# D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

This thread has made me curious: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316128-5e-vance-not-vance-question.html

I personally see Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs.  Something that adds to its unique character.

Not everyone feels likewise, I know.  Lovers of Vancian magic may even be in the minority of D&D players at this point.

So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_

(Please: This isn't about discussing the merits or deficiencies of Vancian magic, this is about the OTHER aspects of D&D that led people to overcome their dislike of it to play and enjoy the game.)


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

If Vancian Magic is the only thing worth attracting people to D&D, then D&D is hardly worth playing.

Edit: Really this thread comes across as "I don't understand why people don't like what I like."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

Bear in mind that when I started playing the only choice was D&D. 

I wanted to play a wizard, and Vancian magic was what was there, so Vancian magic was what I used to play Stormraven.

I got to play him for three sessions, then we gave our DM the boot, and I ran the game for three years. (We had a really, really bad DM, who was somehow amazed when we gave both him and his best friend a choice of letting us play our own characters or getting the heck out of Dodge. He called us on it, and ended up getting the heck out of Dodge.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 10, 2012)

I neither love it nor hate it. I think of it as a  system, like any other. It has some very enjoyable parts but some severe  weaknesses and I gave up using it a long time ago. Not for the way magic  operates in later or in other systems but with one I created on my  own.

However I thought it was perfectly suited to AD&D.  It just felt very right for that gaming system.

As to what led me to playing D&D, well, at that time  it was almost the only game in town. And to me it was the very first RPG magic  system I really encountered. And as I've already said it felt very right to me  in that system. It all worked together as a whole.

I liked the class system, even though I gave that up  too, and I liked the overall adventuring system. You gotta remember, when I  started, it was almost the only thing around. So, what wasn't to like? It was  novel.

And from the start to me it was just a game. To tell the  truth I've never understood the, _"well, this is the way the game is written  so you must play it this way."_ I can understand that with chess. Even some  war. 

I never understood it with D&D. To me inherent in  the very idea of the Role Play Game is the idea of personal and interactive  modification. The game attracted me to the game, the  thought that individual elements had to be this way or that way never occurred  to me just because some designer, no matter who he was, said so. 

It was _*"my way."*_ *That  was what made D&D unique and interesting to me. *The fantasy element  was nice. Magic was interesting. The wargaming elements were fun. The role  playing was exciting and novel. the social aspects were alluring. But the idea  that you could remake the game, rules, setting, characters, monsters, etc as you  wished, and restructure it to taste, that was a really great leap in game design  that I think a lot of younger people completely overlook cause they're used to  the idea now. It's ubiquitous now in video and computer gaming design, at least.  And with internet games.* Personalization, modification, and interactive  individualization. Back then though that was a very novel and revolutionary  concept in game design*. In everything, including game design.  Unfortunately I am afraid it has become a novel concept all over again, as  modern Gamers and Geeks are often far more interested in learning and mastering  rule and structure systems than redesigning and recreating them. Absorption has  replaced experimentation as the "rule du jour." A shame, but that's the way it  is. But it wasn't that way back then at all. Back then it was the end user and  games like D&D at the very Frontier of Imaginative Recreation. Gygax and his  cohorts deserve a lot of credit for the idea because it was a very prophetic  statements about modern society and technology even before the real current age  of modern technology. 

That was the real revolutionary idea behind it to me. It  presaged the "end user personal modification" idea of product design to  me.

How it later became the game of rule lawyering I never  understood. To me that very idea was antithetical and anathema to the original  design concept. But it just goes to show ya, things often become what they are  not even when they shouldn't. Just give it enough time.

On the other hand  give it enough time and things finish where they start, and sometimes even  improve some as a result of having taken the trip. So, here's to  progress.





> Bear in mind that when I started playing the only choice was D&D.




Same here, obviously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

> Bear in mind that when I started playing the only choice was D&D.






> Same here, obviously.




Myself likewise.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 10, 2012)

> _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_



It was the only game in town.

NOT that other games didn't exist, but that D&D is the gateway RPG: everyone's heard of it, and anyone who's played and RPG is at least familiar with it. I have always had a problem of finding a group/players, so it was D&D or no.

I had maybe played three scattered sessions of 2e AD&D until 3.0 came out, and I finally said "that's it", and became a DM for an online group over a text medium.

There are many games I would love to play, but getting people to try indie games is tough when you have trouble finding anyone to play D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> If Vancian Magic is the only thing worth attracting people to D&D, then D&D is hardly worth playing.
> 
> Edit: Really this thread comes across as "I don't understand why people don't like what I like."




There have been many threads on ENWorld posted by people who profoundly dislike some element of D&D and ask about how to change it.  When others point out there are games that do exactly what it is they want to change D&D to, they are happy.  

Vancian magic seems different.  Despite there being many FRPGs that have non-Vancian casting that are also quite excellent games, there is still a large and vocal portion of the D&D-playing community that _utterly loathe _Vancian casting.  Hate it to the point that they want to see it eradicated from the game entirely (see the thread I linked to in my OP).

So I'm curious about what it is that keeps those people playing D&D when there are excellent FRPGs that don't contain that offending element. 

This isn't about "I don't understand why people don't like what I like" because, while I love Vancian casting in D&D, I also love other FRPGs that don't use it at all.  Hell- my favorite RPG system is HERO.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_



I started briefly with 2e. The only character I remember playing was a psionicist. I liked that I could do things spontaneously, without the complexity or illogic of magic.

My first 3e character was a sorcerer. I kind of liked spontaneous casting, but I really liked that as a halfling, he could take Hide and Move Silently and sneak around almost as well as a rogue.

The mentality I thought was great about the skill system was something a law professor of mine would say when asked whether it was possible or not to do something under the law, "You can try."

I'd like to see the same principle applied to magic.

***

Speaking more broadly, my experience with 3e and its magic system is that my players, while reasonably knowledgeable and engaged, do not like playing spellcasters. They prefer to have abilities that always work, not just X times per day, and they don't like having to pick through so many books to find spells after already having done so for classes and feats (to say nothing of the trouble of referencing them during play). Most of our memorable characters are fighters, rangers, and rogues. Rogue has always been my favorite class for the flexibility.

When I started using Unearthed Arcana and doing other houserules, spell points seemed a natural to simplify things. I later changed the spells known/memorized lists to one flat number (your wizard can memorize ten spells of any level), stealing from the XPH. If I had my way, I'd scrap the whole thing and start over with something more flavorful and balanced.

To sum up, I like lots of things about D&D, but Vancian casting was never one of them.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There have been many threads on ENWorld posted by people who profoundly dislike some element of D&D and ask about how to change it.  When others point out there are games that do exactly what it is they want to change D&D to, they are happy.
> 
> Vancian magic seems different.  Despite there being many FRPGs that have non-Vancian casting that are also quite excellent games, there is still a large and vocal portion of the D&D-playing community that _utterly loathe _Vancian casting.  Hate it to the point that they want to see it eradicated from the game entirely (see the thread I linked to in my OP).
> 
> ...



This sound dangerously close to the mentality of "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system." People disagree with Vancian magic precisely because people disagree with what magic should be in a game. People can still love the overall D&D system (whatever the iteration) without liking Vancian magic. There are other systems with arguably better magic systems, but they have their own problems unique to their system. It's certainly not an all or nothing when it comes to Vancian magic, as getting rid of it is not tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I keep playing D&D because Vancian magic is not the entirety of D&D.  Let's rephrase your proposition: Is Vancian magic the only reason to play D&D?


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 10, 2012)

> The mentality I thought was great about the skill system was something a  law professor of mine would say when asked whether it was possible or  not to do something under the law, "You can try."
> 
> I'd like to see the same principle applied to magic.




Good points I think. Experimentation is the Royal Road to achievement.

But 2nd Edition is the only edition I never tried. I gave up D&D after High School and early college, then never returned til I was in my thirties and 3rd Edition was out.

Did 2nd edition have a Sorcerer?


----------



## SiderisAnon (Jan 10, 2012)

As I stated above, when I first started gaming, D&D was the only game in town.

I still love D&D because it's swords and sorcerers gaming.  I love high fantasy.  That's why I play D&D.

I've tried a number of other fantasy games over the years to try and get the same fun going.  They've all failed.  Why?  Not because those games are bad but because nobody I know wants to play those games.  HERO Fantasy was a couple of sessions and then everybody wanted to go back to D&D.  I tried for months to get a Savage Worlds game going and finally gave up and parked the books on the shelf.  FATE lasted one campaign, but only that handful is willing to play it.

Ultimately, it is far, far easier for me to use an alternative magic system in D&D than it is to get a group together to play something with a magic system I like better.  (Which is why I ran a campaign using EN World's "Elements of Magic" instead.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> This sound dangerously close to the mentality of "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system."




That isn't what I'm saying at all.

Again, Vancian magic seems to be something of an oddity- while I've seen plenty people on ENWorld (and elsewhere) speak with vitriol about elements within D&D.  They'll talk about those elements they dislike- class & level systems, the plethora of subraces, etc.- and as soon as they find a game that does things more to their liking, they play that system instead of D&D.

Vancian magic, OTOH, seems to be the one that people _truly hate_ while simultaneously continuing to play D&D.

So there is this wierdness: people who harbor a slight dislike of elements in D&D and leave...and people who utterly hate D&D yet kept playing it.

So I'm trying to ask what was it about D&D that managed to overcome such deeply held dislikes over Vancian casting, yet didn't overcome seemingly lesser dislikes.



> Let's rephrase your proposition: Is Vancian magic the only reason to play D&D?



Let's not.  At least not in this thread.

Ultimately, except for some corner cases, a good RPG system should give you many reasons to play it, and D&D clearly does, IMHO.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't what I'm saying at all.
> 
> Again, Vancian magic seems to be something of an oddity- while I've seen plenty people on ENWorld (and elsewhere) speak with vitriol about elements within D&D.  They'll talk about those elements they dislike- class & level systems, the plethora of subraces, etc.- and as soon as they find a game that does things more to their liking, they play that system instead of D&D.
> 
> ...



Because "magic" is viewed as separate from the rest of the mechanics. People have a different vision for what magic is and that's not necessarily tied to the rest of the non-magical mechanics. And people would like to play their vision of a "wizard" in D&D, which is not necessarily Vancian. That seems easy enough to understand. 



> Let's not.  At least not in this thread.



But it answers your question of why keep playing despite Vancian magic. Because there's everything else that's not Vancian related. Why should Vancian magic be the sole reason why people play D&D? 



> Ultimately, except for some corner cases, a good RPG system should give you many reasons to play it, and D&D clearly does, IMHO.



Yes, in your opinion, but it's an opinion that's not necessarily shared.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 10, 2012)

I like fighting monsters and bedding wenches and rolling dice.

I don't like playing a spellcaster who can't cast many spells.

I don't like playing a spellcaster who has to choose from a giant list every day.

Pretty simple.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jan 10, 2012)

Um, can we have both? 

When I got into D&D I was reading LotR, Chronicles of Pyrdain, Shannara, and Earthsea, etc. I don't ever remember being particularly drawn to wizards, come to think of it I never chose to play a Vancian spell-casting class (unless forced to play the cleric  ). But if the wizard class description felt more magical and let me engage with the fictional space in a more coherent way I probably would have jumped at the chance to play a wizard. Fancy words I know, just articulating in grown up voice what little me didn't quite understand.

But I loved hiking with sticks and pretending to be King Arthur's knights, so I was happy to play rogues and fighter-types. Besides they were always tougher at low levels. And then I became "the DM" and didn't look back until a few years ago.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

> But it answers your question of why keep playing despite Vancian magic. Because there's everything else that's not Vancian related.




No, it doesn't answer my question at all.

Again, numerous people express dissatisfaction with D&D, and when shown other options, they bolt.

Yet there are also people who express vitriol vs Vancian casting that rises to the level or wanting it completely eradicated from the game...and they continued to play.  That isn't my characterization- that is what some in the other thread are actually stating.

Each class of dissatisfied players had "all the other options", yet the most dissatisfied seem to be the most determined to keep playing D&D instead of games that, presumably, they would enjoy more.

I'm trying to figure out the difference between the mildly dissatisfied abandoners of D&D and those with a deep loathing for an element yet hang on.  What was it that made those players "beat their heads against the wall" until the wall fell?

Was it that the former group was "meh" about D&D while the latter was more passionately pro-D&D?  If not that, then what?  Did they think that D&D was so much more superior to other FRPG's even with the element they despised?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Myself likewise.



What a bunch of old fuddy duddies we are. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Jack7 (Jan 10, 2012)

We're Auld alright...


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it doesn't answer my question at all.



You may not be satisfied with the answer, but it does answer your question. 



> Again, numerous people express dissatisfaction with D&D, and when shown other options, they bolt.
> 
> Yet there are also people who express vitriol vs Vancian casting that rises to the level or wanting it completely eradicated from the game...and they continued to play.  That isn't my characterization- that is what some in the other thread are actually stating.
> 
> ...



Because Vancian magic is viewed as something modular that can be changed without losing the integrity of the rest of D&D. Views on Vancian magic is about the philosophy of magic. Generally these other elements are about the design philosophy of the system as a whole, such as the presence of classes or levels, which are far more integral than Vancian magic.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 10, 2012)

Apart from the fact that DnD is the near-universal gateway RPG, I like classes, scaling levels, and that the d20 mechanic covers most everything (3e was my first edition). Part of what I don't like about Vancian magic is that it's the exception to the unified d20. Skills, attacks, and ability checks work pretty much the same way, but Vancian magic is its own byzantine subsystem that is incoherent with how most of the rest of the game works and requires an enormously disproportionate body of rules to effect, compared to the more consistent elements of the game. It's hugely, needlessly inelegant.

The OP says that Vancian magic is core to what makes DnD what it is. To me it's a red-headed stepchild, out of place and incongruous with the unified rules that are the essence of the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> You may not be satisfied with the answer, but it does answer your question.



No, it doesn't.



> Because Vancian magic is viewed as something modular that can be changed without losing the integrity of the rest of D&D.




_THAT_, however, does at least shed some light on things.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yet there are also people who express vitriol vs Vancian casting that rises to the level or wanting it completely eradicated from the game...and they continued to play.  That isn't my characterization- that is what some in the other thread are actually stating.



Because some people won't ever leave D&D. Because they identify most with D&D. Because they love *D&D*. It's _their_ RPG. 

If I may use a sports analogy, it's like die-hard fans of a team. The fans can say "Yeah our team sucks this year", but they will _still_ watch the games, _still_ root for the team, still _pay to go to the games_, hold out hope, _because that's their team_. They can say "Change the quarterback" or "Fire the coach", but they are still fans _of the team_ and will never let it go. 

The presence of Vancian magic isn't enough to make the fans stop playing it. Because then they wouldn't be playing D&D. In this situation, Vancian magic is the toxic uncle at Thanksgiving - you want to be there, even if that means you have to put up with him. And if somehow he didn't show up, then it's all the better.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 10, 2012)

For me I love D&D. I have been playing since 1e over 20 years ago. I love its general feel (especially 4e which is my preferred edition), but I dislike the concept of an X per day resource. Yes, even 4e dailies annoy me.

And Vancian casting is the ultimate expression of a resource being balanced by only being available X times a day. I hate it. Its like nothing else in fantasy literature except D&D literature or Jack Vance's works. And its not even like his really.

That said, I don't think it needs to be gone. But it should be optional. I think there needs to be caster classes that have magical abilities or spells that aren't on a per day refresh schedule. That can be used at-will or at least more frequently than x/day. Wizards and casters should never run out of magic, or be forced to resort to crossbows, IMO.

People talk about the sense of wonder that magic should have, but I find a wizard pulling out a crossbow, or managing his spell slots, or counting the charges in his wand, to be the utter antithesis of that sense of wonder.

It also causes play and balance issues, IMO. Either you memorized all the spells you need for any given situation and are unstoppable, or you didn't and you are irrelevant or useless. Way too binary.

So no, I'm not a fan.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

It's also worth noting on further reflection: 


Dannyalcatraz said:


> I personally see *Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs.*  Something that adds to its unique character.



Not anymore. It's now a defining feature of Pathfinder as well. And Castles & Crusaders. And many other gaming systems spawned from D&D.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> _THAT_, however, does at least shed some light on things.



DA, my question in the response that you like work hand-in-hand. Non-Vancian fans continue to play the game because find satisfaction with the rest of the game. They see the value of D&D _apart from_ the presence of Vancian magic, which they grudgingly bear. Vancian magic is something they perceive as an awkward clunker of mechanics that can be switched out with something that is more suitable to their taste and preferences. 

Rechan is also correct. Despite the presence of all these other alternative gaming systems, D&D (for the most part) is by far the most accessible gaming system out there. So if you have difficulty scrounging up a group together to play, D&D has typically been the go-to one, thereby forcing non-Vancian fans into having to begrudgingly tolerate its presence. They may even like D&D or want to play a spellcaster, but loathe the Vancian mechanics.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 10, 2012)

When I got into D&D, I had just started reading the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and the Once and Future King. furthermore, we had just started covering Greek mythology in English class, my drama elective class was doing Camelot, and I was already a fan of the Harryhausen Sinbad movies.  And, at the time, there Holmes Basic.

What, currently, keeps me interested in D&D?  
1) The settings.  Greyhawk as presented by Gygax in Dragon, the GR Folio, and first GR boxed.  The Forgotten Realms 1e boxed set with the 1e FR series of supplements and several of the 2e supplements. Darksun original box set, Al Quadim, Ravenloft: Realm of Terror boxed set,  The Known World Gazetteers.

2) The demons and devils:  Demogorgon, Orcus, Asmodeus, Geryon, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

> They see the value of D&D apart from the presence of Vancian magic, which they grudgingly bear. Vancian magic is something they perceive as an awkward clunker of mechanics that can be switched out with something that is more suitable to their taste and preferences.




_Extremely_ grudgingly, judging from the rhetoric, and they soldiered on while the people who expressed a mild dislike for other elements jumped ship as soon as an alternative appeared.

_That_ is what I'm trying to explore.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Extremely_ grudgingly, judging from the rhetoric, and they soldiered on while the people who expressed a mild dislike for other elements jumped ship as soon as an alternative appeared.
> 
> _That_ is what I'm trying to explore.



Again, there are some things that you can remove and can't remove from D&D while it still being D&D. For example, the fact that you can create a flexible spellpoint system with Psionics in 3.5E while still being "D&D" shows that Vancian magic is not that essential to the integrity of D&D. You can switch out the spell systems, but you can't toss out some essential components such as classes or levels without looking to other systems. These things cannot be fundamentally changed, but the magic system can. But I also think that you may be overselling the idea that all these people "who expressed a mild dislike for other elements jumped ship as soon as an alternative appeared," given the number of people who remained playing with particular editions (or even Pathfinder) despite not "fixing" these other non-Vancian elements.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Again, there are some things that you can remove and can't remove from D&D while it still being D&D.




Which I agreed with as being particularly insightful.



> For example, the fact that you can create a flexible spellpoint system with Psionics in 3.5E while still being "D&D" shows that Vancian magic is not that essential to the integrity of D&D.




I didnt say essential to the integrity the game- there have been a number of alternative systems in the game, like psionics, incarnum, fatigue magic, spellpoints, etc.- but rather that Vancian magic was part of D&D's unique identity.

There is a difference.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which I agreed with as being particularly insightful.



Thank you. I was primarily just reiterating a point so that I could expand it a bit more. 



> I didnt say essential to the integrity the game- there have been a number of alternative systems in the game, like psionics, incarnum, fatigue magic, spellpoints, etc.- but rather that Vancian magic was part of D&D's unique identity.
> 
> There is a difference.



So what if spellpoints, for example, were the default for most magical classes and Vancian magic was presented as an "alternative magic system" in the rules? Sure the Vancian magic option is there, but I would imagine that it's not quite enough or satisfying, would it? Because the assumptions which the entire rules are based on would be built around spellpoints instead of Vancian magic. The literature of D&D novels often reflect the mechanics of spellcrafting, such as the explanation of the wizard Raistlin's Vancian mechanics in the first Dragonlance novel.  And Vancian magic becomes something that you _can do_ rather than how things are _supposed to be._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

> So what if spellpoints, for example, were the default for most magical classes and Vancian magic was presented as an "alternative magic system" in the rules?




I'm not sure what your point is, here.  Without Vancian casting as the default, the game would be more like other FRPGs; mechanical assumptions would be changed; the fiction would change.

So what?  I think that's a fairly self evident truth.

But that is an issue of identity, not integrity.  The game is perfectly playable using spell points, fatigue magic and any other magic system you'd care to name.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 10, 2012)

I would prefer they eliminate Vancian magic and make every caster a specialized sorcerer. That limits the wizard from becoming the character that can solve every problem given time. Then you can have stories where you have to go to a specialized individual for certain things such as seers or oracles for divination. Magic item makers for items. Leave the frontline adventuring for the blasters, manipulators. and the like. No more jack of all trade wizards, but rather specialized users of magic.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not sure what your point is, here.  *Without Vancian casting as the default, the game would be more like other FRPGs;* mechanical assumptions would be changed; the fiction would change.
> 
> So what?  I think that's a fairly self evident truth.
> 
> But that is an issue of identity, not integrity.  The game is perfectly playable using spell points, fatigue magic and any other magic system you'd care to name.



You keep saying that, but that's not true. Vancian magic exists in other systems as well, so it's already like other systems even with it. The problem seems to lie with you having an identity crisis of a D&D without Vancian magic. eek:!) But it's like keeping around the English monarchy just because it's been there for so long that people (oddly enough, mostly Americans) would hate to see it go despite how much of a drain it is. It's all so "quaint" that you would hate to see it go, despite the fact that you prefer another system.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 10, 2012)

I love D&D and dislike Vancian magic. Of course, I play 4e, which doesn't really have Vancian magic.

I had a small amount of familiarity with 3e from years ago, and when I read the 4e books and saw at-will spells for the wizard, I thought, "Wow, this is fantastic!"

I still feel that way.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 10, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> Its like nothing else in fantasy literature except D&D literature or Jack Vance's works. And its not even like his really.



1-3.xE spell casting is a synthesis of Vance's mnemonic "Dying Earth" magic (almost a type of psionics) and Camp and Pratt's sympathetic "Harold Shea" magic (which is 'historically accurate').


----------



## Nagol (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> This sound dangerously close to the mentality of "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system." People disagree with Vancian magic precisely because people disagree with what magic should be in a game. People can still love the overall D&D system (whatever the iteration) without liking Vancian magic. There are other systems with arguably better magic systems, but they have their own problems unique to their system. It's certainly not an all or nothing when it comes to Vancian magic, as getting rid of it is not tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I keep playing D&D because Vancian magic is not the entirety of D&D.  Let's rephrase your proposition: Is Vancian magic the only reason to play D&D?




And that's exactly what I do.  If I want Vancian-style magic, I reach for D&D.  If I want glamourie I reach for Pendragon.  IF I want rote and spontaneous magic I reach for Ars Magica.  If I want rote and slow reload fire-and-forget, i reach for Runequest.  If I want substantially weaker magic, I reach for Harn.  If I want a very specific feel for magic or want a player free-for-all grab bag of styles I reach for Hero.

Replacement of the magic system in pre-4e D&D does have a bunch of follow-on effects.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> You keep saying that, but that's not true. Vancian magic exists in other systems as well, so it's already like other systems even with it. The problem seems to lie with you having an identity crisis of a D&D without Vancian magic. eek:!) But it's like keeping around the English monarchy just because it's been there for so long that people (oddly enough, mostly Americans) would hate to see it go despite how much of a drain it is. It's all so "quaint" that you would hate to see it go, despite the fact that you prefer another system.




The fact that some newer systems use something does not mean it is no longer part of D&D's identity.

It does mean I'll have alternatives should I want to use Vancian-style magic and an evolving system should D&D next iteration not support it well enough.

Hardly a unifying thought though.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 10, 2012)

I'm not a fan of Vancian magic, though "despise" would be taking it way too far.

I like "You can be a Hero in a world of Monsters and Magic".  I like Swords against Sorcery.  I like the dungeon exploration, the killing things and taking their stuff.  I like D&D as a toolkit for building worlds, that are then resculpted/twisted/trashed at the hands of powerful PCs.  The whole Power Fantasy thing that the Level system enables.  I also like the strong archetypes and character hooks of the Class system, classless RPGs* always feel a bit 'meh' to me in comparison.

*Or overly generic classes like 'Fast Hero'.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 10, 2012)

Celtavian said:


> I would prefer they eliminate Vancian magic and make every caster a specialized sorcerer.



Hmm. 

The beguiler was one of my favorite classes of 3e, along with the Archivist (who was sort of a Clerical wizard, but he had to _work hard_ for his game breaking spells). I thought those focused casters were really cool, and was disappointed that a Transmuter never came out. 

I'd dig it if casting classes ended up in some thematic fashion like that.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 10, 2012)

I dislike(d) it, especially for clerics.

When I started playing, it was because my friends were playing D&D and invited me to the game...so I said sure. I've always been interested in magic, so caster it was.

Never thought clerics made sense: "Oh most holy of holies, please heal this wounded soldier." *BOOMING VOICE OF THEIR GOD* "I'm sorry, but you memorized _create water_ today."



BUT Vancian Magic is a defining component of every edition of D&D (except 4th), and aren't some of the essentials classes somewhat vancian?

I wrote this message in this thread, which doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of traction: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316169-suggestions-5e-they-5e-great-roleplaying-game.html



> I just thought I'd share something I'm keeping in the back of my mind when I make suggestions about 5e...the mantra of "ok, that might be good, _but is it D&D_?"




In this case, with vancian magic, I see NO REASON to call for an absence of it.

As we saw with 3e, there were warlocks, sorcerors, binders, favored souls, etc that didn't use it. 

It's a part of D&D, a part I don't necessarily care for, but certainly a defining part.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 10, 2012)

I find when I sit down and talk to people who _*"hate*"*_ Vancian magic, the specific things they hate about it are a few spells from the wizard spell list (yes, the wizard list list is the first one to fly off the tongue, with the other casters thrown in after a bit of reminding). So it's not so much the fire and forget mechanics, as it is "wizards can do what?!"

Which, in my mind, translates into nobody actually hating Vancian magic.

I find the underlying system better than spell points or the equivalent, if simply due to less math in game from recalculating variables on the fly. My favorite systems involve non-expendable resources, like in Mage. However, I honestly don't see anything like that being involved in a group-based game that hinges on the idea of limited resources.

My personal hatred for magic is to regulate it into being elemental flavored arrows and swords.

_*: meaning the emotion that makes people froth at the mouth with rage and vitriol, not simply dislike_


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 10, 2012)

I think there is plenty to criticize with Vancian casting, but I also think it is one of those things that makes D&D what it is. If the goal is to bring back 1e, 2e, and 3e fans, I just don't see how you do it without including cancan magic. My suggestion is you use older editions as the foundation with enough opt out and opt in rules to satisfy 4e fans (make Healing Surges an optional ad on, make vancien casting an opt out rule).


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Nagol said:


> The fact that some newer systems use something does not mean it is no longer part of D&D's identity.
> 
> It does mean I'll have alternatives should I want to use Vancian-style magic and an evolving system should D&D next iteration not support it well enough.
> 
> Hardly a unifying thought though.



Just because something was a part of something's identity or past does not give it intrinsic value or quality.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Just because something was a part of something's identity or past does not give it intrinsic value or quality.




I think they've run into a brand identity problem and will be asking "what makes it D&D" to the fanbase. I think related to that question will be "why did many people not transition to 4e". The problem they face is 4e fans still make up a good size of the customer base, so how do they handle contradictory responses to these questions. For example what do they do if 55% say vancian casting is essential but 45% say its junk and shouldn't be in the game. I believe on a lot of key questions this is where they are right now, which may explain the modular design approach.


----------



## Janx (Jan 10, 2012)

Here's a new reason:

System investment.

There are few RPGs out there that you can spend as much money on as D&D. I have a couple thousand dollars in 2e books.  None of them are campaign specific.  All of them usable in a "current" 2e campaign.

How many other systems have that much material out?  Gurps?  Most Gurps books are setting related, meaning that if your not playing "The Old West" then buying the Old West book won't do you any good.

It took some persuading to get my gang to switch to 3e from 2e because of this.  And they basically merged editions when 3.5 came out (did not replace any books, just bought and used new 3.5 material).  They absolutely will not move to 4e, not because it sucks, but because at this point, we've gone through 2 upgrades and see no need to replace a working system.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think they've run into a brand identity problem and will be asking "what makes it D&D" to the fanbase. I think related to that question will be "why did many people not transition to 4e". The problem they face is 4e fans still make up a good size of the customer base, so how do they handle contradictory responses to these questions. For example what do they do if 55% say vancian casting is essential but 45% say its junk and shouldn't be in the game. I believe on a lot of key questions this is where they are right now, which may explain the modular design approach.



This is highly likely. As long as Vancian magic fans of D&D give an equal place at the table for non-Vancian magic fans of D&D, then I will be content.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Vancian magic seems different.  Despite there being many FRPGs that have non-Vancian casting that are also quite excellent games, there is still a large and vocal portion of the D&D-playing community that _utterly loathe _Vancian casting.  Hate it to the point that they want to see it eradicated from the game entirely (see the thread I linked to in my OP).




I think the answer to your question is:

HYPERBOLE

They don't actually "utterly loathe" it.  They just have to say it that way to make their point seem more important.  Just like almost every other person who complains about things here.  Every problem comes across as _the biggest travesty to the game and the industry we've ever seen_... because that's the only way they can feel like they can get their point across without getting lost in the morass of a thread.

And in actuality... the people who don't like Vancian magic are no different than the people who don't like Feat Taxes or Healing Surges.  No different at all.  It's all just personal opinion of what makes a good D&D game _for them_.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

I certainly don't hate Vancian casting, but, I wouldn't be sad to see it go.  So, here's my list of reasons:

1.  Vancian casting gives too much primacy to broad effects and makes specific effects too costly.  IOW, if you have the choice between memorizing Fireball or Illusory Script, well, I'll bet dollars to donuts on which choice gets made.  Spells with specific effects either get cast after a night's rest or get whacked on scrolls (depending on edition) while the typical spells nearly always get memorized.  It makes magic very predictable.

2.  It mirrors virtually no genre fiction.  There's a reason it's called Vancian.  Unfortunately, while I love Jack Vance, I am under no illusions as to how widely read he is.  Basing the entire magic system off of a very obscure genre writer from a book that was out of print before I was even born isn't really speaking to anyone other than other big honking genre nerds like me.  

3.  It's very, very hard to balance.  Even after 30 years of development, we still are rejiggering spells and effects to keep them in line with each other.  There's just too darn many discrete effects.

4.  It's very discouraging to players who don't want to spend umpteen hours reading gaming books trying to figure out what they can do.  Even a reasonably low level caster, say 7th level in 3e, could have 20 different spells in his spell book (and this is a pretty low estimate).  That's an awful lot of crap to track.  

5.  Vancian casting makes for hodge-podge casters.  This gets reined in a bit with specialist casters, but, by and large, you have core casters with a suite of effects that are all over the place - no theme, no unifying concept.  They've got a little of this, and a little of that.  It makes casters ... what's the right word?  Mushy.

So, there, that's my 5 reasons for strongly disliking Vancian casting.

If I had my druthers, Vancian casters would be replaced by either sorcerer mechanics or the Shadow-caster mechanics from the 3.5 Tome of Magic.  (With the mechanics cleaned up a bit.)


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: With respect to Dannyalcatraz's original post, he did not really create this thread to discuss the merits of Vancian magic. Instead, the prompt is more about why the non-Vancian magic fans stick around to play D&D when there are other game systems with magic systems more to their liking.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

Yeah, that's fair.  Although, to be honest, the two are tied.  Of my 5 issues, none of them are so egregious that I need to look for a new system.  

IOW, Vancian casting is annoying, and IMNSHO, a dinosaur collection of mechanics that is in dire need of a massive meteor strike, BUT, since I like the rest of the game enough, I can live with it.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 10, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> I find when I sit down and talk to people who _*"hate*"*_ Vancian magic, the specific things they hate about it are a few spells from the wizard spell list (yes, the wizard list list is the first one to fly off the tongue, with the other casters thrown in after a bit of reminding). So it's not so much the fire and forget mechanics, as it is "wizards can do what?!"
> 
> Which, in my mind, translates into nobody actually hating Vancian magic.




In my mind, that translates to "you haven't talked to enough people." Specific spells can be banned. My beef with Vancian magic is the "use it and lose it" aspect, where once you use Spell X you can't use it again. I find it way too finicky and mechanistic; it makes my character feel like an accountant instead of a wizard.

For my money, the single most irritating thing about 4E was the decision to give that mechanic to every single class.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 10, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], Vancian Magic doesn't much resemble the spells cast by Jack Vance's protagonists.  Those I wouldn't mind at all - they are powerful, but not "I win" buttons and what's important is the rest of the character.  If one of Jack Vance's mages is out of spells, he's still generally pretty competent and a force to be reckoned with.

And few games have the market share of D&D - which is itself a huge advantage.  Given that few magic systems are satisfying, I'm glad we have a non-Vancian edition but it's just a pain not a dealbreaker for me.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jan 10, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> In my mind, that translates to "you haven't talked to enough people." Specific spells can be banned. My beef with Vancian magic is the "use it and lose it" aspect, where once you use Spell X you can't use it again. I find it way too finicky and mechanistic; it makes my character feel like an accountant instead of a wizard.
> 
> For my money, the single most irritating thing about 4E was the decision to give that mechanic to every single class.




In regards to AEDU, I agree completely.  How someone can complain about Vancian fire-and-forget mechanics and praise AEDU powers at the same time is incomprehensible to me.  They're essentially the same thing, (although Vancian casting wins out for me for having more options and flexibility).

About Vancian spellcasting, however, I disagree.  I love playing 3.x wizards because of the broad choice of spells, (I guess I'm one of the few folks who don't mind poring over spell lists), and then having to pick a few specific ones to have on tap that day.   It helps keep me invested in the story--I better be sure not to load up on cold and lightning based spells as we head into the vampire's lair, for instance--and it keeps wizards from being too powerful.  Sure I can do some amazing things, but I have to be smart about when I do them, or I could wind up in a bad (or worse, a boring) situation.

But back to the OP--I agree with the posters who stated that the modularity of the system keeps it from being a deal-breaker.  If you don't like levels, classes, or HP, then D&D is probably not for you (though I'm sure there are folks who play without these things, too).  But taking out Vancian casting is as easy as saying "In my campaign, there are no wizards--only sorcerers and psions", right?


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 10, 2012)

As far as Vancian magic is concerned, I'm used to it. Been using since 1977 and have never felt a need to use some other kind of magic. Truth tell, I can count on one hand the number of casters I've played in 30+ years, as I've always preferred martial characters. Actually only a few true fighters, I've played mostly: monk, rogue, ranger, paladin, and rarely multiclassing as a caster.

I've got one player who almost always plays a psionicist. Sometimes he plays a wizard, and sometimes a cleric, but almost always multiclassing as a psionicist. Me, I can't stand psionics, but I won't begrudge a player from wanting to play a specific class, no matter how much I hate it. (I can't really explain why I hate them so, it doesn't seem logical, but they've never sat right with me.)

Actually, most of the players that play casters in our group prefer spell points to Vancian. But when I send an opposing caster against the party, he doesn't use spell points, rather Vancian magic only.

D&D is not the only fantasy RPG that I've played, however. I played Runequest (the original), dabbled in Rolemaster and HARP, but D&D covers the bulk of my fantasy roleplaying over the years - like 95%. And fantasy isn't the only kind of RPG I've played, but I prefer fantasy to most other genres.

There are other magic systems and they seem fine within the context of the games they are played in, but I just as soon play D&D (or Pathfinder now) than any other game system.

Vancian magic has never been the albatross of my preferred game, but then it could very much be, that since I don't play casters in general, that it doesn't detract from the overall game, at least for me.


----------



## RHGreen (Jan 10, 2012)

I know you didn't want to talk about vancian magic, but I'm going to anyway.

Vancian magic wasn't seen as a problem by the creators because it was assumed that when you weren't casting that one or two spells you were engaging in substandard melee. You sacrificed good melee with a couple of good one shot spells and poor melee. Problem is that anyone that wants to play a wizard has no interest in engaging in melee (unless they are multiclassing into a gish which is a whole different thing.)

A non-multi wizard cannot engage in melee. Their to-hits are awful, their ACs are awful, their HPs are awful, and they get squished if they try it.

They tried to remedy that by letting you use a crossbow. I was a wizard and used a crossbow and never hit one single thing to the point I would just pass on my turn rather than shoot one. It was out of character, out of theme and it was a waste of effort.

It isn't as if the spells are a good trade off either. I can absolutely, definitely hit a target for 1d4+1 damage - *once*. 4E helped a lot with this problem and it is one of the things I hope they keep (but develop to make better - it isn't quite there yet because it is still a little too vancian)

D&D, with the D20+mods to beat number, roll high mechanic is the one out of any RPG to make the most sense being simple, logical and intuitive. 

That is the base reason why I like D&D. (Though there are obviously others)


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Jan 10, 2012)

I started to to lke D&D when I was playing Hack 1.0 (later Nethack). I was young girl then and I used to memorize letters and what monster they meant and thought what they would look like. Since I was only familiar with Finnish/Greek myth at the time it was lot of unknown. Then years later I visit roleplaying games shop because there used to be article related to roleplaying game at computer related magazine. I was 14 years old at the time and I had already gotten Acirema II, the photocopy version. I however wanted to see how that famious dungeons and dragons looked like. So finally got to the shop and found Monster Manual, with all the familiar names from Hack. That made me smile. They were out of dungeon master guide so I got oriental adventures instead (they had 3 book bargain offer), which was intriguing book.


Vancian magic didn't bother me at all. Levels made perfect sense. However acirema II had used spell points, which I liked better and still do. I can come up with roleplaying excuses for fire and forget and certain number of spells/level but I don't like it. I have kinda gotten used to it. Gurps fantasy was very unfun, don't like spells as skills at all as presented (very hard/each one raided seperately).

Best magic system was palladium/beyond the supernatural. 15 levels of spells you might be able to cast even higher ring with help (items, sacrifises). And spellpoint system.  Only spells weren't that many some were interesting though. There was just too few spells, AD&D, with help of dragon magizines did so much better.

I used palladium magic system sometimes with otherwise D&D games. Though with D&D spell levels because I wanted to use the spells.

I also played rolemaster. Most fun thing about that system is reading through crit tables. Spelllists... ok 50 or more spell-levels with usual variation of 1-3 spells in different spell-levels. I always saw them as waste of paper. 
Too heavy system for me to run, played it though.
Liked the spellpoint/spell-adder items.

Runequest had spellpoints and 3 different variation of magic. I  don't know if runequest was really low-magic, but there was very little spells to go around. You could do most basic things with them, so I kinda never missed high spell numbers of D&D.  Runequest combat was more fun than D&D imo. We only houseruled that you could have 1 attack and one dodge or parry action, instead of just 1 of those. Made combat more back and forth and interesting.


Lot of story there.

I despise 4th edition take on magic. I could play the game if someone would want to run it, but I rather play it as martial arts heroes or sci-fi psychic heroes game. It doesn't feel fantastic. You know, based on books I read. 

Vancian is not very fantastic either unless you count works of one writer. 
I often do it out of habit.

But since remaining me maybe I again go for spellpoints. And everyone can play duel-class caster to be fair, because direct translation of spells to spellpoints if I also (as I often do) drop memorization from priests makes caster really powerful. 

I think best way to go in my games would give casters some signature magical attacks, ranged/touch which they can channel from hand/eyes/wand/staff anything that kinda suits the character. Then give them spellpoints but about the same amount psi characters get at 3.5D&D. Maybe less because it would be free zeroes, 1-9 costing said amount of points instead of retarded 3,5,7...  in said rules.  Sorceres are better at metamagic like feats and wizards are better at rituals and co-op casting. Sorcerers also get free channelling that basicly gives them abitity to burn spell points for magic dmg up to sorcerer's lv.  And so on...

But it's so damn convinient to just use D&D magic as written. 

Then again everyone in my group loves spellpoints so maybe next time we go that route.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 10, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> In my mind, that translates to "you haven't talked to enough people." Specific spells can be banned. My beef with Vancian magic is the "use it and lose it" aspect, where once you use Spell X you can't use it again. I find it way too finicky and mechanistic; it makes my character feel like an accountant instead of a wizard.
> 
> For my money, the single most irritating thing about 4E was the decision to give that mechanic to every single class.




But do you _*hate*_ it, or merely dislike it?

And more importantly, what system would you rather use?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2012)

> A non-multi wizard cannot engage in melee. Their to-hits are awful, their ACs are awful, their HPs are awful, and they get squished if they try it.




My Maul-swinging, Scale-mail wearing Sorcerer with a Toad Familiar would like a word with you. 

In all fairness, though, beyond a certain level, you're basically right.


----------



## Janx (Jan 10, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My Maul-swinging, Scale-mail wearing Sorcerer with a Toad Familiar would like a word with you.
> 
> In all fairness, though, beyond a certain level, you're basically right.




I had a gnome conjurer in 3e that consistently rolled 3's and 4's for his HP.

He had more HP than any other party member for the first 6 or 7 levels.

he did alright. though he mostly stuck to not fighting and letting his summonings do all the work.

His Raven familiar did successfully pick a lock and kill a bandit in another PC's defense.  I lobbied heavily for it to rank up to a 1st level Rogue.  Almost made my case...


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> 2.  It mirrors virtually no genre fiction.  There's a reason it's called Vancian.  Unfortunately, while I love Jack Vance, I am under no illusions as to how widely read he is.  Basing the entire magic system off of a very obscure genre writer from a book that was out of print before I was even born isn't really speaking to anyone other than other big honking genre nerds like me.




I'm going to misinterpret your point here and run with it, so bear with me for a moment.

Although Vancian magic does not mechanically match typical fiction, it matches the feel of older classic fiction.  That it, powerful magic is something that is only available sparingly.  It takes a lot of effort to cast a spell, and after you cast it once it would be extremely rare to see it cast again any time soon.  You don't see Gandalf spamming low level spells, and some characters (like the White Witch or Schmendrick) don't manage to case even a dozen spells in their entire careers.  Early video games follow the same rules; even the wizard in Gauntlet had to carefully collect and conserve his magic pots, and casters in Final Fantasy 1 had no way to regain spells inside a dungeon.

Contrast this to current fiction, where Harry screams Expeliramus so much the word loses any meaning, and Skyrim wizards can dual wield spells by simply waiting a minute between castings.

When you get down to it, Vancian casting is very much an old school style of magic that was completely in line with the media of the time, but is now seen by many as outdated.   Personally, I'm still a fan of it, but I also play my original NES more than my Wii.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 10, 2012)

I generally dislike Vancian resource management.

I don't despise it but I dislike it.

I dislike the sometimes right prepared spells, sometimes wrong spells but could have been right spells. I dislike tracking spells and hoarding resources. I dislike the guessing game of resource management. I dislike the unbalanced aspect of novaing. I hate the time it takes to pick spells at higher levels. I dislike one shot/day low level characters. I dislike casters who run out of spells.

I've played vancian casters but I'm not a fan of the system.

It has never been central to D&D IMO. It has been central to spellcasting in the core books in most editions but I've played in many games with house rules or 2e magic options, or 3e Unearthed Arcana options of spontaneous casters or recharge magic or spell points or what have you, or with non-vancian casters like warlocks or sorcerers or with non-vancian classes like fighters. I like 4e option of tons of at will magic with few dailys. I had a lot of fun as a 4e wizard. I've always felt I was playing D&D even with those non-vancian options.

In my pathfinder game I use UA recharge magic and spontaeous divine casting which makes it very non-vancian yet still highly D&D magic.

I like combat. I like monsters. I like magic. I like exploring. I like roleplaying. I like D&D. More without vancian magic.


----------



## Pliantreality (Jan 10, 2012)

I've actually always been a fan of Vancian magic for reasons which I will admit up front should by no means be considered legitimate.

A lot of people seem to dislike the sometimes arduous resource management of higher level Vancianismisting.

I concur, it is sometimes quite a bit of work.  If you don't prepare the right spells, you can easily get flattened.  And if you prepare the right ones, you can feel like a god.  And you will have a massive list of spells.  A dauntingly large one.  With its own appendices.

But for me- well, I LIKED that.  Playing a wizard is for me - especially because I'm denser than week-old toothpaste - a meticulous and consuming task.  For me (expect that caveat every other sentence) the effort involved keeping my character's spells in order is likely a mirror to the effort my character is expending to do likewise.

For me (toldja) it is immersive.  If I'm not ready to sit down and shuffle through my meta-spellbook, then really, I'm not ready to play that wizard.  A lot of the time I've deferred to the more consistent rewards of a burly Fighter or sneaky Rogue.

I don't mind Vancian, because it does something for me (there it is again).  I understand other peoples' qualms, and 4e feels like a good compromise, at least.  For me (needed it one more time).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 11, 2012)

I, personally, did not care for vancian magic*.  I can tolerate a spontaneous caster, having enjoyed playing two psions, a warlock, and a warmage, but I found that the dual sets of bookkeeping, both determining which spells to learn, as well as which spells I should use in my limited number of slots per day, made gameplay completely unfun.

I can manage the long-term bookkeeping of determining spells by itself, though, and that's fine.  Hell, I think I was happiest with the warmage, because he had very, very little choice in his spell choices, and those available played to my love of seeing mushroom clouds.


Now, I do NOT think vancian magic should be excised from D&D entirely.  I understand that some people actually enjoy it, and there is the nostalgia/"this is D&D" factor to it.

But I think equal time should be given to other forms of resource use.  Hell, I'd've really appreciated it if the 4e PHB had included the slayer and thief in addition to the AEDU versions of fighter and rogue.

* - Parenthetically, I did not care for Vance's work when I read the Tales of the Dying Earth recently.  But that's not really germane.

Brad


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2012)

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> In regards to AEDU, I agree completely. How someone can complain about Vancian fire-and-forget mechanics and praise AEDU powers at the same time is incomprehensible to me. They're essentially the same thing, (although Vancian casting wins out for me for having more options and flexibility).




To me, though, it's a bit of the best of both worlds.  You still get the big, "Golly Gee" effects with the dailies, but, for the lower level stuff, it's at will's and encounters.  To each his own I guess.  But, it's pretty easy to make the complaint - it's not necessarily that daily powers are bad, it's that "All Dailies and ONLY Dailies" is a problem.




Deset Gled said:


> I'm going to misinterpret your point here and run with it, so bear with me for a moment.
> 
> Although Vancian magic does not mechanically match typical fiction, it matches the feel of older classic fiction.  That it, powerful magic is something that is only available sparingly.  It takes a lot of effort to cast a spell, and after you cast it once it would be extremely rare to see it cast again any time soon.  You don't see Gandalf spamming low level spells, and some characters (like the White Witch or Schmendrick) don't manage to case even a dozen spells in their entire careers.  Early video games follow the same rules; even the wizard in Gauntlet had to carefully collect and conserve his magic pots, and casters in Final Fantasy 1 had no way to regain spells inside a dungeon.
> 
> ...




OTOH, it depends on what you want to point to really.  There's all sorts of examples of casters blasting away with spell after spell.  Any of the comic book wizards, for example, never seem to run out of magic and I'd hardly say Doctor Strange is a new thing.  

The thing is, prior to about 1980 (ish) fantasy fiction, you rarely get protagonist wizards.  You get lots of Gandalf types - standing on the sidelines and doing a bit here and there, but, rarely is the story focused on the wizard type.  There are exceptions here, Moorcock immedietely comes to mind as a lot of his protagonists (Chronicles of Corum (sp) comes to mind.) are wizard(ish) types.

The thing is, in an RPG, the characters are the protagonists.  I'm not sure how useful it is to base mechanics on genre conceits that don't really fit.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This thread has made me curious: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316128-5e-vance-not-vance-question.html
> 
> I personally see Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs.  Something that adds to its unique character.
> 
> ...



I don't know that I'd call myself a D&D lover exactly.  I've always been keenly uncomfortable with a great many of the implied assumptions that D&D has.  Of course, probably right at the top of that list of things I don't like about D&D has always been the magic system--Vancian or otherwise--and one of the first things I tend to house rule in my games is how magic works.

But, if I don't particularly like D&D all that much, why am I posting here from time to time, and why do I always end up coming back to D&D more often than any other game?  Probably mostly because it's so easy to find players who can slip into a game so easily.  In a very real sense, D&D is the common denominator for most of the groups I've been in; none of us necessarily love it the best of all RPG options, but it's the one that we can all agree on playing and enjoy with the least fuss.

Personally, I--and another player or two in my group--would probably rather be playing Cthulhu, honestly.  Another player is a Shadowrun junkie.  One player refuses to do anything science fiction; another is a huge Star Wars fan.  But D&D--quick and easy to jump into, we know it quite well, etc.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm more interested in seeing how they plan to allow vancian and "other" at the same table. Will the 1st level vancian wizard be jealous of the 1st level 4E style wizard when 'A' pulls out his crossbow after firing off his 2 spells while 'B' spams magic missile at will with maybe an encounter or daily thrown into the mix?

Or will it simply be a case of the entire table has to play at this set of dials?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> Any of the comic book wizards, for example, never seem to run out of magic and I'd hardly say Doctor Strange is a new thing.




OTOH, Dr. Strange- Marvel's _Sorcerer Supreme_- is probably the most Vancian of all comic book spellcasters.  I say this because he often calls out the names of his spells- so it's easier to track- and he rarely uses the same ones more than once in a combat or even comic book.  Try a count sometime.  Do you know how many times he uses ths Crimson Bands of Cyttorak?  According to Marvel, 8 times.

Crimson Bands of Cyttorak/Appearances - Marvel Comics Database

8 times in all the decades that character has been around...and that's a basic- albeit powerful- grappling spell.

And, FWIW, he _has_ run out of power, more than once.  There was one story arc in which he was traveling up through dimensions- I believe in search of his beloved Clea- and he only way he could continue on his quest was by stealing the magical reserves of those he defeated.

So while it may be true that comic book spellcasters rarely run out of power, there is the open question of why this is so.  Some clearly have powers that function like 4Ed's At-wills.  Some know specific spells that apparently may only be cast a limited number of times, in Vancian fashion.  Others craft spells on the fly.  Still others can spam their entire repertoire of arcane might any old time...but only know an extremely small number of different powers.  And then there are ones who operate by rules we can only guess at.

All within the same comic book universe.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, Dr. Strange- Marvel's _Sorcerer Supreme_- is probably the most Vancian of all comic book spellcasters.  I say this because he often calls out the names of his spells- so it's easier to track- and he rarely uses the same ones more than once in a combat or even comic book.  Try a count sometime.  Do you know how many times he uses ths Crimson Bands of Cyttorak?  According to Marvel, 8 times.
> 
> Crimson Bands of Cyttorak/Appearances - Marvel Comics Database
> 
> ...



True, but several other things have changed many gamers' conceptions about magic: video games, visual media, and Harry Potter. Most video games rely on a mana system, which is basically spell points + computerized spellpoint recharge. Resource management plays a role, but for the most part, there is usually never really the threat of running out of spells. Also, while spellcasters in television and movies usually fatigue, there is often the sense that they can throw magic around indefinitely. Then there's Harry Potter, which is fairly self-explanatory in terms of how magic is handled. 

I think that one of the problems some people perceive with Vancian magic in D&D is that it still seems somewhat at odds with how people perceive D&D. By that I mean that D&D is largely seen as the gateway tabletop RPG; it's considered to be the most accessible and common. This commonality and accessibility aspect of D&D would therefore seemingly want to provide the system that fits a fairly broad sense of fantasy, but the Vancian magic system despite it "being D&D" offers itself as an exceptionally narrow of conception of fantasy magic. So the Vancian magic system represents a hurdle to further opening up D&D to a broader scope and flexibility of different conceptions of fantasy magic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> True, but several other things have changed many gamers' conceptions about magic..._<snip>_...but the Vancian magic system despite it "being D&D" offers itself as an exceptionally narrow of conception of fantasy magic.



So what?

With the exception of videogames, that is really no more true today than it was back in the 1970s & 1980s.  If you look at the list of _obvious_ inspirations for what got thrown into D&D by Gygax, Arneson & crew, you'll find multiple RW mythologies; the Bible and associated Christian legends; the stories of fantasy writers like Vance, JRRT, Lieber, Moorcock, ERB, HPL, and others; Kung Fu movies and so forth.

And yet the game system didn't replicate the magic found in any of those sources in their entirety, and ignored many of them completely.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *So what?*
> 
> With the exception of videogames, that is really no more true today than it was back in the 1970s & 1980s.  If you look at the list of _obvious_ inspirations for what got thrown into D&D by Gygax, Arneson & crew, you'll find multiple RW mythologies; the Bible and associated Christian legends; the stories of fantasy writers like Vance, JRRT, Lieber, Moorcock, ERB, HPL, and others; Kung Fu movies and so forth.
> 
> *And yet the game system didn't replicate the magic found in any of those sources in their entirety, and ignored many of them completely.*



People don't necessarily want it as the default and would want the default magic system to be more representative and inclusive of other forms of fantasy magic in novels and media, that's what. I thought that point was apparent enough in my second paragraph.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> I thought that point was apparent enough in my second paragraph.




That is the point you were trying to make, but to support it, you listed a bunch of sources that gamers have seen that are non-Vancian.

But the gateway RPG known as D&D has _always _existed in a world with a myriad of non-Vancian influences gamers have seen before trying the game.  Contrary to your opening sentence, *nothing has materially changed* except the list has gotten longer.

Hence my "So what?" response.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 11, 2012)

I feel that Vancian magic should absolutely exist in D&D. As an option for a particular kind of wizard, balanced with other sorts of spellcasters who lack the flexibility and limitation. For balance, you would have to limit how much of a type of spell they could cast per encounter, but you could give them a larger number of options, and even the ability to spam the same spell over and over and over again, if they felt like it.

Just don't make it the default for the rest of the game. Don't make it the default for magic.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is the point you were trying to make, but to support it, you listed a bunch of sources that gamers have seen that are non-Vancian.
> 
> But the gateway RPG known as D&D has _always _existed in a world with a myriad of non-Vancian influences gamers have seen before trying the game.  Contrary to your opening sentence, *nothing has materially changed* except the list has gotten longer.
> 
> Hence my "So what?" response.



The fact that the material list has grown substantially longer is a sign that the environment has materially changed. Vancian magic's scope is increasingly becoming more narrow as the list grows longer. Despite video games, which borrowed _heavily_ from D&D, Vancian magic's place in the fantasy landscape has not grown, but diminished in the market. People are more familiar with _those_ sorts of mages and magic. And it becomes far more frustrating for players wanting to simulate the more common and accessible forms of magic due to the default Vancian assumptions of the gateway RPG system. I'm guessing your reaction amounts to "Screw them! That's not my D&D!" But I would at least hope that you would be sympathetic to why people would want something other than Vancian magic as the default for D&D.


----------



## Plissken (Jan 11, 2012)

I love Vancian magic.

I came from games like Diablo where you had mana to cast spells. When I first played Baldur's Gate as a Mage, I was like...where did all my spells go? I slowly grew to really like the system and I think it just fits the D&D system well. It wouldn't work in a game like Diablo...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> The fact that the material list has grown substantially longer is a sign that the environment has materially changed.




I respectfully disagree.



> Vancian magic's place in the fantasy landscape has not grown, but diminished in the market. People are more familiar with those sorts of mages and magic.




You could say the same of nearly any TTRPG's magic system.  Stormbringer used a pure ritual & summoning model for its magic (accurately reflecting its source material)- a true rarity.  How many games have a system like MERP (which didn't reflect its source material)?  Or like WoD's?

Even if several games make use of a spell point system, each will have unique details that may make doing identical tasks very different.

For example, I tried converting a particular HERO PC concept into a GURPS game, and one minor power on the HERO PC took nearly a third of the GURPS PC's build points.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 11, 2012)

Not a fan of Vancian but don't hate it as such. It simply does not feel magical to me. The 4e ritual system emulates rare and difficult magic better than Vancian.
I think the adding of at will casting either in the 4e manner or via reserve feats imporved it a lot.

I think that my absolute favourite casting system is ENWorld's Elements of magic but systems like that are tough on the DM, both in the adjudication and in creating encounters that the system will not break.

I would not mourn its passing but it is part of the D&D identity so it should remain in some form.

As for what is the essence of D&D to me; Gonzo. Impossible heros doing 10 impossible things to impossible monsters before breakfast.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I respectfully disagree.



At least you are doing it respectfully I suppose. I obviously do see the environment as materially changing as the views towards fictional magic found in written, visual, and interactive media are increasingly moving away from particular and not towards Vancian magic, despite its prominence in something as influential for most contemporaneous fantasy writers and video game designers as D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

The fact of the matter is that nearly every non-game source you can point to uses its own unique magic system, ranging from actual systems with delineated rules to magic as writer's fiat (IOW, not a real "system" at all).

Expecting a non-generic system - HERO, GURPS, M&M, etc.- to be able to model even a fraction of those is simply unrealistic.

I suspect that D&D's designers (all of them, over time) realized this early on, picked/designed a system as its default, then added other stuff incrementally.  But even though D&D is the gateway to the hobby, no D&D design team has adopted a generic system (see above) in order to model all those influences.  Not even close.

And I don't expect that to change.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The fact of the matter is that nearly every non-game source you can point to uses its own unique magic system, ranging from actual systems with delineated rules to magic as writer's fiat (IOW, not a real "system" at all).



That is the fact of the matter, and I am not arguing otherwise. I'm certainly not under the delusion that non-Vancian magic looks entirely a certain way. But I would personally hope in D&D for creating a system that acts as a "line of best fit" that allows for a broader range of magical simulation in by players and DM campaign settings.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I suspect that D&D's designers (all of them, over time) realized this early on, picked/designed a system as its default, then added other stuff incrementally.  But even though D&D is the gateway to the hobby, no D&D design team has adopted a generic system (see above) in order to model all those influences.  Not even close.



I suspect it's more an issue of backwards compatibility that gradually changed into an identity and nostalgia issue. 



> And I don't expect that to change.



I am personally not a fan of the attitude in this post, which I probably dislike more than the Vancian magic system itself. This is where I perceived the underlying "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system" subtext. It's a sort of "It's not going to change, so just deal with it. It's the Vancian magic way or the highway. Your voices and opinions about D&D's direction don't matter. It can't be your D&D. It's only my D&D." You mean not be intending it, but that's what it feels like to me.


----------



## jbear (Jan 11, 2012)

I love D&D but I'm not a fun (edit: I mean fan. A curious error to have made and revealing as to my beef with Vancian magic) of vancian magic. I wouldn't go so far as to say I loathe it but i do dislike it.

The why is trickier to explain for me. 

One of the reasons I can put my finger on has to do with what a wizard is doing for the first 4 levels of his career. I began playing AD&D and it was the same issue in 3.5. My basic experience was that it was just a matter of survival until they gained access to level 3 spells, particularly fireball which would then just about end any fight. 

Secondly, I really don't think a wizard carrying a crossbow fits AT ALL. Can anyone imagine Gandalf using a crossbow. Me neither. Merlin? Fizban? Raistlin? Well, they are the icons of wizardlyness for me. I think Vancian magic pushes the wizard to use a weapon that no wizard with any self respect would just to remain useful for the first levels of their career. 

I know these comments are only based on my memories and so only true/relevant in a very limited degree, but I guess its the feeling of having such a limited amount of things to do for such a long time (we never took characters any further than lvl 7) was what taints my memory of Vancian Magic.

Thirdly, I think as some people have criticised 4e and the magical nature of martial characters encounter and daily powers, questioning why they couldn't pull off those maneuvres ad infinitum; I guess I would question the same thing about wizards. Why does their brain get wiped when they let loose a tiny bolt of magic? Why can't they pull that off til ... I don't know ... their brain gets tired? And how do you memorise the same thing twice anyhow? Again, I just can't imagine Gandalf suddenly going: "How did that light spell go again!!?? Drats,  just slipped my mind. Need to hit the books again."

The cleric never suffered this as much because they could wear armour and swing a mace. They were useful even when they ran out  of spells. Perhaps that is why I always favoured playing a cleric. I wanted to be able to do awesome supernatural stuff. But I didn't want to always have to be hiding in the back accumulating  xp til I was tough  enough to survive a hit and clever enough to remember a decent handful of spells. 

Anyway, those are my reasons. I can't really defend them as they come  from a feeling which is directly stemming from   my personal experience. I certainly don't consider Vancian  magic a defining feature of D&D. I'd be sorely disappointed to see a return to it without seeing the addition of the casters at will signature spell to the wizard's base capability. Wizards with Crossbows ... honestly ...


----------



## Thanael (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Without Vancian casting as the default, the game would be more like other FRPGs; mechanical assumptions would be changed; the fiction would change.




I'm not sure the fiction would change. Most D&D related fiction I've read (and that's a lot) skirts around the distinct prepared casting slots and memorization parts. The wizards have just the right spells prepared mostly. If the Spellpoint system would be default but the spells and accessible spell levels stay the same I think you'd still recognize it as D&D. 

From reading Dragonlance for example you get the notion that there should be Casting Fatigue rules. Even in Forgotten Realms fiction I can't remember that i ever came across: "Oh i have the wrong spells prepared. Let me sleep 8 hours and then prepare it"

Sepulchrave's SH is one of the few examples of fully embracing the Vancian system and even using it in the IC language (Valences) and i think it shows how cool that can be.

The spells and spell levels are more idiosyncratic to D&D than the prepared fire and forget Vancian casting imo.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 11, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> I'm going to misinterpret your point here and run with it, so bear with me for a moment.
> 
> Although Vancian magic does not mechanically match typical fiction, it matches the feel of older classic fiction. That it, powerful magic is something that is only available sparingly. It takes a lot of effort to cast a spell, and after you cast it once it would be extremely rare to see it cast again any time soon.




And this to me is where D&D Vancian casting fails utterly and thoroughly once you reach AD&D 2e.  "Once per day" is not rare unless you happen to live in Fantasy ing Vietnam or be playing a small commando unit, fast moving and hard hitting and on a mission to loot all you can - and never spend the night (or if you try you get hit by a wandering monster roll every ten minutes).

Gandalf might not spam spells - but he _would_ if he was an AD&D mage.  How many fights does the Fellowship get into in all the weeks it was travelling?  The only time it's more than one in a day is IIRC Moria. So other than Moria in D&D he would have a _full loadout_ of spells.  The 4e Bladesinger would be a better match for Gandalf - with only four daily attack spells at level 30 and the rest of it being either minor magic or bladework.  

And as for characters like Jadis who barely cast at all, they are _not_ AD&D Magic Users.  AD&D magic users are more like Harry Potter - able to scream Expelliarmus half a dozen times in a day and still have half a dozen other spells at mid level.

On the other hand inside a dungeon the 1e spellcasting rules work the way you say.   Outside they fail miserably.  It's an easy tweak - Wizards need to be in a secure environment with a library and clerics in a church to regain any serious magic.  But it's not a tweak that's part of D&D, meaning that the second D&D wizards stop dungeoneering they stop behaving anything like the fiction.



Thanael said:


> I'm not sure the fiction would change. Most D&D related fiction I've read (and that's a lot) skirts around the distinct prepared casting slots and memorization parts. The wizards have just the right spells prepared mostly. If the Spellpoint system would be default but the spells and accessible spell levels stay the same I think you'd still recognize it as D&D.




Indeed.  Vancian casting doesn't even simulate _D&D fiction_ very well.  That's how bad a narrative fail it is the second you take it away from dungeoneering.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> Vancian casting doesn't even simulate D&D fiction very well. That's how bad a narrative fail it is the second you take it away from dungeoneering.




That would be a failing on the part of the fiction writers, not the system.  (I don't read game fiction.)

*******

A question about Harry Potter- do the spellcasters in that need wands or other foci, or are those mainly for show?


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this to me is where D&D Vancian casting fails utterly and thoroughly once you reach AD&D 2e. "Once per day" is not rare unless you happen to live in Fantasy ing Vietnam or be playing a small commando unit, fast moving and hard hitting and on a mission to loot all you can - and never spend the night (or if you try you get hit by a wandering monster roll every ten minutes).
> 
> Gandalf might not spam spells - but he _would_ if he was an AD&D mage. How many fights does the Fellowship get into in all the weeks it was travelling? The only time it's more than one in a day is IIRC Moria. So other than Moria in D&D he would have a _full loadout_ of spells. The 4e Bladesinger would be a better match for Gandalf - with only four daily attack spells at level 30 and the rest of it being either minor magic or bladework.
> 
> ...




Fantasy fiction, well most of it anyway, seems to be a much lower level of magic than that of a typcial D&D world. Middle Earth has much less magic than D&D, so comparing Gandalf with a D&D wizard is apples and oranges. While a balrog suggests a much higher level of magic exists in Middle Earth, this magic is outside the power of the player characters. Nobody in the fellowship beyond Gandalf did any magic at all.

If you're playing in a magic weak world, then one could more closely go along with your line of thinking - IMO. Most fantasy fiction writers don't have D&D in mind when designing their worlds.

I've read some D&D short fiction that in fact, included the daily preparation of spells as part of the story, I guess it depends who is writing the D&D fiction. It's the fault of the story, not the magic.

I have to agree with Danny on that last part of your quote above.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That would be a failing on the part of the fiction writers, not the system. (I don't read game fiction.)




It's both.  And a severe failure on the part of the editors.  But it still says that the magic system is unintuitive enough that the writers don't always use it.



> A question about Harry Potter- do the spellcasters in that need wands or other foci, or are those mainly for show?




Wands help wizards in about the same way weapons help fighters.  Wizards _can_ cast spells without them but it's much harder and they can do a lot less with a whole lot less control.


----------



## Matt James (Jan 11, 2012)

Vancian magic can stay, but it can't be so unbalancing as to disincentivize the play of other character types (fighter, et al.)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 11, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Fantasy fiction, well most of it anyway, seems to be a much lower level of magic than that of a typcial D&D world. Middle Earth has much less magic than D&D, so comparing Gandalf with a D&D wizard is apples and oranges. While a balrog suggests a much higher level of magic exists in Middle Earth, this magic is outside the power of the player characters. Nobody in the fellowship beyond Gandalf did any magic at all.
> 
> If you're playing in a magic weak world, then one could more closely go along with your line of thinking - IMO. Most fantasy fiction writers don't have D&D in mind when designing their worlds.




I see an excluded middle there.  I can think of worlds that are higher magic than D&D.  All the ones I can think of have something in common, however - if protagonists are not magic users (or inherently magical), there is a plot-related reason.

And this is where I bounce off the "high magic" of AD&D/3.X/PF.  The fighters are playing an ultimately low magic setting with added bling (even Aragorn had a flaming sword), while the casters are playing high magic.  To me this jars badly unless either everyone is at least as powerful a caster as a bard or no one's a more powerful caster than a bard.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 11, 2012)

I haven't seen Dresden Files get brought up yet. I think that's a pretty good example of a Vancian magic system that I do like. It's not that spells get wiped from memory, but that they tax the user and become harder to cast repeatedly.

Anyway, that's what I'd like to see.

Me, I don't tend to play wizards in D&D because I get paralyzed by the number of options. I generally prefer sorcerers and warlocks even though I like the Vancian system, simply because there are not nearly as many options.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I see an excluded middle there. I can think of worlds that are higher magic than D&D. All the ones I can think of have something in common, however - if protagonists are not magic users (or inherently magical), there is a plot-related reason.
> 
> And this is where I bounce off the "high magic" of AD&D/3.X/PF. The fighters are playing an ultimately low magic setting with added bling (even Aragorn had a flaming sword), while the casters are playing high magic. To me this jars badly unless either everyone is at least as powerful a caster as a bard or no one's a more powerful caster than a bard.




I did say _most_ fantasy fiction was magic weaker, that doesn't mean to suggest there aren't higher magical worlds than D&D.

I can see your point of view, though I don't find it so jarring myself. Not everyone should be a caster, even a partial one. But your argument has merit.


----------



## jimmifett (Jan 11, 2012)

Having originally started with Gurps, my only exposure to DnD had been PC games from what i think are called the Gold Box series and the Intellivision games. My dad had bought them (he played DnD when I was a baby) and at that time (about 12-ish) I was more into sci-fi. I tried it, was completely confused by the rules.

Coming from gurps, I wondered why I couldn't choose any race/class combo I wanted. The vancian magic system confused the heck out of me until I figured out the original Final Fantasy game used it (and I hated that system). AC and thac0 made no sense. But I could kill things and that was what mattered! I thought some of the puzzles were neat, but never played the PnP version of the game until Heroes of Battle and Eberron.

The idea of special forces elves and a pre-WWII-ish feeling fantasy world with political intrigue sounded damn cool to me. After that, I was hooked.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 11, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I did say _most_ fantasy fiction was magic weaker, that doesn't mean to suggest there aren't higher magical worlds than D&D.
> 
> I can see your point of view, though I don't find it so jarring myself. Not everyone should be a caster, even a partial one. But your argument has merit.




Thanks.  And to clarify, I don't mean that everyone should be a caster or no one should.  I'd have no problem playing a thief who could hide from just about anything and steal thoughts from peoples minds or a fighter who was quite literally immune to magic.  A high magic warrior even if he can't directly cast spells.

And I have no problem with casters in low magic games.  They just have to be low magic casters (like the Bard).

But when a third level wizard with Int 14 makes a better cat burglar (spider climb or levitate and knock to break in, tenser's disk and mount to carry off the loot, and charm and sleep for the guards) than a fifth level rogue does, something's gone badly wrong.  Sure, he can only do it once a night to the minor aristocracy - but that's quite enough.  When Fagin would have been better off teaching casting than to pick a pocket or two something's gone wrong.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I haven't seen Dresden Files get brought up yet. I think that's a pretty good example of a Vancian magic system that I do like. It's not that spells get wiped from memory, but that they tax the user and become harder to cast repeatedly.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I'd like to see.



I like Dresden style magic.  I don't know why you call that Vancian, though.  There's nothing Vancian about the notion that using magic is physically taxing and makes you tired.  Vancian doesn't refer to just limiting the amount of magic that magic-users can use, it's a very specific type of magic use assumptions.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> That would be a failing on the part of the fiction writers, not the system.  (I don't read game fiction.)



Actually, it's not.  Game fiction is never worse than when the mechanics of the game are obvious in the prose.

And I do agree that it's compelling evidence that the magic system from D&D is completely unlike much of anything in the fantasy genre so much so that even D&D fiction doesn't consistently portray it as it is in the game, and when they do it's awkward and facile.  Surely you can see that that's an issue that a lot of gamers will take exception with?  Your arguments in favor of Vancian magic seem to be the proverbial tilting at windmills, because you're trying to convince people to like something that _they just don't like._  You really can't argue issues of taste very effectively.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 11, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I like Dresden style magic.  I don't know why you call that Vancian, though.  There's nothing Vancian about the notion that using magic is physically taxing and makes you tired.  Vancian doesn't refer to just limiting the amount of magic that magic-users can use, it's a very specific type of magic use assumptions.



No, but he does consult ancient tomes, wizards of higher power, and otherwise research, practice, and memorize spells to use. Some spells are one-off. Some are more common.

I think there is more of Vance about Dresden than you do, obviously. It's not just the taxing spell-use. It's the research for spells, deliberate creation and preparation of specific spells for use, and, realistically, the scry and prepare method that commonly is decried by people who don't like Vancian magic. That, and Dresden has a pistol for when he can't use magic. Sounds just like a D&D-style wizard to me.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 11, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> No, but he does consult ancient tomes, wizards of higher power, and otherwise research, practice, and memorize spells to use. Some spells are one-off. Some are more common.




None of that makes it Vancian. In the D&D context, the defining trait of Vancian magic is that spells are expended upon casting. At any given time, you have X _fireballs_ and Y _lightning bolts_ prepared. You can run out of _fireballs_ and still have plenty of _lightning bolts_ left. I often describe it as "use it and lose it."

This does not describe Harry Dresden in the slightest. Dresden appears to run on a fatigue-based or perhaps a spell point system. The closest he comes to Vancian magic is his force-rings that charge up over time, but magic items don't typically count. As for using a gun, that doesn't make him Vancian any more than Glamdring made Gandalf Vancian.

Now, you can play games with the dictionary if you like and try to redefine "Vancian," but all you accomplish with that is obfuscation. What we're talking about here is the kind of magic where you prep your spells _and lose them upon casting_. It doesn't matter what you call it.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 11, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> None of that makes it Vancian. In the D&D context, the defining trait of Vancian magic is that spells are expended upon casting. At any given time, you have X _fireballs_ and Y _lightning bolts_ prepared. You can run out of _fireballs_ and still have plenty of _lightning bolts_ left. I often describe it as "use it and lose it."



A) What's with the hostility? Totally uncalled for.

B) I just finished, literally yesterday, reading "Eyes of the Overworld" which followed from "Tales of a Dying Earth."

What I described seems very much Vancian. Now, that may not be D&D's take on Vance, so I can see where your disagreement comes from, but it was stated that no fiction now adheres to the Vancian system. The system you just described isn't actually Vance's magic system.

Incidentally, many of Dresden's spells are expended upon casting. Except for the very common ones of "Fuego" and "Forzare" just about everything else he casts is cast once and then not again. I'd say that the spell fatigue is in addition to the Vancian system.

C) One of the most common anti-Vance positions is that wizards shouldn't resort to mundane weapons when out of magic. By referencing Harry's pistol (and shotgun, and some other weapons he has), I was pointing out that there is, in fact, fiction that does support wizards using mundane weapons when magic is either undesirable or unavailable. That doesn't make him "Vancian," you are correct, but I do believe it answers the concern. Now, it doesn't solve the problem for people who don't like that, and that becomes personal taste. I won't call out taste as being bad or good. I was merely stating there there are wizards in popular fiction who run out of magic and resort to mundane weapons.

EDIT - I'm not looking to pick a fight. I was answering the call for fiction that emulates Vance. I happen to think Dresden does emulate Vance, including the memorizing of spells that may or may not be used, and once used are unavailable again without preparation. Obviously you don't think that counts.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Thanks. And to clarify, I don't mean that everyone should be a caster or no one should. I'd have no problem playing a thief who could hide from just about anything and steal thoughts from peoples minds or a fighter who was quite literally immune to magic. A high magic warrior even if he can't directly cast spells.
> 
> And I have no problem with casters in low magic games. They just have to be low magic casters (like the Bard).
> 
> But when a third level wizard with Int 14 makes a better cat burglar (spider climb or levitate and knock to break in, tenser's disk and mount to carry off the loot, and charm and sleep for the guards) than a fifth level rogue does, something's gone badly wrong. Sure, he can only do it once a night to the minor aristocracy - but that's quite enough. When Fagin would have been better off teaching casting than to pick a pocket or two something's gone wrong.




Well the rogue has never been represented well in D&D, IMO.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Incidentally, many of Dresden's spells are expended upon casting. Except for the very common ones of "Fuego" and "Forzare" just about everything else he casts is cast once and then not again. I'd say that the spell fatigue is in addition to the Vancian system.



No they're not.  If he needed to, and he's not too tired to do so, Dresden could cast them all again immediately.  They don't go away and he has to go study them again because they burn themselves out of his mind.

Mostly he doesn't cast them again, because once he's cast a spell the first time, he gets the effect that he hoped for in casting the spell making the idea of casting it again moot.

I agree with Dasuul that that's specifically what is meant when folks refer to D&D magic as Vancian (although I also agree that it might be a bit of a misnomer, as it's not clear that Vance's magic actually operates exactly that way in the Dying Earth series).  That doesn't describe Dresden style magic at all.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 11, 2012)

So, if the specific problem is the wizard class in D&D, what do people who don't like Vancian magic think of sorcerers and warlocks? (I'm thinking specifically as they were implemented in 3E). Also, does the same anti-Vancian feeling apply to clerics, who work essentially the same way as wizards do, mechanically at least?

I'm honestly more curious about the second question, now that I think about it. Clerics work almost exactly the same way as Wizards, in that they have to sleep, prepare specific spells, and then once those spells are cast, they're gone. The fiction in the rules is a bit different, but the mechanical effects are pretty much identical. Is there the same feeling exhibited towards the two classes? Why or why not?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

> Actually, it's not. Game fiction is never worse than when the mechanics of the game are obvious in the prose.




No, it's _solidly_ a failing of the writers & editors if they cannot stay within the boundaries of the underlying IP.  It's no different than a scriptwriting team for a TV series ignoring important elements from the continuity bible of a movie or novel.  Or would you prefer Gandalf slaying the Balor with a single, nicely timed barrage of disintegrate rays and continuing with the Company of the Ring?  Or King Arthur utterly kicking Mordred's ass in a complete rout of his forces and living to reign for another 40 years?

Or, using RW examples, did you like the changes that were made to Earthsea in the miniseries?  Did you ever read David Brin's _The Postman_ and wonder why there was a Kevin Costner movie using its title...and not much else?

I'm not saying that the game mechanics need to be obvious- you don't need to have casters naming the specific spells they're casting or the like- but if you can't follow the established rules of the underlying IP when translating it to another medium, there had better be a damn good reason...and "I don't like it" or "It's holding me back" are insufficient, IMHO.

An exhausted Vancian caster in fiction need not say "I'm all out of spell-slots until I rememorize spells and rest for 8 hours"- "I've tapped all my mystic reserves- I can do naught else 'till I recuperate somewhat" or the like would suffice.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2012)

Ah, but you're presuming that Vancian magic is something _that readers of D&D novels want to see._  I'd say that in general, mechanics showing through the prose is a complaint that I've seen over and over again from reviewers (and have myself) while I've rarely (if ever) seen anyone say that they wish they could see more of the mechanics in the novels.

In other words, it's only a problem if getting the details of how magic works is more important to you than having good prose in your D&D fiction.  Since I'd venture a guess that for most readers that's not true, it's not a failing at all.  In fact, it may be done purposefully and with full intent for all I know--although we'd have to ask some of the novel writers who occasionally hang out to comment to get a definitive answer, no doubt.

In any case, _I_ certainly don't see it as a failing, because having prose that is rigorous about demonstrating the magic system of D&D (which is likely always meant to have been an abstraction rather than anything else) in all it's gameplay mechanical wonkiness is something that I'd see as a detriment.  And frankly, D&D fiction has enough detriments going for it as it is--it doesn't need to be further handicapped by making writers know the rules of the game and make sure that their fiction adheres to it.

I also think your examples of taking an adaptation of a novel into a movie and changing aspects of the plot are not comparable, to say the least.  And I haven't read any of those except Lord of the Rings anyway.


----------



## Thanael (Jan 11, 2012)

Sepulchrave's SH pulled it off pretty well, even talking about the valences of spells. The wizard talk there was very entertaining. (And so were the wizards come to think of it.)

But as i said above i think it's more the spells themselves and the spell-levels and the spellbooks and swapping spells with other wizards and researching new ones, than the fire and forget spell slots and that define D&D magic.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 11, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it's _solidly_ a failing of the writers & editors if they cannot stay within the boundaries of the underlying IP.



Weren't many writers of D&D novels both players and game-designers of D&D itself?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Weren't many writers of D&D novels both players and game-designers of D&D itself?




I have no idea- like I said, I don't read RPG fiction- but if they were, they REALLY have no excuse for straying far afield from the underlying IP.

If you're going to change something in the fiction, give a good, internally justified reason.

When Trills were introduced in ST: NG, they could not use transporters.  By the end of ST: DS9, they could do so freely- no explanation given.  That's a problem. It screws continuity; it's lazy writing at best, and a lack of respect at worst.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 11, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Weren't many writers of D&D novels both players and game-designers of D&D itself?




I spoke to several novelists at Gencon 2011, while getting autographs, I asked one of them a specific question regarding a suggestion of a type of magic mentioned in the book, and what it was related in the game - he had no idea what I was talking about. Not saying all D&D authors are like this, but I've found not all of them are necessarily knowledgeable about the game...


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jan 12, 2012)

Vancian magic made my highschool group just avoid spellcasters. You may have a Paladin or a Ranger who eventually ended up with some spells but otherwise we avoided them. Later I played with people who actually enjoyed playing a wizard but with the exception of a beloved 3e cleric I still avoid magic for the most part as a player.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 12, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have no idea- like I said, I don't read RPG fiction- but if they were, they REALLY have no excuse for straying far afield from the underlying IP.
> 
> If you're going to change something in the fiction, give a good, internally justified reason.




I think most of the authors either don't realize they are changing the rules or change it because they feel it makes the story better.  I mean, one of the most common conceits in ALL of the D&D novels is that, despite how common resurrection magic is in every edition of D&D, no one who dies in a D&D novel ever gets brought back to life.  Everyone treats death like it's permanent.

And, yes, most of the time even in D&D novels the Vancian system is ignored.  Most of the time, it just isn't mentioned.  Partially because the majority of them try not to include wizards as main characters.  And partially because they are just mentioned as "casting a fire spell" and that's it.  Sometimes they cast more than 1 of the same spell.  But often, they don't run out within the course of the novel.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 12, 2012)

Our Gifted & Talented teacher in 6th grade got me to read the Hobbit and then ask my mom for the Lord of the Rings.  She then said if I liked those books, she hosted a D&D group on Friday's.  I'd never heard of D&D, but I went and played a Wizard and I was hooked.  I'm definitely on the side of Vancian is dumb, but it's more why should someone who studies so much not be able to remember what they read once they cast it.  Yes I know, it's from a book, but it feels bad to me and always had.  I like being the magic man, but I never liked how it was done in previous editions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I mean, one of the most common conceits in ALL of the D&D novels is that, despite how common resurrection magic is in every edition of D&D, no one who dies in a D&D novel ever gets brought back to life.  Everyone treats death like it's permanent.



I never thought of resurrection magic as all that common, honestly- in 30+ years, I've only seen a handful of PCs get brought back from the dead...and one of those had an artifact fused to his skull that did it automatically.  Otherwise, its too costly.



> But often, they don't run out within the course of the novel.




I'd be extremely surprised if a character ran out of magic over the course of a novel unless all of the action took place in a day or less.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> So, if the specific problem is the wizard class in D&D, what do people who don't like Vancian magic think of sorcerers and warlocks? (I'm thinking specifically as they were implemented in 3E). Also, does the same anti-Vancian feeling apply to clerics, who work essentially the same way as wizards do, mechanically at least?
> 
> I'm honestly more curious about the second question, now that I think about it. Clerics work almost exactly the same way as Wizards, in that they have to sleep, prepare specific spells, and then once those spells are cast, they're gone. The fiction in the rules is a bit different, but the mechanical effects are pretty much identical. Is there the same feeling exhibited towards the two classes? Why or why not?




Personally, I have a much bigger problem with Vancian clerics and druids than with wizards.  At that point, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.  "Oh, Great Graznock!  Smite the enemies of thy Faith!  *fizzle*  Oh, well, I guess we're only allowed to smite one enemy of the faith today."

OTOH, clerics, as a class, have no real counterparts in any genre fiction.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 12, 2012)

I created a post on my blog suggesting clerics be treated more like freaks of nature... akin to stories of real world saints. They would be people who would freak out a simple priest, because they can actually perform miracles.

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: The Cleric as Prophet and Saint


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I have a much bigger problem with Vancian clerics and druids than with wizards.  At that point, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.  "Oh, Great Graznock!  Smite the enemies of thy Faith!  *fizzle*  Oh, well, I guess we're only allowed to smite one enemy of the faith today."
> 
> OTOH, clerics, as a class, have no real counterparts in any genre fiction.



Most magical priests in fiction would likely be classified as arcane classes, such as wizards, sorcerers, or witches. I personally like the Iron Heroes Companion solution: arcanists and spiritualists. Arcanists are regular mages and the like, while spiritualists derive their magic from pacts with otherworldly beings (e.g., gods, demons, devils, etc.). It's a nice split of both playstyle and source that's more well-defined than wizards and priests.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I have a much bigger problem with Vancian clerics and druids than with wizards.  At that point, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.  "Oh, Great Graznock!  Smite the enemies of thy Faith!  *fizzle*  Oh, well, I guess we're only allowed to smite one enemy of the faith today."
> 
> OTOH, clerics, as a class, have no real counterparts in any genre fiction.



Fair enough. I think Vancian clerics could at least make more sense as the powers are literally granted by gods. When you call upon a spell, you are using your limited direct line to a god to grant you a power. Gods are busy and fickle and they don't have the power to give you everything you want, so choose what help you want from them wisely.

That at least makes more sense to me than magic that erases itself from your memory (which I don't actually recall from Vance's books or from the game mechanics--it just seems like hyperbolic shorthand).


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 12, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> So, if the specific problem is the wizard class in D&D, what do people who don't like Vancian magic think of sorcerers and warlocks? (I'm thinking specifically as they were implemented in 3E). Also, does the same anti-Vancian feeling apply to clerics, who work essentially the same way as wizards do, mechanically at least?




I love sorcerors. I like warlocks in theory, although they're severely underpowered and rather boring in practice. (They don't get enough invocations IMO.)

Vancian clerics seem even sillier than Vancian wizards to me.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 12, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I love sorcerors. I like warlocks in theory, although they're severely underpowered and rather boring in practice. (They don't get enough invocations IMO.)



So how do you justify the fact that sorcerers run out of spells?

Also, is your only objection, then, to the memorize and forget mechanic? As opposed to the mechanic whereby after a certain point in a day a wizard/cleric/sorcerer becomes essentially a useless pawn with a crossbow?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> So how do you justify the fact that sorcerers run out of spells?
> 
> Also, is you only objection, then, to the memorize and forget mechanic? As opposed to the mechanic whereby after a certain point in a day a wizard/cleric/sorcerer becomes essentially a useless pawn with a crossbow?




I'm obviously not Dasuul, but, I'd like to take a stab a that if  I may.

For me, it's the memorize and forget mechanic mostly, which is why I think sorcerers and other alternative casters (the Shadowcaster and the Truenamer both were fantastic ideas, although the mechanics were a bit... bleah).   The M&F mechanic is just so problematic IMO.  I listed the issues before, but, I'm going to be a bit more specific here:

  M&F magic means that general purpose spells will always trump specific purpose spells.  No one will ever memorize Illusory Script before Fireball.  There are a handful of spells that might as well be class powers because every (or virtually every) caster of that class takes them (or something close) because they are just that much more useful than the other choices.

The only thing worse than having severely limited spells/day is having spells that only function in very limited circumstances, most of which are beyond your control.  In most D&D campaigns, it's usually not a big stretch to think that you might need to fireball or lightning something today.  OTOH, Water Breathing is taking up a slot and, unless you know you're going to need it today, it might still be there when you go to bed tonight.

Which rolls me back around to the sorcerer.  The sorc solves so many of the issues that I have with casters in 3.x.  Give him a few more Spells Known and I'd happily eject clerics and wizards in favor of a Sorcerer that chooses either arcane or divine magic.  The Favored Soul fills this role perfectly.  

If I played 3.x again, I would eject all three of the core casters and replace them with sorcerers and favored souls.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which rolls me back around to the sorcerer.  The sorc solves so many of the issues that I have with casters in 3.x.  Give him a few more Spells Known and I'd happily eject clerics and wizards in favor of a Sorcerer that chooses either arcane or divine magic.  The Favored Soul fills this role perfectly.
> 
> If I played 3.x again, I would eject all three of the core casters and replace them with sorcerers and favored souls.



Even assuming a larger number of spells to know, don't you still wind up at the same place? No one is going to use one of their known spell slots for Water Breathing when there are other more general spells available. This solution doesn't really seem to answer the problem of spell selection.

I know I've read about a variant somewhere that meshes together wizard and sorcerer. Everyday you memorize certain spells (but only one of each) like a wizard, but cast them like a sorcerer using up spell level slots instead of individual spells. I just don't remember where I read that. Does that still suffer from the same sorts of problems with fire-and-forget spells?

It seems to me that something like the above should solve the complaints against D&D-style Vancian magic. I think the major concern with that would be giving casters even more power, which is definitely a bad thing.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Weren't many writers of D&D novels both players and game-designers of D&D itself?



Yes.  D&D novels were written by guys like Bill Slavicsek, Rich Baker, James Wyatt and others as often as by folks who were not in the game design industry.

And of those not in the game design industry, I'd venture an awful lot of them have (or at least had) gaming as a hobby.


----------



## Janx (Jan 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which rolls me back around to the sorcerer.  The sorc solves so many of the issues that I have with casters in 3.x.  Give him a few more Spells Known and I'd happily eject clerics and wizards in favor of a Sorcerer that chooses either arcane or divine magic.  The Favored Soul fills this role perfectly.
> 
> If I played 3.x again, I would eject all three of the core casters and replace them with sorcerers and favored souls.




In 2e, we had house-ruled that casters didn't have to memorize (worked like sorcerors, but this predated 3e).

it worked great, and our non-fireball spells actually got some use and our problem solving became more varied.

3e kinda hurt that, because with splitting the arcane caster into Wizard and Sorceror, we saw it as a design choice not to mess with.

With 4e (the pre-release rumor of it) it looked like they split the spells into the immediate blasty stuff and rituals for the pokey, rare stuff that you don't need to cast in a hurry.

the immediate stuff makes sense to me.  archers and fighters can keep doing the damage they do every round.  Yet a wizard has a few good shots in him, with the rest rapidly diminishing in power.  So fixing things that a wizard can make a useful contribution every round (that shouldn't overshadow anybody else) sounded like a good thing.

But the vancian system itself?  I found that it stifled creativity because a fireball is more useful in more cases than most other 3rd level spells.  This meant that the chances of the player memorizing a special purpose spell  was lower, let alone that being the right special purpose spell you would need today.

Some folks talk about those heady days that wizard players would just plan this stuff out and KNOW they would need a waterbreathing spell when they reached level 3 of the dungeon today.  My experience as a player was more akin to Jack Bauer.  A metric crapton of action and plot twists packed into a short time frame with little time to predict, let alone prepare in advance.  As such, you prepped general purpose spells and worked with the situation at hand.

When we opened up the gates on casting any spell known, suddenly I had way more options on how to solve problems.  I stopped throwing as many fireballs around and got to use my special purpose spells in creative ways.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2012)

> what do people who don't like Vancian magic think of sorcerers and warlocks?




While I do love Vancian magic, I'll still answer: I like the Sorcerer, but not the Warlock.  But my dislike of the Warlock has almost nothing to do with the class' mechanics.  Personally, I think the way 4Ed reworked the class is one of the true bright spots I the game...so much so that my first 4Ed PC was a Warlock.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2012)

> No one will ever memorize Illusory Script before Fireball.




Let's scale that back to "Very few will ever memorize Illusory Script before Fireball." because I know people who will....like me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 12, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I never thought of resurrection magic as all that common, honestly- in 30+ years, I've only seen a handful of PCs get brought back from the dead...and one of those had an artifact fused to his skull that did it automatically.  Otherwise, its too costly.



This has not been the case for any of our games.  Following the wealth by level guidelines in 3e or 3.5e meant that every group would have enough money to raise dead someone starting at about level 2(a group of 6 adventurers that are level 2 have 900 GP a piece and therefore could get 5400 GPs together...the material cost of Raise Dead is 5000 GP).  More practically, a group of 5 PCs had the money to easily bring someone back by 6th level, where 10% of each character's wealth pooled together was 6500.  Enough to pay for the material cost of the spell and a generous fee for a cleric to cast it.

At level 11 and higher in 3.5, 10% of any one character's wealth is enough to bring someone back from the dead.  Also, at 11th level, an encounter with 4 enemies should drop enough treasure to pay for a raise dead.  So, you should be able to bring one member of the party after each combat at 11th level and higher.  Especially considering the party likely contains a cleric who can cast the spell, thereby only needing the 5000 GP and not having to pay a cleric to cast it.

The cost is only 500 GP in 4e to bring someone back in Heroic tier.  Most people have that amount of money by level 2.  Though, in 4e only "heroes" can by brought back at all.  So Raise Dead isn't an option for anyone but PCs, in general.

In 1e and 2e it's a little more difficult to judge, given there were no guidelines for how much wealth a group should have other than what the DM thought was appropriate.  Still, in all of my 2e games that were over 5th level, we considered Raise Dead an appropriate spell to cast when someone died.  Below that, it was a little too expensive.

I've had PCs who were working on their 6th or 7th return from death.  If you totaled the party, it would be closer to 30.  That was just in one game.

It's been part of the "signing agreement" for every adventuring party I've ever been in that should any member of the party die, that all of the remaining members would pool their money to have them brought back and that each member had to agree to it before joining.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd be extremely surprised if a character ran out of magic over the course of a novel unless all of the action took place in a day or less.



I've read a couple of D&D novels where a caster explicitly ran out of a certain spell at a dramatically appropriate time.  And a couple more where a caster mentally took an inventory of the spells they had available before choosing what to cast.  It's been a while since I read any of them, but there was even one where a caster completely ran out of spells in a day.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which rolls me back around to the sorcerer.  The sorc solves so many of the issues that I have with casters in 3.x.  Give him a few more Spells Known and I'd happily eject clerics and wizards in favor of a Sorcerer that chooses either arcane or divine magic.  The Favored Soul fills this role perfectly.
> 
> If I played 3.x again, I would eject all three of the core casters and replace them with sorcerers and favored souls.



I'm with you there.  I actually prefer a lower magic type game, with something more like rituals or incantations making up the majority of the magic in the setting, but for a more D&D-like experience, I would never play a wizard or cleric when I can play a sorcerer or favored soul instead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2012)

Not a fan of the Favored Soul, either.  In fact, beyond the Cleric, OA Shaman, and Paladin, I'd be hard pressed to think of a divine casting base class in 3Ed-3.5Ed I do like.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 12, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Actually, it's not. Game fiction is never worse than when the mechanics of the game are obvious in the prose.




I _think_ this is a case of talking past each other.

Your objection is to one where if someone drove to work instead of writing that, the author wrote "I sat in the driving seat and turned the key.  This caused the ignition to trigger, igniting the fuel in the engine and starting the pistons pumping providing the force to allow the car to go.  I then put my foot on the clutch, the gear stick into the reverse slot while keeping the clutch down, and my other foot on the gas.  Taking my hand off the gear stick I put it on the handbreak and depressed the button with my thumb."  That's making the mechanics obvious and is boring as hell.

Danny's objection is to something more like "I drove the thirty miles across town to work in just under ten minutes.  Not a bad start to the day."  An average speed across an urban area of 180mph that the protagonist doesn't consider especially remarkable.  There had _better_ be an explanation.

You don't have to hit people over the head with the mechanics to stick to them.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I _think_ this is a case of talking past each other.



Not entirely, but partly.  While I freely admit that one of the main problems with the fact that the fiction showing game mechanics is the terrible way in which it's frequently executed, at the same time, I'm really struggling to think of an evocative way to explain, in verisimilitudinous language, the concept of, "I'm out of 3rd level spells for today."  For example.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2012)

> "I'm out of 3rd level spells for today."




How about, "The Third Path of Nine is barred to me for the remainder of this solar cycle..."

Or

"Until the sun rises tomorrow and my mind is refreshed, I can cast no more spells of the Triadic Seal,"

Or some such.  If a professional fantasy writer can't do that or better, perhaps he should change jobs...


----------



## Janx (Jan 12, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How about, "The Third Path of Nine is barred to me for the remainder of this solar cycle..."
> 
> Or
> 
> ...




"I needed to think quickly.  I had already used up my most powerful spells I had prepared.  What remained were minor cantrips and illusions.  My mind raced to find which spell I had empowered in my mind that could help us now against this challenge.  If only I had time, to sleep and rest, I could re-prepare my most devestating magic."

That doesn't even involve talking about game mechanics, but clearly indicates that magic users must prepare spells in advance in order to cast them, and that certain spells had already been used and couldn't be used again for a while.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2012)

:shrug:  I guess I don't find those examples very evocative.  They sound to me exactly like game mechanics.  Lipsticks and pigs and all that.

Then again, maybe I'm just biased against the whole affair anyway since I don't like Vancian magic.  It sounds like game mechanics to me because that's the only place I'm familiar with these kinds of concepts in the first place.

But I don't think so.  I think that the game mechanics came as an attempt to be _game mechanics_ and only later when it was attempted to turn game mechanics into solid worldbuilding (Gygaxian naturalism, as I've heard it called) that it started getting wonky.  I don't suppose that Gary Gygax ever literally intended that wizards can only cast a certain amount of certain spells in a given day; that was just a convenient way to represent wizard capabilities in a way that was conducive to playing a game with them.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 12, 2012)

Janx said:


> "I needed to think quickly.  I had already used up my most powerful spells I had prepared.  What remained were minor cantrips and illusions.  My mind raced to find which spell I had empowered in my mind that could help us now against this challenge.  If only I had time, to sleep and rest, I could re-prepare my most devestating magic."
> 
> That doesn't even involve talking about game mechanics, but clearly indicates that magic users must prepare spells in advance in order to cast them, and that certain spells had already been used and couldn't be used again for a while.




I won't even bother trying to quote all the various times they club you over the head in Chronicles and Legends how Raistlin has to study daily, how he loses a spell once he casts it and until the end of Legends, he can't cast more than 1 or 2 spells over the course of an entire day w/o wearing himself out completely.  Heck, just the story of his Test in the Tower has him down to his last spell.  Raistlin is about the most obvious example I can think of where a caster runs themselves down with their casting and can run out of spells easily


----------



## Janx (Jan 12, 2012)

Hobo said:


> :shrug:  I guess I don't find those examples very evocative.  They sound to me exactly like game mechanics.  Lipsticks and pigs and all that.
> 
> Then again, maybe I'm just biased against the whole affair anyway since I don't like Vancian magic.  It sounds like game mechanics to me because that's the only place I'm familiar with these kinds of concepts in the first place.
> 
> But I don't think so.  I think that the game mechanics came as an attempt to be _game mechanics_ and only later when it was attempted to turn game mechanics into solid worldbuilding (Gygaxian naturalism, as I've heard it called) that it started getting wonky.  I don't suppose that Gary Gygax ever literally intended that wizards can only cast a certain amount of certain spells in a given day; that was just a convenient way to represent wizard capabilities in a way that was conducive to playing a game with them.





Well, I'm sorry my hastily assembled prose disappointed.

I don't disagree with your logic on how Vancian magic came about.  I don't like the mechanic myself, and it seems it was invented to serve the game's purpose.

But I don't see any particular problem explaining in a literary fashion why the protagonist can't just blast the bad guy one more time with a fireball, yet has a few other spells up his sleeve.

to me, Vancian casting sucks because it neutralizes the value of the spells my PC knows because the odds of me memorizing a special purpose spell is unlikely to coincide with when I actually need it.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 12, 2012)

Janx said:


> it neutralizes the value of the spells my PC knows because the odds of me memorizing a special purpose spell is unlikely to coincide with when I actually need it.



And thus came about the tactic that I've seen fairly often where players deliberately left open a few spell slots. Say journeying through a dungeon and coming to a room with a big lava flow. The group would stand in relative safety of a cleared room for a few minutes while the wizard prepped Protection from Elements, or something like that.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let's scale that back to "Very few will ever memorize Illusory Script before Fireball." because I know people who will....like me.




Really?  Your 5th level wizard, with 1 (or maybe 2 depending on edition) 3rd level spell per day, will, without prior knowledge of what he will need, memorize illusory script before fireball?

Honestly?

Your group is the weirdest bloody thing I've ever heard of.  If I did that with a wizard, the rest of the players would beat me senseless for being so useless.

So, I have to ask, why?  Why, unless you knew beforehand that you would need this spell, would you ever memorize a spell that lets you write in code before fireball?  And, really, why wouldn't you just... oh, I don't know... write in code?

I've never even seen this spell used by a player, let alone memorized before general purpose spells.

Janx- we did the same thing with clerics in our 2e games.  It worked great actually.  Granted, in 2e, clerics didn't have quite so many offensive power spells as they do in 3e, so, it might be a bit more problematic there, but, my experience mirrored yours.  Having free rein meant that all sorts of spells got cast (including Snakes to Sticks - the only time I ever saw that one) cast that I never saw before.

Which rolls me back to why I think the sorcerer and favored souls work better.  I'd say they need a few more Spells Known, but, honestly, not that many.  And, if you gave them basic powers that let them attack, then spells could be reserved for actual effects, rather than just damage dealing.

Sort of combine the 3e warlock with the sorcerer and having at-will combat spells, and then Spells Known for the rest.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2012)

> Really? Your 5th level wizard, with 1 (or maybe 2 depending on edition) 3rd level spell per day, will, without prior knowledge of what he will need, memorize illusory script before fireball?
> 
> Honestly?



Sorry, you were misled by my admittedly unclear post.

I haven't used that spell...but in 30+ years in D&D, I may have played one single arcane caster with Fireball.  My casters' spell selection is _always_ linked to the nature of the PC.  The last Wizard I played was a multiclassed specialist Diviner...and when that PC got retired at 10th level, one of his best (read only) offensive spells was _*Orb of Electricity.*_

He was retired because RW pressures left the party with no healers.  So now I run a "Swamp-Thing" inspired Sorc/Clc/MT/Geomancer.  His arcane spells tend towards the..."earthy"...side.  No fireballs, no lightning bolts...

And looking forwards, there will be no such spells.  They don't fit him.



> Your group is the weirdest bloody thing I've ever heard of. If I did that with a wizard, the rest of the players would beat me senseless for being so useless.



Did I say everyone was 100% happy with my PCs?  They aren't.  But neither does anyone else's PC meet with a 100% approval rating. 

The closest anyone does is the guy who plays Wizards 85% of the time since 1986, and who only altered his spell list when the system forced him to.  Which I find utterly booooooooorrrrrrriiiiiinnnnng.  It also means that unless we have a big sign-up for a game, nobody else really gets an opportunity to play a Wizard.

But as for critiquing the choices of other players?  It happens, but it's extremely rare beyond the PC generation stage since other people's PCs are none of our business.

Besides, even people not casting Fireball can contribute.  Which my PC did.  I can speak without fear of contradiction that my Diviner was the _sole_ reason certain PCs in that campaign are still alive.  Being "useful" depends a great deal on how you play what you have.

Final point on this: my specialist Diviner _was_ in the same party as my buddy's umpteenth cloned Wizard.  I proposed- in character- that our party would be stronger overall if we copied each others' spells into our respective spell books.  Not only would it have boosted my PC's punch the spells in my book, it would have improved overall flexibility, and made it virtually impossible for the DM to do a "steal the spellbook, screw the Wizard" plot line.

He refused.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> If I did that with a wizard, the rest of the players would beat me senseless for being so useless.



Tell the other players you're just playing your character and to stop meta-gaming.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2012)

And, fair enough I suppose DannyA.  But, would you say that given the choice between one spell that has a very narrow effect, and another spell that can be repurposed for a number of situations, which would most likely be chosen?



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Tell the other players you're just playing your character and to stop meta-gaming.




Yeah, well, it's all very well to say that, but, when Bob dies because you memorized Phantom Trap rather than Web, even the most ardent role player tends to get a bit testy.

And, really, is it even playing "in character"?  Given that you have the choice of spells in 3e, deliberately choosing something like Phantom Trap when you're an adventurer going off to the Dungeon of Nasty Bad isn't really all that defensible as part of "roleplaying"... unless, I suppose, you had a wizard with a wisdom of 6 or so.


----------



## Janx (Jan 13, 2012)

in support of Danny's special wizards, In one 3e campaign, I ran a pure conjurer.  every spell of his was from the conjuration school.  I do remember one player suggesting spells to cast to take out a bad guy and being baffled that I didn't have the spell.

But overall, he was pretty effective, given that he was always summoning something to help in fights.  celestial badgers are mean because they don't give a .


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2012)

Janx said:


> Well, I'm sorry my hastily assembled prose disappointed.



Hah!  Really?  I thought you were actually quoting a passage from some D&D novel.  It sounds exactly like the prose that most of the ones I've read have.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Did I say everyone was 100% happy with my PCs?  They aren't.  But neither does anyone else's PC meet with a 100% approval rating.



I may have an admittedly unusual take on that particular question, but I _hate it_ and resist most strongly the notion that I should play a character of a certain type because it's suggested that I "need to" in order to have an optimal or balanced party structure, or for tactical efficiency, or anything else like that which I find boring beyond belief.  If I can't play the character that I want to, then I might as well not play at all, since that's a big part of what makes the game enjoyable to me--I've always approached gaming from an almost "authorial" perspective in terms of how I approach it, how I want the game to unfold, and what I find enjoyable.  I'm also a strident and in fact rather zealous and vocal proponent of the idea that it's the GM's job to bring a game suited to the characters he gets, not expect matching the game and the characters to be the player's responsibility.

This doesn't always go over as well as I'd like in my group where most of the other guys besides me, when they GM, run prepackaged adventures, but it's an ideal that I certainly strive to uphold as a GM, and I strongly believe that the best games _have_ to be structured that way in order to go over the top from being "pretty good" to "excellent" even if everything else is working very well.  In fact, recently, some of the more tactically minded players started complaining quite a bit more about our rather lamentable performance in some of our combats, and tossing around terms like "DPS" and "tank" and stuff that is totally not at all what I ever want to hear in conjunction with any roleplaying game I ever play.

But I strongly believe that the recent collapse of our last campaign and the need to start another one was largely driven by the GM's inability or unwillingness to adapt a Paizo adventure path in any way from what was written to accomodate the group that he has, leading to general frustration in some degree with everyone all around.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2012)

> But, would you say that given the choice between one spell that has a very narrow effect, and another spell that can be repurposed for a number of situations, which would most likely be chosen?



For sane people?  The flexible one.

For me, though, I think it still depends on the PC.

Example: I have a PC who is one of my Mage-Brutes.  He a Sorc who wears Scale armor and swings a Maul.  Most of his spells are really what most would call "utility/non-Combat spells...because if he wants to use arcane attacks in combat, he's channeling spell slots into a lightning breath weapon or Arcane Strike.

...with one caveat...

In this campaign, the DM is letting us learn metamagically altered spells as if they were completely new spells of the adjusted level instead of learning & burning feats*.  For example, while Fireball would be a 3rd level spell, a Still Fireball or Silent Fireball would be _learned_ as a 4th level spell, and a Stilled, Silent Fireball would be learned as a 5th level spell.

So of the PCs _actual_ offensive spells, almost all have one thing in common: they are lightning spells.  (Some few are also Stilled.)  If an attack spell is available for him to choose that is not either already lightning based or can be made lightning based, he won't choose it because he is all about lightning.  That perforce means he is utterly useless as a spellcaster against something immune to lightning.







* which, BTW, I think is a better way to go for a lot of casters.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 13, 2012)

I think the dislike for Vancian magic has been with us for a long time, basically since the beginning of the hobby. The very first alternatives to D&D, Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest, both had a spell point system to them.

For me, I was playing D&D back in that day, and didn't like Vancian magic at all. I played both Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest, and games like In the Labyrinth, but none of them really worked for me as well overall as D&D did.

Then, in 1982 I came across Champions, the first effects based system, and when I started to play Fantasy Hero I saw no further need for D&D. I still played it because it was the big dog on the street, but I was much happier with everything else.

When 3E launched, I found that it addressed a lot of the other problems I had with D&D, even if it still had the vestiges of the old Vancian system, and it of course took off light wildfire. I found myself enjoying the game despite the magic system, since for a D&D style game, 3E was a very nice system (especially before the splat books).

Towards the end of the 3X period, I again started playing other games because the system's flaws were becoming more evident to me. Then there was 4E, and the problem was finally solved: I could play a wizard right from the start that didn't need to carry around a crossbow or darts! Heck, I could play a martial character who didn't have to be second fiddle to spellcasters! It only took about 30 years for the game to catch up with what I had been looking for my whole life.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2012)

> If I can't play the character that I want to, then I might as well not play at all, since that's a big part of what makes the game enjoyable to me




I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but I basically agree.

Part of the reason I wouldn't take that position exactly is that I have hundreds of PC concepts lying around to play.  So if the party really *needs* a particular kind of PC, or there is enough grumbling, I may change what I'm playing.

However, I will build the PC and play it 100% my way.  Which is why the healer I'm playing in that 3.5Ed game isn't a straight Cleric, but a "Swamp-Thing" themed Sorc/Clc/MT/Geomancer.

Yes, people grumbled...until they saw him do his thing.  Since then?  The only peeps have been on grocery store candy aisles.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2012)

> Then, in 1982 I came across Champions, the first effects based system, and when I started to play Fantasy Hero I saw no further need for D&D. I still played it because it was the big dog on the street, but I was much happier with everything else




Like I said upthread, HERO has been my personal fave since then too.

Still, I still love Vancian casting: not only in D&D, which I think really needs to retain it as part of its product identity, but even outside of it on occasion.  I have actually run Vancian casters in HERO, and at one point, could run a D&D game in HERO using all of D&D's various magic systems side by side.

(Which, BTW, was easier to do in HERO than in D&D since the character building system pretty much handled issues of power balance.)


----------



## SteveC (Jan 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Still, I still love Vancian casting: not only in D&D, which I think really needs to retain it as part of its product identity, but even outside of it on occasion.  I have actually run Vancian casters in HERO, and at one point, could run a D&D game in HERO using all of D&D's various magic systems side by side.



I think you have a good point here. I have also done Vancian casting in HERO, and it works very well. I have been willing to put up with Vancian casting as a part of D&D because D&D is pretty much the best system out there for running a D&D game. I know that might sound stupid, (really!) but what I mean is that the tropes of a D&D game really do run best using the D&D system.

I have been very happy with 4E because it lets me play with those tropes, but removes the Vancian elements. Now obviously since my orbital mind control lasers are not operational yet, I think that the next edition of D&D would do well to use a Vancian system as one of the options or dials for those who disagree. I just think it will be horribly difficult to balance out, without making the game move more in the direction of a system like HERO. I think that would make both of us very happy, but I wonder how much other people would like it...

As an aside: when I heard of the concept of different "dials" that a GM could turn, it immediately brought the old Fuzion system to mind, which explicitly had dials the GM could set for the rules of the game. I wonder if you (Danny) had any experience with Fuzion, and if so what you thought of it.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 13, 2012)

I guess I hate it. I know i hate teaching it.  THere's no example of it in games, which, is most people's reference to fantasy these days.  I guess when books were the popular format, it was easier to explain.  But now, people want to either know how much spell energy they get or when will they be able to regenerate this spell.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't put it quite so strongly, but I basically agree.



Well, to be fair, I probably kinda oversold that myself.  I'd still play, because I enjoy my group, and we have a great time being a bunch of bumbling Cugel the "Clever" wannabes.  Luckily for me, the majority of the group is like-minded to me in this regard.

But one or two in the group start lamenting our tactical and/or strategic inefficiency and start making unwelcome suggestions on how to "improve" the characters after a while, especially in our last campaign which didn't really go well for us in a lot of different ways, and it got to be a bit frustrating and I'm sure contributed to the GM finally saying he was burned out and wanted to quit, leading us to look for another guy in the group to step up and run something else.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 13, 2012)

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]: What do you think of Monte Cook's spell system in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved? What would you think if a similar system was in place for D&D in lieu of standard Vancian magic?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 13, 2012)

> I wonder if you (Danny) had any experience with Fuzion, and if so what you thought of it.




_*AAAAAUGH!  *_What terrible times are these when strangers may speak that word to harmless RPG players!!!!



> What do you think of Monte Cook's spell system in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved? What would you think if a similar system was in place for D&D in lieu of standard Vancian magic?




I liked it- AU/AE is probably my favorite of the 3.X games.

But I reiterate that I think Vancian magic is part of D&D's identity and should not be replaced.  *D&D - Vancian magic* just doesn't feel like D&D to me.

Likewise, I think the laden spells & such are really cool...and help distinguish AU/AE from D&D and other 3.X games.  I would no more clamor for replacing it with Vancian casting than placing Monte's system into D&D.

Just to be clear, I've spent a lot of time contemplating a chimaera of my favorite parts of the 3.X games I own- 3.5Ed, AU/AE, True20, Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Midnight and M&M- because I'm trying to create a campaign experience that (IMHO) no one of them would support as is...and my group doesn't want to learn HERO. 

And that would probably not have pure Vancian casting.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jan 13, 2012)

To the original question of the thread, the thing I love about D&D is that I know it.  I've been playing since 1979 and until 4E I could pick up any edition and run a game with very minimal time spent learning the system.  

I'm not a fan of Vancian magic at all - I much prefer just about any other system - but if it's swapped for anything else, than learning the new system is an effort, and if I have to make an effort I'm going to do it to learn a game that I find more interesting.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2012)

Janx said:


> in support of Danny's special wizards, In one 3e campaign, I ran a pure conjurer.  every spell of his was from the conjuration school.  I do remember one player suggesting spells to cast to take out a bad guy and being baffled that I didn't have the spell.
> 
> But overall, he was pretty effective, given that he was always summoning something to help in fights.  celestial badgers are mean because they don't give a .




I was thinking of this later.  Since 2e, every wizard I ever played was a conjurer/summoner.  But, just because I wasn't casting fireball doesn't really change my point.  Summonings are among the most versatile spells in the game in any edition.  There's just so much you can do with them.

Change my example from fireball to Summon Monster III and it doesn't really change the result.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> M&F magic means that general purpose spells will always trump specific purpose spells.  No one will ever memorize Illusory Script before Fireball.  There are a handful of spells that might as well be class powers because every (or virtually every) caster of that class takes them (or something close) because they are just that much more useful than the other choices.
> 
> The only thing worse than having severely limited spells/day is having spells that only function in very limited circumstances, most of which are beyond your control.  In most D&D campaigns, it's usually not a big stretch to think that you might need to fireball or lightning something today.  OTOH, Water Breathing is taking up a slot and, unless you know you're going to need it today, it might still be there when you go to bed tonight.
> 
> Which rolls me back around to the sorcerer.  The sorc solves so many of the issues that I have with casters in 3.x.  Give him a few more Spells Known and I'd happily eject clerics and wizards in favor of a Sorcerer that chooses either arcane or divine magic.  The Favored Soul fills this role perfectly




I found the exact opposite to be true. Because Sorcerers can only know a handful of spells, ever, they have to pick the "wide range" staples or be stuck with dead weight for the rest of their lives. Wizards and Clerics, on the other hand, have a lengthy spell list and are able to branch out to try the obscure and niche spells every so often, because they didn't have to buy the cow along with the milk.

And that's why I dislike Sorcerers. Only one chance to get it right, and if you get it wrong then you are shacked with the mistakes forever instead of just one day. I also dislike fireball and "elemental damage" spells with no additional effects for that matter.

But then I have to wonder how much of this isn't just individual spell balance instead of underlying mechanical issues.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2012)

Well, yes, as I said, you need to bump the Spells Known a bit.  But,  I found that you really only needed one or two offensive spells per spell level and then you could branch out a bit.  But, yeah, the really specific stuff rarely saw the light of day.

But your point about the mechanics of the spells themselves is well taken.  I wonder if you could simply have "Utility Spell Level X" and use the Cantrip spell as a model.  Give each level a half a dozen common effects that could be reproduced in that Utility spell and away you go.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2012)

Part of the problem also stems from the notion that spells per day was really a balancing factor that applies to combat spells only.  A lot of the interesting "quieter" options shouldn't be spells that take spell slots, they should be the equivalent of incantations or rituals, and any magic-using character should be able to do more of them, to keep the process of playing a magic user interesting, even in non-combat situations.  For combat itself, I'm perfectly OK with having a more limited pallette of options for any given character.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 13, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Part of the problem also stems from the notion that spells per day was really a balancing factor that applies to combat spells only.  A lot of the interesting "quieter" options shouldn't be spells that take spell slots, they should be the equivalent of incantations or rituals, and any magic-using character should be able to do more of them, to keep the process of playing a magic user interesting, even in non-combat situations.  For combat itself, I'm perfectly OK with having a more limited pallette of options for any given character.




Now that's an interesting idea. I could run with that.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Jan 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_



I was pulled into AD&D in the summer of 1980 with a promise of, "Hey, it's like Tolkien, it has elves, dwarves, halflings, and wizards in it, and you get to play one of them in a fantasy world."

I went to a game, was handed a character sheet, and was hooked forever after.

I knew nothing of the magic system, which I despised forever after from the moment I figured out how it (what little of it there was) worked.

I did not even know it was the "Vancian" system until many years later.  I just knew it matched nothing of what I read in Fantasy, save perhaps for the Summon Elemental spell which I one day recognized matched a spell cast early on in the novel, Empire of the East (which itself had little in the way of a recognizable magic system).


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 13, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> I found the exact opposite to be true. Because Sorcerers can only know a handful of spells, ever, they have to pick the "wide range" staples or be stuck with dead weight for the rest of their lives. Wizards and Clerics, on the other hand, have a lengthy spell list and are able to branch out to try the obscure and niche spells every so often, because they didn't have to buy the cow along with the milk.
> 
> And that's why I dislike Sorcerers. Only one chance to get it right, and if you get it wrong then you are shacked with the mistakes forever instead of just one day. I also dislike fireball and "elemental damage" spells with no additional effects for that matter.
> 
> But then I have to wonder how much of this isn't just individual spell balance instead of underlying mechanical issues.



And that's why I like Monte Cook's spell system in AU/AE: none of the downsides of either the wizard or sorcerer and all of the good sides as well. It's magically-infused goodness.

Edit: I'm wondering if the reason why "Vancian magic feels like D&D" holds true is largely because people refuse to let D&D's magic system be anything else, thus not allowing any other magic system the chance to let it feel like D&D. Just something to consider.


----------



## Thotas (Jan 13, 2012)

I "hate" Vancian magic.   But ... I got used to it.

It feels weird to say it that way, but it's what it amounts to.  If I'm reading a book or watching a movie, I'd still have that same "Grrr, that's stupid!  Magic should be a force within me that I control, or an expression of knowledge that I've accumulated over years of study, not something I have to relearn every day because I used it up!" gut reaction to Vancian magic that I first had in D&D.

But in the context of the game, after three decades?  Yeah, I've accepted it and just really don't think about that aspect somehow.


----------



## Janx (Jan 13, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz;5776080
But I reiterate that I think Vancian magic is part of D&D's identity and should not be replaced.  [B said:
			
		

> D&D - Vancian magic[/B] just doesn't feel like D&D to me.




I think there's a certain barrier of re-design that some people don't want to cross.  I don't want any house rule to invalidate a large swath out of a rule book.

Messing with the magic system runs that risk.

In 2e, it was quite trivial to say spellcasters don't have to memorize spells, but are still restricted to # of spells per day.  The main tables in the book were still valid, as were all the spell casting rules and spell descriptions.

In 3e, that would have invalidated the Sorceror class.  So we didn't do it.

Other rules ideas sound find.  But most the people I play with, want to play D&D and use their books.  Not some other system or hybrid they have to cross-check against.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 13, 2012)

I like Vancian magic. It's one of those aspects of D&D that for me makes D&D what it is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 14, 2012)

> A lot of the interesting "quieter" options shouldn't be spells that take spell slots, they should be the equivalent of incantations or rituals




This may surprise people...but I agree with that statement 100%.  I've thought that certain spells made more sense as rituals since about 1980 or so, but of course, those didn't really pop up in D&D until 4Ed.  When I wanted to play ritual casters, I used different RPGs.

In fact, despite it still being a bit of a mess, I think the introduction of rituals was one of the best innovations in that edition.  Still needs work, though.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 14, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I liked it- AU/AE is probably my favorite of the 3.X games.
> 
> But I reiterate that I think Vancian magic is part of D&D's identity and should not be replaced.  *D&D - Vancian magic* just doesn't feel like D&D to me.
> 
> ...




There are some things you and I disagree on danny, but a love of AE is not one of them   Did you ever see Dr Spunj's Classless D&D?  Search here on ENWorld for it or I can give you the link sometime, just have ot dig on an external drive.  It was a point based version of D&D or AE, however, it used the AE magic system in either game.  Instead of having 4 or 5 different progressions like D&D had in 2E and 3E, AE had 2 progressions, which got listed as Full and Half casters in Spunj's version of things.  It worked very well.  It gave templates showing all the base classes from each game or you could freeform a character as well.

It was interesting to me b/c this was at the same time that Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty was making waves and I was helping w/that thread, then I was also giving opinions on the development of Spunj's system.  Fun stuff.  Kind of odd that I was living in Coralville Iowa and Spunj was just about 3 minutes up the road from me in North Liberty.  Small world indeed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 14, 2012)

I'll take a look-see on that- thanks!


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 14, 2012)

I just feel like sounding off and saying that Vancian Magic has always been a thorn in my side... but no matter what systems I tried to substituted, I always went back to it.

I think that memorization was always the big issue I've had with Vancian casting.
I'm happy that 3.x introduced spontaneous casters for this very reason.

And if I had my way, 3.5 Psionics would be the OFFICIAL default system to replace magic casting.  Augments do better what wizard Feats did (which always felt like wizard tax).


----------



## Zireael (Jan 14, 2012)

Herobizkit said:


> I'm happy that 3.x introduced spontaneous casters for this very reason.
> 
> And if I had my way, 3.5 Psionics would be the OFFICIAL default system to replace magic casting.  Augments do better what wizard Feats did (which always felt like wizard tax).




The Vancian magic irks me a bit. I prefer the Tome of Battle system of Encounter/Daily/Stance.

That's why I'm trying to make my own RPG system.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 14, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Bear in mind that when I started playing the only choice was D&D.




Ditto.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In fact, despite it still being a bit of a mess, I think the introduction of rituals was one of the best innovations in that edition.  Still needs work, though.



I'm not very familiar with 4e really, but the rituals are pretty much the same thing that was in 3.x Unearthed Arcana and d20 Modern's Urban Arcana under the different name of incantations, weren't they?


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 15, 2012)

I like Vancian magic.

However, as long as there are so many interesting and clever people who hate it, I'm going to support some kind of magic-using system that ISN'T Vancian ... probably even in the Core.

Playing D&D is all about fun to me.  How can I have fun if I can't play with clever and interesting people?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 15, 2012)

I'll be perfectly honest, in this case, I really don't understand why people don't like what I like.   I have some theories, but they seem wanting.

1) They don't like D&D: Some people don't like the game that D&D produces, with its combat/tactical subgame, regular low consequence combat, strong GM authority and narrative control, rules heavy but high abstraction, and near competition between the GM and the players among other things.  They want an entirely different game altogether, and its not surprising that for some other style of game some other style of magic is better suited.  For example, these players might prefer a BSing style of magic, where the players are free to create and narrative virtually any effect within a wide range of possibilities provided by their powers.  Such a system has its advantages, and arguably for some people one of those advantages is it encourages you to play a different sort of game than is usually played in D&D.
2) Ignorance: Some people like want they don't in fact have experience with.  The vast majority of their experience is with D&D, and the various limitations and problems with the system have become grating, so that they can only now focus on the negatives in the system and none of the positives.  Lacking perspective, they imagine that there is such a thing as a perfect system without drawbacks or that anything would be better than what they have.  They long for the greener grass in other pastures, which seems just so much richer, varied, and logical than what they have.  Lacking long experience with these other systems, the drawbacks, limitations, and annoyances of these systems just haven't become apparant to them.
3) Confusion: Some people seem offended by the system because the fluff has never been explained to them in a way that they can make heads or tails of.  It all seems like a confusing illogical mess for which no coherent explanation can be made.  They get particularly upset about the notion of 'forgetting' a spell that you know, for example, and can't see how this makes any sense at all.
4) High Simulation: Some people believe that Vancian magic is in fact a high simulation of the sort of magic found in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, where it may in fact make sense, but that it makes no sense whatsoever to apply it to other settings.  They believe that not only does the system not strongly emulate the magic found in other stories, but that of all the systems that you could choose, it's the least intuitive sort that matches the fewest number of stories.  Or at the very least, they believe that the magic system should be crafted from the ground up to match the setting and perfectly capture how magic works and is used in whatever specific story you are using as your model.
5) Wizard Power Gamers: Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth.  The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun.  They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them.  In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight.  In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.
6) Percieved lack of balance: The general perception among some gamers is that the Vancian system doesn't achieve it goal of balance very well.  Spellcasters at low levels are too weak; spellcasters at high levels are too strong.

The thing is, other than #1 and possibly #6, I think that most of the above reasons are bogus.  Yet, #2-#5 seem to be the most common complaints I hear about Vancian magic, not just in the past, but even in this thread.  It's very frustrating to me to hear these same complaints over and over again when I feel that they are groundless; but I'm self-consciousness enough to consider that if lots of people are saying the same thing maybe it has more merit than it seems.  So, would anyone care to enlighten me on what I'm missing, or even defend #2-#5?


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jan 15, 2012)

I am not dead set against the concept of Vancian magic, but I also think that having it in the game as implemented up until 3rd edition was not an asset.  The number of alternate implemnetations and customized rulesets for spell casting should be seen as an indicator of that.

I am ok with the 'memorize -> use -> forget' cycle on paper.  In practice, I would rather not deal with a 15 minute adventuring day and a mechanic for that made non casters the weakest class after you factored in power creep.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Greg K (Jan 15, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> 2) Ignorance: Some people like want they don't in fact have experience with.  The vast majority of their experience is with D&D, and the various limitations and problems with the system have become grating, so that they can only now focus on the negatives in the system and none of the positives.  Lacking perspective, they imagine that there is such a thing as a perfect system without drawbacks or that anything would be better than what they have.  They long for the greener grass in other pastures, which seems just so much richer, varied, and logical than what they have.  Lacking long experience with these other systems, the drawbacks, limitations, and annoyances of these systems just haven't become apparant to them.




This can be flipped. A lot of people have gone on to other and have been exposed to  other ideas and ways of doing things that people having only played D&D might not be aware or ever considered. Ideas that they think would improve D&D for themselves and others either by replicating what they see in inspirational material (e.g., fantasy literature, mythology, fantasy movies) , making aspects more wieldy or easier to handle, and/or increasing suspension of disbelief despite liking the most or all of the remaining mechanical system as a whole.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 15, 2012)

Lord Zardoz said:


> I am not dead set against the concept of Vancian magic, but I also think that having it in the game as implemented up until 3rd edition was not an asset.  The number of alternate implemnetations and customized rulesets for spell casting should be seen as an indicator of that.




Or alternately, the fact that most of these alternatives were discarded, were never very successful, and in most cases have been completely discarded should be seen as an indication that Vancian has on the whole been an asset.



> I am ok with the 'memorize -> use -> forget' cycle on paper.  In practice, I would rather not deal with a 15 minute adventuring day and a mechanic for that made non casters the weakest class after you factored in power creep.




In practice, none of this has to do with Vancian magic.  What 15 minute adventuring day?  I've rarely seen it happen, but when I have seen it, it's been as common in games without Vancian magic as those with it.  Usually its an encounter design problem, and not a system problem. 

The lack of balance between non-casters and casters in 3e was due to a number of factors.  Casters in 3e gots lots of love, losing many of the restrictions on them that had kept them in check.  In practice it was far too easy for a spellcaster to avoid being disrupted when casting, to the extent that I rarely saw it happen (unlike 1e, assuming the group used something like the actual rules).  Casters in 3e benefited hugely from the ill-considered decision to add spell level to a spells DC and from the general problem that the difficulty of passing as save in general went up with level rather than down (as in 1e).  Meanwhile, the designers were overly conservative with regards to feats, skills, and the class design of non-spellcasting classes.  In point of fact, in AD&D 1.5 (post Unearthed Arcana) I generally experienced fighters and their sub-classes as the most powerful classes at high levels.  Vancian magic is not the sole or perhaps even primary cause of the disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters at high levels.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 15, 2012)

Greg K said:


> This can be flipped. A lot of people have gone on to other and have been exposed to  other ideas and ways of doing things that people having only played D&D might not be aware or have considered. Ideas that they think would improve D&D for themselves and others either by replicating what they see in inspirational material (e.g., fantasy literature, mythology, fantasy movies) , making aspects more wieldy or easier to handle, and/or increasing suspension of disbelief despite liking the underling game system as a whole.




That isn't actually a flip.  It's part of the core assumption of what I wrote and was included fully in my reasoning when I wrote it.  It still falls under the area of ignorance, in as much as a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when it makes you think you now know better.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 15, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> That isn't actually a flip.  It's part of the core assumption of what I wrote and was included fully in my reasoning when I wrote it.  It still falls under the area of ignorance, in as much as a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when it makes you think you now know better.




Having extensive understanding of the design philosophy and mechanics and years of playing D&D and other systems to understand the strengths and weakness of subsystems is not ignorance.

The problem with your post and why it might be wanting.
1. You can like D&D as a whole and not like some of the  subsystems or their applications.
2. Ignorance: yes, if people don't have an understanding behind the philosophy and mechanics of Vancian, yes there may be ignorance.  If people understand them and still dislike it and want something else, that is not ignorance.  There may be ignorance about the drawbacks of implementing another system if they don't have the proper experience, but they may not be ignorant of the benefits it would bring.
  And as I stated above, some people do have the understanding of everything involved and, for them, they are not ignorant on the subject. 

3. Confusion.  Many people understand Vancian and don't like it.  For many of those that do not have an understanding, they  still don't like the mechanic. after having it explained

4.  High Simulation:  Many players do not know the origin of Vancian magic. For many that do, they have not read the books, but know from boards and other sources that it is not truly Vancian just takes cues.  So, there is no confusion.
    For many , it just does not does not work for them. It is not a matter of having magic built from the ground up to match a particular setting that they saw in a book or movie.  It is just a matter of wanting something closer to how they think magic should work based upon a collection of sources.  It might also not wanting to have to not deal with long lists of spells in books. 
   To claim this is not a valid reason is dismissive.
5. Power gaming
 a. No armor, slow casting, disruptable is not even about Vancian magic. It is how wizards and sorcerers were often portrayed in many sources that inspired D&D. Dislike does not, necessarily, have to be power gaming. For some people, the dislike may go to the source material with which they are familiar (I, personally, like no armor, slow casting, and disruptable).
 b. dislike for pre-choosing and "fire and forget" is not necessarily about power gaming.  It, probably, has more to do with going back to the source material with which people are familiar, consciously or unconsciously, and feeling a disconnect as you noted.  It is however, wrong to assume it is a power-gaming issue or desire for spotlight.  
  Many people that don't like the pre-selecting or "forgetting" aspects, would be happy with a system that allows them to continually use the powers they know, but kept their power level in check with everyone else.  They might also be happy with a system of fatigue or spontaneous casting (as per the sorcerer or the Unearthed Arcana variant: Spontaneous divine casting).

6. yep, that's  common reason

Maybe, I misread your initial post, but it does read like you are too self concious of your own preference and others not liking it as you stated. Individuals don't have to be powergamers, confused, or be ignorant of  D&D, Vancian and the drawbacks of other systems to dislike Vancian and want something. Their dislike for Vancian also does not need to indicate a dislike for the game as a whole- just one piece which some people think defines D&D and others do not .  

In the end,  we are just dealing with subjective preference and I think the designers have their hands full.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 16, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I'll be perfectly honest, in this case, I really don't understand why people don't like what I like.  I have some theories, but they seem wanting.



People have different tastes in regards to "magic." That explanation seems easy enough to understand. 



> 1) They don't like D&D:



You should go ahead and just claim that they also hate America while you're at it.  I think we can come up with much better - and far less insulting - reasons than that, especially on a thread about people who dislike Vancian magic, but like D&D. As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many people who see Vancian magic as something that can be removed or replaced from D&D's magic system without losing anything integral to the D&D experience. It's why people can play many of these alternate systems throughout the game (e.g., psionic power points, incarnum, sorcerers, Arcana Unearthed, etc.) while still be playing D&D just as much as classes that uses Vancian magic. If these other alternate systems can be played as "D&D" with equal validity as "Vancian magic," then it would be erroneous to say that solely Vancian magic is D&D or that people who dislike Vancian magic must ipso facto hate D&D. 



> 2) Ignorance:



There indeed may be ignorance, but I don't think that's true for most. We're all gamers here, and I think many detractors have a fairly good grasp of Vancian magic. Many have also played alternative systems. We are all gamers after all. 



> 3) Confusion:



If the people who understand it, but hate it and the people who don't understand it, but then hate it after explanation both hate it, then how is this not a good reason for these people not to remove Vancian magic from the game? If they hate it, then they hate it. That's just as viable a reason as for those who love it and want it kept. The difference is that the lovers are the ruling class who stamp out any and all dissenters. 



> 4) High Simulation:



For me it's not "high simulation" but "maximizing simulation." Vancian magic by nature of its mechanics and assumptions inherently restricts the sort of worlds I can construct in my D&D settings. And I would prefer having a magic system that acts more as a "line of best fit," or the maximum number of settings of different types and feels. 



> 5) Wizard Power Gamers:



Considering that many of these alternate systems that people have proposed do place limitations (e.g., fatigue, mana points, reduced power level, etc.), I'm not sure how viable this criticism actually is. The reasons that you listed do not imply that these players are somehow "power gamers," and again it's insulting to suggest that when it's really just about playing a preferred simulation or mechanical system of magic. 



> Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth.  The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun.  They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them.  In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight.  In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.



How is #5 bogus if the rules clearly do restrict players from a magic system that does not let them simulate magic that's appropriate to their tastes? If it doesn't, then it clearly doesn't, and that makes #5 just as viable a reason not to Vance as anything else. You're right. I'm not sure if you "get" the criticisms of Vancian magic or the desires of people who would want alternate systems if you are going to be rudely dismissive of other people's desire for alternate magic systems. 



> 6) Percieved lack of balance:



This I think is bogus, as you can change a number of the spells per day and per level to a balanced level. Also the particular "game breaker" spells can be removed. 



> The thing is, other than #1 and possibly #6, I think that most of the above reasons are bogus.  Yet, #2-#5 seem to be the most common complaints I hear about Vancian magic, not just in the past, but even in this thread.  It's very frustrating to me to hear these same complaints over and over again when I feel that they are groundless; but I'm self-consciousness enough to consider that if lots of people are saying the same thing maybe it has more merit than it seems.  So, would anyone care to enlighten me on what I'm missing, or even defend #2-#5?



You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian. What's worse is the insinuation that since #2-5 are bogus, that this must mean that detractors hate D&D. Do you realize how insulting that is for people who do like D&D? How dare people want to play something other than Vancian magic? Clearly the only way to play guitar is thrash metal.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 16, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> 5) Wizard Power Gamers: Some people who hate the Vancian magic system simply hate all the restrictions it tacks on to characters that cast arcane spells - no armor, slow casting times, disruptable, must choose spells ahead of time, limited number of fire and forget slots, spell books, spell components, small number of spells relative to encounters at lower levels, and so forth.  The system doesn't feel right to them because they feel that all these restrictions are arbitrary and reduce their fun.  They'd prefer a system that lets them use magic all the time, in varied ways, to solve problems as they encounter them.  In some cases, part of why they are chaffing at the system is, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the system reduces their spotlight.  In other cases, it's because they want to play Wizard X from one of their favorite stories, and they don't feel like they can achieve that level of awesomeness mucking around with all these blasted restrictions.




I have heard people say wizards are ridiculously weak at low levels with their one shot bazooka and they hate the limited use of magic.

I've never heard someone say D&D wizards are generally underpowered and need to be powered up outside of low level wizards and wizards without magic. Mid to high level wizards have been powerhouses of power since the beginning in every edition. Spells are powerful, even at low levels. 1d6/level damage to multiple targets is very potent compared to a d8 +X sword blow. Wizards can nova with their spells.

Vancian is the preparation of fire and forget spells. Not the armor restrictions, the casting times, the potential to be disrupted.

The criticisms of the fire and forget is not generally a wizard power grab but style and visualization of how magic should feel and play with resource management and power levels.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Voadam said:


> I have heard people say wizards are ridiculously weak at low levels with their one shot bazooka and they hate the limited use of magic.
> 
> I've never heard someone say D&D wizards are generally underpowered and need to be powered up outside of low level wizards and wizards without magic.




No, I don't think I've ever heard it put in those terms either.  But I have heard simultaneous chaffing against existing restrictions and proposed alternatives from many quarters.  I have heard a lot of people who essentially want to have their cake and eat it too.  And in a lot cases, I have had the impression that the fundamental complaint was, "I play D&D Wizards to be awesome, but these additional restrictions reduce my ability to be awesome."  It's not that they think the Wizard is weak (if it was, they wouldn't be playing it), it's that what they are looking for goes beyond what it can deliver.



> Mid to high level wizards have been powerhouses of power since the beginning in every edition. Spells are powerful, even at low levels. 1d6/level damage to multiple targets is very potent compared to a d8 +X sword blow. Wizards can nova with their spells.




Certainly can nova with their spells, and fireballs are a potent thing, but it wasn't hard for a 1e fighter subclass character post Unearthed Arcana to consistantly drop 100 points of sword blow damage per turn on monsters, while at the same time high HD monsters would pass saves 50% of the time or more.  A level 15 Wizard firing off a lightning bolt every round was doing on average ~40 points of damage per round assuming the target lacked magic resistance.  That's enough to just about drop most monsters single handedly.  But his 15th level Cavalier or 15th level Fighter companion with respectable equipment would be dealing 2 to 3 times that each round.  No joke; when I say that high level fighters dominated in 1e I mean it.  Wizards may have dominated mass combat and general utility, but if you wanted to drop Orcus in one round before he touched anyone with his death no save wand, you had a team of high level fighters/paladins/cavaliers/rangers/etc.

And in 3e, direct damage with a wizard given the level caps, the fact that monsters had constitution bonuses, and the generally better saves meant that you were not using your spellcaster in anything like an optimal fashion.  



> The criticisms of the fire and forget is not generally a wizard power grab but style and visualization of how magic should feel and play with resource management and power levels.




I'm not sure that these are entirely unrelated.  Since you don't specify what the 'style and visualization of how magic should feel and play' is, I can only conjecture.  In my experience, at least as it relates to the complaint under the heading of Wizard power gaming, the style and visualization that the player had in his head was that of magic as deus ex machina which is actually often the role it serves as in stories.  Because they were basing their internal visualization of how magic should feel and play off of the deus ex machina appearances of various stories, the fact that it lacked severely less than the power of plot grated on them and this disatisfaction voiced itself in a whole array of complaints against the 'unrealistic' restrictions placed on them.  These players are the sort that like psionic system, but don't think power expenditure should be limited to manifester level.  The boards get some DM complaining about players of this sort about every other week, and I for one based on my experience don't think the players are ignoring the rules on accident.  

It is because that is what they are looking for in a magic system.

But, explain to me what this nebulous 'style and visualization' is.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> People have different tastes in regards to "magic." That explanation seems easy enough to understand.




It's easy enough to understand but also has the property of explaining nothing.



> As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many people who see Vancian magic as something that can be removed or replaced from D&D's magic system without losing anything integral to the D&D experience.




I'm aware of that.  I just think that on the whole, they haven't been that successful, which suggests that maybe they aren't succeeding.



> It's why people can play many of these alternate systems throughout the game (e.g., psionic power points, incarnum, sorcerers, Arcana Unearthed, etc.)




Stop there for a bit.  Sorcerers and the AU variants are such minor variations on the core Vancian mechanics that I don't really consider them to be other than Vancian magic in the same since that the Wizard is 'Vancian magic'.  If the term is sufficiently descriptive of the loosely related to Dying Earth mechanics used by Wizards, then its sufficiently descriptive of the mechanics used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds.  The sorcerer for example is a minor variation only in the time at which you make the spell selection - character creation rather than daily - which correspondingly changes the time frame in which they may be flexible in their spell choice.  But this is fundamentally a small change that allows them to use the rest of the standard D&D magic mechanics wholesale, right down to importing the wizard's spell list lock stock and barrel.  If the core of our disagreement is that sorcerers aren't Vancian as you use the term, but they are Vancian as I use the term, then we might as well not say much more.  You are never going to convince me that the sorcerer is a non-Vancian spellcasting class, nor that the people upset with Vancian spellcasting are therefore perfectly satisfied by the sorcerer.

I fully agree that the Psion is a non-Vancian spellcaster, but its also never managed to make it into core and my perception is that psionics represent a niche market and psionic labelling tends to be a turn off. 



> There indeed may be ignorance, but I don't think that's true for most.




I didn't say that it was true for most necessarily.  I only suggested that it was one of six common complaints which jointly seemed represent the majority of opinions of those who dislike Vancian spellcasting.  Under the label 'ignorance', I tend to put those who claim that for example, a system that use mana points would in and of itself simplify book keeping, increase flexibility, increase game balance, end the 15 minute game day, end the practice of wizards going nova, or even simply just those that claim there are no advantages to the existing system and they can't imagine how it could be defended by anyone.

As far as confusion goes, this is the complaint that it makes no sense for a person to forget a spell after he has cast it, or that they can't immediate rememorize the spell they just cast if they have forgotten it.  These concerns can generally be alleviated by explaining the flavor in a way that they find more logical, but to me generally resemble the confused arguments presented by people who argue that hit points aren't realistic because they believe that hit points represent only the ability to sustain damage or because they think hit points represent only an abstract quality and not in part the ability to sustain damage.  The tend to be tying themselves up in knots because they don't understand the nature of the abstraction based on an erroneous assumption about the fluff surrounding the abstraction.  

(My typical explanation goes something like, "When a wizard is studying his spells, he's actually engaged in a lengthy ritual to prepare the spell in his mind, stopping the ritual just short of completion to await the comparitively short phrase or gesture that will trigger the release of the spell.  Mortal spellcasters generally find it impossible to summon up enough power in the short time available in the midst of combat or other stressful situations.  Spells are simply known rituals that can be left in this nearly completed state where they will be useful in a hurry.  More powerful beings are less restricted and don't need as much preparation."  That explanation has seemed to satisfy several of my players over the years, though of course I would hardly expect it to satisfy everyone as not everyone's complaint has the same source.) 



> For me it's not "high simulation" but "maximizing simulation."




I'm not sure that's a terribly useful distinction.  By "high simulation", I mean the stance that a game is most fun when it most perfectly simulates the genera or setting which serves as its inspiration so that it feels to the player as if he was journeying within the story.   



> Vancian magic by nature of its mechanics and assumptions inherently restricts the sort of worlds I can construct in my D&D settings.




Yes, but so would any particular choice of mechanic, unless like HERO or something its flexible enough to also emmulate Vancian.   



> And I would prefer having a magic system that acts more as a "line of best fit," or the maximum number of settings of different types and feels.




Which, I feel, on the basis of the effects of the system and not necessarily the fluff, is Vancian.  That is to say, while for any given setting, you could match that settings explanation for how magic works more closely (assuming how magic works is in the slightest way explained), you could not simulate the narrative uses of magic more closely in more settings than you can with Vancian.  No, granted, there are some types and feels of games where Vancian doesn't work well - I wouldn't do Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian (but I wouldn't do it with mana points either) - on the whole it serves better than anything I've found the general feel of magic that can at times be earth shattering but which for whatever reasons of story or character motivation is more usually held in reserve.  One of the central tropes of most fantasy stories is that magic is real and incredibly powerful, but its practicioners rarely use it or are reluctant to use it so that its only seen at critical moments.  That feel is very hard to capture with a game system while still allowing the player to feel like he's playing a magician.

As for power gaming, again, I'm not saying that each of these complaints applies to everyone that doesn't like Vancian, or even that any one applies to the majority.  I'm only saying I've heard the complaint commonly.  And considering you don't address my statement except to say that its probably insulting, I'm not sure how valid of a rebuttle that actually is.

And I think I'm going to mostly end my response here, because you don't say anything really explanatory from here on out.  It's not enough to say, "They have a different taste."  Please define that taste and why a different magic system better meets that taste.  It's not enough to say, "Oh, they like point buy."  Why do they like point buy?  When you say things like, "You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian.", then its pretty clear to me that you don't get it.



> What's worse is the insinuation that since #2-5 are bogus, that this must mean that detractors hate D&D. Do you realize how insulting that is for people who do like D&D?




Well, I don't know how insulting it is for people who do like D&D, but I do know that a lot of people who don't like Vancian magic are very open about the fact that they don't like D&D and that they moved on from it because of Vancian magic (among other annoyances).  I recognize that there is a small(?) relatively economicly unimportant(?) group out there that play D&D with alternative magic systems and enjoy it, but their motivations are something I don't fully understand.  This is the lacking peice.  A good answer to my challenge might be to tell me about your D&D game where you banned Vancian magic and used the Psion as the Wizard, or where you used En Publishings 'Elements of Magic'.  That would be informative.  But trying to convince me that the other explanations I listed don't exist and are insulting is probably going to be futile, because I've seen them for myself and I'm not trying to insult anyone by giving an accounting of reality.  Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better.  Yet, they never seemed to catch on.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 16, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> It's easy enough to understand but also has the property of explaining nothing.



It explains quite a bit, but the question is whether or not it an explanation that meets your satisfaction. 



> I'm aware of that.  I just think that on the whole, they haven't been that successful, which suggests that maybe they aren't succeeding.



Their lack of success of gaining traction is not necessarily indicative of the value or lack thereof of non-Vancian magic. Would you not also agree that there people who are attached to Vancian magic for sentimental reasons, such as "Vancian magic is D&D"? Or how that Vancian magic is "how things have always been done"? Would you also not agree that Vancian magic may have been retained due to issues such as backwards compatibility? Or that anything that isn't Vancian is not D&D? Or that people who dislike Vancian magic must somehow dislike D&D? Or how about people who insinuate that detractors of Vancian magic should just play something other than D&D? 



> Stop there for a bit.  Sorcerers and the AU variants are such minor variations on the core Vancian mechanics that I don't really consider them to be other than Vancian magic in the same since that the Wizard is 'Vancian magic'.  If the term is sufficiently descriptive of the loosely related to Dying Earth mechanics used by Wizards, then its sufficiently descriptive of the mechanics used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds.  The sorcerer for example is a minor variation only in the time at which you make the spell selection - character creation rather than daily - which correspondingly changes the time frame in which they may be flexible in their spell choice.  But this is fundamentally a small change that allows them to use the rest of the standard D&D magic mechanics wholesale, right down to importing the wizard's spell list lock stock and barrel.  If the core of our disagreement is that sorcerers aren't Vancian as you use the term, but they are Vancian as I use the term, then we might as well not say much more.  You are never going to convince me that the sorcerer is a non-Vancian spellcasting class, nor that the people upset with Vancian spellcasting are therefore perfectly satisfied by the sorcerer.



Vancian magic is "fire and forget." Spontaneous casting used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds is not Vancian. Being variants of Vancian magic does not make them Vancian. A sorcerer does not prepare a certain number of spells per day (e.g. two fireballs), but instead simply knows fireball and can cast that known spell a potential amount of times per day that is not dependent on their preparation of those spells. Magisters in AU prepare a set number of spells per day, but they do not forget them once cast, but can spontaneously cast any prepared spell. Furthermore, they can weave spells up or down slots. If you think that the Sorcerer and Arcana Unearthed spell systems are Vancian, then you have a _far more liberal_ understanding of Vancian magic than most ardent Vancianites. 



> I fully agree that the Psion is a non-Vancian spellcaster, but its also never managed to make it into core and my perception is that psionics represent a niche market and psionic labelling tends to be a turn off.



Psionics have never managed to make it into core, largely because of how "psionic labelling tends to be a turn off." Nevertheless, psionics are core in 3e (SRD approved). What matters, however, is that the non-Vancian system of the Psion can be used alongside of Vancian casters while still being considered "D&D." And it should be just as easy to modify and reflavor the psionic caster system and spell list to an arcane/divine magic system. 



> I didn't say that it was true for most necessarily.  I only suggested that it was one of six common complaints which jointly seemed represent the majority of opinions of those who dislike Vancian spellcasting.  Under the label 'ignorance', I tend to put those who claim that for example, a system that use mana points would in and of itself simplify book keeping, increase flexibility, increase game balance, end the 15 minute game day, end the practice of wizards going nova, or even simply just those that claim there are no advantages to the existing system and they can't imagine how it could be defended by anyone.



There are benefits to both systems. I think that there are some aspects of Vancian book-keeping that certain people find tedious, but Vancianites don't, and vice versa. I think it's just a matter of recognizing that the Vancian magic system is incapable of satisfying everyone who otherwise enjoys D&D. 



> As far as confusion goes, this is the complaint that it makes no sense for a person to forget a spell after he has cast it, or that they can't immediate rememorize the spell they just cast if they have forgotten it.  These concerns can generally be alleviated by explaining the flavor in a way that they find more logical, but to me generally resemble the confused arguments presented by people who argue that hit points aren't realistic because they believe that hit points represent only the ability to sustain damage or because they think hit points represent only an abstract quality and not in part the ability to sustain damage.  The tend to be tying themselves up in knots because they don't understand the nature of the abstraction based on an erroneous assumption about the fluff surrounding the abstraction.



These things can be explained in ways that are _logical,_ but it's not really a matter of logic - as logical explanations can be used to justify _any_ fictional metaphysical system - but what certain people find _intuitive._ And for some people, other magic systems are more intuitive than others. This intuitive sense is partially a matter of taste, preference, and background with other magic systems, whether in other games (video and tabletop) or fiction. This does not make Vancian magic bad, but it can be restrictive against those preferences. 



> (My typical explanation goes something like, "When a wizard is studying his spells, he's actually engaged in a lengthy ritual to prepare the spell in his mind, stopping the ritual just short of completion to await the comparitively short phrase or gesture that will trigger the release of the spell.  Mortal spellcasters generally find it impossible to summon up enough power in the short time available in the midst of combat or other stressful situations.  Spells are simply known rituals that can be left in this nearly completed state where they will be useful in a hurry.  More powerful beings are less restricted and don't need as much preparation."  That explanation has seemed to satisfy several of my players over the years, though of course I would hardly expect it to satisfy everyone as not everyone's complaint has the same source.)



Which may works for you and your settings, but not necessarily for others and their settings. I hope you can at least sympathize with that reality. 



> I'm not sure that's a terribly useful distinction.  By "high simulation", I mean the stance that a game is most fun when it most perfectly simulates the genera or setting which serves as its inspiration so that it feels to the player as if he was journeying within the story.



For me, it is a useful distinction, because people are not necessarily seeking to simulate a particular setting or genera, but want a system that flexibly allows them to simulate the most number of settings or genera. 



> Yes, but so would any particular choice of mechanic, unless like HERO or something its flexible enough to also emmulate Vancian.



Which is largely my point. The mechanics of any particular system inherently would, and that's why Vancian is not going to necessarily work for everyone and what leads to detractors of the system, because it feels like a yoke on the necks of their creativity and flexibility. 



> Which, I feel, on the basis of the effects of the system and not necessarily the fluff, is Vancian.  That is to say, while for any given setting, you could match that settings explanation for how magic works more closely (assuming how magic works is in the slightest way explained), you could not simulate the narrative uses of magic more closely in more settings than you can with Vancian.  No, granted, there are some types and feels of games where Vancian doesn't work well - I wouldn't do Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian (but I wouldn't do it with mana points either) - on the whole it serves better than anything I've found the general feel of magic that can at times be earth shattering but which for whatever reasons of story or character motivation is more usually held in reserve.  One of the central tropes of most fantasy stories is that magic is real and incredibly powerful, but its practicioners rarely use it or are reluctant to use it so that its only seen at critical moments.  That feel is very hard to capture with a game system while still allowing the player to feel like he's playing a magician.



I'm not an advocate of forcing square pegs down round holes, and if you are keenly aware that there are potential settings, both adapted and homebrew, in which Vancian is not appropriate, then you should be equally keen to allow for the existence of alternate magic systems within D&D. Yet you are not. 



> As for power gaming, again, I'm not saying that each of these complaints applies to everyone that doesn't like Vancian, or even that any one applies to the majority.  I'm only saying I've heard the complaint commonly.  And considering you don't address my statement except to say that its probably insulting, I'm not sure how valid of a rebuttle that actually is.



But I did address your point. You skipped over it: 


> Considering that many of these alternate systems that people have proposed do place limitations (e.g., fatigue, mana points, reduced power level, etc.), I'm not sure how viable this criticism actually is. The reasons that you listed do not imply that these players are somehow "power gamers," and again it's insulting to suggest that when it's really just about playing a preferred simulation or mechanical system of magic.






> And I think I'm going to mostly end my response here, because you don't say anything really explanatory from here on out.  It's not enough to say, "They have a different taste."  *Please define that taste and why a different magic system better meets that taste.*  It's not enough to say, "Oh, they like point buy."  Why do they like point buy?  When you say things like, "You make it sound as if EVERY game system would be absolutely BOGUS for using systems other than Vancian.", then its pretty clear to me that you don't get it.



I get the feeling that you will be dismissive of anything anyone could possibly provide, as you do not seem keen on listening but simply in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic. 



> Well, I don't know how insulting it is for people who do like D&D, but I do know that a lot of people who don't like Vancian magic are very open about the fact that they don't like D&D and that they moved on from it because of Vancian magic (among other annoyances).  I recognize that there is a small(?) relatively economicly unimportant(?) group out there that play D&D with alternative magic systems and enjoy it, but their motivations are something I don't fully understand.



This bit is filled with a number of unsubstantiated assumptions that are unfairly frame those D&D players wanting alternatives to Vancian magic, and I would love if you could actually back up your claims here. 



> This is the lacking peice.  A good answer to my challenge might be to tell me about your D&D game where you banned Vancian magic and used the Psion as the Wizard, or where you used En Publishings 'Elements of Magic'.  That would be informative.



When I get the time, I will. But replacing the Vancian system wizard with a reworked wizard (i.e. psion) worked well. It mostly involved either reflavoring the effects to be more like wizard spells, or converting wizard spells - particularly utility spells - into the psionic system. 



> But trying to convince me that the other explanations I listed don't exist and are insulting is probably going to be futile, because I've seen them for myself and I'm not trying to insult anyone by giving an accounting of reality.



[/quote]I am not telling you that your insinuations are insulting to serve as explanations to your inquiries. I'm telling you because your "accounting of reality" is rude, dismissive, insulting, and unproductive to civil discussions, and that you could be aware of how your posts are coming across and that you should cut it out. 



> Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better.  Yet, they never seemed to catch on.



Brand recognition goes a long way, don't you agree?


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 16, 2012)

Holy cow, Celebrim.  Way to not engage in the discussion.

Vancian magic is highly controversial.  When it was announced at GenCOn... what was it, 2007? that Vancian magic would be out, the entire crowd cheered.  This is not the opinion of a statistically insignificant, minor element of the community.  I don't know how big it is, but that was more like the reaction against disco at Chicago in 1980--a significant grassroots, groundswell movement.

Your attempts to marginalize everyone who doesn't like Vancian magic are absurd.  And your demand (in bold text no less) that its not valid enough to not like something unless they can explain to you exactly why they don't like it is almost laughable in its overweening arrogance.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2012)

Well, Celebrim, I think that while you have hit some of the criticisms, they actually aren't the really pertinent ones.  At least for me.

Vancian magic, for me, forces players to choose broad effects over specific effects.  That's it, in a nutshell.  The mechanics are extremely limiting on how the game gets played.  While there may be the odd exception, by and large, any general effect trumps specific.  

So, after a while, every wizard looks pretty much the same.  I mean, there's a reason that sleep, magic missile and fireball are all iconic wizard spells, while, say, Illusory Script, isn't.  The rules a filled with spells that are almost never used, or are pretty much only used by DM's because the effect is so specific that no one in their right mind would give up the slot to take it.

Which brings up the next issue.  Fire and forget magic only exists in D&D.  It's the only place you see it.  It's pretty bad when the premiere fantasy RPG models Gandalf with a druid.  And the argument is pretty solid for making Gandalf a druid and not a wizard.  When iconic characters from genre fiction don't actually fit the class that supposed to model them, I'd blame the system for that.

I can understand liking Fire and Forget magic.  It has a lot going for it.  It's easy, it's simple, it does get the job done in a fairly straightforward way.  As far as mechanics go, it's certainly not a bad one.

OTOH, there are better ways of doing things.  You can create wizards without fire and forget magic that represent "Guy who waves his hands and makes the bad mens fall down" in a way that is less restrictive than F&F magic.  The various psionic systems work well.  4e's mix of at wills and dailies isn't a bad way to go either.  

The point you're missing Celebrim, is not everyone wants to play a wizard that stands around, warming the pines until it's time to kick the point after.  Some people want to play wizards that can interact with the action of the game just as often as everyone else.

I don't understand why their tastes are somehow less important than yours.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2012)

I'll admit, my eyes went crossed a bit at the walls of text, but this last bit caught my eye:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Likewise, I've been seeing alternative magic systems for D&D for 30 years now, including any number of D&D knockoffs where someone thought they could do D&D better. Yet, they never seemed to catch on.




Are you honestly saying that Vancian casting is the reason D&D is popular?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> It explains quite a bit, but the question is whether or not it an explanation that meets your satisfaction.




It neither explains nor is an answer to my satisfaction.  It did prompt me to reread the thread from the start just so I could track your stance in it, which was more informative than your answers are.



> Their lack of success of gaining traction is not necessarily indicative of the value or lack thereof of non-Vancian magic. Would you not also agree that there people who are attached to Vancian magic for sentimental reasons, such as "Vancian magic is D&D"? Or how that Vancian magic is "how things have always been done"? Would you also not agree that Vancian magic may have been retained due to issues such as backwards compatibility?




I'm sure that those have a role, but when you make this argument I'm reminded by those that have denounced hit points and classes and other D&D mechanics as primitive, archiac, useless, and only retained because they were the way things have always been done.  At one point, I probably would have counted myself among that group, but I later came to see it was not so, that hit points and classes had strengths and that they were retained not primarily from nostalgia but because they were good mechanics.  So I deny that these are the defining reasons as well.  Vancian magic was retained in a clear form into 3e because it was a solid mechanic, and I believe 4e suffers on the whole from its lack.



> Or that anything that isn't Vancian is not D&D?




I'm not going to go that far, because I think things are still D&D even without magic.  But, the question of 'What is D&D?' is a difficult one and seems to lack a definitive answer.  I think it is matter of opinion whether D&D is not D&D any more if Vancian magic removed, but I find it easier to see the logic of a person who says, "Without Vancian as option, it's not D&D." than someone who says, "Without Vancian as an option, it's still D&D."  So without addressing the other issues, I feel confident that while having an option other than Vancian is a good idea, kicking it to the curb is probably a very bad idea if you are trying to establish some sort of base line D&D rule set or experience.  



> Or that people who dislike Vancian magic must somehow dislike D&D? Or how about people who insinuate that detractors of Vancian magic should just play something other than D&D?




Generally speaking, many of them do.  When 4e was announced, we got a flurry of interest from people who said, "If they drop Vancian spellcasting, I may come back to D&D.  Vancian spellcasting drove me away from the game."  Whether 4e kicked Vancian far enough to the curb to satisfy them, I don't know.  Likewise, while you can play anything that you want, I think some sort of explanation for why you are playing D&D when you don't like its core mechanics would be helpful.  From what I can tell so far, its because in your case you are most unhappy only with Vancian in its purist form and that the presence of variants is something you can tolerate.  Plus I also gather that you feel, as I don't, that the 3.5 psionic system is a very strong system.  For my part, I think it could be a strong system, but its being limited by its ancestory as a 'psionic system' (which it truly to my mind ceased to be in 2e).



> Vancian magic is "fire and forget." Spontaneous casting used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds is not Vancian.




Even though they are fire and forget?  I think you are defining fire and forget pretty narrowly here.  I define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame.  Thus, I consider both the Wizard in 1e and the monsters in 1e with their list of spell-like abilities useable 1/day or 3/day to be Vancian.  Both are systems that have been with D&D since the beginning, and both use a common set of rules.  The 3e Sorcerer is still Vancian because, after you've expended your 3rd level spell slots, you cannot merge your unexpended 2nd level spells slots to produce a 3rd level spell.  This is not true non-Vancian systems, but is a typical feature of core D&D magic systems and generally not associated with other game systems.  Likewise, the 1e or 3e monster with two different spell like abilities, each usuable 3/day, is a Vancian spellcaster.  The fact that they all can use a common spell list to my mind is pretty definite proof of that.



> Being variants of Vancian magic does not make them Vancian.




Subclasses of a class are still members of the general class.

I don't know what you tried to refer me to, but after reading the thread, far from being hyper-liberal on this point I would call myself a moderate.  Other posters defined as Vancian ANY system which restricted powers on a #/time frame basis, as opposed to systems without expendable resources or with a fungible mana point system.  And while that might be over broad, I can see their point.



> What matters, however, is that the non-Vancian system of the Psion can be used alongside of Vancian casters while still being considered "D&D." And it should be just as easy to modify and reflavor the psionic caster system and spell list to an arcane/divine magic system.




I'm sympathetic to this approach, but I'm not very sympathetic to it replacing the Vancian system as the core system.  For one thing, from the DM's perspective, monsters are easier to write up and to run using the Vancian system or a variant than they would be using a spell-point system or a variant.  Bookkeeping and math put a much bigger burden on the DM - who must run multiple NPC's and manage a game - than they do on the individual player who must only run a single character.

Not that you've yet explained what this matter of taste is that drives you to spell point systems.  And no, I'm not going to buy that there is no logical explanation.



> Which may works for you and your settings, but not necessarily for others and their settings. I hope you can at least sympathize with that reality.




As I said, I wouldn't run something like Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian magic, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be that offended if people who saw the homebrew I put together to run the game claimed that I'd departed so far from standard play that the game wasn't D&D any more.



> I'm not an advocate of forcing square pegs down round holes, and if you are keenly aware that there are potential settings, both adapted and homebrew, in which Vancian is not appropriate, then you should be equally keen to allow for the existence of alternate magic systems within D&D. Yet you are not.




That seems to be a huge and illogical leap.  I'm by no means saying that alternate magic systems can't be provided for D&D.  I'm saying that Vancian is D&D's core magical mechanic, and the further you depart from it the less your variant will strike the majority of people as being D&D.  But by all means play the game you enjoy, and if there is a market for it by all means D&D's publishers should be trying to meet it.   Though, I think they'd do a better job of meeting it if we could well define what it is that people liked about a given variant compared to Vancian.



> I get the feeling that you will be dismissive of anything anyone could possibly provide, as you do not seem keen on listening but simply in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic.




On the contrary, I'm both interested in listening and in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic.  (Though obviously, I have a broader view of what that status quo is than merely 'like the 1e Wizard'.)



> I am not telling you that your insinuations are insulting to serve as explanations to your inquiries. I'm telling you because your "accounting of reality" is rude, dismissive, insulting, and unproductive to civil discussions, and that you could be aware of how your posts are coming across and that you should cut it out.




I don't take a lot of responcibility for people getting offended for things that aren't offensive.  Are you completely sure that the problem isn't that you have a dog in this fight?   Because you've repeatedly made assertions about my stance that are false, and given the fact that you've repeatedly and to my point of view wildly misinterpretted me, I'm not about to apologize for how you think I'm coming off.



> Brand recognition goes a long way, don't you agree?




Not as far as some claim.  Historically speaking, first to market brands end up losing to second to market brands more often than not because second to market brands are usually able to learn from the first ones mistakes and provide a superior product at a lower cost.  That D&D endured is not I think primarily attributable to being first.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Holy cow, Celebrim.  Way to not engage in the discussion.




???



> Vancian magic is highly controversial.  When it was announced at GenCOn... what was it, 2007? that Vancian magic would be out, the entire crowd cheered.




I'm not in a position to speculate on what percentage of the crowd was actually cheering, what their motives were, or whether they suffered buyers remorse.  I wouldn't have been surprised in 2007 if they announced classes were out, hit points were out, armor class was out, and saving throws were and they probably also would have gotten cheers.  I remember the timbre of the boards about that time.  There were a lot here that wanted D&D kicked to the curb entirely and replaced with an indy inspired nar system, and others that wanted an ultra rules light frame work.  And virtually everyone was absolutely certain that what was under the wrapping paper was going to be exactly the pony they wanted.  I got a three day ban for being overly negative after suggesting that it might not be an indy nar system they were making and the whole skill challenge system didn't seem to me like it was going to work out.  No body wanted to hear a negative assessment back then.

And, given the dynamics of crowds, they probably would have gotten cheers for most any assertion that they made.  

History however judges how it worked out, with a new edition under production less than 4 years after the launch, groundswell not just for 3e inspired games but older editions, endless complaints about the lack of flexibility 4e Wizards have, and prior attempts to patch Vancian back into the system to apologize to the fan base they offended.



> Your attempts to marginalize everyone who doesn't like Vancian magic are absurd.  And your demand (in bold text no less) that its not valid enough to not like something unless they can explain to you exactly why they don't like it is almost laughable in its overweening arrogance.




Among other things, that bold text was emphasis added by someone else.  And its perfectly valid to like or not like something even though you can't explain why, but it isn't very informative.  And note, "valid" is not my word in that section.  That's something you added.  My word was "explanatory".  I don't know what you consider to be engaging in discussion, but I've got to tell you that I consider misquoting and twisting other peoples words to try put them in as negative light as possible to not be engaging in discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, Celebrim, I think that while you have hit some of the criticisms, they actually aren't the really pertinent ones.  At least for me.




Cool.  An answer.



> Vancian magic, for me, forces players to choose broad effects over specific effects.




Err.. don't you mean it forces players to choose specific effects over broad effects?  One of the advantages of a free form magic system is you can apply a general broad power (say 'manipulate fire') to a wide range of specific effects.  Vancian systems don't let you do that, and instead force you to exchange depth (more powerful effects) for breadth (flexibility).  Likewise, pointbuy systems allow you to buy the effect at the level you desire, which is another example of flexibility that Vancian depricates in exchange usually for greater raw power per resource expended of the effects that you can produce.



> So, after a while, every wizard looks pretty much the same.  I mean, there's a reason that sleep, magic missile and fireball are all iconic wizard spells, while, say, Illusory Script, isn't.




Yeah, but in all fairness, if we had a non-Vancian system something akin to sleep, magic missile, and fireball would still be more iconic expressions of wizardly power than say illusory script.  In fact, in a non-Vancian system I wouldn't be surprised to find no provision for illusory script at all.  Whereas, at least in D&D, if you find you need an Illusory Script for some purpose, you can simply prepare it.  In non-Vancian systems, even if it is possible, chances are you aren't invested into the character building resources that would allow it and would hesitate to waste scarce resources on them in the first place.



> The rules a filled with spells that are almost never used, or are pretty much only used by DM's because the effect is so specific that no one in their right mind would give up the slot to take it.




And interestingly, in non-Vancian systems, these specific effects are often simply not covered in the interest of conserving space.  While having a system with 4000 or 5000 detailed spells makes for a very rules heavy system, it gaurantees that the system has amazing breadth in its potential application while avoiding the difificulties in adjudication that normally come with freeform systems (which is one of the only other ways to provide similar breadth).



> Which brings up the next issue.  Fire and forget magic only exists in D&D.  It's the only place you see it...




And Zelazny's 'Amber' series.  And obviously 'Dying Earth'.  And in practice, many fantasy series where the don't explain the basis of magic are as well approximated - or better approximated - by fire and forget as any other system, if only for the very obvious reason that we don't see the magic wielding characters use the same effect over and over again.  Other than his 'light' spell, which seemed attached to his staff in some fashion, I'm not sure we see Gandalf cast the same spell twice nor more than a couple spells in an entire day.



> It's pretty bad when the premiere fantasy RPG models Gandalf with a druid.




No it's not really.  I would argue that D&D created the 'wizard' archetype, and that the historical notion of 'wizard' is more closely related to the D&D cleric than to the fireball slinging wizard that has become archetypal.  The historical 'wizard' is religious, tied to invocation spirits and gods, and produces subtle not easily observable effects.  Yet, are you suggesting that the very notion of Wizard that D&D created ought to be thrown to the curb?  However, that's all probably better left to another thread.



> And the argument is pretty solid for making Gandalf a druid and not a wizard.




As I said, doesn't surprise me.



> The point you're missing Celebrim, is not everyone wants to play a wizard that stands around, warming the pines until it's time to kick the point after.  Some people want to play wizards that can interact with the action of the game just as often as everyone else.




That position is only a valid criticism of D&D for the first few levels, and then only strongest of 1st edition which didn't give bonus spells to wizards nor did it give them usuable cantrips.  After the first few levels, you have enough spells that you can fire off a couple in every encounter and you have wands and other implements that give you additional expendable resources. 

But even more to the point, this is a criticism of a particular implementation of a Vancian system, and not something intrinsic to Vancian entirely.  Are you suggesting that your major complaint with vancian would be addressed if you didn't have to toss darts and poke people with your quarterstaff from 1st to 4th level? 



> I don't understand why their tastes are somehow less important than yours.




It has nothing to do with importance.  I simply don't understand their tastes and I would honestly like to.  For one thing, I would love to feel like I had enough understanding that I could design a system that would make everyone happy.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 16, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> It neither explains nor is an answer to my satisfaction.  It did prompt me to reread the thread from the start just so I could track your stance in it, which was more informative than your answers are.



It explains that tastes are subjective, which may mean that sometimes people's tastes are different than yours. That is justification enough for people when we are talking about a matter of taste, which is invariably what the Vancian magic discussion amounts. If you think that it answers nothing, it's because you are asking the wrong questions. 



> I'm sure that those have a role, *but when you make this argument I'm reminded by those* that have denounced hit points and classes and other D&D mechanics as primitive, archiac, useless, and only retained because they were the way things have always been done.  At one point, I probably would have counted myself among that group, but I later came to see it was not so, that hit points and classes had strengths and that they were retained not primarily from nostalgia but because they were good mechanics.  So I deny that these are the defining reasons as well.



It would be nice if you could actually address the points of my posts instead of trying to frame me guilty by association. Thanks. As I said, there are people, like myself, who view Vancian magic as something modular that can be replaced by other systems without a loss of integrity to what constitutes D&D. 



> Vancian magic was retained in a clear form into 3e because it was a solid mechanic, and I believe 4e suffers on the whole from its lack.



And not because of backwards compatibility or because of what's "True D&D"? But I do agree, it's a solid mechanic for what it does. But it's not the only solid mechanic, nor is it the only solid mechanic that fits people's sense of magical aesthetics. I am puzzled by how 4E suffers from its lack, when you "define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame," which is precisely how 4E operates with Encounter and Daily powers. 



> I'm not going to go that far, because I think things are still D&D even without magic.  But, the question of 'What is D&D?' is a difficult one and seems to lack a definitive answer.  I think it is matter of opinion whether D&D is not D&D any more if Vancian magic removed, but I find it easier to see the logic of a person who says, "Without Vancian as option, it's not D&D." than someone who says, "Without Vancian as an option, it's still D&D."  So without addressing the other issues, I feel confident that while having an option other than Vancian is a good idea, kicking it to the curb is probably a very bad idea if you are trying to establish some sort of base line D&D rule set or experience.



You can have Vancian as an option - not that I'm one to be in power to grant such things. I'm not wanting to kick it to the curb - not entirely at least - but I do want non-Vancian magic a modular option for magical classes that's given proper ability to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Vancian magic as "core." That I think would largely still "shut up" people who want Vancian removed, as I do not think at heart they want it removed, but that they want available non-Vancian options that are "just as core." Call it Equal Rights for Non-Vancianite players of D&D. 



> Generally speaking, many of them do.  When 4e was announced, we got a flurry of interest from people who said, "If they drop Vancian spellcasting, I may come back to D&D.  Vancian spellcasting drove me away from the game."  Whether 4e kicked Vancian far enough to the curb to satisfy them, I don't know.  Likewise, while you can play anything that you want, I think some sort of explanation for why you are playing D&D when you don't like its core mechanics would be helpful.  From what I can tell so far, its because in your case you are most unhappy only with Vancian in its purist form and that the presence of variants is something you can tolerate.  Plus I also gather that you feel, as I don't, that the 3.5 psionic system is a very strong system.  For my part, I think it could be a strong system, but its being limited by its ancestory as a 'psionic system' (which it truly to my mind ceased to be in 2e).



Ah, but you are confusing a dislike of the Vancian mechanics for a dislike of D&D when it's not the same. People's dislike for Vancian magic may be strong enough to have them stop playing D&D, but it's not necessarily because they hate D&D, but because of a particular ingrained magic system. As this thread attests, there are _many_ who love D&D while disliking Vancian magic. I do not mind Arcana Evolved, for example, because it can be used to replicate the idea of mana/spell points and a closer approximation of the aesthetic of "mana" or "magical juice," with flexible magic through weaving spells up and down, diminishing and heightening, templates, etc. When a magister runs out of spells, it can be explained through fatigue and being out of "juice." How are they out of juice? They weave spells up or down until they are simply out of "mana." It's only at higher levels that some lower magic becomes trivial to the point that it becomes at-will. But it operates almost entirely like mana point systems, but "minimum power levels" for certain effects/spells are organized more like traditional D&D spell charts. You could fairly easily convert the AU/AE system to mana points. You are right in that sorcerers are not entirely satisfactory in this regard, but they are closer, which is why non-Vancianites tolerate them more readily than Vancian wizards; it's perceived as a closer step in the right direction for them. 



> Even though they are fire and forget?  I think you are defining fire and forget pretty narrowly here.  I define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame.  Thus, I consider both the Wizard in 1e and the monsters in 1e with their list of spell-like abilities useable 1/day or 3/day to be Vancian.  Both are systems that have been with D&D since the beginning, and both use a common set of rules.  The 3e Sorcerer is still Vancian because, after you've expended your 3rd level spell slots, you cannot merge your unexpended 2nd level spells slots to produce a 3rd level spell.  This is not true non-Vancian systems, but is a typical feature of core D&D magic systems and generally not associated with other game systems.  Likewise, the 1e or 3e monster with two different spell like abilities, each usuable 3/day, is a Vancian spellcaster.  The fact that they all can use a common spell list to my mind is pretty definite proof of that.



You can define "fire and forget" however you please, but that's not the conventional understanding of "fire and forget" Vancian mechanics. The mechanics of "Vancian magic" says nothing about spell levels themselves. The sorcerer is non-Vancian, even thought it shares the same spell list, which is more a matter of comparable power level than any shared Vancian mechanics. 



> Subclasses of a class are still members of the general class.
> 
> I don't know what you tried to refer me to, but after reading the thread, far from being hyper-liberal on this point I would call myself a moderate.  Other posters defined as Vancian ANY system which restricted powers on a #/time frame basis, as opposed to systems without expendable resources or with a fungible mana point system. And while that might be over broad, I can see their point.



Subclasses of archetypes, yes, but I would not go as far to say that they are subclasses of the Vancian system. 



> I'm sympathetic to this approach, *but I'm not very sympathetic to it replacing the Vancian system as the core system. *For one thing, from the DM's perspective, monsters are easier to write up and to run using the Vancian system or a variant than they would be using a spell-point system or a variant.  Bookkeeping and math put a much bigger burden on the DM - who must run multiple NPC's and manage a game - than they do on the individual player who must only run a single character.



Thankfully, most non-Vancianites, I would say, are not advocating a replacement, but a modular replacement that can exist alongside Vancian magic and is "just as core." 



> Not that you've yet explained what this matter of taste is that drives you to spell point systems.



Perhaps it would help me if you were to provide an example by explaining this matter of taste that drives you to Vancian magic systems, that way I could better shape my answer to your inquiry. But I will say that I'm not entirely drawn to spell point systems, as I also happen to like flexible systems like in True20 and Blue Rose. But these systems view magic much like in Avatar the Last Airbender, to use an example you've mentioned as being inappropriate for Vancian magic. It's a limited form of freeform magic which has its own unique sets of tactical challenges and creative uses. I also like Green Ronin's magic system for Dragon Age, though it's unfortunately designed for 3d6 and not d20. I'm more than happy to tone down the power level of flexible magic systems, as I am one of the most ardent advocates for minimizing the fighter-wizard power parity. I'm more keen on simulating a broad magical aesthetic than any desire, conscious or subconscious, of powergaming. 



> And no, I'm not going to buy that there is no logical explanation.



While I doubt repeating myself will do either of any good, I do feel as if I sufficiently explained myself. Loose "logic" of such nature is ultimately a tool that can be used to rationalize just about anything, just as you used "logic" to rationalize the mechanics of Vancian magic. It's a rationalization that _follows_ the game mechanics, but it is not one that _proceeds_ it. 



> As I said, I wouldn't run something like Avatar the Last Airbender with Vancian magic, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be that offended if people who saw the homebrew I put together to run the game claimed that I'd departed so far from standard play that the game wasn't D&D any more.



I do think that running alternative magic systems within D&D are just as viable to call "D&D" as running games with Vancian classes. Again, would running a psionic campaign in 3e (core in the SRD) not be a D&D campaign? If it can be considered "D&D," then so too should a modified psionic system that was appropriated for the classes with Vancian systems.  



> That seems to be a huge and illogical leap.  I'm by no means saying that alternate magic systems can't be provided for D&D.  I'm saying that Vancian is D&D's core magical mechanic, and the further you depart from it the less your variant will strike the majority of people as being D&D.  But by all means play the game you enjoy, and if there is a market for it by all means D&D's publishers should be trying to meet it.



I certainly don't expect that you have, but if you read my views about Vancian magic here and elsewhere, you would know that I have advocated for multiple modular options for magic systems that could both be presented as core materials for the Vanciantes and non-Vancianites, such that a player can play both a Vancian and "non-Vancian wizard" with equal validity as "core." 



> Though, I think they'd do a better job of meeting it if we could well define what it is that people liked about a given variant compared to Vancian.



This thread is not about what alternate magic systems people prefer to Vancian magic, but "D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic" and why they have stayed with D&D. That's primarily why many people on this thread have not talked about what systems of magic they prefer. 



> I don't take a lot of responcibility for people getting offended for things that aren't offensive.  Are you completely sure that the problem isn't that you have a dog in this fight?   Because you've repeatedly made assertions about my stance that are false, and given the fact that you've repeatedly and to my point of view wildly misinterpretted me, I'm not about to apologize for how you think I'm coming off.



Who are you to determine whether or not you have said something offensive? And I'm not the only one in this thread who think you are being dismissive or rude. But if I have made false assertions about your stance or wildly misinterpreted you, it is not intentional, and I am not above being corrected in those regards, though I do not see where you have given me prior indication where I have done so. But again, if I did, I apologize. 



> Not as far as some claim. Historically speaking, first to market brands end up losing to second to market brands more often than not because second to market brands are usually able to learn from the first ones mistakes and provide a superior product at a lower cost.  That D&D endured is not I think primarily attributable to being first.



That's not always true though, and sometimes the first has the right set of conditions that allows them to continue market dominance regardless of "better" alternate products.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2012)

> Historically speaking, first to market brands end up losing to second to market brands more often than not because second to market brands are usually able to learn from the first ones mistakes and provide a superior product at a lower cost.




That is actually not correct.  The single strongest predictor of success in the market is being first to market- something like a 67% correlation according to my studies (using 2003 data).

Now, this is no guarantee: to maintain first position requires work, and the lead may change from time to time, but more often than not, first to market leads the market.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jan 16, 2012)

> So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_



Great full colored art (my first book was the German AD%D2nd PHB). Don't blame me, I was a kid and only used to black and white illustrated RPG books. Then I stayed for Dark Sun and Ravenloft.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 16, 2012)

Just to add a viewpoint of someone who isn't a fan of D&D, I'm going to link to and excerpt from Ron Edwards' essay on Fantasy Heartbreakers.

He starts out by outlining that Fantasy Heartbreakers are almost all D&D derived by people who liked the playstyle of D&D:


> *Part One: Aaarrrghh!*
> Let's take the most painful aspect of these games first - not one of them demonstrates a shred of critical perspective regarding role-playing techniques. The authors played Old D&D, and their decisions about their games demonstrate a perfect salad of patch rules, unquestioned assumptions, and touted "innovations" that induce migraine, all founded on this single template.
> 
> For instance, let's look at this weapons list from Dawnfire: Bill-Guisarme ... Flail, Flail (horseman's), Glaive, Guisarme, Halberd .... Lasso, Lucern Hammer ... Trident, Voulge ...
> ...




He then goes on to underscore the differences between the Fantasy Heartbreakers and D&D:



> *Part Two: Hmmm!*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Note that last point. These people all loved the D&D playstyle enough to write their own games that were closely based on it. But _without exception_ every one of them changed the magic system.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> It explains that tastes are subjective, which may mean that sometimes people's tastes are different than yours.




I know tastes are subjective and I know people's tastes are different than yours, but you have not convinced me that it is a matter of taste.  Some or all of your underlying reasons for preferring non-Vancian to Vancian may be matters of taste, but presumably you have underlying reasons.



> It would be nice if you could actually address the points of my posts instead of trying to frame me guilty by association.




I do not intend to frame you as guilty by association.  Rather, I'm saying that that you seem to be saying that Vancian magic is something which is retained in D&D primarily for reasons of nostalgia, much like many say about hit points classes, armor reducing the chance to hit, and other classic D&D mechanics are dismissed in this way.  In short, you seem to be saying that other people like these things merely as a matter taste and I'm rejecting that.



> As I said, there are people, like myself, who view Vancian magic as something modular that can be replaced by other systems without a loss of integrity to what constitutes D&D.




As I understand your argument at this point, you are saying that when Vancian is removed and replaced with an alternate system, D&D remains the same game and the only choice between Vancian and non-Vancian is a matter of taste - like vanilla versus chocolate.  This isn't very convincing.  I'm trying to unearth what it is that non-Vancian is adding to the game (or what particular Vancian detracts from it), and if I seem to be needling you more than others, please take it as flattery; it is because I think you are more likely to have the answer than some others who are offering less rational and thoughtful reasoning.



> I am puzzled by how 4E suffers from its lack, when you "define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame," which is precisely how 4E operates with Encounter and Daily powers.




Don't get me started on 4e; the moderators will close the thread or at least kick me out of it.  Suffice to say that I think the 4e variant offers the worst of all worlds, being both inflexible but verbose, with both poor simulationism and high redundancy in game play.



> I'm not wanting to kick it to the curb - not entirely at least - but I do want non-Vancian magic a modular option for magical classes that's given proper ability to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Vancian magic as "core." That I think would largely still "shut up" people who want Vancian removed, as I do not think at heart they want it removed, but that they want available non-Vancian options that are "just as core." Call it Equal Rights for Non-Vancianite players of D&D.




That seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable request.   Now help me understand your love of point buy systems and what you dislike about Vancian; not that it is in my power to grant your request either, but just for the sake of communication. 



> I do not mind Arcana Evolved, for example, because it can be used to replicate the idea of mana/spell points and a closer approximation of the aesthetic of "mana" or "magical juice," with flexible magic through weaving spells up and down, diminishing and heightening, templates, etc.




I find that really interesting, because when I encountered AE I found it to be only a very minor - very minor - variation on Vancian magic, and indeed so minor in its differences that it never struck me as being worth converting my houserules (which is about 80% 3.0e) over to what AE had done.  I saw the tiny advantages of the system not being worth the effor or additional complexity and possible losses of balance.  But you are seeming to say that this tiny advantage is to some people a huge improvement and sufficient to get them to accept the otherwise detestable and hated Vancian system.  That I find really intriguing.



> When a magister runs out of spells, it can be explained through fatigue and being out of "juice."




Yes, but I'm perfectly happy to flavor even traditional Vancian in that way depending on the setting.  Casting spells in some way fatigues the caster until they run out of joice, which is why a traditional D&D wizard can't simply immediately reprepare spells and requires rest before he may do so.



> You can define "fire and forget" however you please, but that's not the conventional understanding of "fire and forget" Vancian mechanics.




I appear to be far from the only person that defines it in this way, and far from the only one that sees the Sorcerer as being a trivially minor variation and part of a general family of related Vancian style spellcasting.  Certainly I don't recall seeing Sorcerer mechanics utilized outside of the D&D family of games.



> Perhaps it would help me if you were to provide an example by explaining this matter of taste that drives you to Vancian magic systems




I don't think it is a matter of taste.  I think that the Vancian system offers concrete advantages for D&D or any other system that involves regular combat and is seeking to emulate the feel of being within in a generic fantasy story.  I don't see my logic as loose at all.  It's as logically suited to simulation of generic fantasy as a system without expendable resources would be to simulating most anime style fantasy, comic books, or action adventure movies or a system involving encounter powers and manuevers would be to simulating the tropes of wuxia or Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers/Voltron.  It's not a matter of taste, save in your preference for the genera being emulated.



> Again, would running a psionic campaign in 3e (core in the SRD) not be a D&D campaign?




You are better positioned I think to answer that question than I am.  Tell me what it is like.  How is it different or similar to normal D&D?  What are you trying to achieve and why?  I'll say this, I think that the point buy system with the manifester level cap is certainly more suited to emulation of generic fantasy than a lot of other mechanics I can think of.



> Who are you to determine whether or not you have said something offensive?




Who better?  If we forgo that right, then we put ourselves at the mercy of anyone who whines that they are being victimized and any debate, discussion, or argument can be ended - and won - simply by claiming that you are offended.  It strikes me as a standard that would make for a very uncivil society - or forum - for we would be shackled to moods of the least tolerant and most aggressive members.   We'd simply encourage people to jump into threads, claiming outrage and causing trouble.  I do not mean to be insulting, though I'm aware I can be abrassive and I apologize for any cuts and contusions I may have cause.  I assure you, I'm not so patient that if I didn't have high regard for you, that I would continue to respond in such a lengthy manner.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 16, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I know tastes are subjective and I know people's tastes are different than yours, *but you have not convinced me that it is a matter of taste.* Some or all of your underlying reasons for preferring non-Vancian to Vancian may be matters of taste, but presumably you have underlying reasons.



So do you still only think that Non-Vancianites are a bunch of confused, ignorant, power gamers? Why do you honestly think that all these aesthetically different non-Vancian magic systems were developed both inside and outside of D&D? Why do you think that something as subjective as "the aesthetic of how magic should work" would not be a matter of taste? 



> I do not intend to frame you as guilty by association.  Rather, I'm saying that that you seem to be saying that Vancian magic is something which is retained in D&D primarily for reasons of nostalgia, much like many say about hit points classes, armor reducing the chance to hit, and other classic D&D mechanics are dismissed in this way.  In short, you seem to be saying that other people like these things merely as a matter taste and I'm rejecting that.



Nostalgia is definitely a part of it, and I certainly don't think you can deny otherwise. Even casual glances throughout this thread and other Vancian threads sends Vancianites into fervent ceremonious chanting of "If it's not Vancian, it's not D&D" and "D&D is not D&D without Vancian magic." But I have also proposed that the system stuck due to a concern for backwards compatibility of editions (sans 4E), which would include for Vancian magic. 



> As I understand your argument at this point, you are saying that when Vancian is removed and replaced with an alternate system, D&D remains the same game and the only choice between Vancian and non-Vancian is a matter of taste - like vanilla versus chocolate. This isn't very convincing. I'm trying to unearth what it is that non-Vancian is adding to the game (or what particular Vancian detracts from it), and if I seem to be needling you more than others, please take it as flattery; it is because I think you are more likely to have the answer than some others who are offering less rational and thoughtful reasoning.



D&D obviously does not remain "the same game" when you change out its parts, much like how D&D does not remain the same game between editions that change the mechanics (e.g. THACO to d20), nevertheless, it would still remain D&D, at least for the non-Vancianites. One person recently on ENWorld astutely compared D&D to the Ship of Theseus paradox. It's worth noting that tastes differ among the vague category of non-Vancianites, as there will always be those who think that the existing system does not meet their requirements. And I accept that as a matter of taste, because it largely stems from a series of conflated factors, which I think ultimately derives from a subjective intuitive sense for what magic "is" and how it should be. The mechanics, in a number of respects, are the simply the means of simulating that particular aesthetic within a game system, that frequently comes with its own set of simulation aesthetic choices. 



> That seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable request. Now help me understand your love of point buy systems and what you dislike about Vancian; not that it is in my power to grant your request either, but just for the sake of communication.



It's not that I like point buy systems, but that point buy systems are probably the most common way to simulate a particular magical aesthetic that I find more to my sensibilities, and yes taste. For example, I did list True20's magic system as one I liked, since it also operates on the fact that casters can cast until they drop dead, as True20 relies on fatigue and condition mechanics. And it also focuses on casters having a smaller set of flexible spells. I cannot recall too many fictional mages that have anywhere near the enormous spell lists of D&D wizards. This is not to say they don't exist, but that I would say that most mages in fiction seemingly have a much smaller repertoire of spells. You can focus on a selection of spells in D&D, so let me stop you right there: In this matter, I do not think that it's the fault of Vancian magic, but of D&D game assumptions. The game, as often evident in adventures, generally assumes that wizards have access to certain spells and that they have that large flexible spell list. I find that problematic, though I do not lay that at the feet of Vancian magic. 

I have veered off course, so let's go back to your original inquiry: "Now help me understand your love of point buy systems and what you dislike about Vancian." While the first and second parts can be inferred from what I write later, I will just be more direct about the first here: simulating magic as mana energy. Let me explain, because what that means isn't even sufficient to my own understanding, but as the words aren't coming to me, let's drawn an analogy instead, though it's not perfect when it comes to "recharging mana." Let's say that you have cash in various note values totaling $100. Mana systems view magic aesthetic more in these terms: As long as you have enough total cash to make purchases, you can expend your resources on whatever you want, however much you want, and when you need it until you are out of cash. It's ultimately not about power-spending, but about flexible spending and budgeting total expenditures, including potentially saving some reserves for the unexpected. Magic is viewed as a well. Vancian magic (as well as the D&D level spells per level per day system) would be entirely counterintuitive to this way of thinking. A D&D wizard who spent $100 instead of casting spells would have a set amount of coins, $1 notes, $5 notes, $10 notes, and $20 notes which they could only spend on a set list of pre-preparing $1 items, $5 items, $10 items, and $20 items. In other words, once they ran out of $1 notes, they could not use a $5 note to buy a $1 item. Well that's not entirely true: they could use one of the $5 or larger bills to pay for a $1 item, if they prepared for it in advance, but they would do so with the understanding that they don't be getting any change back. Or, if you used up your two $20 notes on two pre-prepared $20 items, you could not spend any of your remaining $80 to buy another $20 item. If checking accounts are far more intuitive, and can be fairly easily balanced and budgeted as a common practice of daily living, I'm fairly certain that spell point systems are more than capable of doing the same. 



> I find that really interesting, because when I encountered AE I found it to be only a very minor - very minor - variation on Vancian magic, and indeed so minor in its differences that it never struck me as being worth converting my houserules (which is about 80% 3.0e) over to what AE had done.  I saw the tiny advantages of the system not being worth the effor or additional complexity and possible losses of balance.  But you are seeming to say that this tiny advantage is to some people a huge improvement and sufficient to get them to accept the otherwise detestable and hated Vancian system.  That I find really intriguing.



I'm glad we are making progress in this area at least. It's not just "tiny advantages of the system." The AU/AE system offers a different aesthetic to magic and how it operates. 



> Yes, but I'm perfectly happy to flavor even traditional Vancian in that way depending on the setting.  Casting spells in some way fatigues the caster until they run out of joice, which is why a traditional D&D wizard can't simply immediately reprepare spells and requires rest before he may do so.



It doesn't quite work that way with Vancian magic, even if you reflavor it. For example, let's say that a wizard three third level spells per day. She prepares fireball 2x, and haste. After casting fireball the first time, she's obviously not out of "mana," as she can still cast fireball again. After casting fireball the second time, she's out of fireball spells. She has simply "fired and forgotten" fireball. But she's not out of "mana" or "energy," as she can still cast haste. Yet she cannot expend her "mana" to cast anymore fireballs or tap into her lower or higher level "mana energy" reserves to cast further 3rd level spells after casting haste. The traditional D&D wizard can run completely out of 1st level spells, while having all of his 2nd-9th level spells available. But trying her little heart out, this poor wizard cannot cast anymore 1st level spells - presuming she did not use upper level slots to prepare 1st level spells - despite having the "mana energy" for 2nd-9th level spells. And I think that this aspect, while not entirely Vancian, breaks simulation for some people, especially for those people who think of magic more holistically. But this is where the AU/AE system comes in and bridges the gap, not only between the wizard and sorcerer, but also between the artificiality of "spell levels" and "spells per day" with "spell points." 



> I appear to be far from the only person that defines it in this way, and far from the only one that sees the Sorcerer as being a trivially minor variation and part of a general family of related Vancian style spellcasting.  Certainly I don't recall seeing Sorcerer mechanics utilized outside of the D&D family of games.



There are many mechanical systems for magic that I do not see outside of particular systems, so not seeing Sorcerer mechanics outside of D&D is hardly surprising. To speculate while building on my previous assertion, the Sorcerer was perceived as a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough for those people, which is probably why the Sorcerer mechanics do not appear outside of D&D. It may be non-Vancian, but it doesn't adequately simulate a particular brand of generic fantasy. 



> I don't think it is a matter of taste. I think that the Vancian system offers particular concrete advantages for D&D or any other system that involves regular combat and is seeking to emulate a particular feel of being within in a generic fantasy story. I don't see my logic as loose at all.  It's as logically suited to simulation of a particular subset of  generic fantasy as a system without expendable resources would be to simulating most anime style fantasy, comic books, or action adventure movies or a system involving encounter powers and manuevers would be to simulating the tropes of wuxia or Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers/Voltron. It's not a matter of taste, save in your preference for the genera being emulated.



You can keep asserting that it's not a matter of taste, but you have yet to convince me that it's true nor have you provided evidence otherwise. I have added in the orange words to your post as a reminder that the Vancian magic system is a particular ruleset with a particular set of advantages geared towards its own particular game assumptions about magic within its own particular brand of generic fantasy it simulates. But that does not mean that it fits all tastes is able to simulate all, or even most, generic fantasy or that it is the only magic system that offers concrete advantages. 



> You are better positioned I think to answer that question than I am.  Tell me what it is like.  How is it different or similar to normal D&D?  What are you trying to achieve and why?  I'll say this, I think that the point buy system with the manifester level cap is certainly more suited to emulation of generic fantasy than a lot of other mechanics I can think of.



Vancian magic definitely has its own unique tactical qualities that a number of people in D&D find appealing. But point buy systems present a different set of tactical challenges than are present in Vancian systems. Sometimes, much like with Vancian magic, it takes a while before players get a grasp of safe expenditures, but it has allowed players to "spam" lower manifestations as appropriate far more frequently, or to "spam" higher manifestations until dry at the risk of further challenges. But it's a flexibility that's at the discretion of players to spend their cash reserves as they see fit. I have occasionally houseruled in some systems that as long the caster has at least X points in reserve, then they can perform at-will cantrips or they can make a magic ranged attack as long as they have a focus (e.g. staff, wand, etc.), which worked out well. Another houserule that worked well was that a caster can recharge a 1d4 of mana points after an hour of rest, which is obviously less than the full recharge of the standard 6 hour rest. I admit that I have not yet had the opportunity to playtest which would work better for balance, increasing the mana recharge die (i.e. d4 to d6 to d8) or the die number (i.e., 1d4 to 2d4, etc.) as the caster increases in level. But this houserule kept the party moving without feeling either too stingy or too wasteful with their spells. I find it's easier to recharge mana points than to recharge spell slots.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2012)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Err.. don't you mean it forces players to choose specific effects over broad effects?




Umm, no.  I don't.  I mean that it forces players to choose effects which have the broadest possible application over any effect with a narrower application.

Thus, you get cookie cutter casters.  The Vancian system forces a very narrow set of choices on the player because there is no freedom.  Any spell memorized and not cast might as well not have been memorized at all, particularly if a broader application spell could have been used more often.  So, players most often will choose effects with the broadest possible application regardless of any other considerations.

Even those players who choose thematic casters will still choose broad application spells within that theme.  DannyA mentioned earlier playing a wizard specializing in Divination.  Considering this is the broadest specialist school with the least limitations, I'm not really sure that it's a good example of how Vancian creates differentiated casters.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And Zelazny's 'Amber' series. And obviously 'Dying Earth'




Yes, well, choosing a pair of out of print, obscure genre titles and then saying we should emulate that has never really been a great argument afaic.  Again, like you said, D&D has created its own wizards.  But, Vancian magic isn't limited to wizards.  It's EVERY caster in D&D.  Clerics are in a class (no pun intended) all by themselves and druids resemble virtually nothing of their inspiration.

Even if Vancian casting can represent a handful of genre titles, it fails to represent many others.  OTOH, I can represent virtually all genre magic users with other systems, such as a point based system, or even 4e's ritual magic (a system that needs a LOT more loving to be a good system).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2012)

> DannyA mentioned earlier playing a wizard specializing in Divination. Considering this is the broadest specialist school with the least limitations, I'm not really sure that it's a good example of how Vancian creates differentiated casters.



It's only broadest in that, because of its virtual lack of combat spells, it has one fewer opposed schools than any other.

You want broad, try playing a Transmuter (my favorite kind of specialist) or Conjuror.



> Yes, well, choosing a pair of out of print, obscure genre titles




I don't think either of those is actually out of print.  I picked up the collected Amber and Dying Earth stories new in store just a couple of years ago.

As for obscurity...well, it took me 36 years to get around to reading them, but I've been aware of them for most of my history of reading F&SF, so I can't really consider them obscure.  And they listed as inspirational sources in the AD&D DMG, along with many others.

They're only obscure from a point of view that stops at what is on the shelves of B&N.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no.  I don't.  I mean that it forces players to choose effects which have the broadest possible application over any effect with a narrower application.
> 
> Thus, you get cookie cutter casters.  The Vancian system forces a very narrow set of choices on the player because there is no freedom.




Errr... but it does this far less than any other system does.  I mean, this reminds me, "Democracy is the worst form of government, until you have to compare it to all others."  Compared to any other magic system except complete free form, Vancian restricts in this way less, because every other system forces you to spend even more precious resources than spell slots.  And the further you get from Vancian, the more specialized you tend to be.  Free form systems might alleviate this to some extent, but they are poorly suited to D&D's gamist approach - the combat, exploration, and problem solving subgames on which rests much of the foundation for D&D's success.  And that's to say nothing of the fact that in games with freeform magic, there tends to be an assumption that everyone is a spellcaster.



> Even those players who choose thematic casters will still choose broad application spells within that theme.  DannyA mentioned earlier playing a wizard specializing in Divination.  Considering this is the broadest specialist school with the least limitations, I'm not really sure that it's a good example of how Vancian creates differentiated casters.




Do you notice how your 'differentiated casters' tend to be rather the opposite of broad?

Failure to encourage specialization is not a problem inherent to the Vancian system, and I think for many players is a feature and not a bug.   Any number of techniques could be used if you wanted to encourage, and reward, a high degree of specialization as an option.  But I think you are trying to solve a problem many people wouldn't want solved.  One of the best things about playing a D&D wizard is that you aren't limited to one (or two, or three) tricks.



> Yes, well, choosing a pair of out of print, obscure...




Obscure?  Amber is obscure?  Exactly what then doesn't count as obscure?  If your limiting yourself to Moorcock, Howard, and Leiber... nevermind, you probably think they are obscure as well.   



> It's EVERY caster in D&D.




So?



> druids resemble virtually nothing of their inspiration.




What? The modern conception of the Druid was created by D&D.  Almost everyone's impression of what a Druid is wholly derivative of D&D.  I have no real idea where B.D. Sustarre got his ideas about the Druid, but it would be fitting if he just made them up.  One thing I can say for sure, whatever the literary origins of the Druid spell list they are more obscure than Zelazny.

As for the inspiration of the druid, the real druid of history is totally unknown.  Everything everyone thinks that they know about them has been made up by someone.  The beards, the robes, the staffs, the rituals and all that - invented by Northern Europeans whole cloth during the Reinnasance and then reinvented in the 19th century.  The few surviving Roman accounts, who were the only people who wrote about them contemporaneously, are a muddled mix of misunderstandings, pro-Roman propaganda, and misguided attempts to make what sense they did have of their beliefs conform to Greek thought so that we can't really no whether any of it is true.  I feel so certain of that because we have snippets of Roman writings about the Norse religion, and we know that these are humorously muddled because we have what the Norse wrote about themselves.  

On that account, any description of the druids would resemble the real ones about as well as any other, and Sustarre probably did about as good of job as could be managed capturing their non-existant amorphous flavor and producing something concrete and archetypal.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2012)

It's interesting that you bring up the inspirational sources DannyA.  Because, when you look at the list, it quickly becomes apparent that it wasn't just classic fantasy that makes that list.  After all, Moorcock is on that list, and in 1973, Moorcock was the new, hot author, much like, say, China Mieville or any of the bigger New Weird authors are now.  

Yet, people want to talk about D&D doing "classic" fantasy.  Thing is, when D&D was written, about half of the inspirational works cited are published about a decade or less before D&D first hits the shelves.  D&D has always been influenced by current trends in fantasy.

Yet, when we talk about adding something like, say, Harry Potteresque magic to D&D, the cry goes up that we cannot pollute our true sources.  And it's utter ballocks.  Celebrim, you talk about how D&D models "older" fantasy sources.  Yet, David Eddings (a pretty well known genre author) was doing at will magic in 1982 with the Belgariad series.  I'll admit, my tastes in genre works tend to be more SF than fantasy, but, the "Memorize, cast and forget" model of magic is not the only and certainly not the best, way to model a lot of genre fiction.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> when I encountered AE I found it to be only a very minor - very minor - variation on Vancian magic, and indeed so minor in its differences that it never struck me as being worth converting my houserules (which is about 80% 3.0e) over to what AE had done.  I saw the tiny advantages of the system not being worth the effor or additional complexity and possible losses of balance.  But you are seeming to say that this tiny advantage is to some people a huge improvement and sufficient to get them to accept the otherwise detestable and hated Vancian system.  That I find really intriguing.



Here is Monte Cook on the AE system (from here and here):

As a designer, magic in Arcana Unearthed posed a huge challenge. I knew that I wanted to ditch the Vancian system (and by that, I mean the idea inspired by Jack Vance's books from the sixties, in which one prepares or "memorizes" a spell ahead of time, then loses the ability to cast it once it is cast). I didn't want to get rid of it because it was bad -- in fact, I fought for it to stay in 3rd Edition when some people wanted to get rid of it -- but because it was only one way to handle spells. Certainly not the only way. And Arcana Unearthed exists to show that there are alternative ways of doing things.

However, at the same time, I wanted the spells in this book to be as compatible as possible with existing D&D and d20 spells and spellcasting classes. That meant there still needed to be nine spell levels, pretty much balanced the same way . . .

[E]ach class has access to either simple or both simple and complex spells. You have a set number of spells that you can "ready" on a given day, based on your level and an ability score. "Ready" simply means that you've got the spell all set to go when you need it. (You don't lose the readied status of a spell if you cast it. It's more like how a sorcerer knows certain spells, except that your chosen readied spells can change each day if you wish.) If you can ready four 1st-level spells per day, they can be four different 1st-level spells from day to day. No spellbooks involved. No memorization and forgetting*. And the numbers of spells you can ready isn't so small that it forces repetition (and you can change them every day).

You also have a set number of "slots" each day to cast your spells with. So, if you've got three 1st-level slots, you can cast any three of the four 1st-level spells you have prepared. In any combination. So you can cast one spell three times, three different spells, one spell twice along with another, or whatever.

So far, it sounds like it's just a combination of the way sorcerers and wizards work, right? Well, that's intentional. I wanted to keep it both simple and not drastically different than what people are used to (and I wanted to keep the spells themselves pretty compatible with regular spells). 

But I didn't stop there. The two really different aspects are:

1. Casters can "weave" multiple lower-level slots to cast higher-level spells, or a single higher-level slot to cast multiple lower-level spells. This adds a great deal of flexibility.

2. Spells have prescribed diminished and heightened effects in their descriptions to tell you what happens if you cast the spell using a slot one level lower or one level higher than the spell itself. This effectively makes every spell into three similar but different spells.​
I don't have any strong view on _how_ different this is from D&D Vanican casting in some absolute sense. But it strikes me as clearly different in a number of practical features of the way it will play: a spell caster PC has access to a wider range of spells in a day (due to the readying rules plus the heightened/diminished rules) and in choosing that access has more flexibiilty as to which spells will actually be cast (due to the heightened/dmnished rules plus the weaving rules).

It strikes me as completely unsurprising that some - perhaps many - players would find that these practical differences would matter in play.

Whether this systems is a better or worse genre emulator I'll leave to others to work out.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2012)

On the idea of obscurity.

I'm not sure, Celebrim, how you measure whether or not an author is obscure.  For me, sales are largely one of the easiest metrics to use.  Tolkien is not obscure because he's hit massive sales, been made into major motion pictures (more than once) and whatnot.  He's a household name.  Pretty much the opposite of obscure.

I mentioned David Eddings in my last post.  Now, I am in no way commenting on quality, but, here's an author that's hit the NYT best seller lists, both in genre and in mainstream.  If I walk into any book store in North America, I'll likely find at least one title with his name on it.  Heck, I can walk into bookstores here in Japan and still find books with his name on them.

Now, name three best selling Jack Vance stories.  Two?  One?  If I walk into any mainstream bookstore, not specialist bookstore, but a mainstream one, what are the odds that I will find any titles with his name on them?  Or Roger Zelasny for that matter.  Michael Moorcock?  Sure, no problem.  Can't swing a dead cat without hitting something he's written.  REH would have been a bit dicey in the 80's, although the De Camp versions would have been an easy find, but, today?  Reprints are booming.

You might find a few Vance reprints currently, mostly because the reprint market is so huge right now.  And, Subterranean Press just did a really great collection of stories in the Dying Earth tradition.  But, Subterranean Press specializes in that sort of thing.

Vance is an author's author.  He's one of those authors that people refer to, but, rarely ever read.  If D&D hadn't used him as an inspiration, I daresay that the vast majority of people here on En World would never have heard of him.  As it is, they might have heard of him, but, again, I'm willing to bet dollas to donuts that not that many have actually read him.

That's why I call Jack Vance obscure.  Fantastic to be sure.  One of the great authors in the genre.  But, unfortunately, not very widely read.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2012)

> sales are largely one of the easiest metrics to use.




Part of the problem with sales as a metric is that it can lead into a conceptual death-spiral.

You can't sell a product if you don't have it on your shelves.  But you won't put it on your shelves if you don't have a way to judge its sales potential.

Example: I'm a Mac user with spare cash that I spend rather freely.  I can't tell you of how many products I would have bought had I been able to find them when they were actually available for sale.  Some places I shopped would have Product X, while others had never heard of it.  Some products I didn't find out existed until years after they were obsolete.

Translate that into books.  If I go into B&N, I can find JRRT's entire output in 6 different editions.  B&N knows they will sell.  If I go looking for new writers, I can find them with ease.  

But if I go looking for veteran writers, it's hit or miss.  Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar books come & go.  I can find Asimov, Heinlein and Niven, but only a few of their most famous books- some of their better works I only find in used book stores.  And sometimes not even there.

They get no love from B&N because they are not JRRT or new...so they can thus not generate decent sales figures.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 17, 2012)

*has a grand plan of supplying every public library in the United States with Vance's complete works*


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Part of the problem with sales as a metric is that it can lead into a conceptual death-spiral.
> 
> You can't sell a product if you don't have it on your shelves.  But you won't put it on your shelves if you don't have a way to judge its sales potential.




That may be true, but I don't see how that prevents us from judging that Leiber or "Product X" are obscure. If Hussar says "Jack Vance is obscure," and you respond, "that's because Barnes and Noble doesn't carry him," that's not an actual argument against Hussar's proposition.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

1Mac said:


> That may be true, but I don't see how that prevents us from judging that Leiber or "Product X" are obscure. If Hussar says "Jack Vance is obscure," and you respond, "that's because Barnes and Noble doesn't carry him," that's not an actual argument against Hussar's proposition.




Let me take a different tack then.  

Jack Vance is reasonably obscure.

Roger Zelazny is not, and certainly not with in the fantasy/science fiction community.  He won both the Hugo and Nebula for 'Lord of Light' in 67/68, and 'Chronicles of Amber' was at one time one of the most renowned fantasy series ever.   It would have been the hot series at the time D&D was being forumulated, and its spells are of the 'fire and forget'/'prepare and trigger' type.

Moreover, both Zelazny and Vance were much less obscure at the time that D&D was written, and D&D's target audience would have been extremely familiar with their works.  

Post D&D fantasy series are often explicitly or implicitly inspired or influenced by D&D or actual D&D campaigns.  These would include among many others Fiest's 'Riftwar' novels, The Chronicles of the Dragonlance, and Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion.   All contain either explicitly Vancian magic, or magic that is inspired by Vancian magic and given looser narrative form.  

Therefore I utterly reject the notion that the mechanic is unique to an obscure and largely forgotten text.  This is just my casual off the top of my head list of examples.  I'm sure there are more.

Prior to D&D, magic is usually presented in ways drawn from mythology and legend, and is so less accessible, more arcane, and less comprehensible than in post-RPG fantasy novels.   Therefore, its often not at all explicit how magic works in these stories and wizards are more usually mentor/helpers or antagonists than protagonists.   When magic doesn't work as deus ex machina and have the apparantly limitless power of plot, Vancian magic is as reasonable of an approximation as any  for what is going on in these stories, and certainly does as good of job as any at approximating the pacing and use of magic within the narrative.   Where magic does have the apparantly limitless power of plot, it's unsuited in my opinion to a D&D style game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 17, 2012)

What you are ignoring, Celebrim, is that if you want to go effects based in that way _D&D "Vancian" casting doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance_.  This is ultimately a problem with the wizard class rather than the spellcasting system.

If I were trying to use the works of Jack Vance, I'd use 4e with the explicit spells being the Daily powers.  Meaning you have a number of spells you can cast counted on the fingers of one hand, generally competent heroes, and spells having a huge narrative effect - with half a dozen being a very high number of spells.  Oh, and ritual casting.  Rather than a wizard who will probably come out second best in a scrap to a housecat (or rather domestic cat) and has dozens of spells.

The Deed of Paksenarrion - I'm trying to think of anything that resembles Vancian casting.  But then it's about a Paladin and the casters are NPCs.  Yes, Paks gets Lay on Hands.  But AEDU is a better fit than Vancian for her IMO.

AEDU in general has all the advantages of Vancian for modelling narratives - and very few of the disadvantages.  As I said, it's a better model for the works of _Jack Vance_ than so called "Vancian" casting.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> What you are ignoring, Celebrim, is that if you want to go effects based in that way _D&D "Vancian" casting doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance_.  This is ultimately a problem with the wizard class rather than the spellcasting system.




I completely agree.  The system is completely unsuited to high simulationism.   If you're primary goal in system creation was emulate the tales of dying earth, you'd use a completely different system.  As a generalist mechanic for a wide range of simulation, it's a good mix of versimilitude, mechanical simplicity, and gamist resource management.

And I'm not ignoring it.  I mentioned and anticipated this exact complaint in the related 5e thread.



> If I were trying to use the works of Jack Vance, I'd use 4e with the explicit spells being the Daily powers.




???

You mean, you'd let spellcaster fill up a small number of daily power slots with the power of their choosing?   I may be being clueless here, but isn't... that... Vancian... spellcasting...???



> Rather than a wizard who will probably come out second best in a scrap to a housecat (or rather domestic cat) and has dozens of spells.




By the time that a wizard has dozens of spells, he fears not a housecat in melee combat even without his spells.  Besides which, the 'housecat problem' is a specific problem with hit dice based systems that is completely unrelated to whatever magic system we adopt and has separate solutions.   So this is a total red herring.



> The Deed of Paksenarrion - I'm trying to think of anything that resembles Vancian casting.  But then it's about a Paladin and the casters are NPCs.  Yes, Paks gets Lay on Hands.  But AEDU is a better fit than Vancian for her IMO.




Ok, now you are reaching.  The Deed of Paksenarrion is based on 1e AD&D in detail.  Up until the last 20% of the book, you can pretty much see the hit points, class levels, and other mechanics through the text.  The text only seems to depart from the game in that in the last portion of the book, the character appears to level up very quickly.  Otherwise, it's one of the finest accounts ever of the style of adventuring advocated by the 1st edition PH and DMG.  Moon wrote the story based on 1e AD&D rule books as source material in response to the complaint that Paladins were always 'lawful stupid'.  The research done for the book is completely clear to anyone with good knowledge of 1e AD&D right down to the layout and NPC's in the 'Village of Homlet'.  When she recruits the spell casters to help fight bandits in the abandoned moat house... I mean keep, they cast 1e spells that use 1e mechanics.



> AEDU in general has all the advantages of Vancian for modelling narratives - and very few of the disadvantages.  As I said, it's a better model for the works of _Jack Vance_ than so called "Vancian" casting.




That is absolutely ridiculous to the point that I think you are trolling.   It's reasonable to suggest that the dying Earth RPG is better high simulation for 'Tales of Dying Earth' than D&D's more generic Vancian spellcasting.  It laughable to suggest that at non-Vancian spellcasting better emulates Vancian spellcasting than ... Vancian spellcasting.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 17, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I completely agree.  The system is completely unsuited to high simulationism.   If you're primary goal in system creation was emulate the tales of dying earth, you'd use a completely different system.  As a generalist mechanic for a wide range of simulation, it's a good mix of versimilitude, mechanical simplicity, and gamist resource management.



Here you admit that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance.


> That is absolutely ridiculous to the point that I think you are trolling.   It's reasonable to suggest that the dying Earth RPG is better high simulation for 'Tales of Dying Earth' than D&D's more generic Vancian spellcasting.  It laughable to suggest that at non-Vancian spellcasting better emulates Vancian spellcasting than ... Vancian spellcasting.



Here you deride the claim that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance (compared to other systems).


----------



## timbannock (Jan 17, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_
> 
> (Please: This isn't about discussing the merits or deficiencies of Vancian magic, this is about the OTHER aspects of D&D that led people to overcome their dislike of it to play and enjoy the game.)




My earliest experiences were that D&D was fun, and Vancian magic was just one of many things that was *just there.*  I didn't like it, but it didn't kill the game, same way that saving throws with 4+ words in their name didn't turn me off, even though that was just stupid.

After a couple years, the first thing I would houserule was the magic system.  The cleanest explanation for it is what was in the Castle Keeper's Guide, called the spell slot system, I believe.  You have a # of slots equal to the number of spells you can cast per day.  You can spontaneously cast whatever you know, using up the appropriate slots.

Memorization was gone.  In-game explanation varied, but usually revolved around "spellcasting wears you out."  Some people might have been bothered that their character was "worn out" but was still at full power otherwise, but it's not like they were going to ask me to deal them HP damage or nail them with the fatigued condition.  That would just be suicide for a spellcaster!

To sum up: everything else was cool.  D&D is cool.  Vancian spellcasting's just a holdover of something that was a neat idea once, but now connects with absolutely no one save for the rare Dying Earth fan (of whom I've met none).


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

1Mac said:


> Here you admit that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance.




I admit no such thing.  Where did I say 'Vancian' in that quote?  The system I'm referring to is clearly the specificly mentioned 'D&D Vancian system' from the passage I quoted, and not 'Vancian spellcasting' in general.   Even if that isn't completely clear, its definately made clear by the contrast I draw in the second quoted passage.



> Here you deride the claim that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance (compared to other systems).




*bangs head on desk*

So, loosely speaking, Vancian spell casting is the fire and forget daily spells as seen in such stories as the Tales of Dying Earth.  

One again...

D&D's spellcasting is generally accepted to be Vancian.

However, D&D's spellcasting and D&D's spellcasting classes have features not found specifically in Tales of Dying Earth and vica versa.   For example, even Archmages in Tales of Dying Earth only can cast a handful of spells per day and spells like "The Spell of the Long Hour" don't explicitly show up in D&D spell lists.   If you wanted to do high simulation, by which I mean "if you wanted to make a game which as closely as possible emulated the setting of 'Dying Earth', then you'd certainly use a Vancian spell casting system for your magic, but it would have slightly different features than the standard D&D game.   For example, it might look something like the Dying Earth RPG.

That in no way implies that the best way to implement high simulation of the Dying Earth setting would be something other than Vancian mechanics.

It does imply that D&D's specific take on Vancian spellcasting is not a perfect simulation of that found Tales of Dying Earth, but would be a better simulation of it than a non-Vancian spellcasting system.   That's not too complicated of an argument is it?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

A good portion of the problem seems to come from the fact that people are taking a variaty of positions on what Vancian spellcasting is, and for various reasons therefore I think that people are talking past each other.

For me, if I look at the system and see:

a) A list of spells or powers that produce well defined results.
b) A list of slots, which may or may not be interchangable at some point, which are filled with these powers and which give the spellcaster access to the spells.
c) A refresh rate on the spells such that they can only be used one time each and then don't refresh until some period of time has passed, usually after one in game day.  However, the time period in question could be something like 'once you leave the dungeon', 'once you have rested completely', or 'once every X hours' (which on a technical basis was true of low level AD&D spells, though this rule was often ignored), and it would still for my purposes be Vancian.

Now, a system could be more or less strictly Vancian depending on how many additional features it has similar to the D&D Wizard (spells are written in old tomes, preselection and preparation of the powers, use of incantations, etc.) and its inspiration in the source material, but for my purposes anything like the above makes me think 'Vancian' when I see it.

So it confuses the heck out of me when people talk about how they hate Vancian, and then go on to talk about how they are ok with the mechanics for Sorcerers or Magisters or would be happy with a short list of selectable daily powers, because all of those to me are basically Vancian variants which can quite happily and easily coexist alongside the traditional D&D Wizard and indeed largely share mechanics.

When I think of 'non-Vancian', I'm thinking of something like the following:

a) An 'at will' resourceless system where players buy spell powers at character creation time in a manner similar to a fighter buys combat feats, and thereafter may use at will any spell that they have learned whenever they want.  This might be similar to M&M or HERO without some of the more advanced options that let you broadly simulate anything.   4e without daily or encounter powers at all, as some have said they wished for, would also be an example.
b) A 'mana point' system similar to GURPS or the 3.5 Psion where you buy powers at character creation time, and then have a single shared resource that you must spend to activate your powers.
c) A free form system (also called BSing), where you buy access to spell seeds of various sorts during character creation, and then during the game you narrate the effect you wish to create and the DM adjudicates it based on how powerful he thinks the effect is, how creative he finds it, and other aspects of your narration.
d) Some combination of the above.  For example, EnWorld's Elements of Magic uses both spell seeds to create spells with specific effects and mana points to limit the player's access to those spells.

So how many of the "D&D lovers who hate Vancian Magic", really mean, "I hate the D&D wizard, but are fine with something like the Sorcerer", and how many of them hate it in any form and prefer something that is definately non-Vancian.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 17, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I admit no such thing.  Where did I say 'Vancian' in that quote?



You were responding to NeonChameolon and quoted him as saying:


> What you are ignoring, Celebrim, is that if you want to go effects based in that way D&D "Vancian" casting doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance. This is ultimately a problem with the wizard class rather than the spellcasting system.



You responded: "I agree," and continued as I quoted you above. I can't see this as anything but an affirmation that "Vancian" casting "doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance."



> That in no way implies that the best way to implement high simulation of the Dying Earth setting would be something other than Vancian mechanics.



That's not what NeonChameleon said, and I believe the confusion here is in treating "Vancian" and "3e style" magic as interchangeable synonyms, which they are not. He said that 4e casting is a better representation of Vance's magic than 3e casting, which is commonly called "Vancian", i.e. fire-and-forget. But as many acknowledge and as you pointed out upthread, Daily powers are also a fire-and-forget. So 4e AEDU casting is also a "Vancian" mechanic, but it also as other features like At-Will casting that 3e "Vancian" magic lacks, but which are also featured in Vance's writings. Therefore 4e better captures the magic found in Vance's writings than 3e.

For what it's worth, I don't really care that DnD magic emulate a particular writer. As I said way upthread, the magic system in 3e is a weird, proud nail mars the elegance of the unified d20 mechanic. I'd rather have cohesion than authorly simulation.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 17, 2012)

I was outposted!


Celebrim said:


> So how many of the "D&D lovers who hate Vancian Magic", really mean, "I hate the D&D wizard, but are fine with something like the Sorcerer", and how many of them hate it in any form and prefer something that is definately non-Vancian.



I see you agree with me that "Vancian" is a term that is confusingly-defined. I get the sense that I'm a minority, but I'm more of the second. My preferences would be for something more test-based, like how skills and attacks work.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

1Mac said:


> You responded: "I agree," and continued as I quoted you above. I can't see this as anything but an affirmation that "Vancian" casting "doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance."




I responded with agreement that "D&D Vancian spellcasting" (what he said), didn't resemble (exactly) the works of Jack Vance



> That's not what NeonChameleon said, and I believe the confusion here is in treating "Vancian" and "3e style" magic as interchangeable synonyms, which they are not. He said that 4e casting is a better representation of Vance's magic than 3e casting, which is commonly called "Vancian", i.e. fire-and-forget. But as many acknowledge and as you pointed out upthread, Daily powers are also a fire-and-forget. So 4e AEDU casting is also a "Vancian" mechanic...




No, AEDU, is not a Vancian mechanic.  Only the 'D' part in that, taken in isolation, is Vancian.  The 'at will' powers found in the setting are akin more to the 'at will' sorts of powers found in D&D since the beginning, when they didn't even need to be explicitly defined as powers.



> For what it's worth, I don't really care that DnD magic emulate a particular writer.




For what it is worth, I don't either, except that I would like that it emulates the writings of myself as the DM.  At this point, I only care that it emulates D&D.   



> As I said way upthread, the magic system in 3e is a weird, proud nail mars the elegance of the unified d20 mechanic. I'd rather have cohesion than authorly simulation.




I would not want to bring spell casting under the d20 mechanic, by for example, doing magic as skills per GURPS.  I for one have decided that unified mechanics is not a desirable feature of a game in and of itself.   Whatever it does to theoretical elegance, having a unified spell list with only check boxes for tracking resources is the best system I've found from the perspective of the GM.  I would not want to track mana point usage of monsters or multiple monsters in a D&D like game.   I might allow a player to have a well designed class that used an alternative system provided it was balanced with the Vancian spellcaster, but I would not ever want to see the D&D Wizard with its traditional mechanics kicked to the curb as a core character type.  It is a deal breaker for me.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2012)

1Mac said:


> I see you agree with me that "Vancian" is a term that is confusingly-defined.




I would say 'ill-defined' since I don't think there is a widely agreed upon, widely known, official definition.  



> I get the sense that I'm a minority, but I'm more of the second. My preferences would be for something more test-based, like how skills and attacks work.




You realize of course that you could have a Vancian test-based system, right.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 17, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> No, AEDU, is not a Vancian mechanic.  Only the 'D' part in that, taken in isolation, is Vancian.



We're talking Vancian in the sense of fire-and-forget, right? Is it not fair to say that AEDU has fire-and-forget components?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2012)

1Mac said:


> That may be true, but I don't see how that prevents us from judging that Leiber or "Product X" are obscure. If Hussar says "Jack Vance is obscure," and you respond, "that's because Barnes and Noble doesn't carry him," that's not an actual argument against Hussar's proposition.




That's not what Hussar said- he made the assertion that Vance & Zelazy are obscure _based on sales figures.  _The problem with that, as I pointed out, is that sales figures can only measure what is selling out of what given stores offer for sale.

I would dare say that currently, JRRT outsells James Joyce, J.D. Salinger, Omar Khyam and Jane Austen, none of whom are obscure.

And compared to Stephen King?

So sales figures is not really a good way to measure "obscurity", just current popularity.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2012)

Actually, considering how much someone like Jane Austen is used in public schools, and universities, it would not surprise me to learn that Jane Austen sells roughly in the same ballpark as Tolkien.  At least in total numbers.  Same goes for Salinger.  Considering that Penguin Publishing has made a small empire out of the reprint market of classic novels, I don't think you can totally discount sales figures.

I do agree that sales are the only metric.  Of course not.  But, look at public libraries then.  How many Vance books do you find in your local library?  Growing up, with my mother a librarian, the only way I could get Vance was to order outside of our area - the books had to come from Ottawa or Toronto.  

I have no problem whatsoever in saying Jack Vance is a fairly obscure genre author.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2012)

> Actually, considering how much someone like Jane Austen is used in public schools, and universities, it would not surprise me to learn that Jane Austen sells roughly in the same ballpark as Tolkien.



It would surprise me- most of the copies of Jane Austen (and others) I've seen in use by students are used copies, sales figures of which generally don't get counted by publishers.

Sure, the publishers will have to replenish the shelves as the used copies die, but that's not going to be a recipe for sales in the volume of a hot new writer...or a veteran who has finally gotten mass recognition and winds up on the NY Times' best seller list.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It would surprise me- most of the copies of Jane Austen (and others) I've seen in use by students are used copies, sales figures of which generally don't get counted by publishers.




Pride and Prejudice (Dover thrift edition) is currenty [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudice-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486284735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326846915&sr=8-1"]#1253[/ame] in Amazon's book rankings. The Hobbit is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hobbit-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0618968636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326846959&sr=1-1"]#1719[/ame].


----------



## Nagol (Jan 18, 2012)

1Mac said:


> Pride and Prejudice (Dover thrift edition) is currenty #1253 in Amazon's book rankings. The Hobbit is #1719.




LOL, but according to so many posters, those stats are completely meaningless or at best highly misleading!  After all, if they were true, _Pathfinder_ might be outselling 4e and that isn't plausible!

BTW, those stats ARE misleading and probably mostly meaningless.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 18, 2012)

Nagol said:


> BTW, those stats ARE misleading and probably mostly meaningless.



How so?, he asked with genuine, guileless curiousity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

1Mac said:


> Pride and Prejudice (Dover thrift edition) is currenty #1253 in Amazon's book rankings. The Hobbit is #1719.




My guess if we compared _all editions_ Amazon sells of Pride & Prejudice vs all edition of JRRT's LotR (for simplicity's sake, just the first book), you'd see a different pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

LotR- _grouped as a single book despite being 3_- is listed at selling over 150 million copies since 1937, the Hobbit at 100 million by itself.  Most books don't hit that mark.  And that's spotting Austen a 115 year head start.

In contrast, Pride & Pejudice sold just over 100k copies in 2002 spread out over 130 editions according to Neilsen BookScan (which, in fairness, does not include sales to students via normal academic outlets).

http://touch.slate.com/slate/#!/entry/why-classic-novels-are-still-around,4ea2553456d940d006000af9


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

So what's the point of this tangent line of inquiry? That Jane Austen's magic system is more popular than Jack Vance's?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I personally see Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs.  Something that adds to its unique character.
> 
> Not everyone feels likewise, I know.  Lovers of Vancian magic may even be in the minority of D&D players at this point.
> 
> So for those who really despise Vancian magic as much as some clearly do, I have to ask: _*What is it about D&D that attracted you to the game?*_



I was given the Moldvay Basic set as a gift when I turned 11. I had heard of D&D before that, because I was an avid purchaser and player of Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, which were published by Puffin and therefore carried, at the back, advertisement copy for the Puffin book "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" I hadn't heard of other fantasy RPGs at that time, and the family friends who gave me the game hadn't either - they bought the game for me on the recommendation of a toy store salesperson ("What would you recommend for a bright and bookish 11 year old boy?").

What attracted me to Fighting Fantasy books, and then to D&D, were the same things that attracted me to books about knights and castles (both fiction and non-fiction), to super hero comics, and to movies like Star Wars and Excalibur: pleasure in the themes and the tropes. As a boy I probably could not have articulated exactly what that consisted in, but now I would say it is something about the pre-modern, romantic ideal.

I also enjoyed the gameplay aspect, but the themes are more important. While, by the standards of a typical person, I have played a lot of M:tG, for instance, I have never been the least inclined to drop fantasy RPGs for fantasy CCGs, which have the gameplay and the tropes, but not the thematic dimension.

Anyway, Vancian casting is utterly irrelevant to any of this. As a mechanic, I tend to find it a nuisance - not so much the tracking of usage, which is easy enough, but the selection process, which bogs down play (even with the 4e wizard in my game, I find it causes needless drag for little apparent benefit). At low levels I regard it as obviously flawed, because low level wizards don't really _play_ as wizards, but I have never played nor GMed a pure wizard PC, despite many years of playing and GMing B/X and AD&D.

For aesthetic reasons I have long preferred the more focused spellcasters of Rolemaster to the generalist D&D wizard, and I like that 4e produces somewhat less generalist spellcasters (though power bloat is, over time, diluting this). That said, I am hoping to run BW some time in the future, and it has generalist casters - but on a fatigue mechanic, not a Vancian one.

I hope that gives you some answer to your question!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> So what's the point of this tangent line of inquiry? That Jane Austen's magic system is more popular than Jack Vance's?




The tangent involves defining "obscurity", specifically defined by one poster as using sales as the primary metric (in reference to writers like Jack Vance).  My counterpoint is that lack of sales does not directly correlate with how well known an author is.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The tangent involves defining "obscurity", specifically defined by one poster as using sales as the primary metric (in reference to writers like Jack Vance).  My counterpoint is that lack of sales does not directly correlate with how well known an author is.



How well known by whom? And just because the author _may be_ well-known as a name in the genre does not mean that people are as widely familiar with their works in comparison with other more contemporaneous writers of the field. For example, fantasy fans generally know of Moorcock and Elric without having ever read any of it, as they may be personally enjoy and be more familiar with A Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan, or The Gentlemen Bastards, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

> How well known by whom?




I believe both sides were talking about within the context of fantasy initially, then about the principle of using sales as a measuring stick of obscurity in general.  That's when the discussion went cross-genre.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> So what's the point of this tangent line of inquiry? That Jane Austen's magic system is more popular than Jack Vance's?



Fun Fact: Reading _Pride and Prejudice_ is a real world _Sleep _spell.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Fun Fact: Reading _Pride and Prejudice_ is a real world _Sleep _spell.



I'm unashamed to say that I actually highly enjoyed that book. The dialogue and characterization of what amounts to the commonplace felt eerily "real," while also being dryly witty. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I believe both sides were talking about within the context of fantasy initially, then about the principle of using sales as a measuring stick of obscurity in general.  That's when the discussion went cross-genre.



Ah. Shouldn't age also be considered? Vance may be better known to certain age groups than with others, which I imagine has only increased as a trend with time. If people are more familiar with, and want to simulate in RP, these more contemporaneous literary magic systems than they are with Vance, at what point, if any at all, should D&D discard Vancian magic? 

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying we should get rid of Vancian magic.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

> Shouldn't age also be considered? Vance may be better known to certain age groups than with others, which I imagine has only increased as a trend with time.




Age is a factor, but it also doesn't have a direct correlation with obscurity...actually, it may be _inversely_ correlated for most.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 18, 2012)

By the way, I first encountered Vance in _Eyes of the Overworld_ at my local public library; the same place I found _Dragonlance _and _Lord of the Rings_ (read before _The Hobbit_, ironically).

I came upon _Eyes of the Overworld_ while browsing the "sci-fi" section of the card catalog. Yes, actual cards. 

That library is also where I found _Choose Your Own Adventure_, _Endless Quest_, and _Dragon Magazine_, all things that primed me for when I was introduced to "D&D," as related in this thread.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Age is a factor, but it also doesn't have a direct correlation with obscurity...actually, it may be _inversely_ correlated for most.



From personal experience: I never heard of Vance prior to my exposure to D&D in high school. My initial exposure to fantasy and sci-fi though was in middle school when my father let me borrow his old fantasy books that were still stored at his parent's house, which included such as the works of Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, etc. But Vance? Didn't see him there. Never even heard of him. From there I moved on to other speculative fiction series such as Dune, all things Middle Earth, The Wheel of Time, The Black Company, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. But since my exposure to D&D in high school 10-12 years ago, I can probably count the number of times Vance's name has been mentioned in conversation with fellow fantasy-reading geeks on one hand.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 18, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> I completely agree. The system is completely unsuited to high simulationism. If you're primary goal in system creation was emulate the tales of dying earth, you'd use a completely different system. As a generalist mechanic for a wide range of simulation, it's a good mix of versimilitude, mechanical simplicity, and gamist resource management.




This is something you claim and that as far as I can tell _no one else_ agrees with.  It's not even close to simulationist for anything that bears any resemblance to the works of Jack Vance.



> You mean, you'd let spellcaster fill up a small number of daily power slots with the power of their choosing? I may be being clueless here, but isn't... that... Vancian... spellcasting...???






By the time that a wizard has dozens of spells, he fears not a housecat in melee combat even without his spells. Besides which, the 'housecat problem' is a specific problem with hit dice based systems that is completely unrelated to whatever magic system we adopt and has separate solutions. So this is a total red herring.





> Ok, now you are reaching. The Deed of Paksenarrion is based on 1e AD&D in detail. Up until the last 20% of the book, you can pretty much see the hit points, class levels, and other mechanics through the text.




I'll concede the point that Paksenarrion is a piece of D&D fiction as a reaction to bad paladins.  And then point out that this makes it an exception that quite literally proves the rule.  (I've never played Hommlet so missed that one).  Paksenarrion was quite literally written with D&D books as research making it another demonstration that the stories that resemble the D&D rules are ... stories that use D&D rules as the underlying basis.



> That is absolutely ridiculous to the point that I think you are trolling.




Reported.



> It's reasonable to suggest that the dying Earth RPG is better high simulation for 'Tales of Dying Earth' than D&D's more generic Vancian spellcasting. It laughable to suggest that at non-Vancian spellcasting better emulates Vancian spellcasting than ... Vancian spellcasting.




It would do _if "Vancian" casting had anything to do with the works of Jack Vance except taking one fraction of the work very much out of context._  A Vancian wizard can count the number of spells he has at any one time on his fingers.  And the number he casts in a story _on the fingers of one hand_.  A D&D wizard with that few spells is in imminent danger from a housecat.

"Vancian" magic doesn't just mean rationed.  As far as I know, _no one_ calls spell point systems Vancian.  It's fire _and forget _that's the critical aspect of Vancian magic.  And the ability to completely reload your spells in a way that you can say "Today I'm an Evoker.  Tomorrow I think I'll be an illusionist."

Jack Vance's heroes are much more generally competent and consistent at the core and with a few stand out spells they need to decide on in advance.  AEDU with the D being changed to Vancian preparation would be a superb match.  Everything being Vancian for a class takes it a long way from Jack Vance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> From personal experience: I never heard of Vance prior to my exposure to D&D in high school. My initial exposure to fantasy and sci-fi though was in middle school when my father let me borrow his old fantasy books that were still stored at his parent's house, which included such as the works of Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, etc. But Vance? Didn't see him there. Never even heard of him. From there I moved on to other speculative fiction series such as Dune, all things Middle Earth, The Wheel of Time, The Black Company, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. But since my exposure to D&D in high school 10-12 years ago, I can probably count the number of times Vance's name has been mentioned in conversation with fellow fantasy-reading geeks on one hand.



My experience is much the same (though I didn't first hear of Vance through my father _or_ friends).

But again, you really can't look at relative obscurity through such a small sample size as the reading habits you and your closest friends and family have.

Vance may be obscure to you, but to the sci-fi fantasy world in general, he's a fairly well known commodity.  To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This thread has made me curious: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316128-5e-vance-not-vance-question.html
> 
> I personally see Vancian magic as one of D&D's defining features, something that sets it apart from other FRPGs.  Something that adds to its unique character.
> 
> ...



Gary said in one of the many FAQs that he chose Vancian magic because it was the only magic "system" he could find in literature, and he needed to codify and limit what a magic-user could do.

While Vancian magic does have its flavor, it is one of the hardiest parts to explain to someone new to the game ("why does my wizard have the memory span of a goldfish?"). Spells & Power (in 2e) and Unearthed Arcana (in 3e) offered several new ways of handling magic, such as recharging, channeling, etc. Many of these systems worked better even within D&D stories than Vancian magic. For instance, in the Dragonlance novels, casting a spell is taxing to Raistlin's health, leaving him exhausted and having to catch his breath before doing it again. This is a very clear example of the Con-based variant in Unearthed Arcana, or the Encounter spells in 4e.

As to what made me love D&D? The D&D cartoon, the Paladin In Hell illustration in the 1e PHB, stuff like that.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Vance may be obscure to you, but to the sci-fi fantasy world in general, he's a fairly well known commodity. To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.




I've read plenty of Jack Vance, not even knowing he had anything to do with Vancian magic - perhaps I didn't read the story where that magic concept even existed. I've read mostly Sci-Fi stuff from Vance. And this was years after playing D&D.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s, he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.




That's exactly where I discovered Vance.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My experience is much the same (though I didn't first hear of Vance through my father _or_ friends).
> 
> But again, you really can't look at relative obscurity through such a small sample size as the reading habits you and your closest friends and family have.
> 
> Vance may be obscure to you, but to the sci-fi fantasy world in general, he's a fairly well known commodity.  *To the subset of gamers who started off with D&D in the 1970s,* he's even more well-known because he's specifically listed as a source of inspiration in the DMG.



To a subset of gamers, Vance is probably exceptionally well-known, but to an increasing subset of gamers, he simply does not appear on their radar.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> To a subset of gamers, Vance is probably exceptionally well-known, but to an increasing subset of gamers, he simply does not appear on their radar.




Ditto a number of Sci-fi & Fantasy _giants_, but that does not then relegate them to being "obscure."

I love football, but there are Hall of Famers I've never heard of.  Those guys I don't know I would argue are obscure.

OTOH, for personal and professional reasons, I have a 5000+ CD collection and can rattle off bands & musicians my mother- a music teacher- has never heard of...and she can do the same to me.  If there is a discussion of a musician neither of us heard of, that musician is probably off the radar of all but a very few people.

IMHO, the true measure of someone's obscurity within a genre of artistic expression- writing, painting, music, etc.- is not sales or whether you or I have heard of them, but whether they are relatively well known/important to the history & growth of the genre by those who are fellow practitioners, teachers & students of the genre.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

This is why I raised my question: At what point, if at all, should the tether connecting D&D to Vancian magic be cut? When is it time to emulate a new magical model?


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 18, 2012)

I skipped a bit of this thread and since it now seems bogged down in "what is Vancian magic?" I thought I'd lend a different view.

I like the magic system to D&D because it is unique to D&D. Somehow it got perverted in 3e, I suspect from the sorcerer. Wizards prior to 3e were not used as artillery primarily. They had few spells, far fewer than 3e wizards and thus they had to make them count. In any system where magic is "at will" it becomes possible and perhaps necessary to compare the wizard to fighter in terms of damage/round. That's why wizards started becoming artillery and what led to the 5 minute adventuring day.

Prior to 3e, no one had any issues with the 5-minute adventuring day because the wizard wasn't blasting everything in sight with his plethora of combat spells. Wizards had knock and dispel magic and all those utility effects to get past obstacles that existed inside AND outside of combat. Someone above pointed out that the wizard picks spells based on how broadly they can be applied to the most number of situations. This is what makes the magic system fun.

It's also what makes some people dislike the system. They don't like playing the cat and mouse game of predict what spell I need 6 hours from now when my rat bastard DM springs some kind of surprise on us. Perhaps they don't like this because they are the only players that are supposed to prepare for the unexpected. The fighter has his sword and the thief has his lock picks. And anything that can't be solved by them, they turn to the wizard and ask "You gotta spell for this?"

And this is where 4e fell down. The focus on in combat only use of spells and powers took away a lot of the outside of the box thinking that was main reason to play a wizard. "If the thief climbs onto the floating disk, can he...."


----------



## innerdude (Jan 18, 2012)

Here's my take on the Vancian/Non-Vancian rift: 

Personally, I have come to greatly dislike D&D's iteration of "Vancian" casting, particularly for Wizards and Clerics. When I GM 3.x/Pathfinder games, if a player wants a "Wizard" or "Cleric," I'll often houserule that they can play a Sorc, Psion, Ardent, Runethain from Arcana Evolved, etc. instead, but not the base Wiz/Cleric. Conceptually, "memorize/forget" just doesn't jive with the way I envision magic working in most of my campaigns. 

I've tried the Unearthed Arcana spellpoint system, bought the Lycean magic PDF from En Publishing, the Spellweaver variant caster, tried the "Truenaming" variant from the late 3.5 splatbook . . . basically, if there's a way to replace Vancian magic in D&D, I've looked at it. 

That said, D&D is very specifically tied to its version of Vancian casting, and I think it's probably going to stay that way . . . and I'm actually okay with it, whereas in the past that would have frustrated me. It kind of is a "core trope" of D&D (even though it's easily my least favorite magic mechanic), but if I don't want Vancian casting, I'll either keep houseruling, or simply play something else.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm not super keen on the idea of Vancian Magic.  I *like* the spell system of 2E and 3E, and dislike that of 4E.  But I could do without "fire and forget".

A spell point or spell build system would be cool....but I don't think we'll get it in 5E.  It would likely be judged too difficult.

But something that mixes the existing spell system with something more flexible, like the Magister from Arcana Unearthed (by Monte Cook) would be nice.  I really like that model.  You still have to have your caster memorize spells....but instead of spells being used up when cast, you just have spell slots that you then pick from your memorized spells at the moment of casting.

So, I might have 3 1st lvl spells per day....and I memorize Magic Missile, Sleep, Colour Spray and Charm Person (for instance).  I could then cast 3 magic missiles, 2 magic missiles and a charm person, 2 charms, a sleep and a colour spray, etc.  It's all decided at the moment of casting.

I guess that would eliminate the need for a sorcerer.....or the sorcerer would change into something else.

Banshee


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> This is why I raised my question: At what point, if at all, should the tether connecting D&D to Vancian magic be cut? When is it time to emulate a new magical model?



Vancian magic wasn't chosen because it was well known; it wasn't chosen because Gary expected players were eager to emulate the works of Vance. It was chosen because it was, in Gary's opinion, the best, most workable system for a game. That is the real issue: it is time to cut Vancian magic when a better system is conceived, regardless of "source material" back-up. I have yet to see one that works for D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2012)

However, GG, I would point out that Fire and Forget magic has already undergone a pretty serious shift going into 3e.  Both clerics and druids got spontaneous casting, which, at least for clerics, was a HUGE change in how they played.

IME, your 1st level cleric spells in AD&D were almost all (if not all) cure light wounds.  It didn't really matter how long the spell list available was.  1st level, you took as many CLW spells as you could and that number likely never went down.  3e, OTOH, meant that you could take any number of different spells and still perform a standard function - healing.

Also, some time into 3.5, we got Reserve Feats, which also make a big change in how casters function.  Being able to fire away with an effect every round until you ran out of slots of whatever level the Reserve Feat was tied to made a really big difference in how casters were played.

I think where Celebrim makes a mistake is in the idea that we have to go all or nothing.  Either it's 100% F&F magic, or it's freeform.  That's wrong.  I think you can modify the F&F system to the point where you have some F&F magic, some effects that are stripped out of the standard casting set entirely (Ritual Magic) and some effects that should be done (mostly) all day long.

I don't think too many people are terribly interested in casters where you spend the first three levels with at most, three spells per day and the rest of the time, you throw darts.  Or in casters where the system is largely telling you (or at least strongly pushing) what you should be taking.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 19, 2012)

> At what point, if at all, should the tether connecting D&D to Vancian magic be cut? When is it time to emulate a new magical model?




For D&D?  IMHO, never: its part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For D&D?  IMHO, never: its part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG.




For you maybe.  To be honest, it's been so long since F&F magic had anything to do with any of my D&D games that I really don't miss it.  I'd have to go back to very early 3e for the last time I saw any significant use of Vancian style magic.  After that it was either things like Reserve Feats, spontaneous casters or other variants.

See, and that's the thing.  It's not like non-Vancian casters are something that D&D never had.  I had non-Vancian clerics in 2e - spontaneous casters that were limited/day - and it worked fine.  The players that I've played with over the past ten years or so have had pretty much zero interest in standard Vancian casters.

Thinking about it, about the only one who did play a Vancian caster was me.  And that's probably because I'm used to it.  I started playing D&D considerably before most of my players (although that's no longer true in my current group).

But, are you saying that if I had a group that didn't have any Vancian casters, but did include psionics and Tome of Magic casters, I'm not actually playing D&D anymore?


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For D&D?  IMHO, never: its part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG.



Wasn't that true for many mechanics that were dropped by D&D over the course of its life?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 19, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Wasn't that true for many mechanics that were dropped by D&D over the course of its life?



Note that acronym: "IMHO"- this is opinion, not objective fact.

I don't think many of D&D's _mechanics_ are all that iconic except for Vancian magic, possibly the 9-fold Alignment system.  Maybe a couple of others.

And guess what- their absences are on my list of reasons why I say that 4Ed- despite being a very good FRPG- does not feel like D&D to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Note that acronym: "IMHO"- this is opinion, not objective fact.
> 
> I don't think many of D&D's _mechanics_ are all that iconic except for Vancian magic, possibly the 9-fold Alignment system.  Maybe a couple of others.
> 
> And guess what- their absences are on my list of reasons why I say that 4Ed- despite being a very good FRPG- does not feel like D&D to me.




Oh, totally agree that it's a point of view issue.  For me, Vancian magic hasn't really been iconic to D&D in years.  Even core 3e wasn't really Vancian after a level or two because you could craft wands.  And, before you say it DannyA, I realize your group didn't do that.

However, I'm not sure how representative that is.  I've never seen a group that didn't start crafting/buying wands as soon as they could.  In my naval campaign back in 2003, the first thing the group bought after they got a ship was an enlarged wand of fireballs.  Healing wands became standard equipment in any game where it was possible.  

Heck, the first 3e character I ever played was a summoner and I took craft wand ASAP specifically to get around the daily limit.  

If you look at the math, even a 10% expenditure of character wealth would let you carry around about 100 scrolls by the time you hit 7th level.  Certainly more than you could ever use.  Since scrolls by and large only take 1 day to make, it's not that hard to rack up dozens of the things and save spell slots for the stuff you need right now.

So, long story short, while I understand where you're coming from DannyA, your experience is very, very far from mine.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Oh, totally agree that it's a point of view issue.  For me, Vancian magic hasn't really been iconic to D&D in years.  Even core 3e wasn't really Vancian after a level or two because you could craft wands.




I note that the standard of what is Vancian keeps getting higher and higher.  If the presence of wands is sufficient to make the system non-vancian, then no version of D&D has ever been Vancian because they've all had the assumption that M-U's would pick up wands that would allow them to do something other than sling darts and poke things with a staff.   IME, it was a rare published module or DM that didn't place a Wand of Magic Missiles or a Staff of Striking with a few charges somewhere to give spellcasters additional options.   Even before easy crafting, scrolls where also one of the most common treasures, both in published modules and on the random table.  They were also one of the more accessible crafted items even in 1e, and one of the few sorts of items that I found 1e DM's would allow players to buy from shops/temples in limited quantities.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2012)

Really Celebrim?  You're going to put 3e's crafting rules in the same category as random treasure generation for magic items found while adventuring?  One set of rules is pretty much entirely controlled by the players and is freely available to anyone who wants to do it.  The other is entirely controlled by the DM and would vary drastically from campaign to campaign depending on a host of factors.

It's not a case of shifting goalposts.  The rules are quite different and quite different in play.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 19, 2012)

I feel I've made my peace with Vancian magic. Finally. It took a while. Heck, even my formative D&D experiences were with AD&D using spell-point system cribbed from various sources back in the 80s. 

Vancian -- actually, I prefer the term "shopping-listian" magic, since it resembles a shopping list more than the system of magic present in the Dying Earth stories-- is simple, it's gameable, and it works.

These days I'd rather spend my time and energy reflavoring/reskinning the default Vancian system, rather than cooking up, stealing, or implementing alternatives which better fit the setting assumptions/flavor.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Really Celebrim?  You're going to put 3e's crafting rules in the same category as random treasure generation for magic items found while adventuring?  One set of rules is pretty much entirely controlled by the players and is freely available to anyone who wants to do it.  The other is entirely controlled by the DM and would vary drastically from campaign to campaign depending on a host of factors.




That may well be true, but it doesn't change the system.  It only changes  the assumptions of who at the table is empowered and to what extent, but the fact remains that a Vancian caster with a wand is a Vancian caster with a wand.  

While I agree with you that it depended on the group, wands were reasonably easy to craft in 1e as well, as they didn't require the permenancy spell which was the really tight (unreasonably tight in my opinion) restriction on 1e crafted items.  In practice, a 1e DM could as empower the wand maker as much as a 3e DM - maybe more so because there was no 'feat' entry requirement - by making wand making techniques readily available (or as found treasure in moldly tomes, which was more my practice) or simply by having magical shops available where players could readily trade gold for wands (as some others did) or by being free with placed treasure (as many were).   And in practice, a 3e DM could disempower a 3e wand maker by, for example, listing specific rare magical ingredients as a requirement to make a wand rather than assuming that ingredients are always readily obtainable simply by spending fungible gold resources or that wands can not be readily bought in the store.   

Which of the four theoretical DMs here is 'breaking the rules'?  None by my meaure.



> It's not a case of shifting goalposts. The rules are quite different and quite different in play.




Assumptions and guidelines are not rules.  The same rules can play quite differently from table to table.   But while that's an interesting subject, the point remains that a Vancian spellcaster that has obtained a few wands is a Vancian spellcaster that has obtained a few wands regardless of which system we are talking about.   If 'you can have a wand' is sufficient to make the system non-Vancian, then I don't have a Vancian game, because wands of Ray of Frost (and other attack cantrips) are readily obtainable in my game and appear on the adventuring gear price list even though magic items in general  can't be bought in shops in my game and for more powerful items I would require specific rare items to be obtained before the item could be created and not assume that for example, fresh manticore liver and giant black pearls were readily obtainable on the market for anyone who had some gold.  And for that matter, if the obtainability of wands is sufficient to render something non-Vancian, Gygax didn't have a Vancian table either based on his published modules and the character sheets which have leaked from the early days.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> However, I'm not sure how representative that is.  I've never seen a group that didn't start crafting/buying wands as soon as they could.  In my naval campaign back in 2003, the first thing the group bought after they got a ship was an enlarged wand of fireballs.  Healing wands became standard equipment in any game where it was possible.
> 
> Heck, the first 3e character I ever played was a summoner and I took craft wand ASAP specifically to get around the daily limit.
> 
> If you look at the math, even a 10% expenditure of character wealth would let you carry around about 100 scrolls by the time you hit 7th level.  Certainly more than you could ever use.  Since scrolls by and large only take 1 day to make, it's not that hard to rack up dozens of the things and save spell slots for the stuff you need right now.



The math there is perhaps the turning point on wizards becoming artillery (as I mentioned above) when in the past they were not artillery. Is this true of your pre-3e gaming? Did wizards prior to 3e play as battlefield control/emergency butt-savers/deus-ex-machina as I propose or did you always try to use them as artillery? And if the latter, how did you handle the 5-minute adventure day problem?


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 19, 2012)

jmucchiello said:


> how did you handle the 5-minute adventure day problem?




Never saw it happen. I hear this argument all the time, but have never seen it in practice. Casters never 'nova' in our games.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 19, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Never saw it happen. I hear this argument all the time, but have never seen it in practice. Casters never 'nova' in our games.



Neither have I. I'm trying to figure out when it started happening and whether it was a shift away from "thinking" wizards to "blasting" wizards.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 19, 2012)

jmucchiello said:


> Neither have I. I'm trying to figure out when it started happening and whether it was a shift away from "thinking" wizards to "blasting" wizards.




I think it's a myth used by some online users to argue against some edition. The incident seems possible, but I've never seen it in game, only on online forums...


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 19, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I think it's a myth used by some online users to argue against some edition. The incident seems possible, but I've never seen it in game, only on online forums...



Because if you have never seen something happen at your gaming table, it's impossible for other people to regularly see it at theirs.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jan 19, 2012)

I don't like Vancian, and it's completely at odds with "MP" that every computer RPG player knows.

I would keep "MP" as the default, but have an optional "Vancian" rule.

PCs who want Vancian magic get a small boost to their total MP, but they have to prepare spells with a total casting cost equal to their total MP. No big deal.

Incidentally, this also gets around level-based spell slots - you can prepare a few big spells or a lot of small spells, as long as it all fits into your total MP.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 19, 2012)

I did say it was 'possible', I'll even add 'plausible', but in 30+ years of gaming, attending Cons and visit LGS's - I've never seen it happen. Anything is possible though.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2012)

Well, GamerPrinter, we saw it all the time to be honest.  When the cleric ran out of healing the group stopped.  And that's been true since the 1e days, also across 30 years of gaming and a fair number of groups.  For me, the 15 minute adventuring day wasn't a wizard thing, it was a cleric thing.  You run out of healing, it's time to stop.

Thing was, in earlier editions, you could go a fair bit longer because the combat was just so much less damaging than in 3e.  1e was lethal more because of the proliferation of SoD effects (where healing doesn't really matter anyway) than damage dealing.  The monsters were just so much weaker relative to the PC's.  3e changed that.  I can't remember ever seeing a combat in 3e where the PC's didn't take damage.  Sure, some PC's might get through (probably the wizard), but, some of the PC's were taking damage, and usually fairly significant damage.

So, out trots the cleric and heals.

What stopped the 15 MAD for us was healing wands.  Adding in healing wands made the game pacing so much faster - we'd easily doubled the number of encounters between rest periods.

So, the 15 MAD was a direct result of Vancian casting, and the solution was to eject Vancian casting in favor of (what is effectively) at will healing.

jmucchiello - I'm a bit confused.  At what point in D&D's history wasn't the wizard based on artillery.  That was his role direct from wargaming.  Your 1st level MU had his Sleep spell that was an auto-win for a single encounter every day.  Sounds a lot like artillery to me.  So, I'm not really seeing the point in your questions.

Celebrim - really?  You're going to start claiming now that crafting wands was common in AD&D?  And, no, a Vancian caster with a wand is not the same as a Vancian caster.  Wands are inherently non-Vancian.  Multiple wands + scrolls means that you no longer have the "forget" part of Fire and Forget magic.  It's changing Vancian to an at-will system.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2012)

Kunimatyu said:


> Incidentally, this also gets around level-based spell slots - you can prepare a few big spells or a lot of small spells, as long as it all fits into your total MP.




Which is precisely why I don't want to see mana points become default; I prefer as a DM that the players have to split there allocation around both weaker and more powerful spells.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2012)

> Well, GamerPrinter, we saw it all the time to be honest. When the cleric ran out of healing the group stopped. And that's been true since the 1e days, also across 30 years of gaming and a fair number of groups. For me, the 15 minute adventuring day wasn't a wizard thing, it was a cleric thing. You run out of healing, it's time to stop.




Wow- in this respect, you are like the _perfect_ anti-Me!_  No wonder_ my stories about not seeing the 15MWD drive you nuts!


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 20, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> Which is precisely why I don't want to see mana points become default; I prefer as a DM that the players have to split there allocation around both weaker and more powerful spells.



It's all part of the different tactical challenges of mana points. It's spend as you see fit and then reap the consequences. If they spend on mainly big-ticket items and then run out, then that's tough for them when they face further obstacles that day. Spend smart. Budget smart.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> Which is precisely why I don't want to see mana points become default; I prefer as a DM that the players have to split there allocation around both weaker and more powerful spells.




Why?

That's not meant as snarky in the slightest.  I'm honestly curious.

-------

DannyA - oh yeah.  Totally.  If I played or my players played the way yours do, I'd be smoking PC's every session.


----------



## kenttaylor (Jan 20, 2012)

*Amberian Magic*

I'm actually toying with a slightly different explanation for traditional D&D magic using the reasoning found in Roger Zelazny's 2nd chronicles of Amber. Basically the main character is a "wizard" who casts maybe 95% of a spell (he calls it "hanging" the spell) and then, when he wants to use it, he does a quick trigger to cast the final 5% at which point the spell discharges. It could take him a full day to prepare (or "hang") a full allotment of combat ready offensive and defensive spells. I never actually read Vance but it seems to me this is a pretty decent explanation for what D&D portrays without the terminology of "cast and forget" which appears to stick in many peoples craw. 
So, a wizard rests each day and then spends whatever amount of time (I think 1e used 10 minutes per spell level but maybe with a maximum) "hanging" or preparing the spells they want to use that day. As an added twist (and in honor of the rituals of 4e) maybe the wizard could cast a spell cold from their spell book but spend the full time doing so. I'm thinking perhaps 5 minutes per spell level. In fact, with such time constraints, maybe it would be OK to say that the wizard can prepare the number of spells allotted on the progression table but that there is no limit (except for time) on the number of spells they can cast by reading from their spell book.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain the rationale behind preparing spell in the "Amberian" (or perhaps Zelaznian) rather than Vancian way. Anyone ever tried this? Does it help with the logical wall that cast and forget seems to cause?


----------



## Klaus (Jan 20, 2012)

jmucchiello said:


> The math there is perhaps the turning point on wizards becoming artillery (as I mentioned above) when in the past they were not artillery. Is this true of your pre-3e gaming? Did wizards prior to 3e play as battlefield control/emergency butt-savers/deus-ex-machina as I propose or did you always try to use them as artillery? And if the latter, how did you handle the 5-minute adventure day problem?



When our group played 1e or 2e, almost no one played the magic-user/mage, because of the severely limited spells. They were mostly relegated to multiclass material, with the MU spells used for utility. The wizard-type that got most action was a half-elf illusionist/shadow mage in 2e. Half of his usefulness resided in his familiar, a shadow pseudo-dragon.

The priest-type that saw most play was a specialty priest created using the Complete Priest's Handbook, which was more of a "white wizard" type, giving up armor and weapons for more spellcasting. He played great support and control.

The 5-minute adventuring day, IME, began in 3e with the plethora of buff spells. Parties would buff up to their teeth, face an encounter, and then retreat to rest again. I had to institute a house rule that you could only take a "full night's rest" once every 24 hours, otherwise you weren't tired enough.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 20, 2012)

Without wishing to derail, I remember _attempts_ at short adventuring days from all the way back to my earliest experiences of 1e. These would tend to be predicated, as Hussar pointed out, by a healer who had run out spells. I italicised _attempts_ because the good DMs would rarely let players get away with it, certainly not repeatedly. Indeed, they would exploit the dramatic opportunity the situation presented. They still do.

The only time the problem was edition-specific was when there was only one edition. And it has never been a problem for creative DMs with good groups.

"Shall we press on?"

"We must press on!"

"We can't stay here."

These three lines alone are portals to infinite opportunities for DMs and reasons for players to avoid a short adventuring day, in spite of limited daily resources. Sure, the party might want to lay low or evacuate but what happens when they try to can be as much a part of a good game session as anything that happens when they're fully charged and raring to go.

The more you reduce the tension that comes from a party at risk while low on or out of resources, the more you limit adventure to a given tempo.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 20, 2012)

This may be one of the most interesting Threads I've read on ENWorld in years.  Fairly minimal snarkiness, not too much anger or posting against individuals, very high intellectual content.

I'm getting a window into very different D&D games ... games I've not seen.  And I'm seeing some attractive possibilities for change/evolution.

It's shaking up the gray matter in my old, gray head.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why?
> 
> That's not meant as snarky in the slightest.  I'm honestly curious.




Because high level spells in D&D tend to be significantly more advantageous than two lower level spells, which would encourage you to spend all or most of your points on high level spells.  

(For example, this is the reason that empower and maximize metamagic feats are such niche abilities in 3e.  Generally speaking, for almost anything that you'd want to empower or maximize, there is something 2 or 3 levels higher that is better.)

To me, for almost every gamist complaint about Vancian magic - it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day, it imbalances the classes, it makes encounters hard to design, it encourages redundancy in actual spell use, and so forth - this change would not lessen the strength of such arguments, but make them much more relevant.   If it is true that Vancian magic encourages you to 'go nova', which in turn can act like a 'win button' in an encounter, but which in turn forces you to retreat to rest, then it would be more true that having a fewer number of more powerful effects would encourage 'going nova' and the 15 minute adventuring day.   To the extent that spellcasters greatly outshine other classes on a per encounter basis by going nova, being able to focus their powers more sharply isn't going to help the matter.   To the extent that spell casting makes encounter design difficult on the grounds that you aren't quite sure what party resources will be available, it becomes even more difficult in a system where those resources are even more amorphous.  (I would go so far to say that the 15 minute adventuring day is an example of a table comprimise due to failed encounter design, and for that matter one of 4e's explicit goals was rendering encounter design easier by making available party resources more predictable.)

In short 'point buy' is not a mechanical solution to a set of problems and complaints commonly raised against Vancian magic.  In theory 4e's 'at will' and 'per encounter' structure is a solution (in the same sense that some found ready access to wands an easy workaround and acceptable table comprimise), but this raises its own problems - encounters have to be harder to meaningfully challenge the party which tends to make combat run longer and slower, resource management subgames go away (which may be a feature or a bug depending on your point of view), and overall versimilitude may go down depending how you think you world should work, over balancing may lead to redundancies in game play, greater power access may have to be countered with reduced power flexibility and effect, etc.

I've tried several systems.  The spell slot system may strike some as overly gamist, but I find it to be a good comprimise between narrative simulation and real game play concerns.   Besides which, the Vancian system has some arcane depth to it that I think adds significantly to flavor.   It suggests to me that spellcasting is more of an art (or a science) than mere innate power.  Granted, the more you are going for innate power, the further you'll probably move away from it, but I like my Wizards as scholars and loremasters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2012)

> Because high level spells in D&D tend to be significantly more advantageous than two lower level spells, which would encourage you to spend all or most of your points on high level spells.




Which, btw, is the basis of one of the complaints I hear most often about what multiclassed PCs with multiple casting classes contribute to a party.

A PC who has a PrCl that lets him simultaneously advance the casting of 2 classes may have a metric ton of spell slots, but, the argument goes, he lacks punch.  He may be flexible, but the spells he has may well be useless against level-appropriate opponents.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why?
> 
> That's not meant as snarky in the slightest.  I'm honestly curious.




Possibly not a direct answer to your question, but here is my answer.

Older editions offered a few different mini-games for the Wizard player that have slowly been removed as conveniences for the class.

*What spells do I want in my book?*
Spell lists sizes were limited by Intelligence.  The maximum size in 1e was 18? spells per spell-level at 18 Intelligence.  It was possible to research your own spells above that limit, but the cost in time and cash was quite large weeks to months per spell, many 000’s of gp total expenditure, no guaranteed success or predictable time or cost investment.  The strategic game was to determine what spells your optimal book would carry.  2e (and possibly an expansion book in 1e) gave unlimited spells to 19 Intelligence and so that became the holy grail for Wizards to aspire towards  (needing 10+ Wishes or a incredibly rare Tome once 18 was reached!).

*What spells can I put in my book?*
There was a flat percentage chance to learn a spell that peaked at 85% for 18 Intelligence.  Rerolls were _possible_, but unlikely.   What you wanted and what you could use weren’t necessarily the same thing.  The strategic game was building the best compromise book you could.  2e watered this chance down by granting a reroll every character level and 3e defanged it entirely by making it moderately easy Spellcraft check.

*What spells to carry today?*
Since the spells you can access are limited and the day’s plans are known, what spells best suit the situation?  Each slot size was independent and you could not store a _Fireball_ oin your 4th level slot because you thought you'd need another.  The tactical game was building the most effective deck for the situation as you understand it based upon your available resources.  Is there a way to adjust the plan to take advantage of a specific suite of spells?   

*What should I do?* 
Based upon the remaining deck of spells, the tactical situation, and known plans for the day, what should I cast this round if anything? 

I think those conveniences helped drive both that the Wizard can replace other classes and the general power level of the Wizard class.  Each convenience offered to the class appears unremarkable.  Wizards don't need a limit on spellbook size; failing to learn a coveted spell isn't fun, let them learn everything; some spells have greater appeal, let's let a spell fit in any slot equal or greater in size!  Combined, those conveniences greatly improve the value of the spell prepared and improve the general utility of spells known to each Wizard.

Allowing a mana point system simply adds another convenience -- and hence more ability -- to a class that already suffers complaints about its overall utility while robbing the class of mini-games I find fun.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 20, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> In short 'point buy' is not a mechanical solution to a set of problems and complaints commonly raised against Vancian magic.




No it isn't. Point Buy is a mechanical solution to the _simulationist_ problem of Vancian Magic. That it resembles nothing, not even the works of Jack Vance and playing a wizard who knows he's going to forget things when he uses them is painful. And most people don't find it helps the narrative structure either.

The fifteen minute adventuring day is an issue caused by the pacing of adventures not being fast enough. Because to be fast enough, the pacing would have to be about that of Jack Bauer in 24. 1e had its solution to the 15 minute day; rolling for wandering monsters every ten minutes. Sleeping for 8 hours in a dungeon would therefore require _48_ wandering monster rolls. Not gonna happen.

But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day. To put that into perspective that's a fight before breakfast to wake you up, one mid morning, break for lunch, a fight mid afternoon, and one just before dinner. Unless you're a commando unit in hostile territory there needs to be a _reason_ people are wasting people attacking you. And needs to be a ticking clock to prevent you forting up. This _massively_ restricts the narratives that D&D provides strong support to - for instance hexcrawling in the wilderness. What wilderness hex is that dangerous? (Yes, I know people _do_ it. But there's a world of difference between doing something with the rules and being supported by them). Pathfinder's Kingmaker simply encourages a near-Nova pattern for almost all combats if you run it in PF.

That said, this isn't a problem specifically with Vancian Magic - but with the resting scales of D&D.  Putting the fighter on a different scale from the wizard is a mistake, as is hardcoding a wizard-rest to 8 hours.  (I'd hard code the wizard-rest to 8 hours _in a library_ and the 15 minute day vanishes).


----------



## Ranes (Jan 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> No it isn't. Point Buy is a mechanical solution to the _simulationist_ problem of Vancian Magic. That it resembles nothing, not even the works of Jack Vance and playing a wizard who knows he's going to forget things when he uses them is painful. And most people don't find it helps the narrative structure either.




Okay, assuming you're right and you know what most people want, let's do that. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is widely recognised as being the smartest thing to do and usually leads to the best of everything.



Neonchameleon said:


> But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day.




This is so not the case, I could write an essay on it. It's not - just not - rest or be attacked. Is that really the sum of options to occupy people you can consider? (I'm sure it isn't, by the way.)




Neonchameleon said:


> Putting the fighter on a different scale from the wizard is a mistake, as is hardcoding a wizard-rest to 8 hours.




Completely agree. I think your next point about the wizard in a library is lovely but it doesn't solve the divine caster issue and I think there is still an issue there. Eight hours in a temple or at a shrine, maybe?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which, btw, is the basis of one of the complaints I hear most often about what multiclassed PCs with multiple casting classes contribute to a party.




A good point, and one I should have thought of.  

Yes, this illustrates the problem well.   A character that is a level 10 cleric and level 10 wizard (in 3e) is very weak, because 5th level spells in no way are comparable to 7th or 9th level spells and wouldn't be even if you had more spells.   Therefore, in order to allow multiclassing between two spellcasting classes you have to have a mechanism which allows you to be almost as high of spellcasting level in both classes as you would be in one.  Indeed, the problem shows up with multiclassing a spellcasting class with any non-spellcasting class as well, in that you end up with spells that are too weak to make you an effective spellcaster and combat skills to weak to make you effective in combat.  

Unfortunately, 3e kludged this together with a an endless variaty of 'prestige classes', one for fighters+arcane casters, another for theives+arcane casters, another for arcane caster+divine casters, another for bards specifically+divine casters, and so on and so on.  It was a very ugly system.

More low level spells is weaker than fewer higher level spells in the vast majority of cases.  So conversely, trading up your low level spell slots for higher ones tends to be stronger.

Looking at this in another way, it's not a 'fair trade' and bad for the system if a Psion could trade a reduction in the number of power points he has for greater effective manifestor level.   It probably would be unbalancing as well as bad for game play (because the Psion if used optimally, would also always need to rest).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2012)

> More low level spells is weaker than fewer higher level spells in the vast majority of cases.



Which, FWIW, is something I never had a problem with- most of my D&D PCs are multiclassed spellcasters.



> So conversely, trading up your low level spell slots for higher ones tends to be stronger.




Yep.  I note that many people who bar psionics from their games bring up just that point; the Psionic PCs can simply opt to use all of their potential on their most powerful abilities.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The fifteen minute adventuring day is an issue caused by the pacing of adventures not being fast enough. Because to be fast enough, the pacing would have to be about that of Jack Bauer in 24. 1e had its solution to the 15 minute day; rolling for wandering monsters every ten minutes. Sleeping for 8 hours in a dungeon would therefore require _48_ wandering monster rolls. Not gonna happen.
> 
> But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day. To put that into perspective that's a fight before breakfast to wake you up, one mid morning, break for lunch, a fight mid afternoon, and one just before dinner. Unless you're a commando unit in hostile territory there needs to be a _reason_ people are wasting people attacking you. And needs to be a ticking clock to prevent you forting up. This _massively_ restricts the narratives that D&D provides strong support to - for instance hexcrawling in the wilderness. What wilderness hex is that dangerous? (Yes, I know people _do_ it. But there's a world of difference between doing something with the rules and being supported by them). Pathfinder's Kingmaker simply encourages a near-Nova pattern for almost all combats if you run it in PF.




I'm not necessarily sure the whole resting encounter cycle is unrealistic.  In real-world terms, the U.S. has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the western world.  Yet that rate is about 1/40th or 1/50th the murder rate of England in the 1700s.  So the world was a more dangerous place back then.

I'm going to assume that if you go back to the 1300's and 1400's, which are more analogous to the time period approximated by D&D, the rates were even higher.

Throw in the addition of monsters, other humanoid species etc. and having regular encounters in the wilderness may not be unrealistic at all.

Banshee


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> No it isn't. Point Buy is a mechanical solution to the _simulationist_ problem of Vancian Magic.




I quite agree.  



> That it resembles nothing...




But on that I disagree completely.    As I've pointed out, it also resembles for instance the way spells are composed in Zelazny's 'Amber' stories.  And as I've also indicated, it strongly resembles the general feel of any narrative where in the wizardly character has mysterious reasons for not using magic most of the time, even when that reason is not mechanically the same as Vancian.



> ...not even the works of Jack Vance




And again, I disagree.  



> and playing a wizard  who knows he's going to forget things when he uses them is painful.




I disagree.  It is a lot of fun.  One of my favorite characters of all time was a wizard.   Besides which, this particular spin you've put on the mechanics is unnecessary and in my opinion its something of a misnomer to focus on it, because frankly, the simplistic way you are looking at not only doesn't make sense (explaining your problem) but isn't even fully supported from the D&D text.

The way Vancian casting is explained in my campaign world changes the fluff slightly but not the mechanics at all.  Mortals are not themselves sources of power, and have only limited abilty to draw upon magical energies.  Indeed, a wizard is unable to draw on more power than it takes to exstantiate a cantrip.   For more powerful spells, a mortal must rely upon extensive art and lore.  There is a science to magic, and spells must be engineered.  To cast a powerful spell, a wizard must not only memorize the spell, but he must go through the rituals required to prepare the spell for casting.   He must trickle power into resivores within his being the way water slowly backs up behind a dam.  He must build wheels and engines of power, in order to with the small force he can muster leverage greater energies.   When he's has finished the incantation from his spell book, the spell has been wound up like a spring and drawn taunt like a bow, needing only the Wizard to perform the short remaining ritual to release the power in a spectacular way.  This is why when he casts the spell, he is unable to cast it again.   And because preparing and using these spells is physically and mentally taxing, once he's prepared as many as he can, he must rest before he can prepare any more.

This is a tremendous amount of flavor that is far deeper and more interesting of an explanation that the simple 'magic works because the wizards wills it' that forms the majority of explanation in most other mechanical systems.    It's an amazing starting point, and while I like the sorcerer class, on the level of how deeply the mechanics interact with the world, the wizard is just miles more interesting of a class.  Musty tomes, forbidden lore, ancient libraries, arcane laboratories, and esoteric paraphenalia are all tied in detail to the class through the mechanics in a way that just no other system manages.  Moreover, I would point out that the explanation I've just given has been supported in various places in the text by various editions of D&D, and unlike your simplistic explanation that the wizard 'just forgets', it actually explains the observed mechanics.    For example, it explains how you can prepare a spell twice and why you an still cast one after having cast the other.

And of course, you can tweak the flavor in other ways without altering the mechanics as well, as suits you.   The flavor explanation for the mechanics doesn't have to be perfect.  There is no perfect flavor explanation for hit points or armor class either.  But an abstract non-literal interpretation works quite well, and is in many cases more than worth it compared to the drawbacks found in more literal systems.



> And most people don't find it helps the narrative structure either.




If this were true, then quite frankly, most people are wrong.   I don't however believe it is true.  I believe that its part of the secret of why D&D looms larger in the story of RPG's than other systems with supposedly more 'realistic' mechanics.   Many people always dismiss it as 'nostalgia', but I've come to believe that that is an insufficient and probably insulting answer.



> The fifteen minute adventuring day is an issue caused by the pacing of adventures not being fast enough.




No.  The 15 minute adventuring day is an issued caused by the pacing being predictable and fully controlled by the players.   It is a valid strategic response to any situation where you have ablative defenses and full control over when and where the encounter takes place.   Hit points themselves are enough to cause the 15 minute adventuring day regardless of the spell system in use (which is why some others have identified it as a problem of Vancian divine spellcasting).   If you have full control over when and where you fight, why ever  go into battle with less than full hit points much less spells?

Any time the PC's don't have full control over when and where the encounters take place, you don't see 15 minute adventuring days, and frankly, any time that they do have that full control (Tomb of Horrors, for example), then you _should_ see the 15 minute adventuring day as the logical response.

It's not a question of the pacing.  It's a question of whether things happen in the PC's absence.  It's a question of whether the PC's enemies are proactive and also recover defenses in the absence of pressure by the PC's.  It's a question of whether the PC's can always safely retreat to a haven whenever they want.  If the PC's can't retreat to a haven at any time, if the PC's enemies are proactive and intelligent, if the PC's enemies recover during oppurtunities to rest, and if the PC's enemies engage in plans of their own and cause things to happen even when the PC's are resting, then you don't see 15 minute adventuring days.   And contrary to your assertions, that's a lot of room for different narratives, and indeed probably covers the majority of source material that you'd draw inspiration from.   The Ring Quest in LotR doesn't have the pacing of 24, but the adventurers also don't have unlimited oppurtunity to rest.   Not only are they on a clock (albiet, one much slower than 24), but they have enemies who are actively seeking them out.

If it is not a valid strategic response to the problems that they are presented with, the players will gravitate away from the 15 minute day.  And if you always present your players with things that force the 15 minute day as the optimal response, then don't be surprised if that is what you get (or wand of CLW abuse, as others have pointed out).



> 1e had its solution to the 15 minute day; rolling for wandering monsters every ten minutes.




I don't recall a fixed and universal schedule of when wandering monsters would show up.   Rolling every 10 minutes is something that normally occurs only when the in certain high traffic areas specified by the text or when the PC's are doing something that actively draws attention to them.  If camped in the dungeon in a location unknown to intelligent creatures, then I usually rolled twice a night.  If of course the location was known or could be ascertained or inferred, then the intelligent creatures would plan an ambush or assualt  as they best could - or would simply take the oppurtunity to grab as much loot as possible and flee in the night.   



> But once you get out of the dungeon, in order to keep the classes balanced you need an average of four fights per day.




This for example was roughly the expectation I remember in earlier editions for travel in the wilderness - one wandering encounter check every 6-8 hours.



> Unless you're a commando unit in hostile territory...




Funny you should say that, but that's pretty much exactly a description of  D&D's default assumption about play and in fact well describes certain classic campaigns and adventures (Dragonlance, Red Hand of Doom, Keep on the Borderlands, etc.).  Let me ask you this question, if you aren't in hostile territory, why should we really be worried about this at all?  If the PC's aren't in hostile territory, what is the likelihood that the ECL of a challenge is suffiicent to draw down all of their resources anyway?  In non-hostile areas you are highly unlikely to see 15 minute adventuring days anyway, because the PC's will simply press on (especially if they know on a meta level that the likelihood of another encounter is remote).   I mean, I presume that the adventures are going somewhere and doing something, and if they aren't, isn't that the real problem?


----------



## innerdude (Jan 20, 2012)

More and more I'm beginning to think that the answer lies in the direction many have already pointed: Make spells below a certain level "combat cast-able," and make spells above a certain level rituals. 

And have a real, viable economy of control (whether through tangible resources, scarcity, whatever) on how and when spells are available. 

Personally, I think I'd be more okay with classic D&D-ian casting if they simply made it _so that it wasn't 100%, guaranteed that the spell would cast at all. _I realize that changes balance issues, and would require re-working the math behind saving throws, but I think it makes the choice to be a caster in the first place more narratively interesting. 

"Sure, go for the flash and whiz-bangery, kid. I'll stick with my sword, a good shield, and good ground beneath my feet."


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> Musty tomes, forbidden lore, ancient libraries, arcane laboratories, and esoteric paraphenalia are all tied in detail to the class through the mechanics in a way that just no other system manages.



*nods*

In order to obtain greater spell capabilities, the spell-caster must do considerable studying, and he or she must also have source material to study. The AD&D system assumes that such material is hard to come by, and even if a spell-caster is capable of knowing/memorizing many and high-level spells, he or she must find them . . . Thus, the system is in some ways more "Vancian," as detailed, in the works of that author. _It might also be said that the system takes on "Lovecraftian" overtones, harkening to tomes of arcane and dread lore. _[emphasis mine]

Gary Gygax, The Dragon #33, January 1980​
I'd say the synthesis of Vance, Camp & Pratt, and Lovecraft is a pretty good inspirational soup for D&D magic, full of flavor and workable game mechanics.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2012)

innerdude said:


> More and more I'm beginning to think that the answer lies in the direction many have already pointed: Make spells below a certain level "combat cast-able," and make spells above a certain level rituals.




D&D's fluff has always implied that in addition to the well described spells in the text, there are innumerable rituals of a specific and esoteric nature requiring casting times far too lengthy to be useful to the average PC.  However, as yet I've never seen a system for these rituals that inspires me.  I've wanted one for 20 years now, and never had the time to set down and create my own.   Fourth editions attempt to turn ordinary spells into rituals wasn't what I was looking for in such a system.

I had ambitions at one time to do a three part set of pdf's specifically on all the other aspects of being a wizard not normally covered by the rules, but then I had kids, got a real job, started campaigns, etc.  It's a lot of work to create publishable material.   Much respect to those that do a good job of it.



> Personally, I think I'd be more okay with classic D&D-ian casting if they simply made it _so that it wasn't 100%, guaranteed that the spell would cast at all._



_

They used to be a lot harder to get off with a casting time in segments and a requirement that you not move or defend yourself while casting._


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 20, 2012)

Ranes said:


> Okay, assuming you're right and you know what most people want, let's do that. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is widely recognised as being the smartest thing to do and usually leads to the best of everything.




I don't like spell point systems - they feel far too controlled for most fictional magic to me.  My preference is for a mix of aspected magic and random success where you can do a lot with a little range.



> This is so not the case, I could write an essay on it. It's not - just not - rest or be attacked. Is that really the sum of options to occupy people you can consider? (I'm sure it isn't, by the way.)




Of course not.  You just have the problem of the 3.X fighter but that's a whole different kettle of fish.



> Completely agree. I think your next point about the wizard in a library is lovely but it doesn't solve the divine caster issue and I think there is still an issue there. Eight hours in a temple or at a shrine, maybe?




Yup.  8 hours at a temple goes with the 8 at a library.



Banshee16 said:


> I'm not necessarily sure the whole resting encounter cycle is unrealistic.  In real-world terms, the U.S. has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the western world.  Yet that rate is about 1/40th or 1/50th the murder rate of England in the 1700s.  So the world was a more dangerous place back then.




Let's run the numbers.  Assume that each of the four fights per day is against one creature of medium size or larger.  Assume that the battle is to the death and the PCs win.  Assume an adventuring party of 4.  This means that each PC on average kills one person per day - or 365 people per year.

Further assume each adult woman has one child per year.  In that one year, assuming that no one else dies to anything other than trying to fight a PC, the 4 PCs kill enough people that an entire villiage of 700 dies to nothing but PCs.

The middle ages were more violent.  But not _that_ much more violent.  (The big problem comes in when you have Goblin Den-Mothers whelping a dozen to a litter).



Celebrim said:


> And as I've also indicated, it strongly resembles the general feel of any narrative where in the wizardly character has mysterious reasons for not using magic most of the time, even when that reason is not mechanically the same as Vancian.




This is the case _if and only if you take the classic wizard class out behind the woodshed, shoot it, burn the body, then bury the ashes under a crossroads mixed into a block of cement_.  In the whole of Lord of The Rings Gandalf casts maybe half a dozen spells.  I think the number's far lower.  A third level wizard gets to do that in 2 days in AD&D.  And when you're up to seven spells in a day (i.e. 5th level AD&D wizard) you have so much casting you're making these wizards you claim to emulate look like pikers.

Replace the wizard class with something more like the 2e or 3.5 Bard class - something that's simultaneously a loremaster, able to swing a blade, and can cast a few spells, and has trickery and you're a _lot_ closer to Gandalf, Merlin, or any restricted magic caster than the Vancian wizards have ever been.  The argument you're making for Vancian wizards in terms of narrative pacing is one that applies in a low magic world.  The wizard class belongs to a high magic world.

I wouldn't object to Vancian casting with spell memorisation for 4e daily powers.  (For that matter I wouldn't object to a 4e class that got Wizard dailies and Bardic or even Martial everything else and Vancian casting).  But the benefits you see in Vancian casting are as you yourself say "resembles the general feel of any narrative where in the wizardly  character has mysterious reasons for not using magic most of the time".  This would be true if the wizard brought a lot to the table other than spellcasting.  He _isn't_ a loremaster or a bard or able to wave a sword around.



> No.  The 15 minute adventuring day is an issued caused by the pacing being predictable and fully controlled by the players. It is a valid strategic response to any situation where you have ablative defenses and full control over when and where the encounter takes place.




Which is exactly the point I was making 



> It's not a question of the pacing.  It's a question of whether things happen in the PC's absence.




And now I see where I caused the confusion.  I meant the in world pacing.



> The Ring Quest in LotR doesn't have the pacing of 24, but the adventurers also don't have unlimited oppurtunity to rest.   Not only are they on a clock (albiet, one much slower than 24), but they have enemies who are actively seeking them out.




Other than Moria, _8 hour rests_ don't seem to be a special problem for them.  They do that once per night.  On the other hand if you move them to a pattern where the _extended_ rests happen at Tom Bombadil's, Rivendell, and Lothlorien then things fit a lot better.



> Let me ask you this question, if you aren't in hostile territory, why should we really be worried about this at all?  If the PC's aren't in hostile territory, what is the likelihood that the ECL of a challenge is suffiicent to draw down all of their resources anyway?




IMO quite a bit higher than in hostile areas.  In hostile areas the PCs may meet wandering patrols.  In friendly ones, above low levels anyone attacking the PCs knows who they are and is likely to be loaded for bear.  Of course the likelihood of meeting a high ECL combat challenge on any given day is pretty low.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 21, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> Because high level spells in D&D tend to be significantly more advantageous than two lower level spells, which would encourage you to spend all or most of your points on high level spells.
> 
> -snip-



Again, this is part of the risk of the budgeting strategy of mana point systems. Smart players keep spell points in reserve or eventually learn to better budget their spell points. Most of my spell point-playing mages got the idea quite quickly. If this is not enough and want to mechanically encourage players to use lower point spells, there are ways around this, such as caster thresholds. 



> Besides which, the Vancian system has some arcane depth to it that I think adds significantly to flavor.   It suggests to me that spellcasting is more of an art (or a science) than mere innate power.  Granted, the more you are going for innate power, the further you'll probably move away from it, but I like my Wizards as scholars and loremasters.



Why can't mana points be a maths, an art, and an innate power? It's calculations on the fly to sculpt or paint a solution based on available resources. Vancian magic could just as easily remind someone not so much of maths or sciences but just rote memorization for class exams, which is not proper studying or learning at all, though I suppose that's just as easily forgotten as any Vancian spell. 



Ranes said:


> Okay, assuming you're right and you know what most people want, let's do that. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is widely recognised as being the smartest thing to do and usually leads to the best of everything.



No need to be snarky. Isn't this, however, the goal of D&D Next? To appeal to the lowest common denominator that unites D&D? Yet this "pandering" is being hailed by grognards, as they see this as the "return" of Vancian magic. I suppose pandering is only "pandering" when it's aimed at denominator you don't hold in common.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 22, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> No need to be snarky. Isn't this, however, the goal of D&D Next? To appeal to the lowest common denominator that unites D&D? Yet this "pandering" is being hailed by grognards, as they see this as the "return" of Vancian magic. I suppose pandering is only "pandering" when it's aimed at denominator you don't hold in common.




One person's idea of pandering may indeed differ to another's, so your supposition can be correct.

However, I don't agree that the idea of trying to take 'the best of' (define that how you will) is necessarily pandering to - appealing to, if you prefer - the lowest common denominator. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that most D&D players want to see the back of Vancian magic in the next edition, because there are better systems out there (I'm not saying there aren't, incidentally). In this case, to go ahead and get rid of Vancian casting would be to appeal to the lowest common denominator. To keep it, in spite of there being a majority more comfortable with mana pools or some other device, would be doing the opposite.

About snarkiness: when I encounter assumption masquerading as fact, I reserve the right release a snark. It doesn't bite. After all, it's only an imaginary animal.


----------

