PDA

View Full Version : Pros/Cons of Vancian Spellcasting



Draemr
2008-02-18, 03:11 PM
Hi guys.

Whenever I play spellcasting characters, I usually play Sorcerers or occasionly Warlocks. I've never played a Wizard as a PC before because I thought Vancian casting was too awkward. I wanted to know what the general gaming community thought of Vancian casting as a system. It seems too easy to me to choose the wrong spells, or not enough/ too many of a spell. Also, the idea of memorising spells beforehand seems too inorganic and unbelievable. Anyway, what do you guys think?

Gaiwecoor
2008-02-18, 03:36 PM
I agree that I never really liked that flavor, but it makes more sense in the D&D context than in some others. The game that bridged me into D&D was the Wheel of Time game, where two different caster-types (Initiate and Wilder) that had almost no difference in the books were separated just like the Wizard and Sorcerer. That's when it first rubbed me wrong.

However, once you look at it in the D&D setting, although aggravating, it can make sense. The Wizard / Cleric / whatever prepared caster takes time each day to connect to their magical abilities, whatever their source.

Can choosing your spells be annoying? Might having the wrong spell prepared be your doom? Sure! That's part of the fun of playing the character. Much like a fighter that specializes in reach weapons getting caught off guard when somebody pops up adjacent to them, the wizard can be caught off guard when he doesn't have the right grease spell prepared.

Swooper
2008-02-18, 03:37 PM
Think about it this way: Do you want to choose your spells known every day, or do you want to choose them once and be stuck with them for the rest of your life? Sure, wizards are a bit more paperwork, but they pay off by being more versatile in practice (if not in theory). Also, they get new spell levels a whole level earlier. This means, that at every odd level, the wizard has access to (much) better spells than the sorcerer, who is stuck blasting lower level spells.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 03:40 PM
Personally, I like the system in concept but was less than thrilled with it's application in 3.x.

Wizards, if kept to limitied and plot specific spells by the DM, would be both an interesting class and pretty well balanced by Vancian casting. However, in practice and by the RAW, Wizards can theoretically get access to any spell and their spellbooks are hardly ever taken away. As such, they are vastly over powered at higher levels.

Clerics and Druids have access to EVERY spell of the level at which they can cast spells. They require no spell book to prepare them and therefore can never lose it. Thus, with every supplement (since WotC seems to put a few new divine spells in every suppliment) they get more powerful (as do Wizards but at least they have to pay for it). Also, for fluff reasons, particularly for Druids, I don't really see the point of it.

It could work well, but it would need a lot of practical game design (what spells exist and what they can do) and gameplay (what the DM's put into play in their gameworld) uses.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 03:45 PM
Honestly, I don't have a pro I can think of for Vancian casting. It's primarily only recognizable for its use in DnD, so it's just self-perpetuating in the regard of familiarity, and the notion of the wizard 'forgetting' his spells for that day is too odd, to me. No particular con per se, I suppose, though it does perhaps foster the idea that with proper preparation, someone should be invincible..

Gaiwecoor
2008-02-18, 04:14 PM
... and the notion of the wizard 'forgetting' his spells for that day is too odd, to me...

I heartily agree.


Ok, I twiddle my fingers thusly, let the eyelash encased in a bit of gum arabic evaporate and shout "hukka-hukka-hey!" Look! I'm invisible! Wait.. what did I just do?

Maybe it's more of the "taking time to prepare spells" that I understand... not so much with the losing spells after they're cast.

Along similar lines, does it make sense that a caster can only prepare this number of this level spell each day? If you give up a higher spell slot, shouldn't you be able to cast more than just one lower level spell? Has anybody tried the Spell Point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) variant?

holywhippet
2008-02-18, 04:16 PM
Think about it this way: Do you want to choose your spells known every day, or do you want to choose them once and be stuck with them for the rest of your life? Sure, wizards are a bit more paperwork, but they pay off by being more versatile in practice (if not in theory). Also, they get new spell levels a whole level earlier. This means, that at every odd level, the wizard has access to (much) better spells than the sorcerer, who is stuck blasting lower level spells.

I think sorcerers have the option to swap out spells at certain levels so they aren't completely stuck. The versatility of a wizard is questionable though. Maybe they have learned a spell that can help which the party sorcerer hasn't learned like levitate. If they haven't memorised it though, it's not doing them any good. If they have memorised it, they run the risk of getting killed in a fight because they didn't use the spell slot to memorise something else.

Mojo_Rat
2008-02-18, 04:22 PM
One way to look at it is to say you cant have your cake and eat it too. You have to have a drawback to having to possibly do everything. And thats the preperasion and planning issue. It forces players to think ahead with what they would like to do and choose between Combat and Utility. Sorcers Etc pay for not having to make that decsion with the limied spell selection.

The actual mechanic behind the system is perfectly sound. As far as The Thematics of it goes part of the issue is that people don't understand that the Wizard does not forget to do everything. They know every spell that they Have in their book What they are doing each morning Is casting 99% of the spell then finishing the spell later when they cast it in combat or whatever.

However I agree Its kind of weak in a world where clerics/druids automatically know every spell.

Gaiwecoor
2008-02-18, 04:27 PM
... Maybe they have learned a spell that can help which the party sorcerer hasn't learned like levitate. If they haven't memorised it though, it's not doing them any good. If they have memorised it, they run the risk of getting killed in a fight because they didn't use the spell slot to memorise something else.

In all reality, the wizard is slightly more versatile than that. Remember, the wizard does not need to prepare all spells at once. The wizard can leave some second level spell slots open, spell to be determined later. When it's realized that they need levitate, the wizard takes 15 minutes, and Bam! Levitate. Likewise, if they can foresee that the party will be going into combat, take 15 minutes and he has scorching ray. Admittedly, you can't always tell you're going into combat, so it might not be any more useful than memorizing levitate to begin with. :smallconfused:

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 04:30 PM
Admittedly, you can't always tell you're going into combat, so it might not be any more useful than memorizing levitate to begin with. :smallconfused:

But it does always leave you with the 'crud' option you didn't plan for since there is no reason for a wizard at the beginning of the day to prepare MMM, Tiny Hut or the like. They can just leave that slot open for whatever utility spell they might need that they have 15 mins notice to prepare (like fly, or wall of stone etc.)

Solo
2008-02-18, 04:35 PM
Also, the idea of memorising spells beforehand seems too inorganic and unbelievable.

So what do you think about loading bullets into guns?

mostlyharmful
2008-02-18, 04:36 PM
The problem with the vancian wizard is the paperwork. Not nessisarily that there's a lot of it but that the optimum amount of preperatory thought for the player is such a narrow band.

Too little and they're a walking liability with the DM having to construct every encounter so they don't just flatten the pathetic d4 PC. Too much prep and too much thought put into spell selection, item synergies, optimum whatever and the wizard becomes way way too powerful (as in untouchable, unfindable, unhurtable, unkillable, unstoppable, unsurprisable:smallfurious: ) and the DMs job changes from protecting them to despirately trying to challenge them without wiping the rest of the party and half the landscape.

The middle band where wizards are balenced is a tiny little area, and it only gets smaller as your players get more experianced. And the DM doesn't control how much thought the player puts into their wizard. Oh, and that "optimum and balanced" area is at least as much time as you're liable to spend playing the game in the first place:smallfrown:

Rutee
2008-02-18, 04:38 PM
So what do you think about loading bullets into guns?

I think a mechanical device is not terribly analogous to magic.

Personally, I'm not sure whether Vancian Casting entailing /forgetting/ is unbelievable, but I definitely dislike it. Strictly Vancian interpretation, anyway.. I have zero problem with the concept of being incapable of channeling something more then X times, for reasons of simply not being able to say, push yourself any harder then that.

Reinboom
2008-02-18, 04:43 PM
So what do you think about loading bullets into guns?

So what do you think about reloading the gun with more bullets immediately after you shoot it?

Solo
2008-02-18, 04:44 PM
I think a mechanical device is not terribly analogous to magic.


Let's say I'm a hand loader, which means I basically buy my own lead bullets, gunpowder, and casings, and then proceed to make my own custom bullets. This is a common practice for sports shooters, as they want to personally create every one of the bullets that they will use for greater consistency.

So, let's say I make six types of bullet, which have varying effects; maybe one has less flash than the others, or a longer range, or has a heavier bullet. Anyways, I now have six bullets.

Let's say I get a single shot rifle and proceed to go hunting.

If I have to make a long shot, I will use the type of ammunition with the longest range. If I have to shoot something that's really large, I'd use the heaviest bullet. If I was shooting at night, I'd use the ammo with the lowest flash. If I was just going to practice shooting at, say, a firing range, I'd shoo the type of bullet that was most accurate.

To me, wizards do something like that, but with magic instead of bullets.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 04:45 PM
I think a mechanical device is not terribly analogous to magic.

Personally, I'm not sure whether Vancian Casting entailing /forgetting/ is unbelievable, but I definitely dislike it. Strictly Vancian interpretation, anyway.. I have zero problem with the concept of being incapable of channeling something more then X times, for reasons of simply not being able to say, push yourself any harder then that.

Well, you can use a similar concept for Vancian casting. The mind can only contain so much magical power. A spell is something of a living entity, contained in the book, transfered to the mind, and then released in a controlled manner therefrom.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 04:48 PM
Well, you can use a similar concept for Vancian casting. The mind can only contain so much magical power. A spell is something of a living entity, contained in the book, transfered to the mind, and then released in a controlled manner therefrom.

Yeah, you can. That's why I said I dislike the /strictly/ vancian interpretation. As a system without fluff, I really couldn't care less one way or the other. Of course, by that interpretation, I also see nothing wrong with applying it to the melee, but..



Let's say I'm a hand loader, which means I basically buy my own lead bullets, gunpowder, and casings, and then proceed to make my own custom bullets. This is a common practice for sports shooters, as they want to personally create every one of the bullets that they will use for greater consistency.

So, let's say I make six types of bullet, which have varying effects; maybe one has less flash than the others, or a longer range, or has a heavier bullet. Anyways, I now have six bullets.

Let's say I get a single shot rifle and proceed to go hunting.

If I have to make a long shot, I will use the type of ammunition with the longest range. If I have to shoot something that's really large, I'd use the heaviest bullet. If I was shooting at night, I'd use the ammo with the lowest flash. If I was just going to practice shooting at, say, a firing range, I'd shoo the type of bullet that was most accurate.

To me, wizards do something like that, but with magic instead of bullets.
Except the fluff is utterly different; Ammunition doesn't come in flavors like that, within a clip. If, somehow, there were something stopping you from using more of a particular type of bullet within a clip, and the fewer of a type of bullet you could use, it would so follow that it were more powerful, then I could see equating a clip to a particular spell level. As it stands, they have one base similarity (That the amount of ammunition is limitted), but the similarities end there, for all intents and purposes.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-18, 04:49 PM
Well, you can use a similar concept for Vancian casting. The mind can only contain so much magical power. A spell is something of a living entity, contained in the book, transfered to the mind, and then released in a controlled manner therefrom.

I always liked that one, very discworldesque. Esspecially when the wizard dying realises the magic without the control, making a wizard a real liability in a fight, gank the wizard BBEG and roll this random effects table sort of thing.

PC1 "Die evil mage! " .... Squish
DM "Ok..... the wall's turned to custard, the rogue's grown two inches and the Barbs axe has turned a very manly shade of pink."
PC2 "Was it a load bearing wall?"
Dm "You hear an ominous creaking from above"
PC3 nice one Dave,

Solo
2008-02-18, 04:50 PM
So what do you think about reloading the gun with more bullets immediately after you shoot it?

Reloading a gun takes time. Say, about 8 hours or so.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 04:52 PM
Yeah, you can. That's why I said I dislike the /strictly/ vancian interpretation. As a system without fluff, I really couldn't care less one way or the other. Of course, by that interpretation, I also see nothing wrong with applying it to the melee, but..

Fair enough. It's kind of hard for me to parse out what, exactly, the strictly Vancian interpretation is. I'm about 1/2 through the Dying Earth books now (started reading them earlier this week for the first time) and just what the nature of magic and spell casting is seems to be a bit unclear. But that is a topic for another thread/forum.

Gaiwecoor
2008-02-18, 04:55 PM
Personally, I'm not sure whether Vancian Casting entailing /forgetting/ is unbelievable, but I definitely dislike it.

Would it be too unbalancing to let the Wizard cast spells like the Spirit Shaman (Complete Divine). For those that don't know: The Spirit Shaman uses the Druid spell list, and can "retrieve" X spells per day, with spontaneous casting. This effectively makes them caster whose known spells shift from day to day. Of course, rather than let them pick from the entire class list (like the spirit shaman does), just have them pick from their spellbook.

As I talk about this more, I like it less. By this point, the Wizard and Sorcerer have very little distinction. I suppose the only thing left separating them would be that the Sorcerer can cast more spells/day than a wizard at a lower level... with more rigidity on which spells they can cast. Never mind. :smallredface:

mostlyharmful
2008-02-18, 05:12 PM
Would it be too unbalancing to let the Wizard cast spells like the Spirit Shaman (Complete Divine). For those that don't know: The Spirit Shaman uses the Druid spell list, and can "retrieve" X spells per day, with spontaneous casting. This effectively makes them caster whose known spells shift from day to day. Of course, rather than let them pick from the entire class list (like the spirit shaman does), just have them pick from their spellbook.

As I talk about this more, I like it less. By this point, the Wizard and Sorcerer have very little distinction. I suppose the only thing left separating them would be that the Sorcerer can cast more spells/day than a wizard at a lower level... with more rigidity on which spells they can cast. Never mind. :smallredface:

I once homebrewed up a system that worked something like that, amalgamated wizards and sorcs into Mage. They cast at the rate of sorcs from Int, they had a pool of spells known that they could learn from books, other mages, magical creatures and one free per level. "learning" a spell cost time, money and xp so there was a tradeoff between versatility and advancement. It worked well at lower levels and was about the same at mid levels, never tried it at high levels but I'm sure it would have been pretty much as broken as the standerd. Still it seemed to give a better spread of power over the course of a PCs life than stock core vancian.

lurker2209
2008-02-18, 09:34 PM
The one disadvantage I ran into was as a new D&D player; I had no idea which spells to choose each day. My clever DM had a way around this; he house-ruled that castors who had to slot spells could leave open a few freebie slots at each spell level and cast those spontaneously from spellbooks or the Druid/Cleric lists. Of course it was pretty broken, but we had no clue what we were doing, so it really helped reduce the learning curve. In each encounter, I could experiment with different spells and learn which ones worked best for each situation. When we finished that campaign and started the next, we played it by the book, but by then I knew what I was doing and how to slot a good mix of spells for different situations. I think if we had played according to the rules from the onset, it would have been a lot more frustrating to learn.

DementedFellow
2008-02-18, 10:12 PM
Reloading a gun takes time. Say, about 8 hours or so.

That's some muzzle loader.:smalleek:

bibliophile
2008-02-18, 10:51 PM
Fair enough. It's kind of hard for me to parse out what, exactly, the strictly Vancian interpretation is. I'm about 1/2 through the Dying Earth books now (started reading them earlier this week for the first time) and just what the nature of magic and spell casting is seems to be a bit unclear. But that is a topic for another thread/forum.


Thats part of why Vance's books are so cool. You don't really understand what magic is; there are hints that its some kind of space warp, but weather its magic or technology sufficiently advanced, is left open. The Dying Earth is neither sci-fi nor fantasy, but a mix of both.




Although no-one has mentioned it so far, the big pro of vancian spell casting is that its really easy to implement, and keep balanced in an RPG

Starbuck_II
2008-02-18, 10:57 PM
Would it be too unbalancing to let the Wizard cast spells like the Spirit Shaman (Complete Divine). For those that don't know: The Spirit Shaman uses the Druid spell list, and can "retrieve" X spells per day, with spontaneous casting. This effectively makes them caster whose known spells shift from day to day. Of course, rather than let them pick from the entire class list (like the spirit shaman does), just have them pick from their spellbook.

As I talk about this more, I like it less. By this point, the Wizard and Sorcerer have very little distinction. I suppose the only thing left separating them would be that the Sorcerer can cast more spells/day than a wizard at a lower level... with more rigidity on which spells they can cast. Never mind. :smallredface:

WoW the Campaign (D&D) book uses the Arcanist. Spirit Shaman has similar mechanics escept Arcanist can gain extra known/day by having 5 ranks in spellcraft.

They become a dual Sorceror/Wizard class: it was really neat last time I played it. Granted, all Arcanist had to specialize so that was a drawback.




Although no-one has mentioned it so far, the big pro of vancian spell casting is that its really easy to implement, and keep balanced in an RPG

You are being serious?! Um, no, magic in D&D is not balanced.

Fishy
2008-02-18, 11:21 PM
Although no-one has mentioned it so far, the big pro of vancian spell casting is that its really easy to implement, and keep balanced in an RPG

No it isn't.

Vancian casting is inherently imbalanced design. Casters get to do their thing N times a day, whereas fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlocks/binders can go as much as they'd like, HP permitting. In order to 'balance' those two radically different mechanics, the game designer has to make the caster more powerful than the other classes when he's casting, and less powerful otherwise- but not too much more and not too much less, or no one is happy.

It also makes more work for the DM. The DM has to balance out the number of encounters per day, or the wizard will either Nova and destroy everything, or be stuck plinking at things with his crossbow. This is on top of the 'learning from scrolls' mechanic, which the DM directly controls, and essentially determines who the wizard is as a character.

Material spell components are a joke. Literally, a joke. Fireballs from bat guano and sulphur? Please.

The 'Schools of Magic' are haphazardly organized. Damage dealing spells are all in Evocation, except for the acid spells, which are conjuration. That's because they create an object, not channel energy- except channeling positive energy, which is also conjuration. And channeling energy from the Shadow Plane to create an object, which is obviously Illusion.

Furthermore, the flavor of casting in D&D is just terrible. Vancian casting is great if you're carving runes into rocks each morning, or hunting for beetles and crushing them in your bare hands to enslave their spirits, or waking up early each morning to turn the hand-crank on your Aetheric Waveform Resonance Magnification Engine- but no, D&D Wizards do their thing by thinking really hard.

Okay, I'll stop now.

theMycon
2008-02-18, 11:33 PM
Ammunition doesn't come in flavors like that, within a clip. If, somehow, there were something stopping you from using more of a particular type of bullet within a clip, and the fewer of a type of bullet you could use, it would so follow that it were more powerful, then I could see equating a clip to a particular spell level.

While changing a barrel is far from trivial, it is a fairly standard process. Upping from a .22 to .3006 would be like going from a level 1 spell to level 4. My stepdad (not a professional, but certainly experienced at it) could do it in about ten to fifteen minutes in a field, less in his workshop. Granted, this is more like "every time we're changing spell levels, take five", but it brings the metaphor a bit closer.

Solo
2008-02-19, 12:40 AM
Ammunition doesn't come in flavors like that, within a clip. If, somehow, there were something stopping you from using more of a particular type of bullet within a clip, and the fewer of a type of bullet you could use, it would so follow that it were more powerful, then I could see equating a clip to a particular spell level. As it stands, they have one base similarity (That the amount of ammunition is limitted), but the similarities end there, for all intents and purposes.

Never claimed it was perfect, just an analogy.


Although we could say we're using a Robinson Arms XCR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Arms_XCR) modular assault rifle with kits to adapt the rifle to take ammunition from varying calibers.

And this wizard runs around with his rifle, changing magazines and barrels as needed, while taking 8 hours to reload his magazines.

See what happens when you take a metaphor too far?

Don't do it.

Baron Malkar
2008-02-19, 01:30 AM
Just go with ultimite magus and be done wit it.:smallbiggrin:

Ganurath
2008-02-19, 01:35 AM
The fluff of Vancian magic gives me a headache. It sets off the same alarms as those movie that my mom's coworker insists is a good movie, but winds up being disturbing in a way even I dislike.

Solo
2008-02-19, 01:42 AM
The fluff of Vancian magic gives me a headache. It sets off the same alarms as those movie that my mom's coworker insists is a good movie, but winds up being disturbing in a way even I dislike.

Wow, I'm sorry Vancian casting gave you mental trauma.

As I have studied psychology, I will be willing to offer you free therapy sessions to help you get over it.

Kompera
2008-02-19, 01:46 AM
The con of using Vancian magic in D&D is that D&D very poorly implements Vancian magic.

It's been a very long time since I read any Vance, but as I recall the spells cast were all fairly mighty, and not cast at a whim some arbitrary number of times per day. There was no analogy to a (for example) 5th level Wizard with 5/4/3/2 spells per day (assuming an 18 INT).

Another con is the fact that the caster needs to weigh carefully their use of their spells. This has been ameliorated a bit with the inflation of spells per day as the D&D versions have marched on, but it still exists. Hold your spells waiting for a tough encounter which doesn't come this play session and the caster is bored. Nova through an encounter or two and have no additional encounters per day and the non-casters are bored. Finding the middle ground can be very challenging for both players and GM.

And finally, the inflation of the number of spells available at each spell level as the D&D version has advanced has added it's own drawback. The player who recognizes the most potent spells amongst the 50 or so spells of each spell level (or has them pointed out to him by the members of a fan site) will play much more effectively than the player who does not.

Pros? For those who have been playing for a while, it's a familiar system.

Ganurath
2008-02-19, 01:54 AM
Wow, I'm sorry Vancian casting gave you mental trauma.

As I have studied psychology, I will be willing to offer you free therapy sessions to help you get over it.The headache isn't a trauma, it's a warning. It took three successful hits before my parents stopped taking me to movies that sent bad signals. Unless relatives want to go. I warned them about Dan in Real Life! I told them it wasn't a family comedy! They didn't listen, and the only ones who weren't disappointed by the end were my mom and aunt! 22% satisfaction is not worth the money, even with popcorn!

...And that sort of wandering frustration is how I feel about Vancian magic.

Solo
2008-02-19, 01:59 AM
Tell me about your father... what kind of man was he?

Ganurath
2008-02-19, 02:02 AM
Cuthbertesque, deluded, and ridiculously off-topic.

So, anybody know just why it is you need to relearn how to cast a spell every day, and you can do so be reading a book really hard? Anyone know how that makes sense?

Farmer42
2008-02-19, 02:06 AM
This is in line with power word kill using up 9 pages in your spell book, 450 GP worth of ink, and taking an entire day to write. It's like that because that's the way it is. It's the misguided concept of there being inherent power because it is magic, and higher level magic at that.

Fizban
2008-02-19, 02:12 AM
There was another "how magic works" kinda thread like this a while ago. I'm not sure who (The Vorpal Tribble?), but someone suggested this:

The spellbook is kind of like a magic circutboard. When you prepare spells, you run magic through the board for the spell you want, and then pick up the finished spell ready to cast, and carry it in your mind until you unleash it. Sorcerers of course have a few circuits built in, and so just do it all at once. It was longer and better sounding but you get the idea. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the idea of "forgetting" the spell until you re-memorize it.

Kompera
2008-02-19, 02:16 AM
So, anybody know just why it is you need to relearn how to cast a spell every day, and you can do so be reading a book really hard? Anyone know how that makes sense?It's not a book, it's a spell book. You're studying the magical passages, etching the metalogic pathways in your mind which will allow you to channel the energy of the spell. Once the energy is released, the pathways in your mind are wiped clean with its passage.

Or something like that.

Really, why worry so much about the fluff? A fantasy role playing game requires a certain amount of ability to suspend disbelief. If you can't wrap you head around the fluff about how one particular type of magic amongst the several within the system operates, how can you possibly enjoy a game with Dragons, Orcs, Spiked Chains, and the like?

Khanderas
2008-02-19, 02:17 AM
So what do you think about loading bullets into guns?
Great minds think alike :)

Why does a Wizard forget a spell once cast ? Why does reading a book in the morning reapply it ?
I think that the actual casting is done when preparing, but they leave the last part out so the spell isn't finished until the Wizard points at something and says the final words. It is not so much he forgets the spell, it is more that the spell remains in memory (incantations, handmovements and so on) but it has no power. This also explains why a power word takes up more then one word in the book. There are much more to the spell then one word, but the FINAL word in that spell, is only that word.

That is not 100% proof this explanation, because then it would take longer to refresh spells if you had spent many the day before but it doesn't (anymore, I think once you did, but it was shortened down to keep the game flow alittle easier).


As for keeping track, some mentioned it sucks to do the wizard paperwork, one idea is to print a few cards with "fireball" on it or something (with Fireball printed on it, the damage, and spell level. Perhaps a nice picture if you got the time and inclination). When you pick up metamagic feats, make a few smaller notes that say "Quickened (+4)".

That way you can slap down a fireball card when you cast it, perhaps with a Quickened (+4) paperclipped to it.

Never tried it, to lazy, but its one idea.

Ganurath
2008-02-19, 02:25 AM
Really, why worry so much about the fluff? A fantasy role playing game requires a certain amount of ability to suspend disbelief. If you can't wrap you head around the fluff about how one particular type of magic amongst the several within the system operates, how can you possibly enjoy a game with Dragons, Orcs, Spiked Chains, and the like?There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and negligent worldbuilding. Everything about Vancian magic tastes bad, especially next to things that make more sense, like invocations and bard magic.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 02:25 AM
It's not a book, it's a spell book. You're studying the magical passages, etching the metalogic pathways in your mind which will allow you to channel the energy of the spell. Once the energy is released, the pathways in your mind are wiped clean with its passage.

Or something like that.

Really, why worry so much about the fluff? A fantasy role playing game requires a certain amount of ability to suspend disbelief. If you can't wrap you head around the fluff about how one particular type of magic amongst the several within the system operates, how can you possibly enjoy a game with Dragons, Orcs, Spiked Chains, and the like?

Doesn't matter on the whys. If that particular aspect does in fact make it difficult/impossible to suspend disbelief, it prolly ought be alterred for your games.

Me, I just don't /like/ Vancian casting. But that's just me.

Solo
2008-02-19, 02:34 AM
Great minds think alike :)


Great minds like guns.



So, anybody know just why it is you need to relearn how to cast a spell every day, and you can do so be reading a book really hard? Anyone know how that makes sense?

Well, IMHO, a mortal mind cannot manipulate the power needed to defy the laws of physics at whim by itself. The few exceptions to this rule usually have something going for them: Sorcerers have natural talent that allows them to manipulate reality naturally (like how some people are natural musicians), while Druids and Clerics gain power from whatever they worship.

Bards... I'm not sure, but supposedly it's from the power of music, which in some campaign settings is what created the world, so they're tapping into some primeval well of power or something.

Anyways, for those ungifted mortals who wish to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, and do not feel like strumming a lute in order to do so, they study magic.

Every day, they invoke a magical ritual in which they craft a spell out of the ambient magical energies, or what have you, and store it in their mind, leaving only the trigger word unsaid, so that the spell may be released at a later date.

The method of shaping a spell like this is extremely complicated; it is comparable to solving calculus equations, except it makes calculus look like multivariable algebra by comparison.

Anyways, it's hard, and you need your notes to do it (I've taken three years of calculus and still can't solve certain really complicated equations off the top of my head; I need to consult a chart in order to do so).

For those who choose to actually memorize some spells enough to cast them without having to resort to notes, there's the Spell Mastery feat.

Not perfect, but it's 2:45 AM here, and I'm pretty much done for the day. If you can improve upon it, feel free to.

It makes more sense than the scenario you're envisioning, at least, and has pretty much the same mechanical effect, no?

Khanderas
2008-02-19, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by Khanderas
Great minds think alike :)Great minds like guns.

I would like to retract my previous statement, your Honor :smallwink:

Attilargh
2008-02-19, 03:00 AM
Well, dang it all to heck. You just had to ruin Vancian magic, didn't you? Now it all makes sense! :smallannoyed:


Vancian magic kinda works and can be made to make a kind of sense, but neither is really achieved by the D&D books.

Solo
2008-02-19, 03:01 AM
I would like to retract my previous statement, your Honor :smallwink:

Bah, commie prevert.

Maxymiuk
2008-02-19, 03:48 AM
For me, the biggest con of the Vancian system is its incredibly rigid structure. A given spell does X and that's it. Well, sometimes there's also Y if Z is fulfilled, but that's about as far as you go. You want to do something similar but nevertheless different, you need a different spell, quite likely of a different level.

Example of what I mean: Scorching Hands, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Wall of Fire. Four spells which are essentially "cause fire damage to something/someone" but each one with a distinct effect, shape, and number of damage dice, each one needing a separate spell slot. Most other systems I played would've handled the matter with a modular design: you start with the basic "cause fire damage to something/someone" and then spend additional energy/mana/what have you to tack on conditions such as extra damage, extra range, etc. So in essence you're using a single spell whether you want to light a candle or set a house on fire. Much tidier, really.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-19, 04:46 AM
As for keeping track, some mentioned it sucks to do the wizard paperwork, one idea is to print a few cards with "fireball" on it or something (with Fireball printed on it, the damage, and spell level. Perhaps a nice picture if you got the time and inclination). When you pick up metamagic feats, make a few smaller notes that say "Quickened (+4)".

That way you can slap down a fireball card when you cast it, perhaps with a Quickened (+4) paperclipped to it.

Never tried it, to lazy, but its one idea.

That one was me, the point wasn't that it is a whole lot of work (which it is but meh, somepeople just like that kind of thing). The problem was that the power and versatility and durability of a wizard is directly proportional to the amount of effort and thought the player puts in, something which a DM can only watch and hope.

That those players that don't think about their choices end up with lots of fireballs, even quickening some of them, or most any evocation leaves them weaker than the average party member. However if they can be bothered to sort through the internet CharOp forums and sites like this, sit down with the list of available spells and items for several hours and think about contingencies and every damn possible encounter and develop paranoia to the Nth degree their PC becomes not just strong but game wreakingly overpowered.

The balence point between too little thought and too much being tiny, uncontrolled by the DM, ever smaller as the player gets more experiance and completely dependant on the DM running a generally predictable playstyle/number of encounters per day to be either uber or a lemon standing at the back.

Kompera
2008-02-19, 05:01 AM
Doesn't matter on the whys. If that particular aspect does in fact make it difficult/impossible to suspend disbelief, it prolly ought be alterred for your games.
The 'whys' matter a great deal. It's a game of imagination, and you're going to let one little paragraph of descriptive fluff ruin your enjoyment? I find that to be a failure of the imagination. Instead, exercise your imagination and come up with your own explanation for why it works. Then just pretend (imagination, again) that the offending description doesn't exist, or is a flawed theory held by all the Wizards of the world, but that your character(s) know the truth of the matter.

In other words: If you don't like it, make it fun. Don't let it ruin your fun.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 05:27 AM
Vancian spellcasting is great in the Dying Earth RPG.

Of course that's an *actual* Jack Vance RPG, and most of the spells are from the original source material.

It strikes me, actually, that quite a nice way to balance Wizards could be to use *genuinely* Vancian magic, rather than the faux-vancian style they have at the moment, and limit them to one copy of each spell.

Quorothorn
2008-02-19, 06:02 AM
Bards... I'm not sure, but supposedly it's from the power of music, which in some campaign settings is what created the world, so they're tapping into some primeval well of power or something.

Dude, it's not "some" campaign settings: it's THE campaign setting. As in, Lord of the Rings.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 06:07 AM
The 'whys' matter a great deal. It's a game of imagination, and you're going to let one little paragraph of descriptive fluff ruin your enjoyment? I find that to be a failure of the imagination. Instead, exercise your imagination and come up with your own explanation for why it works. Then just pretend (imagination, again) that the offending description doesn't exist, or is a flawed theory held by all the Wizards of the world, but that your character(s) know the truth of the matter.

In other words: If you don't like it, make it fun. Don't let it ruin your fun.

Sounds like a great idea, and exactly what I said earlier in the thread. Glad we're on the same page.

KIDS
2008-02-19, 06:34 AM
I really dislike the concept of carefully preparing dweomers in your mind which disappear upon being cast. It's not believable even in a fantasy world and while in basic sense it can function and can be used for some ok stories, I don't like it.

We don't even need to mention the (unrelated) spell components as running gags, silly focus or component descriptions or etc. This is why I prefer Psionics - they are in all respects more magical, while also being easier to balance and track.

Second dislike about Vancian Spellcasting is bookkeeping. Oh come on! At level 1 it is ok, but a lvl 10 wizard and his spellbook are an incredible pain to track and process. Way unnecessary.

Third, many many times in the rulebook(s), they explicitly try to remind you that you are playing with the vaunted Vancian casting via components and rest times, putting a dent in any other way you are trying to describe your casting with.

Fourth, prepared casting as in right now (Wiz/Clr...) is horrible in regards to game balance. It leads to narcoleptic casters, nova spell combos and kills even basic resource management which it is supposed to add. Maybe no one has found a better solution so far (or has - look at ToB!), but this aspect is really not working and is source of half the balance issues alone.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 08:19 AM
The 'whys' matter a great deal. It's a game of imagination, and you're going to let one little paragraph of descriptive fluff ruin your enjoyment? I find that to be a failure of the imagination. Instead, exercise your imagination and come up with your own explanation for why it works. Then just pretend (imagination, again) that the offending description doesn't exist, or is a flawed theory held by all the Wizards of the world, but that your character(s) know the truth of the matter.

In other words: If you don't like it, make it fun. Don't let it ruin your fun.

Sorry, pet peeve alert:

Not wanting to waste time or energy justifying somebody else's stupid ideas isn't a failure of imagination. If I can "imagine" one implausible reason why something *might* work and five better reasons why it *shouldn't* it's not my imagination that's at fault, it's the original concept.

Telonius
2008-02-19, 09:42 AM
Pro: In theory, it's supposed to limit the power of casters. The Wizard can't go around doing reality-altering things all day, nuking everything with fireballs at will, or having seventeen persistent buffs on all the time.

Cons:
1. In pracitce, it's not that much of a limit on caster power. A high-level wizard is Batman, even just using core.
2. The fluff is terrible.
3. It creates an "all-or-nothing" mindset that makes Wizards paranoid about getting the most out of their spells - because without them, they're just a Commoner with a big floppy hat.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 09:46 AM
Tell your players not to nova?

I'm sorry, is that too simple a solution?


Too simple, no. It's a non-solution.

If you're going to assume that everybody playing the game is able to reach a sensible consensus about how stuff should work, you *actually* don't need rules.

Having a situation where casters can trivially solve any problem by magic, but don't out of pure goodwill isn't a good thing. It just leaves the game feeling hollow, and leaves the caster thinking "well I could solve this easily with three spells".

Solo
2008-02-19, 10:07 AM
If you're going to assume that everybody playing the game is able to reach a sensible consensus about how stuff should work, you *actually* don't need rules.

My great shortcoming in life is that I generally assume other people to be reasonable and in possession of common sense.



Having a situation where casters can trivially solve any problem by magic, but don't out of pure goodwill isn't a good thing. It just leaves the game feeling hollow, and leaves the caster thinking "well I could solve this easily with three spells".
Edit: Deleted. Not in the mood, but will enjoy others tearing your arguments down like Germans did to the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Armar
2008-02-19, 10:12 AM
As there seems to be some misconceptions and uncertainty about the reason why wizard just "forgets" the spell that they cast, I shall post you this from Complete Mage. Hopefully it will help you understand how the official fluff handles the Vancian system for wizards.



A Wizard Describes Preparing a Spell

Have you ever seen a scribe readying a page to copy a piece of text? The scribe scrapes the sheet clean, then carefully traces out perfectly straight lines to contain the text and set it in order. Finally, the scribe sharpens a quill and carefully forms each letter in the text, stringing the characters together to form words, paragraphs, and finally the whole page.

Preparing a spell is like that.

I have my spellbooks, the original manuscript. I begin the progress by resting my mind and body, erasing the detritus from the previous day. Sleep wipes my mental parchment clean. When I awakem a focus for a while. I cast off the fetails left over from my dreams and set my thoughts in order, just like a scribe setting the rules and margins on a page. When I finish, I have built a mental structure for my spells. This is the essence of magic. As I have continued to hone my magical art, I find I can create more and more mental pages to contain my spells.

When I have created as many blank pages as my mind can hold, I turn to my spellbook and copy the spells I need. I don't use pen and ink, of course, I carefully review the arcane formulae recorded in the book and fill the empty structures in my mind with magical power. There's no feeling quite like finishing preparation for a spell. Thoughts swirl like autumn leaves through my mind. By sheer force of training and will, I force those mental leaves into motes of arcane power. The motes collect on the framework like beads of dew on a spider's web. The final result is a thing of stunning and sublime beauty. With every breath I take, I can feel the structure thrum with power.



This gives a good reason why the wizard can't just re-memorize a spell after he has used it, he doesn't have the "mental page" to scribe it in to. And those pages can only be prepared after a good rest, so that limits the capability to cast spells. And personally, I like the idea.

KIDS
2008-02-19, 10:38 AM
That description is good.
But the problem is that for anyone, absolutely anyone, who doesn't agree with that description or has a better idea, the system will keep abruptly reminding him of why his way is not "right", by tossing focuses, components, scribing materials and rest times and all that in his path every several seconds.
It's not that the prepared spells suck (for me they mostly do but I understand that some people like them), it's that whomever wrote them had the nerve to force the entire system onto everyone playing the game. That the warlocks, binders and such have somewhat broken that system is a good thing!

horseboy
2008-02-19, 03:25 PM
The 'whys' matter a great deal. It's a game of imagination, and you're going to let one little paragraph of descriptive fluff ruin your enjoyment? I find that to be a failure of the imagination. Instead, exercise your imagination and come up with your own explanation for why it works. Then just pretend (imagination, again) that the offending description doesn't exist, or is a flawed theory held by all the Wizards of the world, but that your character(s) know the truth of the matter.

In other words: If you don't like it, make it fun. Don't let it ruin your fun.
No matter how she may be dressed up, I'm just not going to enjoy being repeatedly kicked in the nuts. It's not about imagination, but sadomasochism and I just don't swing that way.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 04:50 PM
My great shortcoming in life is that I generally assume other people to be reasonable and in possession of common sense.

Nnno, I'm sorry, that's not a valid counter. Just because those few times I play DnD, I do so with people who deliberately set out not to embarrass each other doesn't change the fact that they have the capability to do so very easily. I imagine they feel the same way about deliberately holding back as I do.

Solo
2008-02-19, 06:01 PM
Nnno, I'm sorry, that's not a valid counter. Just because those few times I play DnD, I do so with people who deliberately set out not to embarrass each other doesn't change the fact that they have the capability to do so very easily. I imagine they feel the same way about deliberately holding back as I do.

What is holding back anyways, playing anything less than Pun-Pun?

Let's face it, you can break any class, so unless you powergame and munchkin to hell and back, you're going to be holding back.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 06:29 PM
Not casting Core spells because they're ridiculous. Deliberately restricting a Cleric's spells to primarily healing because most of the best spells are Personal: Buffs who's power level is over 9000, for instance. For someone who argues for caster brokenness due to the /ease/ by which it's broken, I'm amazed you're even asking me how one can deliberately hold back. A druid /existing/ is broken. Natural Spell is a completely natural choice that also happens to be stupid powerful. Etc, etc.

Solo
2008-02-19, 07:44 PM
For someone who argues for caster brokenness due to the /ease/ by which it's broken, I'm amazed you're even asking me how one can deliberately hold back.

I live to amaze people. I'm surprised you don't know that by now.

But back to the point, if casters underplaying themselves makes the game hollow, we can therefore conclude that casters playing to the fullest of their abilities must be the correct way to play and enrich the DnD experience.

Does this mean we must all play Pun-Pun to have fun at DnD?

AslanCross
2008-02-19, 08:37 PM
I actually like Vancian spellcasting. When I first learned about it when playing Baldur's Gate II, my only prior experience with RPGs was with mana-based systems. I enjoyed it and found it to be unique and challenging.

I see it this way: Ever had a song stuck inside your head? I often find that the only way to get rid of a song stuck in your head is either pass it on to other people by singing, or to replace it with another song. (There are a couple of songs currently stuck in my head right now. Tragically, they are Rick Astley songs. I don't know why.) Similarly, I'd think that's the feeling Wizards get after their daily hour of spell preparation. There's a whole lot of patterns and symbols floating around in their heads, and the hour it takes to prepare involves organizing the thought structures so that the "playlist" in one's head isn't on shuffle (and randomness is not very reliable for a prepared spellcaster). When one casts a spell, one releases that shaped energy, and you "forget" it---not a matter of amnesia, as people take it to be, but it simply means that unless you prepared your brain to release the spell more than once, your neurons are no longer conditioned to release the arcane energy.

To be honest, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Game balance issues come more from the badly-worded spell descriptions than the casting system itself and the inconsistencies between prepared spellcasters (why do clerics know ALL their spells, for example, while wizards have to pay for them?).

Rutee
2008-02-19, 08:54 PM
I live to amaze people. I'm surprised you don't know that by now.

But back to the point, if casters underplaying themselves makes the game hollow, we can therefore conclude that casters playing to the fullest of their abilities must be the correct way to play and enrich the DnD experience.

Does this mean we must all play Pun-Pun to have fun at DnD?

You misunderstand my argument, it seems. The problem with DnD casters is that if you play one normally, just taking spells that even seem good, you will dominate. Pun-Pun is not playing normally. You must /nerf/ yourself to be on par with the others, unless they heavily optimize. *That* is the problem. Not that you're playing beneath 100% optimization, but that you must deliberately weaken yourself.

And no, I don't mean "Anything beneath 100% is weakening yourself". It's sorta like Optimized > Normal > Nerfed.

Solo
2008-02-19, 09:12 PM
You misunderstand my argument, it seems.

I try my best, sir.


The problem with DnD casters is that if you play one normally, just taking spells that even seem good, you will dominate.

Well, how do we define "normally" or "good"? Some people like tossing around fireballs, others prefer to lockdown their opponents with crippling spells.

I think the word you're looking for is optimal.


You must /nerf/ yourself to be on par with the others, unless they heavily optimize.

I believe you original complaint was about casters going nova and dominating an encounter, then becoming narcoleptic for the rest of the day.

In real life, if a wizard spans and then says "lol, plz rest now" the party will likely vote to move on and not cater to his whims. This will make him useless and teach him a lesson about resource management.

Alternatively, the player could just not nova and appropriate magic as needed for the situation, which would lead to better resource management.

Resource management, in my opinion, is not nerfing yourself because you may very well need to keep some spells around for later.

Vyker
2008-02-19, 09:32 PM
My biggest problem with Vancian Spellcasting is that there's no reason to not be a caster. I mean, okay, there's some nebulous "PC gene" which makes some folks dashing heroes and others content to grub around in the dirt when a simple "conjure food/water" (or varient) will do. Why be a commoner when even a level suck caster class can handle these things?

Now, I'm not looking for in-character reasons. Those will always exist. Farmer Bob hates wizards and has no truck with 'em! Or, at the larger level, in-world reasons. Those are specific to your campaign, and not directly related to Vancian magic. I'm looking, instead, for reasons within the system, not around it or as a result of it.

For example: In Warhammer, not everyone wants to be a mage because they tend to get burned at the stake and because the use of magic has the unfortunate and innate tendency to cause spontaneous daemonic possession, growth of extra limbs, and eternal damnation.

The first (burned at the stake) is an in-character reason. Farmer Bob likes those witch-burnings, but prefers to think of them as spectator sports.

The second (nasty things) is a direct, innate result of the way magic works. You cannot seperate the two -- even the most powerful spellcasters must work around such things and take the proper precautions.

So far as I can see, the only reason everyone cannot (as opposed to does not) become a caster in Vancian magic is something along the lines of the DM going, "Well, umm... they just can't!"

To me, that's a pretty big blow. I'm pretty cool with coming up with my own stuff, reasons for why this works and that doesn't, but I lose a lot of respect for a system whereby one of the most fundamental aspects of the game undermines the verisimilitude of the world. Like Dan Hemmens said on the subject:


Not wanting to waste time or energy justifying somebody else's stupid ideas isn't a failure of imagination. If I can "imagine" one implausible reason why something *might* work and five better reasons why it *shouldn't* it's not my imagination that's at fault, it's the original concept.

Toss in that non-caster classes have to optimize heavily just to play catch-up to a decently played (not even well-played) caster, and it's out the door for me.

That said, it's a really cool concept. And with a little bit of work, you can take it to some fun places. Armar's exert from Complete Mage shows that -- even if I disagree with the system, that's a pretty sweet description of it. Very evocative. It's just a shame that it doesn't come through as well as a tabletop mechanic.

Solo
2008-02-19, 09:42 PM
Why be a commoner when even a level suck caster class can handle these things?

In character reason? Cause magic school is expensive and damn hard, and not everyone is bright or dedicated enough to master magic?

That's like asking why, if lawyers and dentists makes so much money, and CEOs and politicians have so much power, why anyone bothers to major in English instead of law, medicine, politics, government studies, or business.


Not that English majors necessarily have it easier or anything.


My biggest problem with Vancian Spellcasting is that there's no reason to not be a caster.

Cause the person too stupid to be one? Not everyone has the mental equipment to do it.

Heck, if we're going by real life, most of the people you will meet in the world are dumb, poor, illiterate, and uneducated. Good luck making a college graduate out of them, let alone taking their fantasy counterparts (dirt farmers, with maxed out ranks in Profession: Dirt Farming) into mages.

Vyker
2008-02-19, 10:03 PM
In character reason?

Did you miss the whole "I'm not looking for in-character reasons, I'm looking for in-system reasons" vibe? Please tell me you did. Because, and I want this clear, I'm not. I don't care about in-character reasons. There will always be the Farmer Bobs of the world who won't be mages because . But that's [i]fundamentally different from why the system of Vancian casting will keep Farmer Bob down. Farmer Bob isn't being held down by the System -- the System was just minding its own business and Farmer Bob made anything of himself.

The one good point you raise was the necessary "Relevant Stat 11+" prerequisite to casting spells. Okay. I'll give you that. So, as a revision, what in-system reason prevents anyone possessing "Relevant Stat 11+" from becoming a Vancian Caster of some variety?

Actually, as a mental exercise, what would a D&D world where that happened look like? I figure most everyone would have some 11 to toss into their statline somewhere. And between Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Bards (from Core alone, no less!) that's all three casting stats represented which require no in-system reason as to why they can cast -- ANYONE with an 11 can become a (poor) member of that class. Anybody. Period.

So what's the in-system reason?

Dervag
2008-02-19, 11:29 PM
Maybe the Vancian system isn't keeping them down. Maybe it is just a matter of backstory (backstory that constrains the overwhelming majority of NPCs in the world). Maybe, if the D&D world in question ever became fully 'developed', with a technomagical economy that provided a free education for everyone, something like 7/8s of the population would learn some kind of spellcasting. It would be an age of unimaginable wonders.

But that can't happen yet, because the world is still a poverty-riddled fourth world hellhole thanks to all the monsters and demons tramping around. Gives your characters something to fight for, no?

Or maybe there's a quality like "focus" that doesn't directly effect your combat stats but does affect your ability to apply Vancian magic. Some people have it, some don't. Those who can't focus well enough can't do it because they can't control the spells bouncing around their heads (and I really like that song metaphor from a few posts ago). Those who can focus can cast, even if they're not actually smarter or wiser than those who can't.

Solo
2008-02-19, 11:36 PM
So what's the in-system reason?

Good question. I don't think there's an in system reason. (I'm sure someone will show up to tell me how I'm wrong.)

Granted it doesn't make sense for a farmer who grew up in the middle of nowhere to kill a wolf and suddenly learn how to be a wizard - with his spellbook popping out of thin air, with all his cantrips and first level spells already there-, but mechanically that's how it works.

No rules are perfect, after all. If the rules of DnD were tied in too closely with the fluff, you'd get problems, like impairing customization.

Dervag
2008-02-20, 12:17 AM
Good question. I don't think there's an in system reason. (I'm sure someone will show up to tell me how I'm wrong.)

Granted it doesn't make sense for a farmer who grew up in the middle of nowhere to kill a wolf and suddenly learn how to be a wizard - with his spellbook popping out of thin air, with all his cantrips and first level spells already there-, but mechanically that's how it works.

No rules are perfect, after all. If the rules of DnD were tied in too closely with the fluff, you'd get problems, like impairing customization.Remember, the rules don't cover training someone to gain first level in a class, but that doesn't mean there is no training.

Obviously, that can cause problems in fast-paced games where there's no time for a fighter 3/wizard 1 to have learned wizardry and nobody thought to put any early wizard training in his backstory. But the alternative is absurd. Classes that clearly rely on mental discipline cannot be obtained overnight for free. One must have the mental discipline first. And not everyone will.

So I'd argue that the idea that "any NPC with Int 11 could become a wizard if he wanted to" is like "drowning can stop you from bleeding to death." It's not so much a strict interpretation of the rules as it is carefully engineered misread of the rules, on the assumption that everything which is not explicitly prohibited in painstaking detail must be not only permitted, but required.

There is no a priori reason why the nature of the magic system should make it difficult for people to be spellcasters. It makes every bit as much sense, if not more, to assume that the main reason most can't cast is personal, because they lack the necessary singleminded focus to become a caster even though they're nominally smart or wise enough.

Or that it's really just a matter of economics. Training a spellcaster of class X requires a large up front investment of time and energy by a mid- or high-level member of class X. Such people often have a lot of more useful things to do with their time than teach students who may flop out entirely or who may get themselves killed early on.

That's my favorite way of explaining restricted magic- use something like an apprenticeship system.

Morty
2008-02-20, 12:13 PM
I'll give one more pro for Vancian magic: it's unique. It doesn't appear in any other game, except maybe in Earthdawn, but I only heard about it. Mana points, skill-based casting- we see them around all the time. So why should D&D magic become Yet Another Point-based Spellcasting?
That said, while I love the concept of Vancian spellcasting, it could be a bit better designed than what we see in D&D. I'm personally going to include semi-Vancian spellcasting in my homebrewed system. And grab some books by Vance as soon as I can.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 12:53 PM
I'll give one more pro for Vancian magic: it's unique. It doesn't appear in any other game, except maybe in Earthdawn, but I only heard about it.

Dying Earth uses Vancian spellcasting, for obvious reasons.