes sense for Sorcerers and other wild talents - an animal is instinctively proficient with its claws, but if performing obscure movements and sounds for 6 seconds is all it takes why does one needs to be INTELLIGENT to do that, rather then dexterous? and why don't everyone learn how to cast at least a few spells if its so simple?

Attilargh: That's because the D&D novels suck (or rather, take place in idiotic settings, the only good WotC setting is Planescape IMO)

MrNexx
2007-12-21, 04:29 PM
Attilargh: That's because the D&D novels suck (or rather, take place in idiotic settings, the only good WotC setting is Planescape IMO)

Planescape isn't really a WotC setting; while they own the rights, they haven't really developed it.

And Attilargh? That wizards have to go "Vancian" is actually a fairly major historical point for Dragonlance (look at Chronicles and Legends). I believe it is mentioned in other books, but those are the ones that really jump to mind.

Attilargh
2007-12-21, 04:45 PM
Hmm. Guess my memory's failing, then. I can recall Fizban muttering something about bat droppings, but can't remember a whiff of spell slots or other associated mechanics.

MrNexx
2007-12-21, 05:04 PM
Hmm. Guess my memory's failing, then. I can recall Fizban muttering something about bat droppings, but can't remember a whiff of spell slots or other associated mechanics.

Material component for fireball. Bat guano.

Dausuul
2007-12-21, 05:13 PM
Yeah, Dragons of Autumn Twilight makes a point of explaining how Vancian magic works, although of course they don't call it that. I think it's when the Companions are crossing Crystalmir Lake, and Raistlin is demonstrating his kick-ass new powers by casting 1st-level spells.

(Test of the Twins spoilers ahead.)

I have to say, I always kind of wondered how Raistlin managed to re-memorize spells while he was in the Abyss. I mean, when you're battling a whole plane full of fiends and undead, and have just betrayed and abandoned the only person you could have trusted to watch your back, where do you go to sleep? And surely even Raistlin didn't have enough spells memorized to go through that many encounters without a rest.

I suppose Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion must have made its way over to Krynn.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-21, 05:14 PM
(Test of the Twins spoilers ahead.)

I have to say, I always kind of wondered how Raistlin managed to re-memorize spells while he was in the Abyss. I mean, when you're battling a whole plane full of fiends and undead, and have just betrayed and abandoned the only person you could have trusted to watch your back, where do you go to sleep? And surely even Raistlin didn't have enough spells memorized to go through that many encounters without a rest.

I suppose Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion must have made its way over to Krynn.
Rope Trick : Breaking wizards since first edition :smallamused:

Crow
2007-12-21, 05:16 PM
(Test of the Twins spoilers ahead.)

I have to say, I always kind of wondered how Raistlin managed to re-memorize spells while he was in the Abyss. I mean, when you're battling a whole plane full of fiends and undead, and have just betrayed and abandoned the only person you could have trusted to watch your back, where do you go to sleep? And surely even Raistlin didn't have enough spells memorized to go through that many encounters without a rest.

I suppose Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion must have made its way over to Krynn.

Dude, you're just reading what the bard was paid to write down. They leave out the minor details... :smallwink:

MrNexx
2007-12-21, 05:30 PM
Rope Trick : Breaking wizards since first edition :smallamused:

In 1st and 2nd edition, Rope Trick lasts 20 minutes per level.

Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion and Leomund's Tiny Hut are far more reasonable.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-21, 05:32 PM
In 1st and 2nd edition, Rope Trick lasts 20 minutes per level.

Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion and Leomund's Tiny Hut are far more reasonable.
:smalleek:

Seems I have been cheating for years

deadseashoals
2007-12-21, 05:34 PM
Amusingly, I can't recall a single example from any of the various D&D novels (admittedly, only the really popular stuff that gets translated to Finnish) where the spellcasters actually go Vancian. Could be my memory's failing, but I doubt it.

They did that in the old Dragonlance novels. There was actually even an anecdote featuring an uprising of mundane folk against the wizards, who were able to suppress the commoners until they ran out of spells.

Dausuul
2007-12-21, 05:59 PM
They did that in the old Dragonlance novels. There was actually even an anecdote featuring an uprising of mundane folk against the wizards, who were able to suppress the commoners until they ran out of spells.

Which always struck me as supremely silly. These people are supposed to be super-smart and they can't figure out the concept of "the Red Robes sleep while the White and Black Robes stand guard?" If Raistlin could take on the whole frickin' Abyss, you'd think the Conclave could muster enough mojo to protect the Towers of High Sorcery from a rabble of peasants. Where was Emperor Tippy?

horseboy
2007-12-21, 07:03 PM
Which always struck me as supremely silly. These people are supposed to be super-smart and they can't figure out the concept of "the Red Robes sleep while the White and Black Robes stand guard?" If Raistlin could take on the whole frickin' Abyss, you'd think the Conclave could muster enough mojo to protect the Towers of High Sorcery from a rabble of peasants. Where was Emperor Tippy?
I figured he was one of the ones that called down the wrath of the Gods, and was flattened by the meteor. :smallamused:

Fax Celestis
2007-12-21, 07:14 PM
Which always struck me as supremely silly. These people are supposed to be super-smart and they can't figure out the concept of "the Red Robes sleep while the White and Black Robes stand guard?" If Raistlin could take on the whole frickin' Abyss, you'd think the Conclave could muster enough mojo to protect the Towers of High Sorcery from a rabble of peasants. Where was Emperor Tippy?

Dead at the time. On the moon, with Steve. :smallbiggrin:

Jack_Simth
2007-12-21, 07:37 PM
1) But where, except in the literature of Vance, whom I have only heard of because of this magic system, do wizards ever cast spells like this? LOTR is spontaneous and subtle, any other book, film or saga has spellcasters casting spells on the fly deciding on them as they need them, not sitting down the night before and learning what they seem to forget. It makes sense when you are forced to use it, but when you first encounter it, the instinctive reaction is "but magic doesn't/shouldn't work like that".
Your stance shifted. You've gone from a listed absolute "makes no sense" with no qualifiers to one that essentially amounts to "doesn't fit how I think magic should work"

And you're wrong. My instinctive reaction on encountering it amounted to "nifty".


2) I know where it comes from, but the term used by Wizards is not Vancian casting, and as far as I see it, the name is just used to make it sound better and the people using it more intelligent.
Silly question for you:
What term does Wizards use? Near as I can tell, they generally don't, unless they're referencing back to the mechanics a particular class uses - so it's "as a Wizard" or "as a Cleric" or "as a Druid" or "as a Bard" or "as a Sorcerer" or similar - try finding somewhere they actually name the system.

Calling it Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Paladin/Ranger-style casting gets unwieldy. Vancian magic is at least a usable name. Additionally, it's uncommon enough that a label for the type is mostly pointless - most computer games that use some form of magic use some form of points system to go with it (whatever the points are called) so for that, calling it "spell points" makes sense, as it is a very broad category with a large number of members.

Seriously, why the veiled accusations of pretentiousness?


4) Yes, but systems like Psionics are better able to be balanced than systems like prepared spell casting, as they are not as rigid.

Not really. A broken ability is a broken ability. You can, fairly trivially, convert any Sor/Wiz spell (or any other class spell, for that matter) into a Psionic power. For that matter, Unearthed Arcana laid out how in their Spell Points (http://www.rpgoracle.com/srd/unearthedSpellPoints.html) system. It is neither more nor less difficult to balance the effect against a point cost than it is against a spell level, as the two are equivalent for most purposes.


8) More flexibility is a boost to power, but you name a spellcasting class which doesn't use vancian casting and is a better spellcaster than a wizard or an archivist.
Name a spellcasting class that has more long-term flexibility than the Wizard or Archivist. The UA Spell Points (http://www.rpgoracle.com/srd/unearthedSpellPoints.html) Wizard fits the bill, I think - but interestingly, it fits both bills. If you take a Wizard and add one form of flexibility, you need to remove something else - for instance, relative to the Wizard, the Psion loses the ability to change the ability loadout easily. The Wizard can just prepare a different set of spells tomorrow (long-term flexibility) while the Psion is stuck (barring Psychic Reformation - which is rather easily abusable). Relative to the Wizard, the Psion trades long-term flexibility (the ability to have a completely different set of abilities tomorrow) for extra short-term flexibility (the ability to not worry about how many of an instances of a given power will be needed). If anything, the Psion is actually less flexible than the wizard overall (ignoring Psychic Reformation, anyway).


And it's something you need to reference every time you prep your spells, which, as Dausuul said, takes far too much time already.

?
Not really. You only need to reference it when you're making a spell list from whole cloth. You don't do that often once you get the hang of playing Vancian casters. You get a set of spells that's generically useful (or a couple sets - "travel" "town" "dungeon" and so on), and simply swap individual spells on a 1 to 1 basis when updating your list.


See, that could be part of the problem. I'm talking about Vancian casting as presented in the 3.5e PHB.

Possibly - but either way, it's not the fundamental mechanics that are at fault.


Everything else in D&D uses The d20 Mechanic™: why doesn't magic?

Statement is false.

A few counterexamples as evidence:
Miss chance.
Stabilization roll.
Encounter tables.
Treasure tables.

Alternately, magic does. The only spells that don't have a 1d20+X in there somewhere to determine success/failure (although some have partial success even on a "failure") are spells that:
a) Are buffs (includes restoratives and summons)
b) Affect the terrain (term is used loosely here - Acid Fog, for instance, counts as affecting the terrain; it leaves a fairly static hazard)
c) require a neutralized opponent to be useful


No, I said "uniqueness for uniqueness' sake". Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better or even worthwhile.
Check the context:
You said "uniqueness for uniqueness' sake" in the context of an answer for a question of why to remove an option from a list of options.

I find the Vancian style of magic:
1) An Interesting strategic element
2) Quick and easy to use at the table
3) Traditional
4) Far from overdone

You appear to be for the removal of Vancian magic from official support in favor of other options ... when a great many of the other basic options are already officially supported. It could very easily simply be appearance only by way of affirming a position solidly for the enjoyment of the debate - but the appearance is there. Is it false?


I've personally come up with a few methods that I feel better present how magic should work and I've found more in different games (Everway's magic being my current favorite, but that's something else entirely) that also do a very good job of presenting how I feel magic should be.

Nice to know your arguments for why support for the system I enjoy should be dropped from the supported list boil down to your personal preferences and expectations.


And it shouldn't have been. But Dausuul did say why 2e's idea of "dangerous magic" wasn't particularly good, and I agree with him. Dragonlance 3e did a better job with spell fatigue (and is a more elegant mechanic, as far as mechanics go), but it still isn't quite right.
The Archer doesn't shoot himself in the foot when he fails an attack roll - the opponent just gets more chances. The Fighter doesn't fall prone when he fails an attack roll - the opponent just gets another try. The sneak isn't stunned just because his opponent's spot beat his Hide; the opponent just has a chance to get an offensive action off. Why should a Wizard be more at risk for using his class abilities than other classes using theirs? That just isn't quite right.

Crow
2007-12-21, 07:50 PM
Advantage: Jack_Simth

Fax_Celestis is in place, prepares to serve...

Fax Celestis
2007-12-21, 08:44 PM
?
Not really. You only need to reference it when you're making a spell list from whole cloth. You don't do that often once you get the hang of playing Vancian casters. You get a set of spells that's generically useful (or a couple sets - "travel" "town" "dungeon" and so on), and simply swap individual spells on a 1 to 1 basis when updating your list.Alright, I'll give you this one.


Possibly - but either way, it's not the fundamental mechanics that are at fault.Really. When someone says, "Spellcasting is so good there's no mechanical reason to play something else," you tell them, "Yeah, but that's not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the pieces that make up the system"? That doesn't make much logical sense. It's like saying, "These puzzle pieces don't fit together even though they should, but that's not the fault of the pieces."


Statement is false.

A few counterexamples as evidence:
Miss chance.
Stabilization roll.
Encounter tables.
Treasure tables.

Alternately, magic does. The only spells that don't have a 1d20+X in there somewhere to determine success/failure (although some have partial success even on a "failure") are spells that:
a) Are buffs (includes restoratives and summons)
b) Affect the terrain (term is used loosely here - Acid Fog, for instance, counts as affecting the terrain; it leaves a fairly static hazard)
c) require a neutralized opponent to be useful
Certainly, there are things that characters can do that are not d20 Mechanic, but something as intrinsic to the system as magic should use similar mechanics to what the rest of the system does, especially when the system itself purports to use that mechanic for everything (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic). This is part of the reason I favor skill-based magic: it is consistent with the rest of the system's mechanics. (Also, any percentage roll, since all percentages in the game are expressed in multiples of five, can indeed be rolled with a d20, but that's neither here nor there.)


Check the context:
You said "uniqueness for uniqueness' sake" in the context of an answer for a question of why to remove an option from a list of options.

I find the Vancian style of magic:
1) An Interesting strategic element
2) Quick and easy to use at the table
3) Traditional
4) Far from overdone

You appear to be for the removal of Vancian magic from official support in favor of other options ... when a great many of the other basic options are already officially supported. It could very easily simply be appearance only by way of affirming a position solidly for the enjoyment of the debate - but the appearance is there. Is it false?I am indeed in favor of abolishing Vanican magic for the reasons I have provided prior. I find point systems (ie: psionics) to be far simpler; skill systems (ie: truename) to be more in line with the system's existing mechanics; and allocation systems (ie: incarnum) to be easier to teach a player.


Nice to know your arguments for why support for the system I enjoy should be dropped from the supported list boil down to your personal preferences and expectations.This is a thread about one's preference for or against Vancian magic, no? I'm expressing my own opinions, just as you are expressing yours. I can't provide an unbiased opinion as I am not a computer (though that'd certainly make things a lot easier sometimes).


The Archer doesn't shoot himself in the foot when he fails an attack roll - the opponent just gets more chances. The Fighter doesn't fall prone when he fails an attack roll - the opponent just gets another try. The sneak isn't stunned just because his opponent's spot beat his Hide; the opponent just has a chance to get an offensive action off. Why should a Wizard be more at risk for using his class abilities than other classes using theirs? That just isn't quite right.The wizard should risk something for magic because magic has the ability to fully replace everyone else in the party. There is little a wizard cannot do. Since magic is nigh-limitless in it's power, it should carry risk with it--else, why would anyone be anything but a wielder of magic?

Crow
2007-12-21, 08:53 PM
Most of the problem with wizards has nothing to do with the mechanic. You could use just about any mechanic, and as long as they are using the same spells published in the player's handbook, you will have 90% of the problems that everybody points out when it comes to wizards.

It's not the mechanic that sucks, it's the spells themselves. You can make a Sorcerer (limited spell selection) that is nearly as broken as the worst of wizards...It's the spells.

I will admit that I prefer skill-based casting, and I prefer there to be a cost to casting spells. I tried to model this in my own skill-based system. But without entirely new (and toned-down) spells, it will still be broken unless I make the drawbacks really restrictive. At that point, it stops being fun for most people.

Vancian casting would be just fine if the spells weren't so damned powerful. Flavor-wise, no matter what system you put in, it will not mesh with everybody's ideas of "how magic should work". Why not at least have something unique, that offers the strategic element that Vancian casting does. The ones using it are supposed to be very wise, and very intelligent. The "strategic" element is perfect in this regard, and arguably, flavorful.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-21, 10:12 PM
Alright, I'll give you this one.

Cool.


Really. When someone says, "Spellcasting is so good there's no mechanical reason to play something else," you tell them, "Yeah, but that's not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the pieces that make up the system"? That doesn't make much logical sense. It's like saying, "These puzzle pieces don't fit together even though they should, but that's not the fault of the pieces."

Oh, don't get me wrong - it's pretty easy to break game balance with a Wizard - but that's not due to the Vancian system, it's due to the spells (and possibly the number of them per day).

To put it another way, if I convert over to the non-Vancian Spell Points system from Unearthed Arcana, a Wizard still rules - even more so, as he gains all the spontaneity of the Sorcerer (who isn't a Vancian caster), while losing all the "should have prepared more of that one" of the Vancian wizard. System changes, but the Wizard's still easily breakable. If I remove all the current spells from the game, then create a bunch of direct-damage elemental spells that do 1d6 per spell level, all I've changed is the spells - the system is the same - but the Wizard stops ruling the roost (by a long shot). If I let the Tome of Battle Swordsage pick any spell as a martial maneuver, I've totally changed the system used - but that variant swordsage can very easily dominate the table with the right "manuevers".

It's the spells that are the problem (and at that, it's generally either specific spells, or particularly creative use), not the system itself - you don't totally revamp the leveling system because of the brokenness that is in Prestige Classes such as the Hulking Hurler and the Incantatrix - you remove the Hulking Hurler and the Incantatrix from the equation; just like you don't buy a new car because the spark plugs have worn out, you replace the spark plugs.

And there are reasons to play things other than casters - the Rogue, for instance, is easily a more resource-efficient trapfinder and door-opener than is the Wizard (although the Wizard certainly can find most traps and open doors). He's also a cheaper scout, and when scouting, generally isn't vulnerable to things like See Invisiblity.


Certainly, there are things that characters can do that are not d20 Mechanic, but something as intrinsic to the system as magic should use similar mechanics to what the rest of the system does, especially when the system itself purports to use that mechanic for everything (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic). This is part of the reason I favor skill-based magic: it is consistent with the rest of the system's mechanics.

Even that doesn't say they use it for everything - just things where there's a chance for failure on an action. Most spells simply have no chance for failure (although with a lot of them, you'll need a roll to see if you hit the target, or if you beat the target's spell resistance... both of which use the Core Mechanic; likewise, the target attempts to resist, and has a chance of success or failure... which uses the Core Mechanic). There's no contradiction there.

(Also, any percentage roll, since all percentages in the game are expressed in multiples of five, can indeed be rolled with a d20, but that's neither here nor there.)
Statement is false.
Counterexample:
Teleport's percent chances.

But that's neither here nor there.


I am indeed in favor of abolishing Vanican magic for the reasons I have provided prior. I find point systems (ie: psionics) to be far simpler;
Simplicity for Simplicity's sake is stupidity. Do you still routinely play Naughts and Crosses (also known as tic-tac-toe) for enjoyment, or just as an occasional exercise to stave off utter boredom? Complexity helps keep things interesting.

skill systems (ie: truename) to be more in line with the system's existing mechanics;
The attack rolls, saving throws, and SR penetration checks required by the majority of spells are well in line with the system's other mechanics.

and allocation systems (ie: incarnum) to be easier to teach a player.

It's not hard to teach a player Vancian casting. The system is simple (you've got X slots of Y size to fill with one-shot effects that you can't refill until the next day) although the effects aren't always simple (Color Spray, Web). Start new players at level 1, in a campaign that starts at level 1, and they'll be fine.


This is a thread about one's preference for or against Vancian magic, no? I'm expressing my own opinions, just as you are expressing yours.
Yeah - but it's good to know when it comes down to it that most your arguements are about the "feel" and "expect" things that are absolutely based on the individual.

I can't provide an unbiased opinion as I am not a computer (though that'd certainly make things a lot easier sometimes).

Nah, computers are biased - because programmers are.


The wizard should risk something for magic because magic has the ability to fully replace everyone else in the party.
I have to disagree with you on that one. You can't magically replace every role in the party with something that's as good or better if the person playing the other role has a reasonable amount of skill at it.

There is little a wizard cannot do. With the absolute use of cannot, that's mostly true. For the full gamut of levels, though, there's a lot of things other classes can do better - especially if there are time constraints involved.

Since magic is nigh-limitless in it's power, it should carry risk with it--else, why would anyone be anything but a wielder of magic?The nigh-limitlessness is an issue with the spells, not the mechanics themselves. A case of too much "wouldn't it be cool if ..." in the spells' creations, and not enough balance.

PirateMonk
2007-12-21, 10:25 PM
I dislike for many of the reasons above: it's awkward, it doesn't make sense, and it inaccurately reflects how I feel magic should work. I don't having anything against it remaining in the system, since some people apparently enjoy it, but it certainly shouldn't be the only option in core.

GURPS magic is better, which is why I use that.

Talic
2007-12-22, 01:37 AM
Really. When someone says, "Spellcasting is so good there's no mechanical reason to play something else," you tell them, "Yeah, but that's not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the pieces that make up the system"? That doesn't make much logical sense. It's like saying, "These puzzle pieces don't fit together even though they should, but that's not the fault of the pieces."

Correction, it's the fault of CERTAIN pieces. I.E. Spells. The system is a set of rules that can totally vary in power and usability by the spells you put in it, and feats used to modify it. Divine Power, Celerity, Time Stop, DMM cheese, these are the things that make magic overpowered... Not that wizards memorize spells at the beginning of the day, and expend them over the course of the day.


Certainly, there are things that characters can do that are not d20 Mechanic, but something as intrinsic to the system as magic should use similar mechanics to what the rest of the system does, especially when the system itself purports to use that mechanic for everything (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#theCoreMechanic). This is part of the reason I favor skill-based magic: it is consistent with the rest of the system's mechanics. (Also, any percentage roll, since all percentages in the game are expressed in multiples of five, can indeed be rolled with a d20, but that's neither here nor there.)

Any spell which relies on a saving throw or an attack roll, which is almost every offensive spell in existence, uses the D20 mechanic. Adding additional D20 checks would slow the game down further. One of the biggest arguements I've heard is that prep time slows things down. Adding additional mechanics will only do that further.


I am indeed in favor of abolishing Vanican magic for the reasons I have provided prior. I find point systems (ie: psionics) to be far simpler; skill systems (ie: truename) to be more in line with the system's existing mechanics; and allocation systems (ie: incarnum) to be easier to teach a player.

Skill systems are far easier to break, point systems are essentially the same thing (recharge your points once per day), with the exception of added flexibility (no memorization, use any powers with any points). Added flexibility increases the power of casters. First you argue against the power level of casters, and then you suggest changes that would augment that power further? As for allocation, I'm not familiar with it. But I'm inherently in support of anything that is more flexible when learned to something a bit easier to learn. It's why I play chess instead of checkers, and why I play D&D instead of HeroClix.


This is a thread about one's preference for or against Vancian magic, no? I'm expressing my own opinions, just as you are expressing yours. I can't provide an unbiased opinion as I am not a computer (though that'd certainly make things a lot easier sometimes).

True, but try and remember, one of the premises of debates such as these is considering the points of others, to try and reach a common consensus.


The wizard should risk something for magic because magic has the ability to fully replace everyone else in the party. There is little a wizard cannot do. Since magic is nigh-limitless in it's power, it should carry risk with it--else, why would anyone be anything but a wielder of magic?

In game? Years of study. Out of game? Player preference. Obviously, people ARE playing things other than magic wielders, so this line of reasoning is moot. If you'd like to know, ask them.

Morty
2007-12-22, 06:16 AM
Amusingly, I can't recall a single example from any of the various D&D novels (admittedly, only the really popular stuff that gets translated to Finnish) where the spellcasters actually go Vancian. Could be my memory's failing, but I doubt it.

How about the whole War of The Spider Queen, apart from what others mentioned?

fendrin
2007-12-22, 10:26 AM
And there are reasons to play things other than casters - the Rogue, for instance, is easily a more resource-efficient trapfinder and door-opener than is the Wizard (although the Wizard certainly can find most traps and open doors). He's also a cheaper scout, and when scouting, generally isn't vulnerable to things like See Invisiblity.
...
You can't magically replace every role in the party with something that's as good or better if the person playing the other role has a reasonable amount of skill at it.
The most powerful party I have ever been a part of was a group of 4 Warforged wizards. We would routinely defeat encounters well above the recommended CR. Everybody had their specialty, as well as reserving a portion of their spells for general tasks, in case anyone should get taken down or separated. We had a battlefield controller/tank, a "healer"/"skill monkey", a "blaster" (using save or dies and such), and a mobility expert. Of course, being generalist wizards, we could and often would swap roles around. We had a 3-ring binder of spell lists for various occasions, with notes about how to use it and what other spell lists worked well with it... one of the other players had WAY too much time on his hands. If in-game time wasn't a factor, we had fun coming up with creative ways to defeat encounters. If time was a factor, we would just go around or blow through stuff until it was done.

We once had a 'save the girl before she gets sacrificed' adventure. She was kidnapped one day, the next day we divined her location, magic'd our way in, grabbed the girl, and got out without a fight. Then we went back and wiped out the kidnappers on our own schedule. The girl was scheduled to be sacrificed 2 days after we rescued her...

A typical party would have had to fight their way through a long dungeon just to get to her, and the DM told us afterward that it was designed to have a climactic scene of the heroes making a dramatic entrance, interrupting the ceremony.


Simplicity for Simplicity's sake is stupidity. Do you still routinely play Naughts and Crosses (also known as tic-tac-toe) for enjoyment, or just as an occasional exercise to stave off utter boredom? Complexity helps keep things interesting.

Complexity for complexity's sake is stupidity incarnate. Look at games like Apples to Apples or Fluxx. They are incredibly simple and easy to learn, though with a high degree of variability. They are also extremely popular. Now, a more complicated game like pinochle or spades is also a lot of fun, but much harder to teach. Most of my friends pick Apples to Apples or Fluxx over pinochle or spades any day of the week.

Simplicity is not always bad or boring, complexity is not always good or interesting.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-22, 10:47 AM
The most powerful party I have ever been a part of was a group of 4 Warforged wizards. We would routinely defeat encounters well above the recommended CR. Everybody had their specialty, as well as reserving a portion of their spells for general tasks, in case anyone should get taken down or separated. We had a battlefield controller/tank, a "healer"/"skill monkey", a "blaster" (using save or dies and such), and a mobility expert. Of course, being generalist wizards, we could and often would swap roles around. We had a 3-ring binder of spell lists for various occasions, with notes about how to use it and what other spell lists worked well with it... one of the other players had WAY too much time on his hands. If in-game time wasn't a factor, we had fun coming up with creative ways to defeat encounters. If time was a factor, we would just go around or blow through stuff until it was done.

Let's see... you had four of what is generally considered one of the strongest classes in the game, picked a race generally considered overpowered for LA + 0, arranged things such that the arcanists could heal effectively (by way of the Repair line of spells) and....


We once had a 'save the girl before she gets sacrificed' adventure. She was kidnapped one day, the next day we divined her location, magic'd our way in, grabbed the girl, and got out without a fight. Then we went back and wiped out the kidnappers on our own schedule. The girl was scheduled to be sacrificed 2 days after we rescued her...

A typical party would have had to fight their way through a long dungeon just to get to her, and the DM told us afterward that it was designed to have a climactic scene of the heroes making a dramatic entrance, interrupting the ceremony.

... had a DM that didn't know how to adjust to a party's tactics. By the time Teleport is available, so's Forbiddance and Private Sanctum. Absolutely nothing about the fact that you had four Wizards in the party was needed for this aspect - one would suffice (as it's a matter of - what, three spells? Scrying, Teleport, Teleport; possibly just a lot of castings of Invisibility, which Craft Wand can deal with, quickly enough).


Complexity for complexity's sake is stupidity incarnate. Look at games like Apples to Apples or Fluxx. They are incredibly simple and easy to learn, though with a high degree of variability. They are also extremely popular. Now, a more complicated game like pinochle or spades is also a lot of fun, but much harder to teach. Most of my friends pick Apples to Apples or Fluxx over pinochle or spades any day of the week.

Simplicity is not always bad or boring, complexity is not always good or interesting.
Mostly, I was making fun of one of Fax_Celestis' tactics earlier. The fundamental point was that the simplicity/complexity is not, in and of itself, particularly important past the first segment of the learning curve.

Attilargh
2007-12-22, 11:29 AM
How about the whole War of The Spider Queen, apart from what others mentioned?
Not translated, I'm afraid. Is it any good?

Just remembered Elaine Cunningham's Liriel Baenre, who is a multiclass Wizard/Cleric. She never seems to run out of useful spells, but at least she studies a spellbook in the morning. Probably, at least, been a while since I read the books. Well, anyway, seems there are a number of actually Vancian casters in the novels and I was wrong.

raygungothic
2007-12-22, 11:53 AM
I dislike for many of the reasons above: it's awkward, it doesn't make sense, and it inaccurately reflects how I feel magic should work. I don't having anything against it remaining in the system, since some people apparently enjoy it, but it certainly shouldn't be the only option in core.

GURPS magic is better, which is why I use that.

You find D20's standard (Wizard) system "awkward" and you think GURPS is better?!? I am confused. GURPS contains many fine things, but the magic system is a beast of monstrous complexity and fiddliness (and horrible dependency chains) with a lot of severe problems except at the very lowest power levels.

D&D3.5's standard magic may have its problems *but at least it's easy*, which is exactly what I want from it. All it needs is a small change from "by default all spells are allowed" to "you will have to work to find spells, and you will never receive the entire spell list unless the DM is insanely benevolent" (which was stated in 1e and 2e, and works very well in 3.x, they just forgot to put it in).

Morty
2007-12-22, 12:24 PM
Not translated, I'm afraid. Is it any good?


Fairly okay, but nothing special. It fells a bit like D&D campaign translated into novel- a lot of fights and I could recognize most spells used by spellcasters.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 01:24 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong - it's pretty easy to break game balance with a Wizard - but that's not due to the Vancian system, it's due to the spells (and possibly the number of them per day).

To put it another way, if I convert over to the non-Vancian Spell Points system from Unearthed Arcana, a Wizard still rules - even more so, as he gains all the spontaneity of the Sorcerer (who isn't a Vancian caster), while losing all the "should have prepared more of that one" of the Vancian wizard. System changes, but the Wizard's still easily breakable. If I remove all the current spells from the game, then create a bunch of direct-damage elemental spells that do 1d6 per spell level, all I've changed is the spells - the system is the same - but the Wizard stops ruling the roost (by a long shot). If I let the Tome of Battle Swordsage pick any spell as a martial maneuver, I've totally changed the system used - but that variant swordsage can very easily dominate the table with the right "manuevers".

It's the spells that are the problem (and at that, it's generally either specific spells, or particularly creative use), not the system itself - you don't totally revamp the leveling system because of the brokenness that is in Prestige Classes such as the Hulking Hurler and the Incantatrix - you remove the Hulking Hurler and the Incantatrix from the equation; just like you don't buy a new car because the spark plugs have worn out, you replace the spark plugs.Right. Theoretical Vancian v. PHB Vancian again. I'll be straight: I think Vancian casting is a viable option for spellcasting but I don't personally like it at all and it doesn't fit with my personal ideal of how magic should work.


Even that doesn't say they use it for everything - just things where there's a chance for failure on an action. Most spells simply have no chance for failure (although with a lot of them, you'll need a roll to see if you hit the target, or if you beat the target's spell resistance... both of which use the Core Mechanic; likewise, the target attempts to resist, and has a chance of success or failure... which uses the Core Mechanic). There's no contradiction there.What I intended was the following: a fighter rolls a d20 to hit something with his sword; a rogue rolls a d20 to pick a lock, hide in the shadows, or bluff his way through the guards; a wizard should roll a d20 to cast a spell. Certain existing spells may involve d20 rolls, but these are part of the spell's effects, not part of actually casting the spell.


Simplicity for Simplicity's sake is stupidity. Do you still routinely play Naughts and Crosses (also known as tic-tac-toe) for enjoyment, or just as an occasional exercise to stave off utter boredom? Complexity helps keep things interesting.Oh, certainly. I don't deny that complexity frequently makes things far more interesting. A lot of people say that Incarnum magic is complex, but I find it to be my favorite magic system within D&D. I just find Vancian magic needlessly complex.


It's not hard to teach a player Vancian casting. The system is simple (you've got X slots of Y size to fill with one-shot effects that you can't refill until the next day) although the effects aren't always simple (Color Spray, Web). Start new players at level 1, in a campaign that starts at level 1, and they'll be fine.Starting a new player at level 1 with a class that's pretty much an archer with one spell per day is a good way to get them to never play again, m'fraid.


Yeah - but it's good to know when it comes down to it that most your arguements are about the "feel" and "expect" things that are absolutely based on the individual.Most of them are, but for my "d20 mechanic" argument, yes.

PirateMonk
2007-12-22, 01:25 PM
You find D20's standard (Wizard) system "awkward" and you think GURPS is better?!? I am confused. GURPS contains many fine things, but the magic system is a beast of monstrous complexity and fiddliness (and horrible dependency chains) with a lot of severe problems except at the very lowest power levels.

D&D3.5's standard magic may have its problems *but at least it's easy*

Not really, to me at least. I find it much simpler to keep track of magic in GURPS, and have yet to run into many "severe problems."

fendrin
2007-12-22, 01:31 PM
Let's see... you had four of what is generally considered one of the strongest classes in the game, picked a race generally considered overpowered for LA + 0, arranged things such that the arcanists could heal effectively (by way of the Repair line of spells) and....
Yup, that's the whole point I'm making about the class... it is powerful, and renders many (or in our case all) of the other classes obsolete if it is played effectively, unless the DM goes out of his way to prevent it. Race did not factor in except by removing the need for a cleric. 2 wizards 2 clerics would be a similarly powerful party for non-warforged.


... had a DM that didn't know how to adjust to a party's tactics. By the time Teleport is available, so's Forbiddance and Private Sanctum. Absolutely nothing about the fact that you had four Wizards in the party was needed for this aspect - one would suffice (as it's a matter of - what, three spells? Scrying, Teleport, Teleport; possibly just a lot of castings of Invisibility, which Craft Wand can deal with, quickly enough).
I mentioned a binder full of spell lists? How do you adjust for tactics that change from one in-game day to the next? Oh, and we were up against an arcane-hating religion, so they had no sorc or wiz spells cast. We also didn't teleport. A few flights, some knocking, some invisibility, a shatter or two, oh, a well timed hold portal helped. A few bull's strengths and a crow bar de-barred a window... it was a lvl 5 party at the time, IIRC.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-22, 01:51 PM
Right. Theoretical Vancian v. PHB Vancian again. I'll be straight: I think Vancian casting is a viable option for spellcasting but I don't personally like it at all and it doesn't fit with my personal ideal of how magic should work.

Okay, so it's a viable option that you'd see removed from the list of officially supported options? Umm....


What I intended was the following: a fighter rolls a d20 to hit something with his sword; a rogue rolls a d20 to pick a lock, hide in the shadows, or bluff his way through the guards; a wizard should roll a d20 to cast a spell. Certain existing spells may involve d20 rolls, but these are part of the spell's effects, not part of actually casting the spell.

"Certain existing spells" - that's funny. It's not just certain ones - it's about 95% of the ones that aren't buffs, travel, summons, terrain control, or require an opponent that's already neutralized. As the Barbarian doesn't make a roll to draw his sword, drink a potion, Rage, spread a bag of caltrops on the ground, or activate a Rod of the Serpent, this isn't any more schizophrenic than the rest of the system.

Additionally, in the middle of battle, you can make attacks that do not involve a d20 - taking a full-round action to hit an unattended object, for instance.


Oh, certainly. I don't deny that complexity frequently makes things far more interesting. A lot of people say that Incarnum magic is complex, but I find it to be my favorite magic system within D&D. I just find Vancian magic needlessly complex.

We've had a couple of people in this thread (other than me) call Vancian magic simple. Some of the spells are complex (Color Spray, Web, the Planar Binding line, and others) but the system itself is pretty point-and-click.


Starting a new player at level 1 with a class that's pretty much an archer with one spell per day is a good way to get them to never play again, m'fraid.

Most large games have an incredibly boring tutorial mode or area. Starting him at higher level just takes another few minutes to explain the different spell levels, and how the spread of spells he gets for his spellbook are selected.

Besides - unless your Wizard has an Intelligence score of 10 or 11 (in which case, why are you playing a Wizard?), it's going to be at least two 1st level spells and three cantrips (three and four, if you specialize). It's the Barbarian, Bard, and Paladin that can only use their "signature" abilities (Rage, Bardic Music, Smite Evil) once per day at 1st, not the Wizard.


Most of them are, but for my "d20 mechanic" argument, yes.
Yeah... and your d20 mechanic "argument" is decidedly on the weak side.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 02:04 PM
Okay, so it's a viable option that you'd see removed from the list of officially supported options? Umm...."Viable option" as in it's mechanically sound--albeit clunky, in my opinion, as I have stated before--but I'd like it removed because I don't find it fits with the rest of the system's mechanics.


"Certain existing spells" - that's funny. It's not just certain ones - it's about 95% of the ones that aren't buffs, travel, summons, terrain control, or require an opponent that's already neutralized. As the Barbarian doesn't make a roll to draw his sword, drink a potion, Rage, spread a bag of caltrops on the ground, or activate a Rod of the Serpent, this isn't any more schizophrenic than the rest of the system.Again, those are part of the spell itself. Ray attacks, saving throws, etc are all part of the spell. What I'm talking about is that the wizard should roll a d20 to cast the spell.


Additionally, in the middle of battle, you can make attacks that do not involve a d20 - taking a full-round action to hit an unattended object, for instance. You mean "taking 20"?


We've had a couple of people in this thread (other than me) call Vancian magic simple. Some of the spells are complex (Color Spray, Web, the Planar Binding line, and others) but the system itself is pretty point-and-click.You and some others may be of that opinion. I myself am not.


Most large games have an incredibly boring tutorial mode or area. Starting him at higher level just takes another few minutes to explain the different spell levels, and how the spread of spells he gets for his spellbook are selected.So, because other games do X Boring Thing, that makes something boring being acceptable? This is a game we're talking about, and last I checked games were supposed to be sources of entertainment.


Besides - unless your Wizard has an Intelligence score of 10 or 11 (in which case, why are you playing a Wizard?), it's going to be at least two 1st level spells and three cantrips (three and four, if you specialize). It's the Barbarian, Bard, and Paladin that can only use their "signature" abilities (Rage, Bardic Music, Smite Evil) once per day at 1st, not the Wizard.Yes, but those other classes can also do other things when they're out of those daily uses, and not be at so much risk of either (a) sucking abysmally; or (b) dying pathetically.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-22, 02:10 PM
Yup, that's the whole point I'm making about the class... it is powerful, and renders many (or in our case all) of the other classes obsolete if it is played effectively, unless the DM goes out of his way to prevent it. Race did not factor in except by removing the need for a cleric. 2 wizards 2 clerics would be a similarly powerful party for non-warforged.

Mostly what you're doing is taking a group that's really skilled at working together, and is very skilled at working with their chosen character, and giving them lots of options from extra sources.

You'll do crazy-good with the Iconic Four, doing that, and aren't nearly so sudden-death'd by surprise or antimagic tactics.


I mentioned a binder full of spell lists? How do you adjust for tactics that change from one in-game day to the next?
Mostly by not letting you know what defenses you'll be up against.

Oh, and we were up against an arcane-hating religion, so they had no sorc or wiz spells cast.
Ah, so you were facing off against opponents that were not internally balanced from the start.

We also didn't teleport. A few flights, some knocking, some invisibility, a shatter or two, oh, a well timed hold portal helped. A few bull's strengths and a crow bar de-barred a window... it was a lvl 5 party at the time, IIRC.In other words, nothing a rogue acting on his own couldn't have done; nothing that wouldn't have been improved with the inclusion of the ability to get a Silence spell. No guards that could hear someone working with a crowbar to physically rip something off the wall. Nobody that made listen checks for the dozens of spells you were forced to cast because you didn't have the actual skills.

The stronghold was poorly designed as a stronghold in a world where magic exists.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-22, 03:18 PM
Ahem...
http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/images/dndsucks.jpg

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 03:22 PM
Ahem...
http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/images/dndsucks.jpg

Right. Go ahead and think that. If I didn't like D&D, would I have homebrewed all of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3506417#post3506417) for it? Probably not. I like D&D. I dislike Vancian casting. The two are not one and the same.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-22, 03:25 PM
who said I was talking about you?

Actually the beating a dead horse bit was more directed at the Vancian spell system. You either like it or you don't. So why are you still beating it in a survey.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 03:29 PM
who said I was talking about you?

Actually the beating a dead horse bit was more directed at the Vancian spell system. You either like it or you don't. So why are you still beating it in a survey.

Because I enjoy debate, and it's not very often I actually feel like I'm losing.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-22, 04:10 PM
"Viable option" as in it's mechanically sound--albeit clunky, in my opinion, as I have stated before--but I'd like it removed because I don't find it fits with the rest of the system's mechanics.

Again, those are part of the spell itself. Ray attacks, saving throws, etc are all part of the spell. What I'm talking about is that the wizard should roll a d20 to cast the spell.

Oh, so the archer needs to make a roll to draw his arrow, then? Or the Bard needs to make a Perform check to Inspire Courage? Or maybe you need a balance check to walk normally. Or maybe the Barbarian needs to make a check in order to Rage. The d20 mechanic only applies to things that have a chance of failure - the casting of the spell itself doesn't (unless you're in armor, and need to make an Arcane Spell Failure check, or in a specifically distracted state, and need to make a Concentration check, or... but under normal fight circumstances, it's not one of those things that fails) but resisting or hitting with the spell does (at which point, d20 again).


You mean "taking 20"?

No, I don't. Take a Coup De Grace. Automatic hit, automatic critical, offensive action. The attacker doesn't roll a d20, just a bunch of damage dice. The defender is the only one to roll a d20, and even at that, the defender is probably dead anyway. Full-round action, plenty of time to do so in combat; distractions don't matter for the action.


You and some others may be of that opinion. I myself am not.

What's so complex about it?


So, because other games do X Boring Thing, that makes something boring being acceptable? This is a game we're talking about, and last I checked games were supposed to be sources of entertainment.

Yes, but EVERYTHING has a learning curve, and the initial stages generally aren't as fun as the mid to later stages.


Yes, but those other classes can also do other things when they're out of those daily uses, and not be at so much risk of either (a) sucking abysmally; or (b) dying pathetically.
This is why a Wizard gets crossbow proficiency, and part of the reason they need a good dex. The level-1 Wizard with a decent Dex (it's normally stat priority 2 or 3, due to the lack of armor) is also going to be a decent shot with a crossbow. A light crossbow does 1d8 (a very significant blow in a CR 1 battle) and can be fired off ever turn even without expending feats on it. Okay, yeah, after his two big shots, the generalist Wizard isn't king of the hill at 1st. Big whoop, he still has a decent chance of a meaningful contribution in the fight, as long as he sticks towards the back.

Because I enjoy debate, and it's not very often I actually feel like I'm losing.
Wait... do you mean to imply I'm winning? Are you the same Fax_Celestis on EN World? Can't be...

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 04:25 PM
Oh, so the archer needs to make a roll to draw his arrow, then? Or the Bard needs to make a Perform check to Inspire Courage? Or maybe you need a balance check to walk normally. Or maybe the Barbarian needs to make a check in order to Rage. The d20 mechanic only applies to things that have a chance of failure - the casting of the spell itself doesn't (unless you're in armor, and need to make an Arcane Spell Failure check, or in a specifically distracted state, and need to make a Concentration check, or... but under normal fight circumstances, it's not one of those things that fails) but resisting or hitting with the spell does (at which point, d20 again).Right, you only make d20 rolls on things that have a chance of failure. Magic should be one of those things.


No, I don't. Take a Coup De Grace. Automatic hit, automatic critical, offensive action. The attacker doesn't roll a d20, just a bunch of damage dice. The defender is the only one to roll a d20, and even at that, the defender is probably dead anyway. Full-round action, plenty of time to do so in combat; distractions don't matter for the action. ...which can be expressed as Taking 20 on the attack roll and confirmation roll, which is a full round action.


Yes, but EVERYTHING has a learning curve, and the initial stages generally aren't as fun as the mid to later stages.

This is why a Wizard gets crossbow proficiency, and part of the reason they need a good dex. The level-1 Wizard with a decent Dex (it's normally stat priority 2 or 3, due to the lack of armor) is also going to be a decent shot with a crossbow. A light crossbow does 1d8 (a very significant blow in a CR 1 battle) and can be fired off ever turn even without expending feats on it. Okay, yeah, after his two big shots, the generalist Wizard isn't king of the hill at 1st. Big whoop, he still has a decent chance of a meaningful contribution in the fight, as long as he sticks towards the back.So you're saying it's alright for a wizard to not be able to do what he's best at (casting spells) because he's run out of uses for today. In my opinion, a character should never be able to not "do his thing", and therefore a wizard should never be out of spells.


Wait... do you mean to imply I'm winning? Are you the same Fax_Celestis on EN World? Can't be...If there's a Fax Celestis on EN World, it isn't me. o_O

Crow
2007-12-22, 04:37 PM
Maybe you should stop using the term "Take 20". That implies the mechanic used with skill checks...Which means it takes 20 times longer and assumes you fail at least once at some point before achieving success.

Just for clarity.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-22, 08:17 PM
Right, you only make d20 rolls on things that have a chance of failure. Magic should be one of those things.

When did Gandalf botch a spell? When did Merlin? How often does the BBEG spellcaster in a movie botch the summoning / polymorph spell in the middle of a battle?

Okay, yeah, some botched rolls show up in the Harry Potter series (and it's always the students doing them, not the teachers...), but for the most part, the spellcasters just cast the spells successfully.


...which can be expressed as Taking 20 on the attack roll and confirmation roll, which is a full round action.

Taking 20 is something very, very different:

Taking 20:When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

A lone attack is a standard action; a 20th level Fighter with a Greatsword on Haste gets off five attacks in a full round. If you're taking 20 to do a thing, it takes 20 times as long as it does to do it once - that Greatsword Fighter-20 on Haste would need four rounds to get twenty swings in (and we're ignoring that they're all at different attack bonuses) - and that Fighter-1 does a CdG in one full round, as does the Fighter-20 (although there are feats to reduce this in suppliments). Further, Taking 20 is not something you can do while threatened or distracted - and you can deliver a CdG in the middle of battle.

There not the same thing, not by a long shot.



So you're saying it's alright for a wizard to not be able to do what he's best at (casting spells) because he's run out of uses for today. In my opinion, a wizard should never be out of spells.

So why should the archer should run out of arrows? Why should that rouge run out of throwing daggers? Why should that gunner run out of bullets?

"Supporting cast" mages in fiction will occasionally tell the Hero they can't go on. Why shouldn't the Wizard occasionally run out of spells?


If there's a Fax Celestis on EN World, it isn't me. o_O
Okay.

Yahzi
2007-12-23, 01:33 AM
Yea.

As Vance described it, wizards impressed these potent symbols in their brains, and then discharged them. Once they went, they were gone, until you had time to re-memorize the symbol (which was so complex you had to read it out of a book).

It's absurd, but it's D&D. It's an iconic part of the game. You might as well take dragons out.

fendrin
2007-12-23, 02:02 AM
Mostly what you're doing is taking a group that's really skilled at working together, and is very skilled at working with their chosen character, and giving them lots of options from extra sources.Lots of options from extra sources? You keep making assumptions. It was core and Eberron Campaign Setting. That's ONE extra source.


You'll do crazy-good with the Iconic Four, doing that, and aren't nearly so sudden-death'd by surprise or antimagic tactics. We handled surprise quite well. We never let ourselves get below half-spells if possible, and we had the iconic roles covered. As for antimagic, at lvl 5 that's just harsh.


Mostly by not letting you know what defenses you'll be up against. Right, I forgot the game is about letting players have abilities then never letting them use them. I suppose the hours we spent roleplaying getting floorplans of the keep were a waste, too.


Ah, so you were facing off against opponents that were not internally balanced from the start.Heavens forfend that the enemies have motivations! I'm sorry, you're right, every opponent has to be a clone of an adventuring party. That wouldn't get boring fast or anything...


In other words, nothing a rogue acting on his own couldn't have done; nothing that wouldn't have been improved with the inclusion of the ability to get a Silence spell. No guards that could hear someone working with a crowbar to physically rip something off the wall. Nobody that made listen checks for the dozens of spells you were forced to cast because you didn't have the actual skills.

dozens? maybe one dozen... Yeah, a silence spell would have helped at one point, but hold portal worked just as well. Better, because we could still cast.

A rogue would have had to sneak through one fortress, climb a sheer cliff, sneak past dozens of guards with trained dogs (scent) just to get to the keep, then search through that building (there were something like 40 cells), then break the girl out, and reverse the entire process with a lvl 1 commoner in tow. not so easy, I think, with or without a silence spell.


The stronghold was poorly designed as a stronghold in a world where magic exists.
If lacking arcane casting makes a stronghold poorly designed, arcane magic is too strong. Which was my point all along.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-23, 01:00 PM
Lots of options from extra sources? You keep making assumptions. It was core and Eberron Campaign Setting. That's ONE extra source.

Ah. Still, I note you don't contradict the rest.


We handled surprise quite well. We never let ourselves get below half-spells if possible, and we had the iconic roles covered.
No, you have the iconic tasks covered, X times per day. A good unexpected endurance run is likely to wipe you out - where the Iconic Four can usually deal with it.

As for antimagic, at lvl 5 that's just harsh.

I don't mean spells like antimagic field - I mean antimagic tactics: things like arrow slits with small enough actual area that they do not pass Line of Effect (you'll need actual archers), readied actions to disrupt spellcasting on the part of mooks who've split up sling bullets that have had Greater Magic Weapon cast on them (ten reasonable mooks, each with five such sling bullets can generally shut down most spellcasters this way), high search DC mechanical alarm traps (sure, you can trigger them before you reach them... but then they've done their job anyway), and so forth. Actual anti-magic is, while effective, overdoing it.



Right, I forgot the game is about letting players have abilities then never letting them use them. I suppose the hours we spent roleplaying getting floorplans of the keep were a waste, too.
... and they didn't have anyone making Gather Information checks to find out who was checking up on them to pro-actively plug holes?

From an information standpoint, your opponents deserved to be taken down.


Heavens forfend that the enemies have motivations! I'm sorry, you're right, every opponent has to be a clone of an adventuring party. That wouldn't get boring fast or anything...

True enough... but think about it for a minute:
You were facing off against an orginization that could be fairly readily infiltrated by... one mage with a couple of wands. Because in no way were they prepared for actual tactics used against them.


dozens? maybe one dozen... Yeah, a silence spell would have helped at one point, but hold portal worked just as well. Better, because we could still cast.

Yes... but there were no guards who could raise an alarm in hearing distance the other 11 times. To cast a spell with Verbal components, you have to be able to speak in a strong voice - normal talking is DC 0 (need to beat the DC by 10 to know what's being said), and a "strong voice" is presumably easier than that. You didn't have to deal with any significant sentries worthy of the name. The place was begging to be broken into.


A rogue would have had to sneak through one fortress, climb a sheer cliff, sneak past dozens of guards with trained dogs (scent) just to get to the keep, then search through that building (there were something like 40 cells), then break the girl out, and reverse the entire process with a lvl 1 commoner in tow. not so easy, I think, with or without a silence spell.

You just need a Bag of Holding Type I and an air supply good for the return trip (for the level 1 commoner) - for that matter, just remembering to open the bag every five minutes would cover the air.

Yeah, it wouldn't be easy, but it'd be doable. With a single rogue.


If lacking arcane casting makes a stronghold poorly designed, arcane magic is too strong. Which was my point all along.
That's mostly just a matter of the spells that can duplicate the other roles - such as Detect Secret Doors and Knock.

fendrin
2007-12-23, 11:16 PM
Ah. Still, I note you don't contradict the rest.Indeed. We had one fellow who was way farther along the learning curve than the rest of us. And the rest of us had a decent idea of what we were doing anyway. Still, as Fax has pointed out, a learning curve is not an effective or equitable method to balance out ridiculous amounts of power.


No, you have the iconic tasks covered, X times per day. A good unexpected endurance run is likely to wipe you out - where the Iconic Four can usually deal with it.Perhaps. On the other hand, you put the Iconic Four in an endurance run and you are going to have a useless wizard halfway through.


I don't mean spells like antimagic field - I mean antimagic tactics: things like arrow slits with small enough actual area that they do not pass Line of Effect (you'll need actual archers), readied actions to disrupt spellcasting on the part of mooks who've split up sling bullets that have had Greater Magic Weapon cast on them (ten reasonable mooks, each with five such sling bullets can generally shut down most spellcasters this way), high search DC mechanical alarm traps (sure, you can trigger them before you reach them... but then they've done their job anyway), and so forth. Actual anti-magic is, while effective, overdoing it.
Protection from Arrows and a decent concentration check largely negate everything you suggested. Beyond that are a myriad other defensive spells to protect against interruption, not to mention the much overlooked Silent Image to grant concealment...

... and they didn't have anyone making Gather Information checks to find out who was checking up on them to pro-actively plug holes?

From an information standpoint, your opponents deserved to be taken down.Perhaps so. But we were discrete, and got plans from the descendant of the lord that had had the place built originally. That was apparently enough to keep the attention off of us. That or our DM didn't think to do that. Don't forget, too, that this was the day after the kidnapping. Gather Information takes hours, much longer than a couple of successful knowledge checks (to know about the previous owner of the keep) and a little diplomacy (to convince the lord to let us copy the plans he had in his library).


You were facing off against an orginization that could be fairly readily infiltrated by... one mage with a couple of wands. Because in no way were they prepared for actual tactics used against them.Aye, but how many mages just happen to have all the right wands for a job like that. More to the point, not too many lvl 5 mages are going to be able to afford wands of 2nd and 3rd level spells...


Yes... but there were no guards who could raise an alarm in hearing distance the other 11 times. To cast a spell with Verbal components, you have to be able to speak in a strong voice - normal talking is DC 0 (need to beat the DC by 10 to know what's being said), and a "strong voice" is presumably easier than that. You didn't have to deal with any significant sentries worthy of the name. The place was begging to be broken into. We did a bunch of the casting out of earshot of the guards, and most of the rest we had a door held with hold portal between us and them. By the time they got through the door, we were gone (a couple rounds at most, anyway)


You just need a Bag of Holding Type I and an air supply good for the return trip (for the level 1 commoner) - for that matter, just remembering to open the bag every five minutes would cover the air.

Yeah, it wouldn't be easy, but it'd be doable. With a single rogue.
How exactly do you fit a person through the opening of a bag of holding? A 2' circumference is a bit small for an adults' shoulders, even a young woman's.


That's mostly just a matter of the spells that can duplicate the other roles - such as Detect Secret Doors and Knock.True.

I feel like we've taken this discussion way past the point of usefulness to the thread. Perhaps we should drop it?

Maetugi
2007-12-24, 02:20 AM
So you're saying it's alright for a wizard to not be able to do what he's best at (casting spells) because he's run out of uses for today. In my opinion, a character should never be able to not "do his thing", and therefore a wizard should never be out of spells.

1 more for Yea. This is the exact reason I like Vancian spellcasting. Chracters not only run out of spells, but run out of useful spells. It's those situtations that force spellcasters to become creative with what they've got. Any type of blasting magic or unmemorized spell list, just doesn't put the same pressure on spellcasters.

Attilargh
2007-12-24, 11:56 AM
I know it isn't what you meant, but that doesn't sound too different from "Fighters should run out of swords, for it forces them to become creative with what they've got".

And besides, when a Wizard runs out of spells "what he's got" amounts to a a colourful dress and a pouch full of bat droppings.

Jack_Simth
2007-12-24, 01:17 PM
I feel like we've taken this discussion way past the point of usefulness to the thread. Perhaps we should drop it?
As you wish.


I know it isn't what you meant, but that doesn't sound too different from "Fighters should run out of swords, for it forces them to become creative with what they've got".

And besides, when a Wizard runs out of spells "what he's got" amounts to a a colourful dress and a pouch full of bat droppings.
Played reasonably, at low levels, what he's got is a reasonable chance to hit with a light crossbow; at medium levels, what he's got is a wand with a lower-level spell than he'd like in it, that isn't a perfect match for the situation.

And he's always got his Knowledge checks for outside combat (unless he's been Feebleminded or something, but then he doesn't have his spells, either).

Fhaolan
2007-12-24, 03:31 PM
Personally, I don't mind Vancian casting at all. However, I dislike how it's implemented in D&D.

In Vance's books, this casting method is used because spells are difficult and time-consuming to cast 'raw'. This was a way of shortening the casting time by 'precasting' and impressing the spell in the caster's mind, much like how D&D has scrolls or wands.

Which means it's possible to cast spells without it, but would take the same amount time as it would to 'prepare' the spell + 'cast' the spell.

Also my opinion is that the wizard only needs his spellbook for preparing spells that are high enough that they aren't practiced enough to be able to do by rote without mistake. Say a 20th level wizard can prepare any spell he knows of 5th level or below without the spellbook aid, or something like that. For a RL example, technically I am a Chemical Engineer. I have a degree in it at least. :smallbiggrin: However, I still need to get out my old textbooks for certain formulae because they are complex enough that I can't write them out without a mistake. A 9th level spell like Wish has got to be a *lot* harder to memorize than that.

Of course, there are a lot of spells that need to be re-leveled, because playtesting has shown they are far more (or less) powerful than they originally gave the impression of. That's obvious.

Sebastian
2007-12-27, 05:41 AM
Personally, I don't mind Vancian casting at all. However, I dislike how it's implemented in D&D.

In Vance's books, this casting method is used because spells are difficult and time-consuming to cast 'raw'. This was a way of shortening the casting time by 'precasting' and impressing the spell in the caster's mind, much like how D&D has scrolls or wands.

Which means it's possible to cast spells without it, but would take the same amount time as it would to 'prepare' the spell + 'cast' the spell.

Do you mean like when you leave an empty slot and prepare on the fly?

Sebastian
2007-12-27, 05:48 AM
I know it isn't what you meant, but that doesn't sound too different from "Fighters should run out of swords, for it forces them to become creative with what they've got".

And besides, when a Wizard runs out of spells "what he's got" amounts to a a colourful dress and a pouch full of bat droppings.

Hey, do you ever got a handful of bat droppings in the eyes? It stings like heck. ;)

LibraryOgre
2007-12-27, 09:53 PM
Hey, do you ever got a handful of bat droppings in the eyes? It stings like heck. ;)

What were you doing that you got bat droppings in your eyes?

Fhaolan
2007-12-28, 12:47 AM
Do you mean like when you leave an empty slot and prepare on the fly?

You know, I keep forgetting that's in the rules somewhere... Where is that, anyway?

It's not quite what I was meaning, but it's extremely close. Close enough that as a game mechanic it doesn't bother me that much.

I would prefer a spell-point system over slots, myself. However, I would still massively increase the casting time of individual spells. Then you would have x number of spell points available, but you can only 'hang' x-y number of spell points in your own head. The y number of spell points available to 'hang' spells on staves, wands, or to cast spells 'raw' (with the long casting time). Each object only being able to contain so many points based on the material and preparation.

That's just me, however, and how I would thing magic would work if it was real. It's also a lot more complex, and would probably be thrown out as a game mechanic due to comprehension issues. :smallbiggrin:

ADDENDUM: As a reply to the 'but what fictional/mythical wizards work this way?' I would reply 'but what fictional/mythical wizards not influenced by D&D/RPGs cast spells willy-nilly *really fast* with no consiquences?' About the only ones I can come up with are from Robert Jordan's Belgariad. And in those books that kind of spellcaster are all semi-immortal demi-gods and are more like D&D clerics as they are invested with their power from a god. Everyone else does the bell, book, and candle route with long-casting-time spells.

horseboy
2007-12-28, 12:51 AM
What were you doing that you got bat droppings in your eyes?

Mascara. It's bat guano!

Baring that, there's always spelunking or making incendiaries.

Fhaolan
2007-12-28, 12:57 AM
Mascara. It's bat guano!

Baring that, there's always spelunking or making incendiaries.

That's why I tended to wear goggles (and gloves) when I used to do spelunking.... and when I was making model rocket engines, but I didn't use guano for that myself.... At least not *raw* guano... you know, now that I think on it....

Talic
2007-12-28, 01:43 AM
Just to point out, Taking 20 is a skill-only application that CANNOT be used in any instance where there is a penalty for failure. It represents trying again and again until you get it right.

Coup de Grace is a special ability, auto critting (note, it's not an "auto-20" as it doesn't trigger things like vorpal, though it DOES auto confirm, which means it is an ENTIRELY different mechanic) and forcing a save-or-die effect. It represents taking time and lining up one deadly strike.

Different mechanics, different reasons, different representation... How are these two "essentially the same"?



Also my opinion is that the wizard only needs his spellbook for preparing spells that are high enough that they aren't practiced enough to be able to do by rote without mistake. Say a 20th level wizard can prepare any spell he knows of 5th level or below without the spellbook aid, or something like that. For a RL example, technically I am a Chemical Engineer. I have a degree in it at least. :smallbiggrin: However, I still need to get out my old textbooks for certain formulae because they are complex enough that I can't write them out without a mistake. A 9th level spell like Wish has got to be a *lot* harder to memorize than that.


With the fact that each mage has his own system for writing down the information in the book, and the right things that are needed to do it, I'd imagine that a 3rd level Fireball is as functionally complex as nuclear physics. Most people in real life would never be expressed in terms above level 5, by D&D standards.

To say that each level 20 wizard would be able to recall from memory the schematics of roughly 30-40 nuclear plants (every spell in his book from 5th level down), as well as the underlying theories, is ludicrous. Lawyers may be familiar with law, but yet they still have hundreds of books on the subject. That's because it's unreasonable to assume someone can maintain such a large amount of information in memory.

Arcane Mastery does give you a few spells, based on your intelligence, and I think that's a pretty good way to do it.

Yami
2007-12-28, 01:55 AM
My thoughts on Vancian Magic.

I play sorcerer.

Maetugi
2007-12-28, 02:03 AM
I know it isn't what you meant, but that doesn't sound too different from "Fighters should run out of swords, for it forces them to become creative with what they've got".

And besides, when a Wizard runs out of spells "what he's got" amounts to a a colourful dress and a pouch full of bat droppings.


Well, if you know it isn't what I meant, why are you responding to it. And fighter's hardly ever run out of weapons. Unless the fighter continually fumbles and throws/breaks/sticks his weapons, he almost always has another back up. Usually the progression will go... longsword, short sword, light mace, and dagger. So it's not really the same as the wizard running out of spells.

As for the wizard. As another poster stated. He has wands. He has a crossbow. He has daggers and a quarterstaff. He may not be good with them, but he can try to do something. I don't consider it a case of a broken game, but of broken gamers.

And yes, sometimes I wish the fighter would run out of their preferred weapon. While watching Lord of the Rings I wished the mullet-elf would run out of arrows 90% of the time.

Sebastian
2007-12-28, 03:24 AM
What were you doing that you got bat droppings in your eyes?

Actually, I never, but I just assumed. I mean it is used as fertilizer AND to make explosives, it is not exactly healtly, (IIRC it is also very acidic, too. And who want to end with **** in their eyes, anyway. :)

Talic
2007-12-28, 03:39 AM
Right, you only make d20 rolls on things that have a chance of failure. Magic should be one of those things.

So your complaint isn't that magic isn't vancian, but that it doesn't have a fail chance? Sorta like Arcane spell failure? Now there's a roll that doesn't use D20 mechanic, though it can be expressed as a d20 roll.


...which can be expressed as Taking 20 on the attack roll and confirmation roll, which is a full round action.

To take 20 on the attack roll would be taking 20x as long (by taking 20 rules), or 20 rounds. To also correlate taking 20 on the confirmation, that would multiply by 20x more, for a total of 400 rounds. By the taking 20 rules... At least.


So you're saying it's alright for a wizard to not be able to do what he's best at (casting spells) because he's run out of uses for today. In my opinion, a character should never be able to not "do his thing", and therefore a wizard should never be out of spells.

So having an unlimited usage of weaker spells? Certainly an option, but again, it can be expressed through a vancian system. Tell me, is a fighter who's been through several tough challenges today, and is sitting at 4hp, is that fighter able to effectively "do his thing"?

Wizards are a tradeoff. Greater effects for a limited amount of usage. WotC created a class for those who want to always "do their thing"... Warlock. If that's what you like, play a warlock. The presence of a Vancian Casting system won't hinder your ability to do so in the least. The only real valid reasons to not want Vancian Casting in the game is if its presence detracts from the game. When it's one option in several, that's the only reason to not have it.

That's kinda like saying that fighter should be removed because, in my opinion, all melee types should be able to change shapes to fight. Yeah, if I want that, I'll play a druid, and the presence of the fighter class won't detract from my ability to do so in the least.

Sebastian
2007-12-28, 03:41 AM
You know, I keep forgetting that's in the rules somewhere... Where is that, anyway?


Not sure, but probably somewhere where describe the wizard class, seeing as it is the only class that can do it.



It's not quite what I was meaning, but it's extremely close. Close enough that as a game mechanic it doesn't bother me that much.

I would prefer a spell-point system over slots, myself. However, I would still massively increase the casting time of individual spells. Then you would have x number of spell points available, but you can only 'hang' x-y number of spell points in your own head. The y number of spell points available to 'hang' spells on staves, wands, or to cast spells 'raw' (with the long casting time). Each object only being able to contain so many points based on the material and preparation.

That's just me, however, and how I would thing magic would work if it was real. It's also a lot more complex, and would probably be thrown out as a game mechanic due to comprehension issues. :smallbiggrin:

ADDENDUM: As a reply to the 'but what fictional/mythical wizards work this way?' I would reply 'but what fictional/mythical wizards not influenced by D&D/RPGs cast spells willy-nilly *really fast* with no consiquences?' About the only ones I can come up with are from Robert Jordan's Belgariad. And in those books that kind of spellcaster are all semi-immortal demi-gods and are more like D&D clerics as they are invested with their power from a god. Everyone else does the bell, book, and candle route with long-casting-time spells.

Belgariad works better as psionicist, I think, except that their magic is more deus ex machina than anything else (a problem of any kind of magic from books anyway)

And if you like long casting time and assorted paraphernalia have you checked the Incantations rules, from Unhearthed Arcana or D20 modern/Urban Arcana sourcebook? I actually like The d20 modern vision of magic, Standard magic spell arrive only at 5th level, for the higher level stuff you use the ritual-like incantation rules, long casting times, multiple casters, dangerous conseguences if you mess it up, and the best thing, you don't even need to be a caster class to use them, enough ranks in the appropriate skills (knowledge (arcana) usually, but not always) is all you need).

It is probably one of the best magic systems that come out for D20, IMHO.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-28, 07:31 AM
You know, I keep forgetting that's in the rules somewhere... Where is that, anyway?


Here:


When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

Or in the PHB in the magic chapter (AFB).

Cuddly
2007-12-28, 07:43 AM
Nay, sort of. I'd like to see some sort of 'elemental' type casters that have to pull directly from their environment. Leylines and stuff. Then the more "brute force" types, like wizards, who have to memorize everything. They'd be utility/batman wizards, with fewer spells/day or something, so they wouldn't be so horribly broke.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-28, 12:17 PM
So your complaint isn't that magic isn't vancian, but that it doesn't have a fail chance? Sorta like Arcane spell failure? Now there's a roll that doesn't use D20 mechanic, though it can be expressed as a d20 roll.HAHAHA. Arcane Spell Failure. I don't believe I've ever seen a spellcaster tolerate any failure chance. It's a joke.

And in any case, that's not what I meant. Spellcasting should use the d20 mechanic, since everything in the system does except for some strange mechanical holdovers--and magic, being as core to the system as it is, should be in line with those mechanics. The Truenamer did this, but did it poorly: their spell DCs are ludicrous and their spell selection weak.


So having an unlimited usage of weaker spells? Certainly an option, but again, it can be expressed through a vancian system. Tell me, is a fighter who's been through several tough challenges today, and is sitting at 4hp, is that fighter able to effectively "do his thing"?Yes, he can, he just has an increased chance of risk. A wizard who's been casting all day should still be able to cast magic, albeit with a higher chance of risk.


Wizards are a tradeoff. Greater effects for a limited amount of usage. WotC created a class for those who want to always "do their thing"... Warlock. If that's what you like, play a warlock. The presence of a Vancian Casting system won't hinder your ability to do so in the least. The only real valid reasons to not want Vancian Casting in the game is if its presence detracts from the game. When it's one option in several, that's the only reason to not have it.I understand that, and that's exactly why I don't play Vancian casters. However, this is a debate about Vancian magic, and so I will share my opinions.


That's kinda like saying that fighter should be removed because, in my opinion, all melee types should be able to change shapes to fight. Yeah, if I want that, I'll play a druid, and the presence of the fighter class won't detract from my ability to do so in the least.Not really, no. Try again.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-28, 12:57 PM
I understand that, and that's exactly why I don't play Vancian casters. However, this is a debate about Vancian magic, and so I will share my opinions.

Is this still going on?

The funny thing is, I thought Fax Celestis was FOR Vancian magic...

Well, let's see if I can derail this thread so it will die...

VANCIAN MAGIC IS CHAOTIC EVIL!:smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2007-12-28, 01:16 PM
IThe funny thing is, I thought Fax Celestis was FOR Vancian magic...

Y-y-...you did?

Fhaolan
2007-12-28, 03:04 PM
:smallsmile:
With the fact that each mage has his own system for writing down the information in the book, and the right things that are needed to do it, I'd imagine that a 3rd level Fireball is as functionally complex as nuclear physics. Most people in real life would never be expressed in terms above level 5, by D&D standards.

To say that each level 20 wizard would be able to recall from memory the schematics of roughly 30-40 nuclear plants (every spell in his book from 5th level down), as well as the underlying theories, is ludicrous. Lawyers may be familiar with law, but yet they still have hundreds of books on the subject. That's because it's unreasonable to assume someone can maintain such a large amount of information in memory.

Arcane Mastery does give you a few spells, based on your intelligence, and I think that's a pretty good way to do it.

Ah, well there's the inconsistancy. If few people in real life can be expressed in terms above level 5, then you can't use them as an example of what a level 20 wizard is capable of recalling form memory. You don't have any level 20 people to use as a model. It may in fact be possible for a 20th level nuclear engineer to be able to design from memory several different types of nuclear reactor. You don't know, because there are no 20th level nuclear engineers to test the theory. If the max RL level is 5, there is no way to even extrapolate up to the capablities of a RL level 20.

For those level 5 wizards, to use the 1/4 level model I proposed, they could cast catrips and 1st level spells, without the spellbook, providing they take an hour or so to do it. So if you're below level 4, all you can cast spontaneously is cantrips. Assuming cantrips are 1/2 level instead of 0, you can't spontaneous cast anything at level 1...

Hrm.. this needs adjusting, I think. Maybe 1/5 or 1/6 level. Ah well. It's not like it matters that much.

FirstAdam
2007-12-28, 03:13 PM
"I hammered this board into place, but now I've forgotten how to use a hammer."

Fax, this is just beautiful. Pure poetry.

SexyOchreJelly
2007-12-28, 04:15 PM
My friend is a psionic type of guy, and I must say the power point system is sexy.

Incarnum is also rather attractive... in fact, I would have to say I do actually like both these systems better. I apologise to all of you wizards...

Thrythlind
2007-12-28, 04:21 PM
Related to a point brought up in another thread, a simple vote.

Do you like Vancian Magic or would you rather have something else.

(Something else includes, but is not limited to: Vestiges, Incarnum, Invocations, Shadowcasting, Power Points/Mana Points, Truenaming)

It doesn't even have to be something that currently exists, just if you want *something*... *anything* other than Vancian, say so.

Vancian Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) -

I've heard that 4th ed is going to have a sort of mix, and I like that idea better.

I didn't start reading the Magician series until very late, so my idea of magic came more from LotR where magic was limited more on the idea of not wanting to stand out for the evil powers than on a per day basis.

I think some effects are so powerful and specific that the vancian per day should be appropriate, but just because you've expended one of your spells doesn't mean you forget how to manipulate power. Small and/or unsubtle effects such as a burst of raw power should still remain possible.