# Has the Vancian Magic Thread Burned Down the Forest Yet? (My Bad, People)



## innerdude (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm on record as being a fairly strong supporter of the 3.x / Pathfinder rules. 

But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic. 

The longer I look at it, delve into various RPG rules structures, and see alternative magic systems, the more I feel such utter disdain and contempt for bog standard Vancian casting. 

From a narrativist standpoint it's such an utterly contrived mechanic. I know that most of the time when we're playing in-game we don't think about it, but how much of the entire D&D ecology and its "normative features" are based on the basic features of Vancian casting? I realize its original inclusion in OD&D is due to a preference for it by one E. Gary Gygax, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that other than D&D and the original Jack Vance writings, there really are no other sources that use it. 

And the reason for that is that it simply doesn't feel organic to the way most other fictionists have perceived magic to work. I can't think of a single fantasy author, other than those writing for the old TSR-based campaign settings, use anything that even remotely approaches it. 

But, I would be willing to forgive Vancian magic's inability to feel internally organic or narratively consistent, if it added something to the ability to more effectively play the D&D game, but it's pretty well proven that in its most recent iterations (the 3.5 / Pathfinder rules) it continues to be the most potentially unbalancing aspect of the game. And the reason for that is that the level of character investment to increase your abilities to leverage the Vancian mechanic is relatively small. 

Having been playing with Savage Worlds for a bit, I don't necessarily like everything about the system, but the one thing I do like is that if you choose to play a "caster" style character, the rule system basically forces you to invest very heavily to make that an integral part of your character. You've got to invest the Edges, the skill and the attribute allocations to make it a long-term viable character concept. If you just want to be a dabbler, great--but if you want to begin to even approach the the level 10 wizard in D&D 3.5, you've got to commit full-out to it, and you've got to sacrifice other elements of your character. 

And ultimately there's just so much freedom in basically being able to say, "I don't have to follow that Sacred Cow down to the muddy river any more." 

When Pathfinder 2 comes out sometime between 2015 and 2020, I really, really, really hope that Vancian magic is at the very least re-evaluated, but secretly I'd love it if the amazing Lords and Ladies of Paizo created something far more organic, interesting, balanced, and fresh to put in its place.

(Update edit: Vancian magic per se isn't bad--but "bog standard" implementations are simply starting to feel stale, and there's lots of ways to make it more nuanced--thanks to Dungeoneer for coming up with the word I was looking for downthread. And may I suggest checking out the "Magical Tropes and Rules You Enjoy" thread for the type of discussion I think I was originally trying to create. Mea Culpa!).


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 18, 2011)

I certainly agree. In 3.5/P this kind of magic is just unbalanced. It reminds me of Magic the Gathering. A lot of dud abilities/spells, some strong, and a few just amazing things. 

And of course everyone takes the gems. Human nature. But perhaps the real problems are

1: As above. Magic is too easy. It should cost a lot of crunch options.

2: Balance. (also above) The spells need to be more formula and less sacred cows. Too many spells are good because they have always been good, and need toning down. Like Entangle. It is ridiculously powerful at first level, and is still good at 20th. 

I would like to see some kind of formula-based magic, or a strong cap on what easy casting can do.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I certainly agree. In 3.5/P this kind of magic is just unbalanced. It reminds me of Magic the Gathering. A lot of dud abilities/spells, some strong, and a few just amazing things.
> 
> And of course everyone takes the gems. Human nature. But perhaps the real problems are
> 
> ...



I wouldn't.

"Formula-based" sounds like a synonym for "bland", for one thing.

For another, a spell that is good at 1st level *and* 20th level is by definition a well-designed spell.  If only your high level spells are "good" in high level play, you're wasting all your low level slots every day.

But yes, making casters harder to play in other ways is never a bad idea.  1e did it by making them fragile: at 1st level the average MU could be killed by a determined kitten, and even at 10th level was not likely to have more than about 20-25 h.p. - one good fireball does her in.  And they weren't likely to be getting Con. bonuses to h.p.  3e gave Con. bonuses to h.p. at much lower values - even Con. 12 gets you an extra point per level; I think Wizards benefitted from this more than any other class as it's a huge difference from 20-25 to 30-35 h.p. at 10th.

Take away their 3e-given ability to craft items on a relative whim at higher levels and you've immediately brought them back toward balance, as they can't just sit down and build what they need to cover any weaknesses.

And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems.  This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...

Lan-"I likes me some boomage as long as I'm not in it"-efan


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 18, 2011)

"Narrativist" (cough) standpoints aside, what RPG mechanics are _not_ contrived? Seriously.

As for fantasy novels, there are *very* few RPGs out there that even _attempt_ to model faithfully even one writer's "magic system". D&D is hardly the exception here. And, hey, there _is_ a kind of homage happening here anyway - it's right there in the term you've been using!

And *balance* is about implementation and execution, not origin or flavour.


D&D's pseudo-Vancian magic system can be balanced - I know this for a fact, from experience!  - as well as "organic" in feel, and internally consistent. If the balance bit takes some house ruling (arguably)... so? Or, on the other hand, an official rules update. That would do it, just as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

> And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems. This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...




While I know I can do Vancian magic in HERO- I've done so in the past- it is one of the things that, to me, helps separate D&D from all those other FRPGs out there.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2011)

I agree that Vancian magic should go the way of the dodo. While some may like it, likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment to this clunky mechanic, I have despised Vancian Magic ever since I started D&D. 

Vancian Magic dictates the flow of combat and encounters too artificially. Fire and forget? I've run out of spells? Really? While the mage running out of spells can happen in a Vancian magic system, that feature is not exclusive to only Vancian magic. Vancian magic may help "separate D&D from all those other FRPGs out there," but that's not a viable reason to keep a bad mechanic. More often than not, it has hurt my world-building and runs completely counter to how I envision magic in most of my campaign settings.


----------



## Victim (Feb 18, 2011)

> Take away their 3e-given ability to craft items on a relative whim at higher levels and you've immediately brought them back toward balance, as they can't just sit down and build what they need to cover any weaknesses.




Gosh, I wonder who that hurts more?  Casters who already have magic they've picked and want to fill in the gaps, or other characters whose magic comes ONLY from items.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2011)

innerdude said:


> But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.




That's one of the biggest reasons I just don't like 4e. The 4e magic system feels extremely limited and very bland to me. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Vancian system. The only time it's a problem is when I have a player who makes it a problem. And then, I don't blame the system, I blame the player.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

> I agree that Vancian magic should go the way of the dodo. While some may like it, likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment to this clunky mechanic, I have despised Vancian Magic ever since I started D&D.




At one point on these boards, that would have gotten you the response, "If you don't like it, play something else."  That, of course, was before 4Ed largely ditched the Vancian system.

Now, instead I'll say that you really shouldn't ascribe motives to others- that really bugs people.

My reasons for liking Vancian magic have ZERO to do with sentimentality or conservatism.  I've played in 100+ systems, and my fave is HERO.  Yet I like Vancian magic.

It is unique to D&D, and helps give the game it's unique flavor.  It changes how one manages resources.  It presents challenges unlike point based or at-will power systems.

Without it, D&D starts to feel like a generic FRPG.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 18, 2011)

innerdude said:


> From a narrativist standpoint it's such an utterly contrived mechanic. I know that most of the time when we're playing in-game we don't think about it, but how much of the entire D&D ecology and its "normative features" are based on the basic features of Vancian casting? I realize its original inclusion in OD&D is due to a preference for it by one E. Gary Gygax, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that other than D&D and the original Jack Vance writings, there really are no other sources that use it.




There are plenty of sources where a magician uses a spell only once, maybe twice in an encounter. Even 4e acknowledges that trope.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Feb 18, 2011)

Vancian magic has one thing going for it besides sentimentality.  It's dead simple to use.  I personally like systems that better reflect mythology or fiction, but most of the ones I've seen take a lot of time in-game to use.  That's not great unless your game is specifically about casting spells, e.g. Ars Magica.

That said, I don't care for Vancian magic myself.  The only system I've come across that I like less is 4E's.

I have come across at least one major piece of fiction using Vancian magic, Zelazny's second Amber series, and I like its take enough to make me feel a little better about D&D magic.  I do admit, though, that it looks like it was derived from D&D rather than the other way around.


----------



## Wepwawet (Feb 18, 2011)

First I want to say that I've always hated the Vancian system. That's actually the one reason that made me jump to 4E without looking back.

IMO, the biggest problem is not the "fire-and-forget" aspect. In other systems the same happens when one is depleted of mana.
The problem is the pre-selection and preparation of spells. Like, a caster has to count on whatever spells he thought would be good for the day, and that's it. All magical power you have has to be used on exactly those. That's just nonsense.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At one point on these boards, that would have gotten you the response, "If you don't like it, play something else."  That, of course, was before 4Ed largely ditched the Vancian system.



I disagree. There were plenty of non-core D&D d20 supplements that threw out Vancian magic. 



> It is unique to D&D, and helps give the game it's unique flavor.  It changes how one manages resources.  It presents challenges unlike point based or at-will power systems.
> 
> Without it, D&D starts to feel like a generic FRPG.



Vancian magic being unique to D&D is not a viable explanation for keeping it in D&D. Many other magic systems also present challenges and unique resource management. You appealing to vague sense of how D&D would "feel like a generic FRPG" without Vancian magic is an irrational sentimental attachment to the mechanic.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 18, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems.  This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...




Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.

If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.

Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?


----------



## bouncyhead (Feb 18, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment




That's certainly why I'm a fan. My ingrained, blinkered resistance to change prevents me from regarding a game system with the appropriate hatred and scorn.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

When I reach for D&D, one of the main draws *is* Vancian magic.  My game shelf has _*a whole lot*_ of really good fantasy games without Vancian magic and only a couple with it.

If that distinguishing feature goes then that edition will have to compete for my attention against games that are familiar, well-loved, and already occupying niches in my game play favourites.

4e failed to dislodge any game from that shelf.  I expect removing Vancian magic would result in another non-adoption for me.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 18, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I disagree. There were plenty of non-core D&D d20 supplements that threw out Vancian magic.



Yes, but the vast majority were from third party publishers, in other words a source (well, many sources) most gamers wouldn't have trusted - and still wouldn't trust - enough to bother with. A niche market within a niche market, and all that. There is a HUGE difference between core D&D featuring pseudo-Vancian magic, and core D&D featuring, for example, 4e's Daily/Encounter/At Will powers system in its place.




> Vancian magic being unique to D&D is not a viable *explanation* for keeping it in D&D.



Perhaps you mean "justification"...?




> Many other magic systems also present challenges and unique resource management.



Yes, but in different ways. If two given sets of game mechanics do more or less the same thing, it doesn't mean they will _feel_ the same in actual play, or indeed, that they will do _exactly_ the same thing. Hell, they probably even look rather different on paper! Different mechanics are... different. 

Some might be of the opinion that mechanics don't matter a great deal*, and don't all things considered contribute that much to the feel of a session or campaign, gamers' personal experiences of it, and so on. Well. I'm not one of those, let's just say.




> You appealing to vague sense of how D&D would "feel like a generic FRPG" without Vancian magic is an irrational sentimental attachment to the mechanic.



Or, alternatively, D&D feels like D&D not only because of its unique and unusual setting / implied setting features, but also because of its unique and unusual game mechanics features. Like, say, pseudo-Vancian magic.

It does appear that you are getting defensive over poor old 4e, and if so, I must ask, why? _It isn't being attacked_, you see. And, hey, if not, my bad. It is sometimes hard to tell exactly what people are meaning, even offline!


* Some, such as yourself, it would seem.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 18, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> "Formula-based" sounds like a synonym for "bland", for one thing.
> 
> For another, a spell that is good at 1st level *and* 20th level is by definition a well-designed spell.  If only your high level spells are "good" in high level play, you're wasting all your low level slots every day.




I was talking spells of the wrong power level, you are talking about something totally different. 



> And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems.  This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...




Do you really want to run through 10 waves of monsters and then wandering encounters in 3.5?

I did not think so. 


It is virtually impossible to run wizards, Clerics or druids out of spells in non-houseruled 3.5. I know, I have played a lot of it. Maybe you can run them out of the top spell levels, but even that is tricky. 3.5 casters have a LOT of spell slots.


----------



## bouncyhead (Feb 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Do you really want to run through 10 waves of monsters and then wandering encounters in 3.5?




Who said anything about 3.5?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 18, 2011)

It has gone away.  There are dozens of games out there that don't use it.  There are options within D&D to use something different.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 18, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




In my opinion, _no, it would not be better_ to build a game where everyone has something to do in every encounter.

I like a game where some classes shine in some cases while other shine in others. I think it helps differentiate them. Sometimes, part of the fun is having limitations. 


To the OP, why not just use psionics and drop magic? This seems like more of a houserule than a direction the actual game needs to go in.

I mean, what you're looking for already exists. Why not just houserule that "magic" = psionics?


----------



## avin (Feb 18, 2011)

I find GURPS mana/fadigue style of magic the best. You can't cast 5 fireballs because you haven't memorized, you can't cast it because you are tired and can't manipulate mana.

Will give PF another shot if they make simple rules for grapple and kill vancian magic for once.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

I love Vancian magic.

I love getting away from Vancian magic.

I love thai food.


----------



## pming (Feb 18, 2011)

Hiya.

...I know I want to say someting...I just can't quite find the right words. Lets just blather on for a bit...

Having played AD&D in one form or another for the last 3+ decades, I have seen (and gone through myself) the "uncertainty" of Vancian magic. In the end though...it works.

Mechanics *do* matter. They matter MUCH more than people like to admit. Example: go to a group of 4e people and tell them you'll run a game set in the current 4e Forgotten Realms setting...using Runequest II rules. How many of those 4e'ers will say "Sure! Lets get started!" without batting an eye? My guess...not many or none. Why? *System Mechanics Matter*

Setting flavours *do* matter. They matter as much as mechanics. The hard-core FR'ers who love the 'new Realms' would jump at the chance to play in a new FR campaign using Runequest II rules. Why? *Setting Flavour Matters*

Taking those back to the idea of Vancian magic...same thing. The flavor of them matter, as do how they are utilized. Some like one more than the other.

IME, the *best* argument for the Vancian system is that it actively encourages the _group_ over the _individual_ by setting it up so that when the wizard does start to run out of spells, it's up to the group to protect/help him. While the wizard has spells, they wait for the wizard to dictate much of the tactics and situations. The wizard shines when he has a spell for something (or has spells), and the fighters shine when the wizard doesn't. Each is responsible for the others safety and success. The BEST thing about 1e AD&D was that it was most definitly a "Group-Oriented" rpg approach. The players were "highly encouraged" to craft characters that worked together, covered eachothers weaknesses, and this translated into play. It also placed a lot of *player* input to succeed, as opposed to *character* input to succeed. In short, 1e made players think creatively, think about group tactics, and yes, think about potential situations. With Vancian magic, the players needed to have their characters do actual 'work' to find out information about what they were going to do, where they were going to do it, and who they were going to do it to. Fighting a necromancer with his horde of undead? Memorize more non-mind affecting spells. Fighting a orc warlord and his minions? Memorize more mind-affecting spells. Infiltrating a bandit lords hillside fort? Memorize reconasance and stealth type spells. With a non-Vancian system...who cares? Just wade in and start casting whatever...no need to plan or think much about it; as long as you have the spell points you're golden.

Overall, I like the Vancian system. It does have some quirks, to be sure, but it definitly feels like it's one more thing to encourage the group over the individual (and, as a DM and player, I'm sick of individual players making stupid characters that are disruptive, incongrous, or outright hostile to other PC's in the group simply because the rules give them the option to make that character...but that's a whole other ball of worms for another thread...).

Besides, it's just as easy to define how and why magic works in any particular way for ANY campaign or game world. I can explain why magic works the Vancian way for a Greyhawk campaign just as easily as I could explain why magic works the mana-point way for a Greyhawk campaign. As someone famous at one point probably said some time in the past: "It's all in the presentation".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Salamandyr (Feb 18, 2011)

innerdude said:


> From a narrativist standpoint it's such an utterly contrived mechanic. I know that most of the time when we're playing in-game we don't think about it, but how much of the entire D&D ecology and its "normative features" are based on the basic features of Vancian casting? I realize its original inclusion in OD&D is due to a preference for it by one E. Gary Gygax, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that other than D&D and the original Jack Vance writings, there really are no other sources that use it.
> 
> And the reason for that is that it simply doesn't feel organic to the way most other fictionists have perceived magic to work. I can't think of a single fantasy author, other than those writing for the old TSR-based campaign settings, use anything that even remotely approaches it.




Speaking specifically to this point of yours.

Actually, Merlin (not the Arthurian Merlin) uses Vancian style casting in the second Amber pentology.  Of course all Amberites have access to certain magical powers, but to go beyond that, to cast "spells", he sits down and formulates it, impresses the words of power on his mind, so that later in the story he's able to cast quickly.  Upon casting, the magical power is gone, expended from his brain.  Sounds like Vancian casting to me.  

I've always explained it to my players in a similar fashion.  Spells are not so much "memorized" as the act of preparing them for the day is when the actual, heavy lifting is done, so that when needed, only the final few syllables of the spell need be said to complete the effect.

Admittedly it was influenced by D&D, but Joel Rosenberg's _Guardians of the Flame_ series made Vancian casting work narratively quite well.

All that aside, I'm perfectly good with having multiple ways to play a spellcaster.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 18, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




Face, meet palm.

"I have no spells left. I can't do anything useful," says MU lurking behind top-heavy bookshelf while separated from comrades by orcs.

Such a response suggests that either the encounter has been deliberately designed to exploit that eventuality (which is not necessarily a bad thing) or - and I suspect this is more likely - the player's imagination simply isn't up to much. (Just because you play D&D, it does not follow that you must have a particularly good imagination.)

It is not indicative of an inherent fault in the system.

Ran - isn't afraid to yoink Lane-hey, I got here first-fan's sign-off device -es

P.S. Even 3.x provides alternatives to gorgeous Vancian quirkiness for those who want to blandificate or generify their games.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 18, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?





I would think the greater goal would be to ensure everyone in the group has a chance to contribute equally within the roleplaying experience -- not just the warrior/fighter, and not just the spellcaster.

This argument seems to pop up a lot on EN World: the debate between people who never want their spellcasters to be unable to cast spells, and people who think spellcasters should have their moment in the spotlight, and out of it, just like everyone else.

As someone who has played an arcane caster, I have no problems with NOT being the guy who solves every single combat.  Limited resources lead to strategic planning of when to use those resources.  Unlimited spellcasting is just like pushing a button repeatedly in one of those games where you have infinite bullets, and therefore might as well strafe everything.  Fun? Maybe ... but not much thinking required.

I think it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion in campaign flavor: As a player, are you okay with your character not being able to contribute to solving a problem once in a while ... or do you always want to be one of the main protagonists?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 18, 2011)

So basically the OP wants to get rid of Vancian spellcasting in Pathfinder because he doesnt like it.

He thinks that Savage Worlds and 4E got it right. 

But even though there are many of us who dont mind the Vancian system at all his solution is STILL to get rid of it so that it can play like those other games.

My first supers game was Villains and Vigilantes, for whatever reason ( I was 13 at the time) my friends and I didnt like it. We moved on to Marvel Super Heroes which we liked a better and played that...Until we discovered DC HEROES which was a MUCH better fit for what we wanted to do, so we played THAT for years...Until we discovered HERO system which was AWESOME so we had many a supers campaign using that. I tried and liked Mutants and Masterminds and have played and run games using it but if I had my choice, for supers, I'd be playing and or running HERO SYSTEM for supers. 

So for a new group? If I start a supers game it's probably going to be M&M for ease of use. But I can get a group who's game? It'll be HERO SYSTEM for supers. 

My point? I'm not so self involved that I'm willing to change/destroy what works for someone else because I think it's better. I simply find something that works for me and use that. That's really what it's all about in the end isnt it? Alternatives? There's a Green Ronin book called True Sorcery that details alternative magic systems for 3x systems. Instead of calling for the end of Vancian magic why dont you take a look at that? Or wait for Ultimate Magic to see what spell casting variants show up there? But calling for an end to Vancian Magic just seems...selfish. As if you know what's best for everyone. Yes people have issues with it. If it bothers them that much those people should try playing other games without it (of which there are many) instead of wanting to take away one of the few games that still uses it.


----------



## Janx (Feb 18, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> Limited resources lead to strategic planning of when to use those resources.  Unlimited spellcasting is just like pushing a button repeatedly in one of those games where you have infinite bullets, and therefore might as well strafe everything.  Fun? Maybe ... but not much thinking required.




this is actually a fair reason for limited use of a spell.

Though I ironically enough, in 2e, we saw this problem WITH memorization.  Our wizards would always memorize the same spells, almost always with a combat use.  Because getting caught without combat spells meant a dead wizard, often enough.  Once we turned off the memorization requirement, we saw a lot more variety of spells being cast.  Because the player didn't feel locked and thus would be willing to use a wierd spell which would be very helpful now that we're actually in a situation that needs it.

Spell memorization was only one part of the D&D spell mechanic.  The other being Number of spells per day per level.

In pre-3e, the number of spells per day at low level was ridiculously low.  No sense calling yourself a wizard when you can only use your class ability once per day at 1st level and everybody else can use theirs all the time.

3e solved that with more spells per day.  there are other ways to solve it, but it is a solution.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm wondering where the idea that 4e did away with Vancian casting is coming from. It's just reduced the amount of spells used in that way down to dailies, which means your fireballs are still cast in a Vancian manner.


----------



## Mon (Feb 18, 2011)

innerdude said:


> It's Time for Vancian Magic to Go Away




No, it's not. 

It does a good job of portraying the feel of a certain type of magic - the type that is relentlessly sought by power-hungry individuals who aren't born with magic and refuse to kowtow to others for it. Folks whose magic is not their own to be channelled and shaped on a whim, or bestowed by higher powers. Folks who have to struggle to master it through sheer ambition and cunning. i.e. Wizards.

I would be perfectly happy if it went away for sorcerers, clerics, druids, etc  - but it captures the very essence of the wizard class archetype in tone and feeling.

I guess, what I am saying, is that it should be in the game but it probably shouldn't be the baseline assumption for the game.

Anecdote (feel free to skip):
When I first discovered D&D, the magic-users with their spells and books seemed so arcane (as in obscure and mysterious) and not at all what I expected. I was eager to see how it worked and to achieve an understanding of it. When I later discovered AD&D I found strange new spells crafted by wizards from other dimensions with unearthly names - Bigby, Mordenkainen, Otiluke, Drawmij. That flavour, that sense of wonder, is what made me love D&D. 

Isn't that sort of feeling what magic is all about?

Also, it isn't clunky at all - it works smoothly as a mechanic in-game. It is easy to use, and yet unusual and obscure. A good way to represent "arcane" magic in a game. Neither is it particularly unbalanced. It is no more unbalanced than spell-points/power points for example (in fact, it is not as overtly potent due to less spammability).


----------



## Janx (Feb 18, 2011)

usually when somebody wants to change a rule that benefits a specific class, I gotta wonder, what class to they mostly play....

I'm not a big fan of Vancian magic mind you.  But I can't help but notice how changing it out will make my wizard more awesome....

That way usually leads to game imbalance, and that's usually not fun for other people.

I was never a fan of the old concept that wizards suck at low level and are awesome at high level.  That's basically making me experience unfun for many levels, before I MIGHT get to have fun IF the campaign lasts that long (and statistics says it won't).

I do like that each class has its moment in the adventure, which means that sometimes in a session, the player has to sit out while somebody else's PC is awesome.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 18, 2011)

Vancian magic is the worst approach to RPG magic there is - except for all the others that have been tried.

Yeah, it has its faults and limitations, but so does EVERY OTHER APPROACH. D&D became the game that _it used to be_ as a RESULT of Vancian magic, not in spite of it. The further afield from it that the game is taken the more players jump ship saying, "this is not what I want or expect."

There is still MUCH that can be done within a Vancian framework to "modernize" older approaches to D&D gameplay. There is no need to abandon it altogether as useless just because it's old.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2011)

There is something worse than having an element in a game that you don't like:  having an element in a game that you do like that gets taken away. Pathfinder came about so people wouldn't have to radically change their games.  What you're suggesting would force the very thing Pathfinder was created to avoid - it runs against Pathfinder's _raison d'etre_.

Given D&D's history of tinkering and house rules, and Pathfinder's origins, I'd think providing an alternate system as a supplement would be a better move than ripping out the old system and replacing it.


----------



## amerigoV (Feb 18, 2011)

Monte Cooks' Arcana Unearthed (3.x variant) had some cool concepts that blended the Vancian and Sorcerer approach:

1) You had a big spellbook and readied a fixed number of spells for the day
2) You cast those as a sorcer
3) I think you could spend an hour and change your spells if you really needed to
4) Some other interesting mechanics around spending 3 lower level spell "castings" to power a higher level spell, or burn a higher level casting to get 2 lower level spells (it was purposefully ineffecient transaction)
5) I do not remember how metamagic worked, but there were changes to that.
6) Each spell had a higher and lower version that you could cast by just preparing the main spell. So once you got Invisibility, you could cast a one level lower weak version, the regular version, and Improved (if you were high enough level)

Now, he also addressed spell levels as well. Everyone takes Magic Missile, Web, Fireball, Invisibility because they have always been the most powerful spell at that level. Those spells were either weakened or the level was adjusted.

Overall, you got a nice blend of being able to Spam fireball and still have useful spells like Knock handy. Still lots of resource management for those that like it, but the DM could just ignore it and fling spells more like a normal wiz/sorcerer.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2011)

There are a lot of problems with the 3.5 D&D implementation of 'magic'.

The daily replenishment of spells is arbitrary and enforces a pace that a lot of people complained about.

The spell slots are confusing and needlessly complex.

Most spells automatically work; and if there is a chance to resist them it is generally in the defender's hands.

Magic has no cost to the user; a wizard who runs out of spells still feels fine and might not even have broken a sweat.

Overall magic is too mechanistic, not random or 'mystical' enough, too powerful, and too complicated.

All that said, it works alright in play. I hope someone does come up with something better, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, the only other alternate magic system I've played is Palladium and Mage The ascension, which I've both enjoyed.

Palladium basically uses a point system called PPE or Potential Psychic Energy and each spell you cast costs a number of points, If you run out of points you can't cast spells until the points come back from resting or other sources, such as Ley Line energy.

The MTA system worked by two different forms of magic, dynamic and static, also called coincidental magic. Dynamic was basically if you wanted to cast a fireball it would be a big huge fireball that everybody could see. Coincident magic meant that a car's gas tank was leaking and a spark from an electrical wire would ignite and cause the gas tank to explode.

The reason for this was because of how reality was manipulated. In short, in that game, reality was defined by the masses, although popular belief could be manipulated, and there were powerful entities that protected the reality as dictated by the masses. So if you rolled too badly, you would be attacked by these entities and undergo a harrowing as a punishment. BUT spells, also called rotes in the game, could be pretty much anything you wanted only limited by imagination, sphere of magical  knowledge, and the Mystic Tradition you belonged to.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 18, 2011)

Salamandyr said:


> I've always explained it to my players in a similar fashion.  Spells are not so much "memorized" as the act of preparing them for the day is when the actual, heavy lifting is done, so that when needed, only the final few syllables of the spell need be said to complete the effect.




Don't forget psychically charging your bit of bat guano. 

Harry Potter works well with Vancian casting. Otherwise it's hard to understand why Voldemort doesn't just spam Death Curses all day, or why Harry and Hermione invariably resort to spells they have just learned.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 18, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




You call it being useless, I call it an exciting nailbiter. And I do have some issues with fighters and wizards who never, ever become tired.

To me, "Vancian" casting to some extent defines D&D; I've played dozens of other games, some of which do things quite differently, and I can still play them if I wish. I kind of like the idea of changing things up, maybe having clerics default to spontaneous casting or something, but for wizards I want them to be primarily bookdriven, when I play D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I have come across at least one major piece of fiction using Vancian magic, Zelazny's second Amber series, and I like its take enough to make me feel a little better about D&D magic.  I do admit, though, that it looks like it was derived from D&D rather than the other way around.




There are others, most notably _Tales of the Dying Earth _by Jack Vance, which gave the system the name, as well as some spells and things like Ioun Stones. 



Aldarc said:


> I disagree. There were plenty of non-core D&D d20 supplements that threw out Vancian magic.
> 
> Vancian magic being unique to D&D is not a viable explanation for keeping it in D&D. Many other magic systems also present challenges and unique resource management. You appealing to vague sense of how D&D would "feel like a generic FRPG" without Vancian magic is an irrational sentimental attachment to the mechanic.




Yes there were, but they didn't toss it out of the system as a whole.  They were supplemental, not replacements.

As for keeping it in the system, a major key to any product's success is differentiation.  With manufactured goods, your primary bases of differentiation are distinctions of quality or quantity.  With something like D&D, you differentiate based on intangibles like "flavor", and Vancian magic is one of those aspects that definitely affects the flavor of the game.



MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




That's a playstyle issue.  In 33 years in the game, the only times the non-casters didn't contribute to solving problems is when the problem_* by definition/DM design *could only be solved by magic._  Our thieves and fighters help in encounters both early and late...as do our spellcasters.



billd91 said:


> I'm wondering where the idea that 4e did away with Vancian casting is coming from. It's just reduced the amount of spells used in that way down to dailies, which means your fireballs are still cast in a Vancian manner.




4Ed didn't jettison Vancian casting, but it is inarguable that it radically reduced its use as a mechanic.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 18, 2011)

I've played a lot of different RPGs and given this issue a lot of thought.  My experience is that players want a flexibility in what spells they can cast and when but this conflicts with a need for system balance.  So magic systems fall somewhere on this continuum:

             Flexible  <---------->  Balanced

At the far left of the scale you have D&D 3.5e psionics which was far too easy to abuse.  On the far right you things like the sorcerer class in 3.5e which didn't get much play compared to the wizard in part, I think, because of the lack of choices.   (There are better examples in other systems but I'm trying to stick to things people are likely to be familiar with.)

I'm not a big fan of Vancian magic but I think it's staying power is because it falls close to the middle of these these extremes.  

I'm not a big fan of 4e, but I do think the concept of ritual, daily, encounter and at-will frequency is an even better compromise here and I also really like the additions that an earlier poster made with regard to Arcana Unearthed.  

I strongly believe a combination of those two it's a direction that d20/Pathfinder should go in.   (If you want to test drive exactly what I'm talking about try Enlightend Grognard.)


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 18, 2011)

One of the reasons that I like 4E is that it reined in Vancian casting while still keeping it. Because as far as I'm concerned, a Vancian casting is an excellent way to simulate the "big guns" available to characters. That is what the wizards in Vance's stories used those (potent) spells for. In the second Amber series, Merlin was not defined by the spell he hung, but they were certainly critical and useful at the right moment.

The only real problem with Vancian casting in early D&D (circa Basic) was not that the wizard had it, but that it was the only thing he had--barring some serious acquisition of magic items. And even this was a feature not a bug, when operational play was the goal (the aforementioned group working together over the course of the adventurer to husband resources). 

This is why Arcana Evolved works so well as an adaption of the default 3E style. It keeps the upper end spells as big guns, but effectively branches out the lower-level spells into something a lot more flexible. (The slots simply become the book keeping component, halfway between Vancian style and mana point style. Given the inherent problems that arise in nearly all mana point styles, this is not a bad compromise.)

Edit for Summary:  When D&D has a had a problem being Vancian, it was because it was not Vancian enough--i.e. like the fiction from which "Vancian" is derived.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 18, 2011)

You know, I've come to the realization that balance is an extremely relative word and I'm considering whether or not it's actually a weasel word to hid behind because some people don't like a rule.

Because, I think when people are trying to "balance" things out they are simply trying to gain the biggest advantage they can for themselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

Nah- I think it can be objectively used.  I greatly prefer 3.5 to 4Ed, but even I will readily admit that 4Ed is a much more inherently balanced game than 3.5 or any previous iteration of D&D.


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 18, 2011)

If you really want to ditch Vancian magic system for you home game go get 3.5 Unearthed Arcana or the Wheel of Time D20.  Both present alternate systems for magic.

Or if you want to do some digging go get the 2ed Players Options: Spells and Magic.  It also has several different systems for magic, some of which did not use a Vancian magic system.


To me, Vancian magic system limitings magic from totally overpowering non-spell casters.

I have played in a white wolf cross over campaigns.  The only limit on the mages is the limits of the players imagination of how to use their spheres.  They easily overpower the non-mages by multiple orders of magnitude.  The mages for the same experience as the vampires or weres become 2 then 3 then 10 times more powerful.  The power of the mages grows much faster over the vamps and weres than the power of the 3.5 spellcasters over the 3.5 non-spell casters.  If a wizard in 3.5 wants to be able to do something useful every get a crossbow, alchemist fire/acid flask or a reserve feat.


----------



## airwalkrr (Feb 18, 2011)

D&D is a game. And as far as that goes, Vancian magic is a completely legitimate and acceptable way to structure resource management. Even Monopoly has resource management; you can't buy the property if you don't have the cash.

All D&D 4e does is move resource management in the direction of an encounter basis. At its very heart, it is still Vancian because a 4e encounter becomes a "day" and a 4e day becomes a "long day." You still run out of powers at some arbitrary point in time. Whether you choose to base that upon a day or an encounter doesn't matter.

The only good alternative I know of is skill-based systems wherein magic is simply another skill. I, for one, rather like White Wolf games for this. Your abilities are practically unlimited, but you have varying degrees of success when you attempt them. The only resource you have to manage in White Wolf really is your health, and even that can be regenerated given time.

But I'm not buying the argument that D&D 4e is less Vancian than any previous edition. They just shifted the focus to the encounter. And they still have purely Vancian abilities in the Daily powers. Nor am I buying the argument that doing away with Vancian systems completely is a good thing. It is good for some things, but poor for others. In a Vancian system, abilities can be more powerful because they are limited. In a skill-based system, abilities have to be less powerful because they are unlimited. It all depends upon the type of game you prefer to play. I like both.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

One of the reasons I like HERO even for fantasy gaming is that I can have skill-based magic, Vancian magic, point based magic, fatigue based magic, at-will powers and any other kind if spellcasting I want in my campaign...even all of them together.  In that last last kind of game, each would represent a different "hemetic tradition."

That means my hedge mages, warlocks, elementalists, sorcerers, witches, runecasters, truenamers, shadowcasters and the like can all look and feel very different.


----------



## mattcolville (Feb 18, 2011)

The notion that once you've used a special ability, here called a spell, you can't use it again for some period of time, in AD&D a day, is classic design. Nothing wrong with it. Reload times, opportunity costs, you find these everywhere and they're all just variations on the same idea. We certainly still have them in D&D4, they're called Encounter powers and Daily powers.

The problem I have is the absurd expectations the AD&D system places on the new player.

The basic notion that there may be a list of spells of varying utility that you have to choose from, without any context for which may be more or less useful, knowledge that can only be gained through play, is *classic* 1970s design. You saw it all over the place, certainly not just RPGs.

Back then, back when Game Design was still in its infancy, designers imagined that *learning the game* should be a game. It was considered a virtue that you couldn't actually figure out what a good or useful strategy might be just by reading the rules or playing the game once, you had to play the game a LOT and discover that the designers put in a bunch of crap choices. Bad, awful, useless options that the first time player can't distinguish from the good stuff.

It's a classic problem with that stuff. The players who've invested the time to know that Sleep,  for instance, is way way way more useful in play than Rope Trick or Ventriloquism, *want* their abstruse knowledge to stand them in good stead. It was not easy to figure out what all those spells did when THEY first started playing, so they want that feeling of privilege that comes with knowledge learned through long experience.

Terrible design.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 18, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> The problem I have is the absurd expectations the AD&D system places on the new player.




That's a different discussion.

But while we're there, I think you overstate your case a little. There are games, the design of which is far superior to anything that came out of the seventies but which predate that time, that reward an investment in play in a way that a thorough understanding of a rules system alone - however elegant that system - cannot.

Parking that thought for a moment, it's a little disingenuous to imply that, those who find something that emerged in the era of nascent RPG design (not game design per se) to be to their taste, find it so simply because of a superiority complex.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 18, 2011)

There is room for each method. Any edition of D&D has abilities usable at-will, multiple times per day, or once per day, and 4E has per-encounter, and then there are all of the various point systems.

You can build some kind spellcaster out of any combination of these, and they can team up with a spellcaster with a different combination, and assuming the DM makes sure that you occasionally cannot always recharge your dailies between fights so that the dailies are meaningful sacrifices for power, it can be balanced. Everyone can win.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 18, 2011)

innerdude said:


> I'm on record as being a fairly strong supporter of the 3.x / Pathfinder rules.
> 
> But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.
> 
> ...






Dice4Hire said:


> But perhaps the real problems are
> 
> 1: As above. Magic is too easy. It should cost a lot of crunch options.
> 
> ...



Without getting into the war about Vancian casting, let me say that I would dearly love to play with a more nuanced magic system.  Vancian casting in 3.x bugged me as well.  

Obviously magic in a fantasy world is, well, _not real_, but it's so much cooler when it is internally consistent and follows some rules.  A well-known and well-executed example from fiction is Ursula Le Guin's _Earthsea_ books, where magical power is actually derived from speaking the primal language of creation, including the 'true names' of things.

This is much more interesting to me than very arbitrary spells which have limits and powers with no reason other than that the game rules dictate them.  

D4H, I think I know exactly what you mean by a formula-based system of magic.  I want a game where instead of casting a spell called fireball, I craft a custom fireball using a magical 'physics' system.

Even if not that, a system that is unique and original and ties organically into the game world would be something that I'd very much appreciate.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Yes, but the vast majority were from third party publishers, in other words a source (well, many sources) most gamers wouldn't have trusted - and still wouldn't trust - enough to bother with. A niche market within a niche market, and all that. There is a HUGE difference between core D&D featuring pseudo-Vancian magic, and core D&D featuring, for example, 4e's Daily/Encounter/At Will powers system in its place.



True, but the point is that they still existed. 




> Perhaps you mean "justification"...?



I do. Much more appropriate. Thank you. 




> Yes, but in different ways. If two given sets of game mechanics do more or less the same thing, it doesn't mean they will _feel_ the same in actual play, or indeed, that they will do _exactly_ the same thing. Hell, they probably even look rather different on paper! Different mechanics are... different.



I was not implying that magic management was done in the same way. I was saying, rather, that magic management via the threat of running out of spells is not unique to Vancian magic. That is all. Of course different magic management systems will have a different flavor, and that's the point. 



> Some might be of the opinion that mechanics don't matter a great deal*, and don't all things considered contribute that much to the feel of a session or campaign, gamers' personal experiences of it, and so on. Well. I'm not one of those, let's just say.
> 
> * Some, such as yourself, it would seem.



The mechanics do matter. But I dislike Vancian magic from both a flavor and mechanics perspective. 



> It does appear that you are getting defensive over poor old 4e, and if so, I must ask, why? _It isn't being attacked_, you see. And, hey, if not, my bad. It is sometimes hard to tell exactly what people are meaning, even offline!



I have not mentioned 4e in this thread, only my disdain of Vancian magic. As far as magic systems go, I'm also not really a fan of 4e either, only a fan of how it helps balances classes and permits more encounters per day. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As for keeping it in the system, a major key to any product's success is differentiation.  With manufactured goods, your primary bases of differentiation are distinctions of quality or quantity.  With something like D&D, you differentiate based on intangibles like "flavor", and Vancian magic is one of those aspects that definitely affects the flavor of the game.



And do you honestly believe that Vancian magic is the only other magic system that would allow for D&D to differentiate itself? There are more magic systems than there are systems. And now that Pathfinder retains Vancian magic for the Sentimentalists, then D&D is more than capable of ditching Vancian magic. As for me, I think it's time to fire the Vancian magic system from D&D and forget all about it.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 18, 2011)

So is there such a thing as a magic system that is NOT buggy that is not influenced by a person's personal interests?

Personally, I don't think so. Everybody looks for different things in a game, and all rules have their problems and bugs to them. And changing them to suit one's interests sometimes works to create more bugs and problems, especially to people whoa re resistant to rules changes because they are used to using a certain set of rules.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So is there such a thing as a magic system that is NOT buggy that is not influenced by a person's personal interests?
> 
> Personally, I don't think so. Everybody looks for different things in a game, and all rules have their problems and bugs to them. And changing them to suit one's interests sometimes works to create more bugs and problems, especially to people whoa re resistant to rules changes because they are used to using a certain set of rules.



It's a miracle then that rules _ever_ get changed following those sort of assumptions.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 18, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> It's a miracle then that rules _ever_ get changed following those sort of assumptions.




Nah, the pressures to change, and the pressure not to change, are immense.  Sometimes the pressures are balanced, and sometimes they are not.  Think of it as sailing in strong winds, with multiple sails.  You get the greatest speed when you ride on the knife's edge between flipping the craft port versus flipping it starboard versus losing all progress.  (At least that's my understanding.  Some sailing expert will now tell me why my analogy stinks. )

When the pressure gets strong enough, we get something different than Vancian magic--some of it even worth having. It is merely that some of the variants were apparently designed by someone who thought "not Vancian" had them halfway to success, and they could just coast from there.

I don't mind having a different set of sails, or even a different craft to sail.  I do want to get somewhere useful and reasonably quickly with the variant, and not hurt myself in the process.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 18, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:


> Without getting into the war about Vancian casting, let me say that I would dearly love to play with a more nuanced magic system.




THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is ultimately my point. Call it sentiment, mechanical utility, internal consistency, making the D&D rules "different," narrativism, whatever, the fact is that Vancian casting may serve a particular purpose, but it is NOT a nuanced magic system. 

1. There's zero chance of failure pre-casting. You prepare, you cast, and the only time it DOESN'T succeed is if the object/person on the other end makes a save. One thing I like in Savage Worlds, there's a chance your spell doesn't even go off as planned, and the only way to alleviate that probability is to continue to invest in that particular skill. And when you do fail, there's a chance of something bad happening. As a result, there's a real question to be made--"Hmmm, maaaybe I don't actually want to just cast this spell right now, because it's no guarantee it even works, and I might just jack myself up if I fail. "

2. It's situationally inflexible. Barring metamagic feats, there's no way to alter any particular casting of a given spell. If it's not in the spell description (or metamagic feat), it doesn't exist. As a result, the system forces the player to continuously be searching for some way to differentiate their character through spell lists, and metamagic. So regardless of "flavor," or making D&D "different," in actual character play it doesn't provide nearly as many interesting character and narrative choices as it seems. 


From DannyAlcatraz:


> One of the reasons I like HERO even for fantasy gaming is that I can  have skill-based magic, Vancian magic, point based magic, fatigue based  magic, at-will powers and any other kind if spellcasting I want in my  campaign...even all of them together.  In that last last kind of game,  each would represent a different "hemetic tradition."
> 
> That means my hedge mages, warlocks, elementalists, sorcerers, witches,  runecasters, truenamers, shadowcasters and the like can all look and  feel very different.




3. This  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Vancian magic is really only good at representing, well, Vancian magic. Sure, we could all use and/or create any subsystem we want, but the default system creates so many other implicit and explicit assumptions about the way the "game world" works that it's very, very difficult to remove that flavor from the game and feel totally confident that what you've replaced it with is effective, balanced, and appropriate.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 18, 2011)

double post


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 18, 2011)

bouncyhead said:


> Who said anything about 3.5?




*sigh* What other system uses Vancian magic as much as 3.5 does, other than its clone Pathfinder? or its predecessor 2E?


----------



## innerdude (Feb 18, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> So basically the OP wants to get rid of Vancian spellcasting in Pathfinder because he doesnt like it.
> 
> He thinks that Savage Worlds and 4E got it right.
> 
> ...




A valid observation. 

But if there are more interesting, organic, nuanced, flexible, magic systems that ultimately provide better all-around play experiences than Vancian provides, then why keep Vancian around as the "default?" I'm saying, it's time to make something else to be the default--and for "Vancian" to be moved to one of the "variants," or "house rules."

I like the OGL framework. I like it as a class-based system. I like its general flexibility. I'm just beginning to think that Vancian casting is holding back the OGL rules from becoming something even better, from reaching its potential. 

Is the "flavor" and "uniqueness" of Vancian casting enough of a feather in its cap to hang on to it indefinitely? Because I no longer really see it that way. I see it as dead weight, but to many it appears to be one of the unslaughterable sacred cows.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> *sigh* What other system uses Vancian magic as much as 3.5 does, other than its clone Pathfinder? or its predecessor 2E?




_The Dying Earth_?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 18, 2011)

I agree with everything you've said... except for the claim that 4E ditched Vancian magic. 4E _expanded_ Vancian magic--to every class, including fighters! It's only with the release of Essentials that it's become possible to get away from it, and that only for the martial classes.

I don't even ask that Vancian magic be got rid of entirely. I just want _one 4E arcane caster_ that isn't Vancian. Is that so freakin' much to ask?

(Oh, and also--the idea that Vancian casting is necessary for balanced spellcasters is ridiculous. I present to you Exhibits A and B: the 3E wizard, also known as Our Lord and Master the Goddamn Batman, and the 3E warlock, also known as I Have Awesome Flavor Because I Sure Don't Have Anything Else Going On. That ought to be enough to put to rest any such notions.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 18, 2011)

While I am not a fan of Vancian at least as implemented in 3.x (I prefer 4e implementation) the trouble with nuanced systems is the burden of adjudciating the nuances.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 18, 2011)

Janx said:


> this is actually a fair reason for limited use of a spell.




Thanks. 




Janx said:


> Our wizards would always memorize the same spells, almost always with a combat use.  Because getting caught without combat spells meant a dead wizard, often enough.
> [snip]
> 3e solved that with more spells per day.  there are other ways to solve it, but it is a solution.





I agree.  The system can be tweaked in so many ways that still prevent spellcasters from being even more game-unbalancing than they have the potential to already be.  Throwing the entire system out doesn't seem the best course of action.


----------



## airwalkrr (Feb 19, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> ...
> It's a classic problem with that stuff. The players who've invested the time to know that Sleep,  for instance, is way way way more useful in play than Rope Trick or Ventriloquism, ...



Whoa now! Rope trick is one my favorite spells of all time. Need a pocket dimension to rest in and regain ALL your spells back? Poof! Maybe not as fancy as Leomund's Secret Shelter or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, but by golly, it gets the job done.
Ventriloquism has its place too. I once used it to convince a group of orcs to break out in a fight and basically kill each other ala Gandalf in the Hobbit.

I always tell players to pick spells that sound interesting, then actively look for ways to make them useful. And if you are terrible at that, play a sorcerer and pick only combat spells and buffs.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah, and Mending is actually my favorite all time spells. It's actually a more powerful spell because it doesn't have a limit on the size of an object you want to mend. One time I used it to prevent a ship from sinking by repairing a timber that had rotted and broken.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

I've never seen Vancian magic _add_ to a game.  It only seems to take away from the enjoyment.

Especially when some classes have it and others don't.

Also quoting Dying Earth doesn't count when wizards in the series could memorize, like, four spells _tops_.  Pretty far cry from how they end up in D&D.

Lastly, the idea that Vancian magic is balanced is laughable, and when it's held in comparison to 3.5 psionics as being more balanced, I can only shake my head.  While laughing, still.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2011)

Wepwawet said:


> IMO, the biggest problem is not the "fire-and-forget" aspect. ... The problem is the pre-selection and preparation of spells. Like, a caster has to count on whatever spells he thought would be good for the day, and that's it. All magical power you have has to be used on exactly those. That's just nonsense.



I agree.  Pre-memorization is awful.

But along came 3e and gave us the answer: the Sorcerer.  Make all casters work this way - which is now exactly what I've done in 1e, so far it's working great - and you're set.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?



Does everyone always have to be involved in everything?  Of course not.

The Thief goes off and scouts - and does a little quiet pilferin' in the process.
The Magic-User blows up what needs blowing up.
The Fighter chops down what needs chopping down.
The Cleric bats cleanup while providing support and cover.

Sometimes things don't need blowing up.  Sometimes there's no scouting to do.  Sometimes there's nothing to swing a sword at.  And sometimes the Cleric is a 5th wheel.

Know what?  As long as "sometimes" never becomes "all the time" there is no issue.

Lan-"sometimes you just gotta sit back and enjoy the ride"-efan


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah, classes are there to fill roles. I'll never understand this one character has to do everything attitude, or that all classes has to be the same.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 19, 2011)

innerdude said:


> 1. There's zero chance of failure pre-casting. You prepare, you cast, and the only time it DOESN'T succeed is if the object/person on the other end makes a save.



Spells can be disrupted by damaging the caster before the spell is cast - this is the primary utility of _magic missle_ and the reason _shield_ is a first level spell. Spells can also fail due to magic resistance. 

Some spells take a toll on the caster, such as _haste_ and _permanency_, by the way.







innerdude said:


> 2. It's situationally inflexible. Barring metamagic feats, there's no way to alter any particular casting of a given spell.



Spell research allows a magic-user to create new spells, including new, 'signature' versions or variants of existing spells.

There's a difference between, "I don't like how this works," and, "This doesn't exist at all."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Does everyone always have to be involved in everything?  Of course not.
> 
> The Thief goes off and scouts - and does a little quiet pilferin' in the process.
> The Magic-User blows up what needs blowing up.
> ...






Diamond Cross said:


> Yeah, classes are there to fill roles. I'll never understand this one character has to do everything attitude, or that all classes has to be the same.




See, this just gives me flashbacks to pre-4e Shadowrun where everyone would go out for pizza while the GM had his hour and a half one-on-one session with the Decker.

It wasn't fun.

It wasn't fun for _anyone_.

Also, Magic-Users stopped being "guy who blows things up" long, long ago.  They've been "Guy who has a spell for goddamn every single little thing" for awhile now.  That's the problem with Vancian - _you change your spells every morning_.  You can specialize in "being specialized in anything"


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 19, 2011)

mattcolville said:


> It's a classic problem with that stuff. The players who've invested the time to know that Sleep,  for instance, is way way way more useful in play than Rope Trick or Ventriloquism, *want* their abstruse knowledge to stand them in good stead. It was not easy to figure out what all those spells did when THEY first started playing, so they want that feeling of privilege that comes with knowledge learned through long experience.
> 
> Terrible design.




Although I agree with your points on their technical merit, I must disagree on the personal appeal.  Of course sleep was the best spell.  That didn't mean I didn't enjoy fun and creative uses of ventriloquism or rope trick to help make my play experience unique or fun.  Casting sleep repeatedly in combat could get boring real fast.


----------



## Ulrick (Feb 19, 2011)

Vancian magic is a fine system. Not perfect, but fine. And it works.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

> Also, Magic-Users stopped being "guy who blows things up" long, long  ago.  They've been "Guy who has a spell for goddamn every single little  thing" for awhile now.  That's the problem with Vancian - _you change your spells every morning_.  You can specialize in "being specialized in anything"




So what exactly is wrong with that?

What about that exactly bothers you so much?

Wizards haven't stopped being the guy who blows thing up. They still pretty fill the role of artillery in 3.5e.

And some players can be very creative in this approach as well. Is that's what bothering you so much about this approach? That a player has to be creative?


----------



## Mort (Feb 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also, Magic-Users stopped being "guy who blows things up" long, long ago.  They've been "Guy who has a spell for goddamn every single little thing" for awhile now.  That's the problem with Vancian - _you change your spells every morning_.  You can specialize in "being specialized in anything"




Actually that's not quite it - not entirely. The mage became the "I can step on anyone's toes and fill anyone's role" primarily in 3-3.5e it didn't happen so much in 1e-2e (sure the mage became powerful at high levels but the niche encroachment was not as blatant). 

The big change was the 3e mages ridiculously easy access to scrolls and wands (heck scribe scroll is a free feat for the mage!). With this simple feat, the well played mage is rarely unprepared and more importantly has many more spells than his level would indicate (and it's pretty cheap; when I played a 5th - 12th level mage I don't ever recall running low on funds to scribe scrolls even though the DM was fairly stingy). 

So it's not Vancian spellcasting it's the easy endrun around it provided by 3e that caused the problem - at least IME.


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 19, 2011)

What non-Vancian systems are there?  I can only think of a few:

1. Some sort of fatigue or life draining spells ala Shadowrun

2. Some sort of point pool (ie mana, etc) ala psionics

3. Some sort of unlimited casting but limited spell selection ala sorceror

Without getting edition wars going, the issue I have with 4E is that it is Vancian for everyone.  Also, I have never found the appeal of having a power I can use at will.....it seems well, non-magical.  While I see the inherent benefit for balance if all characters have a base combat option that does a finite damage, I just find it personally boring.

To me a fighter swinging a sword for d8 damage every round is no different than a mage firing a magic missile for d8 every round.  Yeah, they're described differently in game play but mechanistically the same.


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 19, 2011)

The viability of the whole idea about different character being in the spotlight in different times is completely dependent on how long it takes to resolve each character's spotlight moment in _real time_. If character A's spotlight moment takes 5 minutes to resolve while character B's take 2 hours to resolve, there's going to be a problem. 

In more recent editions (3.x and 4e) combat has taken the lion's share of the game time, so characters who either cannot contribute to combat or who can dominate combat will tend to stand out more. However, this problem doesn't have to be limited to combat oriented games. If there was a game where the diplomacy portion takes two hours while combat takes 5 minutes, a character who is built for combat and ignores diplomacy will also not end up well either.

I hypothesize that the idea of separate spotlight worked better in earlier editions because those editions relied much more on _player skill_ than _character skill_. Players can still have an opportunity to contribute in any situation. An AD&D fighter player can still come up with a clever idea to bypass a pit trap. A thief player can still come up with a good speech and impress the king. But modern D&D has a lot of these abilities codified into skills, abilities, feats etc. Doesn't matter how good a speech your fighter's player can come up with if his character has a Cha penalty and no ranks in diplomacy. 

In 3.x, the only RAW mechanic that can break all of these limitations are spells which are designed pretty much to do anything. Hence the "wizards can do anything while fighters can only fight (and not well)" problem.


----------



## Mort (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So what exactly is wrong with that?
> 
> What about that exactly bothers you so much?
> 
> ...




What's bothering him is that as you get up in levels in 3.5 a well played wizard can marginalize the other roles - specifically the non-casters.


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 19, 2011)

Mort said:


> With this simple feat, the well played mage is rarely unprepared and more importantly has many more spells than his level would indicate (and it's pretty cheap; when I played a 5th - 12th level mage I don't ever recall running low on funds to scribe scrolls even though the DM was fairly stingy).
> 
> So it's not Vancian spellcasting it's the easy endrun around it provided by 3e that caused the problem - at least IME.




While I agree with you that that particular style of play is certainly valid and within the confines of the rules, I just never saw it at my table.  For one, it's not the spirit of the rules so I didn't keep 20 copies of all my spells.  That could become game unbalancing which I didn't want to do to *my friend* the DM.  Much the same way I didn't want to become the utili-wizard with a solution to every problem.  Why didn't I decide to stealth better than the thief?  Well I didn't want to encroach on his moment to shine.  We are creating a collective narrative and play together for the fun of the game, not to beat the game itself.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 19, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I'm wondering where the idea that 4e did away with Vancian casting is coming from. It's just reduced the amount of spells used in that way down to dailies, which means your fireballs are still cast in a Vancian manner.



yes. and the main reason I don't like 4e is that it made every single class vancian-ish. essentials changed this a bit for a couple of martial builds but there is still no real spontaneous caster.



Aberzanzorax said:


> To the OP, why not just use psionics and drop magic? This seems like more of a houserule than a direction the actual game needs to go in.
> 
> I mean, what you're looking for already exists. Why not just houserule that "magic" = psionics?



I love 3.5 psionics mechanically. their flavor, not so much. the effects aren't always identical either and completely replacing d&d magic with psionics without changing the feel of the game would be some work.


----------



## Mort (Feb 19, 2011)

broghammerj said:


> While I agree with you that that particular style of play is certainly valid and within the confines of the rules, I just never saw it at my table.  For one, it's not the spirit of the rules so I didn't keep 20 copies of all my spells.  That could become game unbalancing which I didn't want to do to *my friend* the DM.  Much the same way I didn't want to become the utili-wizard with a solution to every problem.  Why didn't I decide to stealth better than the thief?  Well I didn't want to encroach on his moment to shine.  We are creating a collective narrative and play together for the fun of the game, not to beat the game itself.




Nice of you to dismiss the default option presented in the rules as "a style of play."

It is perfectly within the spirit of the rules (as well as the obvious intent of giving the mage scribe scroll for *free*) for the mage to be scribing a few scrolls - you don't have to distort to 20, 1 or 2 knock scrolls an invisibility scroll and maybe a tongues or comp lang scroll - and the utility of the rogue is reduced significantly, and that's the easy low level stuff.

When you have to resort to "well doing that would be rude"  you're kind of admitting there's an issue.

It's actually not a hard fix - allow sorcerers instead of mages - or make scribing scrolls more old school (special materials rare components etc.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So what exactly is wrong with that?
> 
> What about that exactly bothers you so much?
> 
> ...




Why be anything but a wizard?

There's a difference between "A player can solve anything with creativity" and "a wizard can solve anything with a spell."

Personally, "I cast a spell" doesn't ring of creativity to me.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

> What's bothering him is that as you get up in levels in 3.5 a well  played wizard can marginalize the other roles - specifically the  non-casters.



So?

So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?

Or maybe take away magic at all?

Take away the magic from a caster and all they are is a battering ram.

While a fighter can dish out tons of damage.

You may claim that casters are powerful but what is it that they can do without their magic.

And this is also a pretty classic thing is literature. Even Conan said he needed magic to fight magic.

And that wizard could barely stand in just some of that heavy armor.

Magic is a very powerful thing, but it's just a tool.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 19, 2011)

innerdude said:


> But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.




OK this, right here, has been bugging me for the longest time. Can someone explain in a concrete definition:
What is "Vancian Magic?"

Because it looks like 4e did the exact opposite of ditching the daily magic system, it gave daily magic to everyone.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So?
> 
> So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?
> 
> ...




Because Conan is the PC, *not the wizard*.

Tools only work in a game setting when they're universal.  You say it's classic thing in literature, but what's classic in literature is that the wizard _is never the main character_.  He is the deus ex machina, with magic serving not as a tool, but as an explination for their deus ex machina powers.

Wanna play a game that copies classic literature?  That sounds like loads of fun, but there's one caveat - *no spellcasters*.


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 19, 2011)

Mort said:


> Nice of you to dismiss the default option presented in the rules as "a style of play."
> 
> It is perfectly within the spirit of the rules (as well as the obvious intent of giving the mage scribe scroll for *free*) for the mage to be scribing a few scrolls - you don't have to distort to 20, 1 or 2 knock scrolls an invisibility scroll and maybe a tongues or comp lang scroll - and the utility of the rogue is reduced significantly, and that's the easy low level stuff.
> 
> ...




As for the style of play....it's whatever you make it at your table.  You are right about 20 scrolls.  I was using hyperbole to make a point.

It is a fault of 3E DnD in terms of breakdown of gameplay.  My point is that I chose not to exploit that.  To me its a form of magic min/maxing or power gaming.  I didn't want to reduce the rogue's utility because someone chose to play that rogue even though I could do similar things with a mage.  The end result is that we both enjoyed playing together.

You and I are basically in agreement with on the issue.  I guess what I should have stated more clearly in regards to the topic of the thread is that it is not a fault of Vancian magic but a more a fault of 3E DND scroll writing feat.

Your suggestions for fixing it are great and very valid.  My point is no one I knew "broke it" and therefore no one had to "fix it".  Call it a gentlemen's agreement if you will amongst my group.


----------



## Mort (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So?
> 
> So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?.




No, I want the fighter to effectively contribute, even at high levels. The Book of 9 Swords, for example, provides some inroads PHB II also has some feats that went in the right direction.



Diamond Cross said:


> Or maybe take away magic at all?.




That's certainly a solution - but doing this admits magic was the problem, no? 



Diamond Cross said:


> Take away the magic from a caster and all they are is a battering ram.
> 
> While a fighter can dish out tons of damage.?.




This is not quite accurate: take away the fighters magic gear (specificaly the magic weapon) without compensating with something like inherant bonuses and you'll find the fighter significantly weak for his level and that "tons of damage" becomes a myth.



Diamond Cross said:


> You may claim that casters are powerful but what is it that they can do without their magic?




but they have their magic, so this is kind of a silly point. One issue with 3e is mages suffer little to no consequences for using and abusing magic day in day out. 



Diamond Cross said:


> And this is also a pretty classic thing is literature. Even Conan said he needed magic to fight magic.




In Conan's world, magic had costs - you walked a dark path when you went for big magic, slip and your soul was lost - nothing like that for 3e.



Diamond Cross said:


> Magic is a very powerful thing, but it's just a tool.




Pithy. So it's ok for 1 guy to have a hammer and the other guy to have a hammer AND also a full tool chest?


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 19, 2011)

Mort said:


> Pithy. So it's ok for 1 guy to have a hammer and the other guy to have a hammer AND also a full tool chest?




No, it's not. 

But it's not the fault of the guy who brings a tool chest, it's the fault of the guy who insists on only bringing a hammer. And the game designers who somehow imply that only having a hammer is a good idea for a character in a world that requires a screwdriver sometimes.

That analogy went on way to far, but whatever.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

> Why be anything but a wizard?
> 
> There's a difference between "A player can solve anything with creativity" and "a wizard can solve anything with a spell."
> 
> Personally, "I cast a spell" doesn't ring of creativity to me.




This sounds rather much like favoritism to me.

You might as just take out magic period and not use it in any other game.

Magic *IS* another form of creativity. And it takes a huge amount of intelligence and creativity to be able to cast spells and create entirely new spells and create magic items.

The only thing fighters get to go is swing swing swing swing swing.

There's an incredible versatility to magic.

And without magic fighters can't have magical weapons and armor and rings of regeneration and other nifty things like that. Without magic you can't have potions of healing and rings of invisibility.

Every single class has a role to play. Front line is the fighter. Stealth is the thief. Medic is the Cleric. And artillery is the Mage.

And that's why you form and be part of a team, so you can work together and use your team's strength to beat the bad guy.

Unless you want to do it alone then by all means, make a system that favors a fighter being able to chop off the head of a mage in one hit without using any kind of magic what so ever.

And you might as well be playing the Fighting Fantasy books if you want to play such an rpg alone.

Personally I like playing fighters, that's what I mostly play. But to me it's boring to just swing swing swing swing all the time. I also like playing casters as well, and I also like Psionics.

There are many different spells beside combat spells as well. Especially in 3.5e.

So I really think this is all about love for the fighter and showing off a fighters' muscles. Magic does overshadow that to some extent. But fighters do have their own strengths as well. And that strength is they can dish out a lot of damage, and when mages run out of spells, they have to rest and re memorize/prepare their spells. Even when fighters lose their swords they can still use unarmed combat and dish out a lot of damage. So they do have some advantages over mages that you are overlooking. Magic is a powerful tool, but it has batteries. Fighters do not. They are a battery.



> Because Conan is the PC, *not the wizard*.




So they can't all be PCs? Hogwash. I consider them all PCs. There's no reason why they can't all be PCs. Just because they aren't as prominent as Conan doesn't mean they can't all be PCs.


> Tools only work in a game setting when they're universal.  You say it's  classic thing in literature, but what's classic in literature is that  the wizard _is never the main character_.  He is the deus ex machina, with magic serving not as a tool, but as an explination for their deus ex machina powers.




Except for books like the _Dresden Files_ and _Harry Potter_. This sounds like you want the fighter to be the hero who solves everything and are definitely favoring the fighter.  



> Wanna play a game that copies classic literature?  That sounds like loads of fun, but there's one caveat - *no spellcasters*.




Harn. Chivalry And Sorcery. They do have a magic system, but it would be right up your alley in that it is an optional system and not a main part of the game and easily left out.  Plus they are not very powerful as the Vancian system.

So you might want to check those games out.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 19, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> Vancian magic is a fine system. Not perfect, but fine. And it works.





Hm, I must spread some XP around before giving Ulrick any more.

Okay, Ulrick, howabout one delverbuck, redeemable for a no-prize of your choice?

'cause, you know, you made with the sensible and all.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

Mort said:


> No, I want the fighter to effectively contribute, even at high levels. The Book of 9 Swords, for example, provides some inroads PHB II also has some feats that went in the right direction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





1. Fighters make huge contributions. I don't know where this comes from. Their contribution is the front line fighter. It's kind of like a game of football, the linebackers keep the other team off the quarterbacks and protect other members of the team. Casters are *not close combat fighters*. Nor are they meant to be. If it's unfair for fighters to not have magic then maybe casters should be made into close combat classes.

Another example is a fighter can take on several opponents at once, but the only way a fighter can take out multiple opponents is through area of effect spells such as Fireballs, otherwise, a caster can only fight one opponent at a time. In 3e give a fighter Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave and a fighter can potentially take out eight opponents in one round. How is that not a contribution? That's just one example.

2. That certainly seems to be the argument, that having magic is the problem because it overshadows fighters and is much more powerful than fighters. However, it is not an argument I can agree to. This entire thing about getting rid of Vancian magic is basically an argument of favoring the fighter over the caster.

3. I vehemently disagree. Fighters are trained in close combat fighting. To that end they are often very strong and have lots of endurance. And let's turn the argument. If it's not fair for a fighter to not have Vancian magic, then it's not fait for a caster to not have a fighters' strength and combat training. In 1e and 2e casters did not get the strenth bonuses to damage that fighters has, and in 3e the fighters Base to Hit tables is much faster progression than a mages. Again, this is simply an argument meant to favor the fighter and does not truly favors true balance.

Fighters are not a useless class. I don't understand this myth at all.

4. Actually that's what creating an adventure is for. A mage is abusing his power and summoning demons to threaten the town? Send the PCs to go and reign him in. Some settings do have consequences. In FR there's things like dead magic zones and if a mage copies another mage's sigil he gets punished by the Gods themselves. In Dark Sun using magic improperly kills plants. Plus Some places in some settings have laws against magic or the misuse of magic. I'm sure with some research you can find plenty of other ideas like that.

5. There was nothing like that in previous editions either. But literature is different than an rpg, in that the creator has full control of the world. The core books don't really need that kind of system anyway, it should be left up to specific settings, such as say Dark Sun.

6. So if the guy has more tools from the other guy, punish him by taking away enough tools to make them both have the same amount of tools. How dare one person have more things than another? It's an affront to doing the greater good. The guy who has the less amount of tools simply can't do the job the other guy can, so why should he not be given an equal chance to do the same kind of job? Everybody must be made equal. It's for the greater good of society for the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. (On #6  only)


Basically this entire argument is basically the fighter is the best class in the game and all rules should favor him. Screw casters. 

To which I simply can not agree. 

The game is set up for a team, and each member has a specific role to fill. That's what being part of a team is all about. That's what the game is all about, working as a team to overcome powerful challenges and evil. And part of what draws players together. 

But I guess I'm something of an old school gamer and don't see the need to favor one class over another or have one class do everything.

In truth the Vancian Magic system is actually a fairly balanced system and works well for the game.

And you know what, this entire argument is also very similar to the classic age old argument of "why can't my halfling mage/thief have an 18/00 Str?".


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 19, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> OK this, right here, has been bugging me for the longest time. Can someone explain in a concrete definition:
> What is "Vancian Magic?"



The works of author Jack Vance, particularly the Dying Earth series, were a source of great inspiration to Gary Gygax, et. al. when creating what became D&D.  In those books magic worked like this: spells are so insanely complex that your brain can only hold, literally, a handful of spells - 4, maybe 5.  Once in the ancient past there were a thousand spells, but at the time of Earth's twilight era there were only 100 that were still known - and those only by a select few who had accumulated the forgotten tomes and spent years in research and study.  You kept your spells recorded in various notebooks, scrolls, spellbooks, etc.  When you open up your spellbook to "memorize" a spell, the supernatural forces of magic essentially stack all the information necessary for the spell to be manifested inside your brain and the caster simply has a few verbal and somatic components to actually remember that will trigger the "memorized" spell.

Once a spell is cast all that spell-data goes whooshing out of your brain and leaves it open for memorization of another spell.  So, once cast, a spell is "forgotten".  Even if you could remember them, performing the same somatic and verbal rituals will accomplish nothing because the spell that they TRIGGER no longer resides in your brain.

Thus, in those stories particularly, it is imperative that a wizard choose the spells he wishes to memorize wisely.  Of course, via dramatic license employed by the author, the handful of memorized spells routinely CAN be applied to the situations the caster finds himself in.

Vancian magic then is simply any system that follows that sort of pattern - a usually limited number of spells to choose from that must be memorized or prepared in advance, and once cast must be RE-memorized/prepared.  It actually creates a very complex, interesting system for spellcasting that can be tweaked in all kinds of ways for all kinds of purposes.  By adjusting the number and level of spells castable per day a pattern of general utility can be adjusted.  By altering spell descriptions or interpreting them loosely the capabilities of every individual spells can be increased and decreased.  You can change damage, casting time, saving throw adjustments, duration, range, area of effect, cost and availability of components, susceptibility to defensive powers or magics, synergy with other abilities and spells, etc.

Capabilities of magic users can be greatly improved or greatly limited within the envelope of Vancian magic.


----------



## Dilvias (Feb 19, 2011)

Just an FYI, Pathfinder is coming out with a new alternate magic system in the Ultimate Magic supplement, called words of power.  They did an early playtest for it already, and hopefully they will do another one before it is finalized.


----------



## Mon (Feb 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've never seen Vancian magic _add_ to a game.  It only seems to take away




I've had only the opposite experience. Most newbies who join our groups wonder about the esoteric nature of it all, and want to find out more. Also, it is simple for them to learn but becomes more complex if they want it to (by going all the way to high levels with caster classes, which can become very complex).

IME it is the free-form "build it as you go" systems that take away from the game, as the nuances required are not new-player friendly and tend to sink a lot of time at the table while even standard/average players try to craft precisely the effect that they want (unless it is a simple blast or pre-codified effect). Meanwhile everyone else goes to do something different. Not all the time or in all cases, but if the player and GM are not both _really_ on top of it all it can be quite common.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Especially when some classes have it and others don't.




Eh? How so? I think different systems of magic add variety to the crunch as well a the fluff, especially if the mechanic reflects the fluff.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Lastly, the idea that Vancian magic is balanced is laughable, and when it's held in comparison to 3.5 psionics as being more balanced, I can only shake my head.  While laughing, still.




Agian, how so?

Vancian has...
Less spammability.
Less potential for nova (although still quite high).
Much of your power is tied up in lower-level spells instead of being barrelled into the top two levels.

All good indicators of (relative) balance to me.

Sure, psi guys need to burn points to get the damage up... but as has been pointed out in this thread... damage dealing is terribly sub-optimal so it's not really much of a loss. Also, burning points in this way is one of the ways psi encourages nova.

For the record, I am not saying Vancian magic is perfect, or superior to point-based or free-form magic. Just that those systems have problems of their own, and that vancian has benefits. Also, as I said previously, it reflects a certain flavour. A flavour good for wizards (but not so good for clerics, sorcerers, druids, psions, etc IMO). YMMV, as this is afterall based purely on preference.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> This sounds rather much like favoritism to me.
> 
> You might as just take out magic period and not use it in any other game.




Not at all!  Because this IS a problem that's rather centralized to D&D, because it is in D&D that the magic/mundane barrier is one forced on the players.

In most other games, when magic exists as an option for players, it is not held as having the absurd degree of power and versatility over all other options as it is in D&D.



> Magic *IS* another form of creativity. And it takes a huge amount of intelligence and creativity to be able to cast spells and create entirely new spells and create magic items.




No, it doesn't.  It takes no creativity at all to say "I cast fly and fly over all the traps," or "I cast knock, bye thief," or "I cast shapeshift then start attack," or "I cast colorspray, fight's over."



> The only thing fighters get to go is swing swing swing swing swing.
> 
> There's an incredible versatility to magic.
> 
> And without magic fighters can't have magical weapons and armor and rings of regeneration and other nifty things like that. Without magic you can't have potions of healing and rings of invisibility.




*Yeah.  That's the problem.*



> Every single class has a role to play. Front line is the fighter. Stealth is the thief. Medic is the Cleric. And artillery is the Mage.
> 
> And that's why you form and be part of a team, so you can work together and use your team's strength to beat the bad guy.




_You admit in this very post that the Mage is more then artillery._



> Unless you want to do it alone then by all means, make a system that favors a fighter being able to chop off the head of a mage in one hit without using any kind of magic what so ever.
> 
> And you might as well be playing the Fighting Fantasy books if you want to play such an rpg alone.




That's *not* the point, though.



> Personally I like playing fighters, that's what I mostly play. But to me it's boring to just swing swing swing swing all the time. I also like playing casters as well, and I also like Psionics.




_Exactly_.  Ergo, fighters need more options then just swing swing swing swing.



> There are many different spells beside combat spells as well. Especially in 3.5e.




What happened to Mage just being the artillery?  And once again, *THIS IS THE PROBLEM.*



> So I really think this is all about love for the fighter and showing off a fighters' muscles. Magic does overshadow that to some extent. But fighters do have their own strengths as well. And that strength is they can dish out a lot of damage, and when mages run out of spells, they have to rest and re memorize/prepare their spells. Even when fighters lose their swords they can still use unarmed combat and dish out a lot of damage. So they do have some advantages over mages that you are overlooking. Magic is a powerful tool, but it has batteries. Fighters do not. They are a battery.




First off, fighters do need batteries.  Hit points.  Wizards can use magical protections and summon monsters and fly and become invisible.  Fighters just chomp through their own hit points.

Secondly, fighters do basically no damage without magic backing them up, so there's that.



> So they can't all be PCs? Hogwash. I consider them all PCs. There's no reason why they can't all be PCs. Just because they aren't as prominent as Conan doesn't mean they can't all be PCs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Dilvias said:


> Just an FYI, Pathfinder is coming out with a new alternate magic system in the Ultimate Magic supplement, called words of power.  They did an early playtest for it already, and hopefully they will do another one before it is finalized.




It's really ugh.  it's just Vancian, only now even more complicated.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Mon said:


> I've had only the opposite experience. Most newbies who join our groups wonder about the esoteric nature of it all, and want to find out more. Also, it is simple for them to learn but becomes more complex if they want it to (by going all the way to high levels with caster classes, which can become very complex).
> 
> IME it is the free-form "build it as you go" systems that take away from the game, as the nuances required are not new-player friendly and tend to sink a lot of time at the table while even standard/average players try to craft precisely the effect that they want (unless it is a simple blast or pre-codified effect). Meanwhile everyone else goes to do something different. Not all the time or in all cases, but if the player and GM are not both _really_ on top of it all it can be quite common.




I dunno of any "build as you go" systems, but most new players I've seen on encountering Vancian typically go "What the hell?  Level 9 spells at level 18?  I have different levels of spell slots?  I'll just be a psion."



> Eh? How so? I think different systems of magic add variety to the crunch as well a the fluff, especially if the mechanic reflects the fluff.




But not all classes have magic, do they?



> Agian, how so?
> 
> Vancian has...
> Less spammability.
> ...




...And far, far, far more spells.

It's why the wizard is more powerful then the sorcerer.  Versatility *is* power, and Vancian has versatility in spades.



> Sure, psi guys need to burn points to get the damage up... but as has been pointed out in this thread... damage dealing is terribly sub-optimal so it's not really much of a loss. Also, burning points in this way is one of the ways psi encourages nova.




Yes, exactly.  Psionics can nova and they can deal damage.  But that's it.  They don't have illusions or the stupid amount of summons.  They don't have Gate and most of them don't have Time Stop.



> For the record, I am not saying Vancian magic is perfect, or superior to point-based or free-form magic. Just that those systems have problems of their own, and that vancian has benefits. Also, as I said previously, it reflects a certain flavour. A flavour good for wizards (but not so good for clerics, sorcerers, druids, psions, etc IMO). YMMV, as this is afterall based purely on preference.




I've never liked the flavor of Vancian.  It's far, *far* more "sci-fi" then psionics ever was.  You have one "wizard" that casts spells by using his intelligence to grab ahold of physics and say "No, *you* change."  Then the other wizard uses the scientific method and experimentation to create different formula that require he combine several ingredients together to make a spell, but woops, can only do that once a day because...because!


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nah- I think it can be objectively used.  I greatly prefer 3.5 to 4Ed, but even I will readily admit that 4Ed is a much more inherently balanced game than 3.5 or any previous iteration of D&D.




Only if you have identical priorities to all the other players. If you want to play the powerhouse warrior, stomping through the bad guys, and someone else wants to play a tactical cleric or warlord, moving and shoving this or that, guess what? Someone is going to "win" and someone is going to "lose." Even if the characters work well together, one or the other approach is going to enjoy the limelight some of the time. Do you prefer sneaking to fighting? Bluffing to blasting? I suspect 4e is not going to feel "balanced."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> 1. Fighters make huge contributions. I don't know where this comes from. Their contribution is the front line fighter. It's kind of like a game of football, the linebackers keep the other team off the quarterbacks and protect other members of the team. Casters are *not close combat fighters*. Nor are they meant to be. If it's unfair for fighters to not have magic then maybe casters should be made into close combat classes.




"I cast summon monster"

Whoops there goes the fighter!



> Another example is a fighter can take on several opponents at once, but the only way a fighter can take out multiple opponents is through area of effect spells such as Fireballs, otherwise, a caster can only fight one opponent at a time. In 3e give a fighter Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave and a fighter can potentially take out eight opponents in one round. How is that not a contribution? That's just one example.




Hahahahaha, what?

Sleep.  Color Spray.  Grease.  Three very common level 1 spells that will *destroy* groups far better then any fighter will, and that's at level 1.  You're way, way too caught up in damage.  The wizard can fly and turn invisible, make magical walls of force, cause grappling tentacles to fly out from the ground, generate massive ice storms, cover the battlefield with fog.

But hey, that fighter sure can attack two guys.



> 2. That certainly seems to be the argument, that having magic is the problem because it overshadows fighters and is much more powerful than fighters. However, it is not an argument I can agree to. This entire thing about getting rid of Vancian magic is basically an argument of favoring the fighter over the caster.




No, it's about trying to *stop* favoring one side and let both "sides" stand equal.  In fact no, it's not even that - it's about stopping this silly nonsense that there's "sides" to begin with.



> 3. I vehemently disagree. Fighters are trained in close combat fighting. To that end they are often very strong and have lots of endurance. And let's turn the argument. If it's not fair for a fighter to not have Vancian magic, then it's not fait for a caster to not have a fighters' strength and combat training. In 1e and 2e casters did not get the strenth bonuses to damage that fighters has, and in 3e the fighters Base to Hit tables is much faster progression than a mages. Again, this is simply an argument meant to favor the fighter and does not truly favors true balance.




The power of the fighter is limited to his sword.  The power of the wizard is *not limited*.  Hell, the wizard can always just summon other fighters, or shapeshift into a bigger giant fighter.



> 4. Actually that's what creating an adventure is for. A mage is abusing his power and summoning demons to threaten the town? Send the PCs to go and reign him in. Some settings do have consequences. In FR there's things like dead magic zones and if a mage copies another mage's sigil he gets punished by the Gods themselves. In Dark Sun using magic improperly kills plants. Plus Some places in some settings have laws against magic or the misuse of magic. I'm sure with some research you can find plenty of other ideas like that.




If you have to limit magic to this degree, then _there's a problem with the magic_.



> 6. So if the guy has more tools from the other guy, punish him by taking away enough tools to make them both have the same amount of tools. How dare one person have more things than another? It's an affront to doing the greater good. The guy who has the less amount of tools simply can't do the job the other guy can, so why should he not be given an equal chance to do the same kind of job? Everybody must be made equal. It's for the greater good of society for the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. (On #6  only)




Making things equal is only a punishment if you feel one player should just naturally be able to do more things in the game then everyone else.



> Basically this entire argument is basically the fighter is the best class in the game and all rules should favor him. Screw casters.
> 
> To which I simply can not agree.




No, the argument is that adventurers should be roughly equal in how they can effect the world.  You aren't a _real life wizard_, we aren't disparaging you.



> The game is set up for a team, and each member has a specific role to fill. That's what being part of a team is all about. That's what the game is all about, working as a team to overcome powerful challenges and evil. And part of what draws players together.
> 
> But I guess I'm something of an old school gamer and don't see the need to favor one class over another or have one class do everything.




Nonsense.  You *are* favoring one class over another, you just happen to be favoring the wizard.  That you cannot _see _that does not make the problem disappear.



> In truth the Vancian Magic system is actually a fairly balanced system and works well for the game.
> 
> And you know what, this entire argument is also very similar to the classic age old argument of "why can't my halfling mage/thief have an 18/00 Str?".




No, it's not.  To both of those responses.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Only if you have identical priorities to all the other players. If you want to play the powerhouse warrior, stomping through the bad guys, and someone else wants to play a tactical cleric or warlord, moving and shoving this or that, guess what? Someone is going to "win" and someone is going to "lose." Even if the characters work well together, one or the other approach is going to enjoy the limelight some of the time. Do you prefer sneaking to fighting? Bluffing to blasting? I suspect 4e is not going to feel "balanced."




I disagree!

If I want to play a powerhouse warrior and you want to make a tactical warlord then that works out just fine!  And if you want to make a battle cleric then that works just fine too!  And then we can all take backgrounds to show our sneakiness and then take stealth as a class skill, and then maybe even get bluff as a skill too.  Everyone wins!


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 19, 2011)

The fighter is a blight on game design.
Even if you removed wizards, the fighter would still be bad, simply do to the "I hit it with a sword" problem.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I disagree!
> 
> If I want to play a powerhouse warrior and you want to make a tactical warlord then that works out just fine!  And if you want to make a battle cleric then that works just fine too!  And then we can all take backgrounds to show our sneakiness and then take stealth as a class skill, and then maybe even get bluff as a skill too.  Everyone wins!




Again, if you have identical priorities. The one guy who doesn't want Stealth is not going to experience "balance" if everyone else takes it.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> The fighter is a blight on game design.
> Even if you removed wizards, the fighter would still be bad, simply do to the "I hit it with a sword" problem.



:::in character except with frequent non-grandma words removed:::

As a charter member of the Fighters' Guild I have to object to these statements in the strongest possible terms!

Hitting things with swords is not a problem.  In fact, it solves them.

Lan-"a blight on game design since 1984"-efan


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 19, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> You might as just take out magic period and not use it in any other game.
> 
> Magic *IS* another form of creativity. And it takes a huge amount of intelligence and creativity to be able to cast spells and create entirely new spells and create magic items.




Actually, I'm pretty certain it requires that you write "Wizard" in the Class field on your character sheet.



> There's an incredible versatility to magic.




Yes. Now quote the magic users who make use of all that versatility. It's nearly unanimously the case that fictional magic-users, outside D&D, are pretty specialised around certain tricks. They're necromncers or summoners or illusionists or enchanters. Not whichever they've chosen to be that particular day. I'll accept that nearly all of them have some form of Divination magic, and some form of Abjuration magic, and after that they've got the other things. Merlin mostly does Transmutation, Koschei Necromancy, others specialise in Summoning. But the wizard who specialises in doing everything is pretty rare in the ficiton D&D is supposed to be derived from.



> Every single class has a role to play. Front line is the fighter. Stealth is the thief. Medic is the Cleric. And artillery is the Mage.




Of course, the cleric can also be front-line and artillery. The mage can be far better at scouting and/or disabling enemies by surprise than a stealthy thief, and can summon creatures to be the front line. If spellcasters are supposed to have one role, no-one bothered to tell the people who kept adding more versatility to their spell lists.



> Magic is a powerful tool, but it has batteries. Fighters do not. They are a battery.




Unfortunately they are rechargeable batteries, depending on someone topping them up with hit points regularly. 



> Harn. Chivalry And Sorcery. They do have a magic system, but it would be right up your alley in that it is an optional system and not a main part of the game and easily left out.  Plus they are not very powerful as the Vancian system.
> 
> So you might want to check those games out.




Ars Magica. Mage. They might be right up your alley. It's explicitly expected that spellcasters are superior to mundanes in those games, and magic is more powerful and versatile by design. 



Leatherhead said:


> The fighter is a blight on game design.
> Even if you removed wizards, the fighter would still be bad, simply do to the "I hit it with a sword" problem.




To be fair, before 3rd edition replaced the NWP system, fighters weren't coming out too badly compared to other classes in terms of 'things to do that aren't hit enemies with weapons'. With a bit of charisma and the right choice of NWPs, you might even be the group's spokesperson without the GM having to make allowances for you.


----------



## Mon (Feb 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno, in your previous response to my posts you seem to be trying to win an argument that Wizards are more powerful than Psions. I may be misinterpreting but if that is the case, then congratulations! Being the only contestant, you win! However that isn't the topic of the thread.

I am talking about vancian magic and its alternatives (spell points in the case of psions) as systems. Completeley different subject. Paladins and Rangers are vancian casters in pre 4e D&D, for example.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I dunno of any "build as you go" systems,
> They're just one of the alternatives posited by others. They're pretty good, but have the flaws I mentioned previously.




They're just one of the alternatives posited by others. They're pretty good, but have the flaws I mentioned previously.



ProfessorCirno said:


> but most new players I've seen on encountering Vancian typically go "What the hell?  Level 9 spells at level 18?  I have different levels of spell slots?  I'll just be a psion."




Never seen anything like that, over many years and editions with players coming and going. Most new players just want to learn how to play the game. Also, never met anyone who is confused by the difference in spell level and class level after being told about it.



ProfessorCirno said:


> But not all classes have magic, do they?




Sure, but how is that relevant? We're talking about magic systems here. Specifically, to vancian or not to vancian for PF2.0.



ProfessorCirno said:


> ...And far, far, far more spells.




As in, more spells/powers per day or bigger class spell/power list ?

In either case, it's not a problem with vancian magic.

The first is a problem with wizards getting more spell slots in the change from 2e to 3e as a mechanism to help offset the perceived weakness of lower level wizards. I have long disapproved of this and have several issue with the way Cook, Tweet, and Williams handled that particular part of the changeover (a topic for another thread, perhaps?). But it isn't related to the viability of vancian magic as a system.

Also, most of the vancian slots are tied up in lower level spells and not plowed into the top two levels for direct power as they are in spell-point systems. 20 x 9th level spells a day for a 20th level character? c'mon.

As for the size of spell lists, see the hypothetical switcheroo below.



ProfessorCirno said:


> It's why the wizard is more powerful then the sorcerer.  Versatility *is* power, and Vancian has versatility in spades.




Sure, if you know what to prepare ahead of time, a theorycraft wizard will get his batman on prevail nearly every time against nearly any situation or opponent. No argument here.

By the same token, a wizard (equally theorycraft) who has chosen all the wrong spells because he failed to ascertain the correct challenges ahead is SOL.

In real game play, however, it isn't vancian casting that makes wizards _more powerful_ than sorcerers. It is what makes them _different_. It is their thing. Wizards are more powerful than sorcerers because they get earlier access to spell levels, and the sorcerer's so-called advantage of more spell slots doesn't really exist so the wizard's flexibility doesn't really come at much of a relative cost. Vancian magic in and of itself is not the culprit here. A reshuffle of spell access and number of slots (as might occur in the possible PF2.0 the OP mentioned) would fix this quite quickly. 

(Aside: Come to think of it, I might prefer it if sorcerers changed over to a spell points system but that's neither here nor there I suppose).



ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes, exactly.  Psionics can nova and they can deal damage.  But that's it.  They don't have illusions or the stupid amount of summons.  They don't have Gate and most of them don't have Time Stop.




Yet again, not a problem with vancian magic. A problem only with a few certain spells. 

Case in point: Hypothetically switch the wizard spell list and the psion power list. Now, psions are still using spell points and wizards are still using vancian, but the illusions and summons are with the spell point system. As are Gate and Time Stop. Clearly, vancian magic is not the culprit here.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I've never liked the flavor of Vancian.  It's far, *far* more "sci-fi" then psionics ever was.  You have one "wizard" that casts spells by using his intelligence to grab ahold of physics and say "No, *you* change."  Then the other wizard uses the scientific method and experimentation to create different formula that require he combine several ingredients together to make a spell, but woops, can only do that once a day because...because!




Suit yourself, and more power to you. I don't care for calling either psionics or vance "sci-fi" - they both work fine in fantasy.

I like vancian for wizards. I would like certain spells to be toned down and number of slots to be adjusted, for sure, but it feels good for the class and works well enough in play even with those two faults.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

> Actually, I'm pretty certain it requires that you write "Wizard" in the Class field on your character sheet.




Uh no, I say caster because clerics use this kind of system too and they aren't wizards.

And I simply can not agree with your premise. The entire argument is nonsensical. It is indeed about favoring the fighter over the wizard and I am not making an argument that favors a wizard over the fighter. All you're doing is just putting words in my mouth by taking the opposite approach. A bad form of argumentation and dishonest imo.

The fighter is not a weak class.  



> No, it's not.  To both of those responses.




Yes it is.

I happen to like the Vancian system. I've also liked different systems such as Palladium's PPE and MTA's at will system. If you don't like it, that's fine, but stop trying to take it away from other players who do enjoy it. Which is what this "the system needs to go" argument is really all about. More idiotic tribalism. Let people use the system they like. What should it matter if one person likes another system? Play the game you like and let other people play the game they like.

I suppose you can take the WoW approach and give the fighter his own magic abilities, but a fighter is not meant to be a caster. Their first and primary roles is a front line fighter.

And Conan has been known to kick casters' butt.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree. Play the game you like and I'll play the game I like.


----------



## Hautamaki (Feb 19, 2011)

Agreed with all of the people above making the case that it's not so much the Vancian System that's the problem, but rather the number and power of the spells available to magic users (not just Wizards because let's face it Clerics are probably even stronger).  The only main problem I have with the Vancian System itself is that it doesn't scale well through the levels; a low level Wizard with only a handful of spells per day is going to be next to useless in 8 or 9 out of 10 encounters; but by 5th level he has enough spells to last a whole day and by 20th level he has enough spells to singlehandedly destroy an entire city within a few minutes.

This exponential growth of Wizard power in terms of number and in strength of spells, is the main reason D&D has this sweet spot of around levels 5-11ish where it's fun and balanced for all classes.  Starting around 12th and 13th levels, whereas fighters have continued to advance in strength linearly, magic users are starting to completely bog the game down and throw off the balance with exponentially increasing amounts of power and complexity.

Vancian Systems are great but so far have not really been ideally executed.  I love the fact that it throws the players a difficult and interesting decision to make 'What spells on my list do I need to swap in/out today?'.  What I don't like is that now players are poring over 100s of options, many of which break the game--wish/miracle, high level divinations, etc, and others of which slow it down to the point of unbearability--summon monster x: great, you just added another 300 hps to this battle; guess I might as well call in sick now because this won't be resolved before 4 am.

The Vancian system is fine but it needs to scale better both in terms of complexity and power.  I think 4e went too far in that magic users no longer feel much different from any other class.  I like that they have variety to their abilities, but their abilities need to be support only--as in not eliminating the need for other roles but instead enhancing them--and the idea that a magic user needs to conserve his powers needs to be maintained.  The amount of spells that a magic user can cast should not increase so drastically.  A magic user should start out at level 1 with enough spells to be a factor in most fights instead of only 1 or 2, and a magic user at level 15 should still have only enough spells that he can't go around willy-nilly nuking everything every time.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

But the problem is whenever you try to modify that number of spells is that you still run the risk of adding too many spells. Or run the risk of too few spells. One possible way to handle it is to modify the preparation/memorization time instead of modifying the number of spells.

One thing to keep in mind is that D&D is always play tested before it's released for a number of months. Many of these things were already explored before they made their final decisions. If you want proof look at the list of playtesters in the book.

That's why in 3e I like to multiclass Spellcasters. Usually my favorite class to multiclass them with is the thief.

And right now I have an idea for a Psion (Shaper) Werebear that I want to create and run.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2011)

There are all kinds of things you can do to balance Vancian magic more if you want.

One thing is that you could do level corrections.  People often talk about the power of spells like Sleep, etc., and it is probably true that if a spell is on the list of every optimizer's spellcaster, it may be overpowered for its level.  So what you do is either raise the spell's level (easy) or break the spell into components and spread them out over several spells (hard).

For the latter, using Sleep as an example, what you could do is make a first level spell that still puts foes to sleep, but doesn't can't affect as many targets.  Or is a spell with a duration so that it can only affect one target per round, and the caster can hit multiple targets over time.  And then, you make similar spells that are ramped up in power, encompassing a re-leveled version of the first spell, but also new, more powerful versions as well.

In conjunction with the above, you can expand the spell chart over more levels, as 4Ed did.  Besides the benefit of being more intuitive, it gives you better odds for correctly pegging a spell's actual power level.

And so forth.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

Or maybe you can give the opponents a saving throw.

There's really nothing wrong with the spells as is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2011)

Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian magic spells?

I mean, I've seen threads that talk in generalities, but I can't recall seeing any specifics tossed around.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 19, 2011)

> Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in  which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian  magic spells?



Not I. Personally I think they're meant to be troll threads. Because let's face it, a title like "Vancian Magic Needs To Go Away" is actually pretty inflammatory and a more constructive  and diplomatic way to put it is something like this:

I would appreciate constructive criticism on changing the Vancian system. I'm dissatisfied with it and my group feels it is not very balanced. This is for my group only.

Because, in making it go away it's being taken away from other players who do enjoy using the system. And usually it's about making other classes go away because they don't like them. That's why it can be considered inflammatory by some.

Another suggestion to is to try other kinds of systems before trying to change it to suit your preference, but the first thought is to make it go away so that nobody else can enjoy it?

D&D and rpgs in general seem to be the only places where this happens. 

Take for example sports. Do you see something like "The scoring in basketball is too unbalanced and needs to go away. You should have the baskets worth four points each and there should be extra points for longer shots. A half way shot must be worth five points and a shot made from all the way across the court must be worth ten points. Why? Because just making a basket worth two points is unbalancing to the more skillful players. Basketball is a game of skill and strategy, and that's where the focus should be."

Most people would be outraged and resentful at this kind of thing. That's essentially what makes something like "Vancian magic must go away" is inflammatory.

Misery loves company and will always try to ruin other people's fun. That's what's wrong with this kind of thread. Let people have their fun and stop trying to change things in order to stop people from having their fun.  And usually what happens to that person who wants to change things? They get told to go away.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian magic spells?



I'd love a thread. Maybe good enough ideas could get picked up for the hypothetical Trailblazer magic project.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2011)

Then I guess I'll start a new thread in Legacy.

See it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/301605-brainstorming-spell-fixes.html#post5469945


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> OK this, right here, has been bugging me for the longest time. Can someone explain in a concrete definition:
> What is "Vancian Magic?"
> 
> Because it looks like 4e did the exact opposite of ditching the daily magic system, it gave daily magic to everyone.




I suppose it depends on which details of the classic Vancian system you feel are required for magic to be Vancian.

The classic Vancian system, in its entirety, has the following traits:

Wizards prepare an array of one-shot spells; you cast them once and they're gone.
All of a wizard's spells are of the one-shot type. A wizard can run out of spells and be reduced to reliance on mundane weapons.
Wizards have an array of spells to choose from during preparation, such that they can swap out their prepared options.
Preparation can only take place after a specified amount of rest.
To me, and evidently to you, #1 is the defining trait of Vancian magic. Any system with #1 qualifies as a Vancian system to me. And by this definition, every non-Essentials class in 4E is Vancian.

If #2 (or rather, #1 and #2, since #2 is dependent on #1) is seen as the defining trait, then 4E did in fact eliminate Vancian magic.

If #3 is the defining trait, then wizards remain Vancian and no one else is.


----------



## NN (Feb 19, 2011)

Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature. 

Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.  

Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 19, 2011)

NN said:


> Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.
> 
> Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.
> 
> Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.




I'll respond to other bits later, but let me hit this now:

Because wizards fall under two catagories in fantasy literature and mythology.

1) Side character.  They are the deus ex machina.  How they do magic is never explained because the narrative purpose of the character is not based in their magic.  The magic is really merely the excuse given to showcase the deus ex machina.

2) They do far, far more then cast spells.  The D&D wizard who only casts spells _doesn't exist_ as a protagonist in fantasy literature and mythology.  Instead, the "spellcaster" resembles the bard more then anything else; someone with a lot of knowledge and a good bit of trickery and wit.  The actual Vance wizards fall under this catagory, utilizing swashbuckling and strange arcane devices far more then they do actual spells.  Harry Potter can cast spells, but he saves the day with friendship and intelligence.  Harry Dresden (What is with wizards and Harry) can cast spells, but he saves the day with wit and quick thinking.  The spells exist to help their primary attributes, not the other way around - Dresden doesn't finish the book with just "I cast a spell," he out-thinks the enemy and tricks them, sometimes without using any magic in the finale.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2011)

NN said:


> Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.
> 
> Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.
> 
> Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.




On the contrary, it tells you exactly nothing about the parameters of the wizard's power. It's just a peculiar restriction on how the wizard's spells work. The parameters of a wizard's power are defined by _what her spells can do_, and knowing that a wizard is a Vancian caster provides no information about that.

Also, it's not particularly elegant. In fact it's rather weird and unintuitive.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The D&D wizard who only casts spells _doesn't exist_ as a protagonist in fantasy literature and mythology.




The D&D wizard doesn't only cast spells. Ask any decent wizard player.

But if you haven't found a protagonist who is primarily a spell caster, who uses his cleverness to save the day by casting the right spell, you haven't read The Magic Goes Away. Niven's Warlock is exactly that protagonist.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> The fighter is a blight on game design.
> Even if you removed wizards, the fighter would still be bad, simply do to the "I hit it with a sword" problem.




Why is this a problem? When I settle in a the table and feel like playing a fighter, this is often exactly what I want to do. You don't need to make lots of fiddly choices or look up powers or all that. You get to lay in to the enemies. Having character types that play differently is a plus for the game.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I agree that Vancian magic should go the way of the dodo. While some may like it...




Including me.



Aldarc said:


> ...likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment to this clunky mechanic...




This is not even close, however.



Aldarc said:


> I have despised Vancian Magic ever since I started D&D.




Well, that explains the slam above.  But don't assume your personal preference is the onetrueway.  That way lies madness.



I love the Vancian system.  It makes sense to me both narratively, and in gamist terms as well.  Feel free to HR it away in your own campaign, but I wouldn't play a game without it.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 20, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Because, in making it go away it's being taken away from other players who do enjoy using the system. And usually it's about making other classes go away because they don't like them. That's why it can be considered inflammatory by some.
> 
> Another suggestion to is to try other kinds of systems before trying to change it to suit your preference, but the first thought is to make it go away so that nobody else can enjoy it?
> 
> Misery loves company and will always try to ruin other people's fun. That's what's wrong with this kind of thread. Let people have their fun and stop trying to change things in order to stop people from having their fun.  And usually what happens to that person who wants to change things? They get told to go away.




How does suggesting replacing Vancian casting with an alternative magic system "take away your fun"? You can house rule it back in to any D&D style system you choose--just as we've been told we can house rule it out. 

But apparently a portion of those who like Vancian magic are of the opinion that those of us who don't like it should be the ones to do all the house ruling and conversion work. Fair enough, I suppose, just be careful when you start claiming we're "taking away your fun." The door swings both ways. 

Personally I'm rather surprised at the number of people defending it. Yeah, functionally it works relatively well. And yes, I realize that any magic system mechanic is in large part going to be a massive case of "suspension of disbelief." But it doesn't change the fact that in my opinion, it's the least "organic" feeling magic system out there. Meaning, if you were to create a mechanical representation of how magic works, it's by far the one I'd be least likely to "imagine up" in my own head. 

Does that mean it has no merit at all? No. It's at least mechanically consistent, and certainly has lasted through 30 years of D&D gameplay, but I'm fairly certain that there are other systems, if implemented into the D&D experience from the ground up, that could be just as consistent, more fun, and make the in-game decisions more interesting and compelling than flipping through the books looking for just the right spell, and the perfect meta-magic feat chain to go with it.  

I'm just not sure why that sentiment is offensive.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 20, 2011)

I like Vancian magic, simply because there's a moment of excitement when the magic-user says, "Ok, I am going to cast a spell." Take away Vancian, and you take away a little of that. No one cares in 4e if you cast a spell; you cast spells all the time. Vancian magic is about more than just spell memorization, though. It's about spells having powerful, yet somewhat inflexible effects you have to try to wring some utility out of. It's about spells doing more than just causing damage or moving things around, but drastically effecting the world environment. It's about finding spells in ancient tomes and copying them into your spellbook.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 20, 2011)

NN said:


> Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.
> 
> Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.
> 
> Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.



Or Toodles the Tool Box on _The Mickey Mouse Club_ - here are your four tools, now find a way to use them to solve the problem.


The dads with small kids are nodding along with me right now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> But apparently a portion of those who like Vancian magic are of the opinion that those of us who don't like it should be the ones to do all the house ruling and conversion work.




Because its one of the original elements of the game, and virtually unique to D&D.  It helps define it; give it character.

There are scores of FRPGs that have other magic systems.  Why do those of us who like D&D with Vancian casting need to just accept assertions that it should be done away with without defending the system's merits, mechanical and ephemeral?


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 20, 2011)

innerdude said:


> Personally I'm rather surprised at the number of people defending it.



Really?







innerdude said:


> Yeah, functionally it works relatively well.





innerdude said:


> It's at least mechanically consistent, and certainly has lasted through 30 years of D&D gameplay . . .



And you're surprised at support for Vancian magic because . . . why again?


----------



## noffham (Feb 20, 2011)

What astounds me about the Vancian haters is the assumption they seem to make that every wizard has access to every spell at all or even most times. What DM worth his or her salt lets the wizard character put any (or all) desired spells into the spell books? 

Even researching spells can't supply every spell in the PHB let alone all the other splatbooks and compendiums. (Unless that is all the character ever does, in which case where is the in-play problem)?

I understand that post 2E D&D shifted the balance of power to the players from the DM's, but if those players then go and play wizards knowing every spell whenever they want it, then the issue seems to me to be with the players and not the system.  There is (or should be) a social contract between the members of a play group and if one  player gets away with being the "everything whenver I want it" fellow, he's violating someone's bailliwick there, no?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Part of it is that, unlike prior editions, 3Ed didn't include explicit rules on the contents of a Wizard's first spellbook.  Or how learning spells via research (as opposed to through what you can transcribe from materials recovered while adventuring) was basically random.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> This is not even close, however.



I would love to hear another reason then, as most arguments for Vancian magic I have heard, including those after your post suggest that sentimentality for D&D tradition plays a _strong_ role its defense. 



> Well, that explains the slam above.  But don't assume your personal preference is the onetrueway.  That way lies madness.



I don't. Certainly no more than those who believe that D&D is not D&D without Vancian magic. Whose sanity is built on sturdier ground? Those who can envision D&D without Vancian magic or those who cannot? 



> I love the Vancian system.  It makes sense to me both narratively, and in gamist terms as well.  Feel free to HR it away in your own campaign, but I wouldn't play a game without it.



See, and that's one of the reasons why I disdain the Vancian system. It does not make sense to me from either narrative or gamist terms. Why can't you HR Vancian magic into your games?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> Why can't you HR Vancian magic into your games?




Why can't you play a game that doesn't use Vancian magic instead of insisting we change a game that does?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why can't you play a game that doesn't use Vancian magic instead of insisting we change a game that does?



Because I want to play D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Then HR your game to do without Vancian magic.  Don't harangue us for liking the game as-is.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then HR your game to do without Vancian magic.  Don't harangue us for liking the game as-is.



Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 20, 2011)

What astounds me is the idea that we can only have one magic system in D&D. What _really_ astounds me is the extent to which the designers have bought into this idea over the years.

To date, 3E is the only edition to have included a non-Vancian caster class "out of the box," and even then, out of four full caster classes (wizard, cleric, druid, sorceror) and three partial caster classes (bard, ranger, paladin), five were Vancian and only two non-Vancian. In every other edition, it's been Vance or go home. Two and a half years into 4E, we _still_ don't have a single non-Vancian caster, although psions were a step in the right direction.

Why not keep wizards as the specifically Vancian caster class, and implement other magic systems for other classes? I mean, there's really no reason why clerics and druids ought to follow the Vancian paradigm. And warlocks and sorcerors got their start as specifically non-Vancian casters; cramming them into the same mechanical box as the wizard was a major fail for 4E, at least in my opinion.

Then those who love Vancian wizards can have them, and those of us who hate Vancian wizards can play something else (and ban wizards from our campaigns when we're in the DM's chair, if they bother us enough). Win all around.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.



Would you mind if I use one of your favorite hard arguments and lines of reasoning? Thanks. _It doesn't feel like_ magic. It doesn't even feel like a science. It's not the spells I dislike about the system. It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system. (I agree that both the spells themselves and the number are something of red herrings when debating about the merits of Vancian magic.) I dislike Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the magic is gone, the party stops. That is why I prefer magic systems in which magic is more fluid and suitable for running multiple independent encounters. I dislike how the magic of Vancian systems does not allow for the shaping of magic. A fireball spell acts in the same way at 5th level as it does at 25th level. The only difference is the number of d6 dice used. Also while the Vancian system may make sense for wizards, which is the class that most Vancian supporters have come to its defense in this thread, it makes little sense for clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and other non-wizards. So it feels as if the wizard is holding the other magic classes on the Vancian leash. 

But it would not take much tinkering to make it feel more magical. For example, the mixed-Vancian system of Arcana Evolved allows for magic and spell slots to be far more organically flexible in its implementation. There are minor and major effects. The spell slot system is an artificial construct, but it's also one that mimics a mana pool and allows for organizing the weaving and spell grouping of powers. 

I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> When the magic is gone, the party stops.




Maybe your party, but not mine.  Not any party in 30+ years.  That is not a fault of the system, that is a playstyle location.

What happens in your game when (non-Vancian) Psionic PCs run out of PP?



> I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.




Its effective.

Its fun.

It is flavorful.

It is flexible

Its challenging.

It models a particular kind of magic- one that is from an established work of fiction- reasonably well.

It is virtually unique, thus helps distinguish the games that use it from those that don't.

Its not inherently worse than any other system.


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.




There is no double-standard here. The pro-vance crowd is not haranguing anybody (in this thread, anyway)... just defending a much loved game component that has come under attack.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Maybe your party, but not mine.  Not any party in 30+ years.  That is not a fault of the system, that is a playstyle location.



I believe you and Bryon have talked about how the mechanics of a system encourages certain behaviors from a mechanic? IMO, this is one of such occasions. It's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained. 



> What happens in your game when (non-Vancian) Psionic PCs run out of PP?



Game play generally continues as parties are generally far less reliant on psionic powers as they are on those in the wizard/sorcerer or cleric spell list. 



> Its effective.
> 
> Its fun.
> 
> ...



And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I believe you and Bryon have talked about how the mechanics of a system encourages certain behaviors from a mechanic? IMO, this is one of such occasions. It's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained.




...if your DM lets you.  If the DM doesn't, you keep going.

And in 30+ years, the universal response to the party crying "we've run out of magic, lets stop" has been, "well, you can't stop HERE."



> Game play generally continues as parties are generally far less reliant on psionic powers as they are on those in the wizard/sorcerer or cleric spell list.




What do you think would happen if your party didn't have casters other than psionicists and the PP ran out?   I think you'd say something like "When the PP is gone, the party stops- it's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained."  if true, then the problem lies not in the Vancian system, but rather shows this is a result of your group's playstyle.



> > Its effective.
> >
> > Its fun.
> >
> ...




Well, except for the last 2, I know for a fact that they can.  But to change the status quo, you need to provide a reason to make the change.

No system out there is objectively better.  Different, yes.  Better, no.

Since no system is better, why change?


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> _It doesn't feel like_ magic.




That's cool. It does for me (and many others, it would seem...)



Aldarc said:


> It doesn't even feel like a science. It's not the spells I dislike about the system. It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system. (I agree that both the spells themselves and the number are something of red herrings when debating about the merits of Vancian magic.)




It feels like a pseudo-science, to me.



Aldarc said:


> I dislike Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the magic is gone, the party stops. That is why I prefer magic systems in which magic is more fluid and suitable for running multiple independent encounters.




...or it facilitates the staging and timing of adventuring.

For spell point systems, the party stops when the points are gone.

For fatigue systems, the party stops when exhaustion sets in.

When the tanks run out of hit points, the party stops.

What's the difference?

Not saying those other systems are bad, just that any means of all of limiting the spamming of magical resources has this limitation to some extent. Of course, systems that don't limit spamming (like warlock invocations, or CleverNickName's excellent Spells On Demand system which balances around the action economy instead) don't face this limitation. However they have limitations of their own.



Aldarc said:


> I dislike how the magic of Vancian systems does not allow for the shaping of magic. A fireball spell acts in the same way at 5th level as it does at 25th level. The only difference is the number of d6 dice used.




Who says magic is shaped? Sure it is described that way in some books... but not all (or even most).



Aldarc said:


> Also while the Vancian system may make sense for wizards, which is the class that most Vancian supporters have come to its defense in this thread, it makes little sense for clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and other non-wizards. So it feels as if the wizard is holding the other magic classes on the Vancian leash.




Yeah, I agree on this point.



Aldarc said:


> But it would not take much tinkering to make it feel more magical. For example, the mixed-Vancian system of Arcana Evolved allows for magic and spell slots to be far more organically flexible in its implementation. There are minor and major effects. The spell slot system is an artificial construct, but it's also one that mimics a mana pool and allows for organizing the weaving and spell grouping of powers.




Yeah, I like that system too. It would be good for sorcerers or some other class whose magic is described as being organic/artistic/shaped.



Aldarc said:


> I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.




Sure. Note that such defenses have been mounted within this very thread before, if you care to read back through it.

Here it is...

It is simple to learn at the start with but can scale with complexity if you want to go all the way to high levels in a full casting class.

It neatly facilitates resource management.

It codifies spells so that they have a set of direct rules or tight guidelines for adjudication.

If you want to devise a new magical effect, you can research it. Almost every player of casters in my games has created unique spells for their characters. Fun! 

It feels wizardy (partly for the reason above)

It works.

Sure, non-vancian systems can achieve these things too, but why kill it if it does the job? If you want to alter the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it must be obliterated from the game. 

For my part, I would like to see vancian gone for clerics because it fails at the "feels clericy" point above. Same for "feels druidy" and "feels sorcerery" (Just IMO, of course). However if it doesn't go away, that's cool too.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?




Maybe it would, but why does it matter for D&D? D&D was designed with a Vancian magical system. It's one of the quintessential elements that has defined D&D compared to other fantasy RPGs. Would the Mona Lisa be the same if she were changed to have bushy eyebrows and be a guy? Bushy eyebrow men could for good portraits, right?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?




In addition, how would you like it if pro-Vancians took on changing all the other FRPGs out there to Vancian systems, using the same kind of arguments you're asserting?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...if your DM lets you.  If the DM doesn't, you keep going.
> 
> And in 30+ years, the universal response to the party crying "we've run out of magic, lets stop" has been, "well, you can't stop HERE."



You call it universal, but in my experience, anything called "universal" rarely is. And this also is true in this case as well. 



> What do you think would happen if your party didn't have casters other than psionicists and the PP ran out?   I think you'd say something like "When the PP is gone, the party stops- it's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained."



Psionic powers do not have the same sort of oomph or mentality of play stopping as with wizards and clerics. But a psionicist spending all of their pp rarely happened due to the feats of 3.0 that required unspent pp and the revised 3.5 which had feats requiring expending psionic focus (and regaining it required at least 1 pp in reserve). Many of these psionic feats allowed psionic characters utility. 



> Well, except for the last 2, I know for a fact that they can.  But to change the status quo, you need to provide a reason to make the change.
> 
> No system out there is objectively better.  Different, yes.  Better, no.
> 
> Since no system is better, why change?



What a bizarre argument for the sake of protectionism. I do not think anyone is making an objective claim about Vancian magic's quality. If no system is objectively better (or presumably worse), then that necessarily moves it into the realm of subjective argumentation. But this is where the conversation has always been. If Vancian magic is not inherently worse, is there anything which suggests that it's inherently "better" than other systems? And if a system is deemed subjectively better, then wouldn't that be a valid reason to change? So why change? Because I think there are subjectively better systems out there that make for more unique magic. But the thing is that Vancian magic is not unique to D&D. This is basically the system used in Magic the Gathering. And can't many flexible systems such as GURPS or HERO be used to adopt Vancian systems?


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 20, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Why is this a problem? When I settle in a the table and feel like playing a fighter, this is often exactly what I want to do. You don't need to make lots of fiddly choices or look up powers or all that. You get to lay in to the enemies. Having character types that play differently is a plus for the game.




It's not about classing playing differently, it's about a classing having overspecialization to the point of crippling it outside of said specialization. And then people expecting said class to perform at the level of other, more rounded, classes.

Because, despite protests to the otherwise, you cannot solve every problem by swinging a sword. Furthermore, you cannot contribute to every solution by swinging a sword. But most importantly, not every fight can be won by swinging a sword. And what is a fighter good at? Swinging a sword (or substitute weapon of choice).

It's completely broken game design. In a game where a character is supposed to do anything they can think of, such myopia screws the game. Unless the game is bent over backwards to reach well within the tip of a sword, the fighter becomes useless. And when the fighter becomes useless, the player stops having fun.

Normally, that would be enough to stop people from playing the fighter altogether. But for some reason people insist that the fighter must be accommodated, and whenever the fighter isn't accommodated, something is wrong with the game. Maybe this is because they love Conan or some other warrior in literature, maybe it's because they don't want to learn complex rules and just like bashing skulls, or maybe it's because that guy playing the wizard over there is a jerk and they don't want to be like that guy at all (including playing a similar class). But for whatever reason, people insist upon playing the fighter, and in tern, insist that the world is written around it.

Sorry if that rambling wasn't clear. I have gotten about one hour of sleep from being sick for the past few days.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Mon said:


> That's cool. It does for me (and many others, it would seem...)



But not all or necessarily most.  



> It feels like a pseudo-science, to me.



Fair enough. But it does not even feel like a pseudo-science to me. It feels strictly like an artificially constructed game mechanic to me. There is no 'magic' to this magic system. 



> ...or it facilitates the staging and timing of adventuring.



True for other magic systems, no? 



> For spell point systems, the party stops when the points are gone.
> 
> For fatigue systems, the party stops when exhaustion sets in.
> 
> ...



The difference is what's gained, namely a more 'magical' flavor to the magic that more closely mirrors fiction, myth, and fantasy. It allows for a greater breadth of worlds to play in than those limited by the assumptions of Vancian magic. 



> Who says magic is shaped? Sure it is described that way in some books... but not all (or even most).



How does that number compare to the number of non-D&D fantasy novels that use Vancian magic? 



> Yeah, I like that system too. It would be good for sorcerers or some other class whose magic is described as being organic/artistic/shaped.



I also like the system as the universal spell system allows for class to be differentiated in more flavorful ways. 



> Sure. Note that such defenses have been mounted within this very thread before, if you care to read back through it.
> 
> Here it is... <snip>



Again, many of these things could be said for other magic systems as well. Would it really be hard to research or create new spells in other magic systems? For example, I've seen players create plenty of new spells for their characters in True Sorcery or True20. They even chose to use spellbooks for their characters. 



> Sure, non-vancian systems can achieve these things too, but why kill it if it does the job? If you want to alter the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it must be obliterated from the game.



I do not think it must be obliterated, but I would greatly like for it to be far less prominent of a magical assumption. 



billd91 said:


> Maybe it would, but why does it matter for D&D? D&D was designed with a Vancian magical system. It's one of the quintessential elements that has defined D&D compared to other fantasy RPGs. Would the Mona Lisa be the same if she were changed to have bushy eyebrows and be a guy? Bushy eyebrow men could for good portraits, right?



False analogy. There are not multiple editions of the Mona Lisa and it certainly is not a construct designed to facilitate a game experience. Many things could be argued to be "quintessential" to D&D have been changed throughout game editions. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In addition, how would you like it if pro-Vancians took on changing all the other FRPGs out there to Vancian systems, using the same kind of arguments you're asserting?



Arguments such as...? But which game systems would pro-Vancians be changing to Vancian magic?


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.



With all due respect, *Aldarc*, this is a false equivalency.

Your argument comes down to, "I can't stand cola, so the Coca-Cola Company needs to change to flavor of Coke to something I like," while dismissing the fact that there are already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> Arguments such as...?




It doesn't feel like magic.
It doesn't even feel like a science.
It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system.
I dislike non-Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the:

casters are out of PP
casters are fatigued
caster has a big penalty to his magic skill roll
caster has been slapped with a rune of anti-magic
caster's truename has been revealed
the party stops.  


> But which game systems would pro-Vancians be changing to Vancian magic?



All of them, so that all the world can bask in the glory of Vancian magic.  They shouldn't mind because- even though its not superior to any other system- its every bit as good as the systems they prefer.  And they could always HR their non-Vancian system back in, of course.



> How does that number compare to the number of non-D&D fantasy novels that use Vancian magic?




How many non-D&D fantasy novels use power points?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> With all due respect, *Aldarc*, this is a false equivalency.
> 
> Your argument comes down to, "I can't stand cola, so the Coca-Cola Company needs to change to flavor of Coke to something I like," while dismissing the fact that there are already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas.



I feel as if your summation of my argument is insulting. I do not feel as if that's a fair representation of my argument, nor do I think that's close. And with all due respect to you as well, I think this is blatantly a false analogy. Soft drinks are not game systems. Plus, if you take this line of reasoning to its extent, then there is little in a system which you can make an argument for changing or improving. Because there are "already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas." But such a line of reasoning is not productive for the very discussions we have on this forum regarding things we want out of a system. For example, let's play around with another substitution based on some recent threads of late: 'I can't stand 4E class powers, so WotC needs to change the flavor of 4E to something I like."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> I think this is blatantly a false analogy.




I think it rings pretty true.

Coke is a company that has many, many products, to be sure, but the one everyone knows is Coke.  If you were to say to them that you don't like their primary product because of the flavor, thus, it should be changed, you'd have to convince them this is a good idea.

WotC has other products, but the one name with real brand power is "D&D."  You don't like the flavor of Vancian magic.  That's all well and good, but if you want it changed, you need to do some 'splainin.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It doesn't feel like magic.
> It doesn't even feel like a science.
> It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system.
> I dislike non-Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the:
> ...



Such broad strokes for such an enormous variety of non-Vancian magic systems. 



> All of them, so that all the world can bask in the glory of Vancian magic.  They shouldn't mind because- even though its not superior to any other system- its every bit as good as the systems they prefer.  And they could always HR their non-Vancian system back in, of course.



Except I am not making the argument for a single magic system to be in place for all systems, am I? Hopefully you would not dare to cheaply mischaracterize my argument in such a fashion. Especially not someone as level-headed as you, DA. So I fail to see how your hypothetical would be analogous to the situation we are talking about. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think it rings pretty true.
> 
> Coke is a company that has many, many products, to be sure, but the one everyone knows is Coke.  If you were to say to them that you don't like their primary product because of the flavor, thus, it should be changed, you'd have to convince them this is a good idea.
> 
> WotC has other products, but the one name with real brand power is "D&D."  You don't like the flavor of Vancian magic.  That's all well and good, but if you want it changed, you need to do some 'splainin.



I think it rings falsely for the reasons I explained. Should I keep the Coke analogy in mind for when a hypothetical someone complain about 4E? Again, it's a line of reasoning that does not give people hardly any room to want game changes. As the implied solution amounts to "STFU and play some other game."


----------



## innerdude (Feb 20, 2011)

First of all, how does the argument "It makes D&D unique and  flavorful!" add any weight whatsoever to the "burden of proof"? 

This is basically another way of saying, "I like it!" 

But here's my reasons why the "status quo" should change: 

1. At its base level, Vancian casting reduces the sum total choice for its use to two things: spells and  slots. Its design is to create a resource/use/consumption mechanic that  aids making "interesting game choices," but in many cases the only  interesting choice that gets made is: Which spell do memorize, and what  slot does it take (based on metamagic)? 

Let's take something like _Mage Armor_. 

In D&D 3.x: 

-It lasts 1 hour per level

-It takes a standard action to cast--with zero chance of failure unless you get interrupted/damaged in the act of casting. 

In  essence, the sum total cost to use this spell and gain its benefits is a  first level spell slot, and a standard action. And with a duration  based in hours, circumstantially, all it takes is a character to say, "I  cast mage armor," for the rest of however many encounters they face  that day, it happens. 

Now take Savage World's essential spell equivalent, "Armor." 

-It takes an action to cast. 

-It  requires a skill check to cast successfully. If double 1's are rolled  on the caster check, it fails automatically, you lose the spell points  for casting it, and you potentially take damage. 

-It lasts a grand total of three rounds. 

-It takes 2 power points to cast. 

-You can increase the duration one additional round for 1 additional power point spent. 

Now from the _player's _perspective, the 3.x option is the far, far, far preferable alternative. You choose the spell, you cast _Mage Armor_, and unless your wizard is getting the snot beat out of him or another wizard tries to dispel it at the _exact moment he casts it_, he or she automatically gets the benefit. 

But consider the tactical use case changes that the Savage Worlds version adds to essentially the identical spell: 

1. It only lasts 3 rounds. Not 3 hours, _3 rounds_.  Meaning, when I the player choose to have my character cast it, I'd  better have a darn good idea how I'm going to use it. The tactical usage  scenarios get a lot more interesting when the player doesn't get to  just press the "On" button for a near-permanent armor bonus. 

2. There's no guarantee that it's going to work _at all_  when I do cast it. And the less proficient I am at casting, the greater  the probability. Compare that to D&D--doesn't matter if I'm the  lowliest of lowly magic users with an 11 intelligence, that spell just  works. The end. 

3. I can choose to increase the duration at the  cost of my remaining stores of magical power--but it's only 1 round per  point spent. I could, of course,  choose to simply let it lapse after 3  rounds and cast it again, but oh wait, there's chance that the 2nd time I  cast it it doesn't even work. 

4. If I critically succeed at my magic casting Trait check, (aka, get a raise), the spell actually works _better_  than if I just have a normal success. Now I am incentivized to build my  character to more effectively use magic not just to avoid failure, but  because maximizing success actually means something.  

5. If I  fail the Trait test--i.e., roll snake eyes on both trait check dice, it  backfires, and something not good happens (usually potential injury). 

Based on this difference in use case, what does that do to me, the player actually wanting to play the caster? 

1.  It means I am wholly, totally invested in making my character the best  damn magic-user I can, because I want my chance of failure to be as low  as possible, and to increase my potential for critical success. "Using  magic" suddenly takes on a whole new tactical and in-play flavor  because, well, if I screw up, it's not just a "ho hum, lost that 1st  level spell slot." If I screw up, I hurt myself. And if I critically  succeed, I get a little more than I bargained for. 

2. My "Mage  Armor" spell is no longer a semi-permanent bonus. "I cast mage armor,  the end," simply doesn't happen in Savage Worlds. And if a wizard uses  two 1st-level slots in 3.x, it changes from a "spell" to effectively an  "always on armor bonus." Now to some people that may be the actual  point, I suppose. And yes, it's a choice by the player to use or not use  those particular spell slot resources. But the Savage Worlds scenario takes  a spell that by and large is taken for granted and turns it  into something that requires more thought, planning, resources, and tactics from the player. And to me, that's a very, very good thing.  

In 3.x, _Mage Armor _is a  largely static, unchanging choice, that has no implication on future use  throughout the entire course of the character's in-game life. It works exactly the same at first level, and exactly the same at 20th. "I want a  +4 to my AC, so I memorize mage armor as one of my 1st level spells,  because it's foolproof, it always works, and I can even cast it on a  friend if I need to." 

Why not just permanently give the  magic-user the +4 armor bonus and be done with it? And that's certainly  the logic 4e took in this instance by essentially leveling out defenses  to a certain degree. The cost-to-effectiveness ratio for this particular spell is almost nil. At the cost of 1 spell slot, I get X. Always. Forever. 

Of course, some will simply say, "Fine,  then play Savage Worlds," which is a valid answer, I suppose, but the idea here was to point out that there can be significant changes to the  overall feel and structure of a magic system that create different,  interesting choices. And Vancian magic _in its current iteration_  (I do realize that I could houserule it) does not have the same ability  to model the same types of interesting character and tactical choices  without some massive  restructuring. 

But another  reason to not simply play Savage Worlds all the time is because I  happen to like a lot of the 3.x rules structures. I like feats. I like  the general feel of class progressions. I like the campaign settings and  modules based on the 3.x rules, and don't always want to have to  convert them on the fly to another system. As a GM, there are a lot of  compelling things about the 3.x rules. They're supported. They're  popular. The industry's best producer of modules and adventures actively  supports it. 

And I'd like it even more if Vancian casting wasn't the default.


----------



## Haltherrion (Feb 20, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Maybe it would, but why does it matter for D&D? D&D was designed with a Vancian magical system. It's one of the quintessential elements that has defined D&D compared to other fantasy RPGs. Would the Mona Lisa be the same if she were changed to have bushy eyebrows and be a guy? Bushy eyebrow men could for good portraits, right?




Vancian magic isn't that core to D&D. It's one aspect of one class (in the original rules). 4E certainly isn't vancian and while many old timers may not consider it D&d for that or similar reasons, others do.


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> But not all or necessarily most.




Perhaps, but there were enough to take the OP by surprise 



Aldarc said:


> Fair enough. But it does not even feel like a pseudo-science to me. It feels strictly like an artificially constructed game mechanic to me. There is no 'magic' to this magic system.




Spell points are not an artificially constructed game mechanic, I suppose? Nor the building blocks of an Ars Magica like system?



Aldarc said:


> True for other magic systems, no?




Never said it wasn't. How is that even relevant? There is no disparagement of other magic systems here.



Aldarc said:


> The difference is what's gained, namely a more 'magical' flavor to the magic that more closely mirrors fiction, myth, and fantasy.




How how can you say that with any authority outside of personal preference? It only applies for a specific kind of magical flavour. Vancian also reflects only a specific kind of magical flavour. Myth, fantasy, etc rarely even touch the surface of how magic actually works... leaving this vague is part of what makes it mysterious. 



Aldarc said:


> It allows for a greater breadth of worlds to play in than those limited by the assumptions of Vancian magic.
> 
> How does that number compare to the number of non-D&D fantasy novels that use Vancian magic?




How many novels use spell points? It is behind-the scenes. Also, as I keep saying, vancian can be used alongside other systems just fine. Please read my posts more carefully so I don't need to repeat myself.



Aldarc said:


> Again, many of these things could be said for other magic systems as well. Would it really be hard to research or create new spells in other magic systems? For example, I've seen players create plenty of new spells for their characters in True Sorcery or True20. They even chose to use spellbooks for their characters.




Read my post again. I said essentially the same thing myself right there adter the list. You're missing the point. This is a defense of Vancian (which you requested), not an attack on anything else (which you did not request and neither I nor anybody else here undertook).



Aldarc said:


> Arguments such as...? But which game systems would pro-Vancians be changing to Vancian magic?




None. That's precisely the point. Pro-vancians are not the ones begrudging anyone else's preferences here.

In summary... (for the umpteenth time)

_
Vanican works fine. Lots of people like it. It captures only a certain type of magical flavour. So it has a place in the game. Other systems work fine too. They also capture only a certain type of magical flavour. They can also have a place in the game. That place need not (and should not) replace vanican magic... because it works and lots of people like it.
_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Such broad strokes for such an enormous variety of non-Vancian magic systems.




Not really: one of your complaints against Vancian magic is that when the casters can't cast, the party stops, interrupting the flow of the game.

All I did is show that other magic systems have the same issue- namely that casters can be prevented from casting, either because they've run out of the magic casting resource particular to the system or they've been prevented from casting by an outside force.

And if you stop because a Vancian caster can't cast (assuming Vancians dominate the party structure), you're probably going to stop if a non-Vancian caster can't cast either (if non-Vancians dominate the party structure).

IOW, its not a problem of Vancian casting, its an artifact of playstyle.

As for the rest, those are the self-same reasons you gave for ditching Vancian magic...and they're equally valid leveled against any other system.



> Except I am not making the argument for a single magic system to be in place for all systems, am I? Hopefully you would not dare to cheaply mischaracterize my argument in such a fashion. Especially not someone as level-headed as you, DA. So I fail to see how your hypothetical would be analogous to the situation we are talking about.




3.X has a variety of systems in place.  Most casters are Vancian, but you can find different styles in Psionics, Incarnum and classes like the Warlock, Shadow Caster, TrueNamers and Binders.

With that in mind, why do we need to reduce the number of Vancian casters at all?  What ARE you arguing for?



> Should I keep the Coke analogy in mind for when a hypothetical someone complain about 4E?




Most certainly.  Its equally valid for you to use the Coke analogy if someone advocates ditching AEDU in favor of a return to Vancian casting in the game's next iteration.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Soft drinks are not game systems.



It's an analogy, *Aldarc*.







Aldarc said:


> Plus, if you take this line of reasoning to its extent, then there is little in a system which you can make an argument for changing or improving. Because there are "already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas." But such a line of reasoning is not productive for the very discussions we have on this forum regarding things we want out of a system.



The existence of those different flavors and other sodas, or alternate magic systems for _D&D_ and treatments of magic in other roleplaying games, is the result of productive discussion, not, "I don't like it so it should go away."







Aldarc said:


> For example, let's play around with another substitution based on some recent threads of late: 'I can't stand 4E class powers, so WotC needs to change the flavor of 4E to something I like."



That argument is no better.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 20, 2011)

Haltherrion said:


> Vancian magic isn't that core to D&D. It's one aspect of one class (in the original rules). 4E certainly isn't vancian and while many old timers may not consider it D&d for that or similar reasons, others do.




4E isn't Vancian? Only if your definition of Vancian includes "no abilities that can be used at will," which seems like a weird thing to focus on.

By my definition, which is "ready a spell in advance, use it and lose it, can't use it again until you rest and re-ready," 4E has not only retained Vancian casting but expanded it to every class including non-casters.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Mon said:


> Perhaps, but there were enough to take the OP by surprise



Quite true. 



> Spell points are not an artificially constructed game mechanic, I suppose? Nor the building blocks of an Ars Magica like system?



Ah, yes, but I'd say it's a matter of what the mechanics are attempting to emulate. So game mechanics can be made to feel intuitive and an "organic" aspect of magical metaphysics. Spell points are like the HP of magic. 



> Never said it wasn't. How is that even relevant? There is no disparagement of other magic systems here.



Because the "advantages" of Vancian magic cannot necessarily be claimed to be unique to the Vancian magic system and there are other advantages that non-Vancian systems have that cannot be replicated by a pure Vancian magic system. 



> How how can you say that with any authority outside of personal preference? It only applies for a specific kind of magical flavour. Vancian also reflects only a specific kind of magical flavour. Myth, fantasy, etc rarely even touch the surface of how magic actually works... leaving this vague is part of what makes it mysterious.



Myth and fantasy may rarely show how magic works, but do you think most people would identify Vancian magic as being the prevalent form of myth and fantasy? 



> How many novels use spell points? It is behind-the scenes. Also, as I keep saying, vancian can be used alongside other systems just fine. Please read my posts more carefully so I don't need to repeat myself.



Spell points basically represent a mana pool or the amount of magic from which a mage can draw before being "tapped out" of magic. That's quite prevalent. 

I do agree that Vancian magic can be used alongside other systems, but the problem is that its only really applicable to one class, yet other classes are constrained by the application of the whole. Plus, I think that a mixed Vancian magic system, would be far more flexible and organic than a pure Vancian magic system. 



> Read my post again. I said essentially the same thing myself right there adter the list. You're missing the point. This is a defense of Vancian (which you requested), not an attack on anything else (which you did not request and neither I nor anybody else here undertook).



My apologies then. 



> None. That's precisely the point. Pro-vancians are not the ones begrudging anyone else's preferences here.



In DA's hypothetical, he has said that pro-Vancians would be changing all game systems to Vancian. 



> _Vanican works fine. Lots of people like it. It captures only a certain type of magical flavour. So it has a place in the game. Other systems work fine too. They also capture only a certain type of magical flavour. They can also have a place in the game. That place need not (and should not) replace vanican magic... because it works and lots of people like it._



If I could make an addmendum: Vancian works fine _for some people_. All too frequently, the magical assumptions of Vancian magic is not compatible with the sort of worlds I want or mages I want for my worlds. But in D&D, the cleric, the wizard, the druid, the ranger, the paladin, the sorcerer (to an extent), all operate using the same magical assumptions. 



The Shaman said:


> It's an analogy, *Aldarc*.



I know how analogies work, *The Shaman*. But my point is that they are not analogous. 



> The existence of those different flavors and other sodas, or alternate magic systems for _D&D_ and treatments of magic in other roleplaying games, is the result of productive discussion, not, "I don't like it so it should go away."That argument is no better.



Again, "I don't like it so it should go away" is often the underlying argument in edition discussions and criticisms of game systems despite the existence of other game systems that address the issue. As it stands now, Vancian magic is something I dislike and want changed about D&D.


----------



## Haltherrion (Feb 20, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> 4E isn't Vancian? Only if your definition of Vancian includes "no abilities that can be used at will," which seems like a weird thing to focus on.
> 
> By my definition, which is "ready a spell in advance, use it and lose it, can't use it again until you rest and re-ready," 4E has not only retained Vancian casting but expanded it to every class including non-casters.




In the strict sense, the daily power is the only Vancian aspect of 4E. Everything else recharges on quanta small enough compared to classic D&D to not feel very Vancian to me. You can call it how you like but 4E is at best a very dilute Vancian system. The basic principle is that you can do nearly all your "stuff" every encounter; the exception being your dailies. That is not the basic principle of earlier D&D magic systems.

Note, I don't like Vancian systems much and think the 4E system is superior so I am not knocking 4E. I like the fact that the magic users have as much useful stuff to do in a day as the the warriors, no matter how many encounters occur in a day.

For one thing, systems that let PCs mostly/entirely recharge between battles mean that there isn't a big difference in balance between casters and non-casters depending on how many battles the referee tends to have in a day.

Myself, for my own reasons of aesthetics and sense of what is reasonable, I tend not to have too many battles in a day. This means that systems that rely on casters running out of spells to provide balance with respect to non-casters don't necessarily work well for me. I don't run enough combats to soak up their spells and they can let loose more than what the game was tuned for. In systems where every new encounter starts everyone out basically an equal footing, this isn't an issue.

Vancian, pre-4E magic clearly, to me, had the former aspect: casters had finite magic that ran out over the course of a day and non-magic users didn't. In 4E, by design, everyone has an equal amount of stuff to bring to the table and runs out at the same time. Does that fit all concepts of magic? Certainly not but does it make a level playing field across the character classes? Absolutely. As a gamer, I prefer the latter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> In DA's hypothetical, he has said that pro-Vancians would be changing all game systems to Vancian.




You missed my point, which is that if it is OK for you to lobby for changing a Vancian-centric game to non-Vancian, its equally OK for others to lobby for changing non-Vancian games to Vancian, using the exact same arguments you've asserted to support your position.

This thread is titled what?  "It's Time for Vancian Magic to Go Away." _ Of course_ people who like Vancian magic are going to bristle a bit.  How well do you think a thread entitled "GURPS: Magic needs to be entirely Vancian." would fly over on SJG's boards?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You missed my point, which is that if it is OK for you to lobby for changing a Vancian-centric game to non-Vancian, its equally OK for others to lobby for changing non-Vancian games to Vancian.



I don't think those are equivalent though. Arguing for Vancian magic across the board is an argument for a specific magic system to be ubiquitous. I would prefer for a specific magic system to be removed (or at least greatly diminished) from a specific game brand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> Why not just permanently give the magic-user the +4 armor bonus and be done with it? And that's certainly the logic 4e took in this instance by essentially leveling out defenses to a certain degree. The cost-to-effectiveness ratio for this particular spell is almost nil. At the cost of 1 spell slot, I get X. Always. Forever.




Because not every caster uses Mage Armor.  Because low level spells probably shouldn't have permanent effects that powerful, etc.



> Of course, some will simply say, "Fine, then play Savage Worlds," which is a valid answer, I suppose, but the idea here was to point out that there can be significant changes to the overall feel and structure of a magic system that create different, interesting choices. And Vancian magic in its current iteration (I do realize that I could houserule it) does not have the same ability to model the same types of interesting character and tactical choices without some massive restructuring.




Every magic system has strengths and weaknesses.  I think it would be nifty to do a Vancian caster in Mage...but I don't think that will ever happen.

(Of course, I can simply run HERO and have all the various magic systems run side-by-side...)



> But another reason to not simply play Savage Worlds all the time is because I happen to like a lot of the 3.x rules structures. I like feats. I like the general feel of class progressions. I like the campaign settings and modules based on the 3.x rules, and don't always want to have to convert them on the fly to another system. As a GM, there are a lot of compelling things about the 3.x rules. They're supported. They're popular. The industry's best producer of modules and adventures actively supports it.




You could also import those things you like about 3.X into Savage World.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I would prefer for a specific magic system to be removed (or at least greatly diminished) from a specific game brand.




Again, one at a time, various players could go to various boards and make the identical argument.  Not as some plot to make Vancian magic the only system out there, but as individual expressions of personal choice.

"I want Vancian magic to replace GURPS' magic system, but only GURPS- the other RPGs are fine as is." posts one over at SJG.

Then someone else goes over to Palladium boards and suggests that Palladium RPG needs to go to a Vancian casting system, because they'd like it better that way.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is not an assertion that Vancian magic should be ubiquitous- I wouldn't want that at all.  Rather, it is an illustration that D&D players could make the same assertion you just made, but with the positions reversed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> Spell points basically represent a mana pool or the amount of magic from which a mage can draw before being "tapped out" of magic. That's quite prevalent.




Actually, Defiler/Preserver stuff from Dark Sun was closer than spell points for simulating mana pools, because in mana based traditions, mana is gathered from the land, from the universal web of life that surrounds the caster.  Sometimes it is stored in objects.  It is NOT a personal resource in large amounts.

For a SP system to be more accurate than Dark Sun's take, the caster would have to make some kind of skill check to gather mana unto himself in amounts sufficient to do magic.  If he can't gather mana, he cannot cast.  If he can only gather a little, he can only cast weak spells.

His amount of mana would vary from place to place and over time- kind of like the wild magic/dead magic zones in some D&D campaigns- not start with the same amount after a night's rest.

(Clear example in classic fantasy- Larry Niven's _The Magic Goes Away_ series of books & stories; see also Polynesian legends.)


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, one at a time, various players could go to various boards and make the identical argument.  Not as some plot to make Vancian magic the only system out there, but as individual expressions of personal choice.
> 
> "I want Vancian magic to replace GURPS' magic system, but only GURPS- the other RPGs are fine as is." posts one over at SJG.
> 
> ...



In which case, I would wish them well in their desire to make changes that they want to see in systems. Honestly, truthfully, that's my gut reaction. But again, I do not know how many times I must also remind you, I am not advocating for a particular magic system, merely against the Vancian magic in D&D. I have yet to say, "I want [system X] to replace the D&D Vancian magic system."  

But correct me if I am wrong, but can't you replicate Vancian magic in some GURPS systems?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> I am not advocating for a particular magic system, merely against the Vancian magic in D&D. I have yet to say, "I want [system X] to replace the D&D Vancian magic system."




While different statements, they share a common point of attack and substantially the same end result, and will be responded to in virtually identical ways.

In USA history, racism has been a pernicious problem.  At one point, we were denied the right to vote.  Once that was declared illegal, racists tried to do things like have literacy tests for voters...which would have eliminated most blacks from voting again because at one point it was a crime to teach them to read & write.  Different methods, same odious results.

So even though you aren't suggesting a _particular_ substitute for Vancian magic, a position of "substitute anything for Vancian to make the game better" is going to get the same response because the end result is identical.


> But correct me if I am wrong, but can't you replicate Vancian magic in some GURPS systems?




I don't know GURPS that well, but I can DEFINITELY do it in HERO.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While different statements, they share a common point of attack and substantially the same end result, and will be responded to in virtually identical ways.



It's a matter of semantics, I suppose. The difference is on the emphasis. But the two do not necessarily have the same end result, unless you strictly count the removal of [system X] as the end result shared. But me saying, "I want the removal of [system X]" is not equivalent in the end result to me saying "I want [system Y] to replace [system X]." The approach of the conversation would also be quite different between the two statements, as one would be forced to argue as to the virtues of the system he/she wants to use in lieu of [system X], while the other would be on [system X]. The (critial) response would also be against the proposed [system Y] in addition to the virtues of [system X]. Note how most of the conversation in this thread is entirely focused on [system X] as opposed to only tangentially discussing the particulars of alt systems. 



> I don't know GURPS that well, but I can DEFINITELY do it in HERO.



And can you also create other magic systems in HERO? If so, then I find it hard to understand how Vancian magic could replace the system, if the system is flexible enough to accomodate other systems.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

> unless you strictly count the removal of [system X] as the end result shared.




I do, and I'm sure most people who like their D&D with Vancian magic would as well.



> And can you also create other magic systems in HERO?




Yep.



> If so, then I find it hard to understand how Vancian magic could replace the system, if the system is flexible enough to accomodate other systems.




New Rule for HERO 555Ed "The previous rules for designing a character's powers apply only to non-magical power systems.  All magical PCs must use Vancian magic, which works as follows..."


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I do, and I'm sure most people who like their D&D with Vancian magic would as well.



I do not, as I see the end result as what replaces it not by its removal. That's only one component of the end result. The end result is about what it is and not about what it isn't. 



> New Rule for HERO 555Ed "The previous rules for designing a character's powers apply only to non-magical power systems.  All magical PCs must use Vancian magic, which works as follows..."



It would be hard for HERO to claim to be a generic RPG system if it did that, now wouldn't it? I do not think the same is true for D&D's claim to be D&D. But I guess you can keep trying to shoehorn that hypothetical scenario until it fits, eh?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I do not, as I see the end result as what replaces it not by its removal. That's only one component of the end result. The end result is about what it is and not about what it isn't.




"Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you a swordfish steak instead.  Please enjoy."

"Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you something else.  Please enjoy."

Sir doesn't really care that you have or haven't decided what to replace his steak with, he's just pissed off that you took his steak.




> It would be hard for HERO to claim to be a generic RPG system if it did that, now wouldn't it? I do not think the same is true for D&D's claim to be D&D. But I guess you can keep trying to shoehorn that hypothetical scenario until it fits, eh?




Yes, it wouldn't be as generic at that point.

But actually, Aldarc, I didn't use HERO as an example.  I used GURPS.  When you asked, I said I could model D&D with HERO, and we went down that tangent.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.




So, Vancian magic should stay because it was in the game originally and shouldn't be changed unless someone can prove it should. 

How about classes? 3e changed the status quo. Or saving throws? Those used to be absolutes rather than against a target unmber. Or the benefit of stats (Str/Int/Wis/Con/Dex/Cha)?  Who provided the burden of proof that those had to be changed? Perhaps nobody showed how the skilsl system needed a dramatic revamp.

Unless you're actually playing OD&D you're playing a game that has already been changed in major ways from its original version.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 20, 2011)

The 3e designers didn't come forward and tell us what they wanted or intended. Nor did the 2e designers. Nor did Gary with 1e AD&D. Of course, you can argue that none of these people needed to provide us with a case for the changes they wanted to make, because it was their system, one way or another, to do with as they liked.

Had they been fans on a message board making an appeal for the system to change, they would have had to make their case.

That's what's going on here.


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes, but I'd say it's a matter of what the mechanics are attempting to emulate. So game mechanics can be made to feel intuitive and an "organic" aspect of magical metaphysics. Spell points are like the HP of magic.




Indeed. Vancian magic isn't attempting to emulate an organic flavour of magic so you won't get much traction saying it fails at that. Vancian attemts to emulate another flavour of magic. Why is one flavour better than the other? It's not, outside the realm of personal preference.



Aldarc said:


> Because the "advantages" of Vancian magic cannot necessarily be claimed to be unique to the Vancian magic system and there are other advantages that non-Vancian systems have that cannot be replicated by a pure Vancian magic system.




All of those "advantages" are based on personal preference, so how can you claim this as fact? Do spell point systems give the same interesting tactical decision that vancian does? What about build-on-the fly systems? Fatigue systems? Unlimited spammability systems? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope.

When we get past all of that posturing, the thing vancian can't replicate is an adherence to your personal preference for flavour/play style. However is does adhere to these things for other people (possibly within only a limited scope, as is the case with me).



Aldarc said:


> Myth and fantasy may rarely show how magic works, but do you think most people would identify Vancian magic as being the prevalent form of myth and fantasy?




It depends greatly on what it is that they're reading.



Aldarc said:


> Spell points basically represent a mana pool or the amount of magic from which a mage can draw before being "tapped out" of magic. That's quite prevalent.




It may be relatively common, but so what?. It is just one example of one flavour of magic - not definitive, not universal, not even in the majority. I would say most fantasy I have read doesn't go very far into "how/why" much at all. From those that do, a great many sources refer to conjuring spirits/demons/things to do the magic for you, or praying to gods to do it for you, or just speaking certain words, or only ever using long rituals. None of which imply spell points (or vancian). Each is different.

Also, spell slots too represent a resource representing how much mojo you have before you're tapped out. 



Aldarc said:


> I do agree that Vancian magic can be used alongside other systems, but the problem is that its only really applicable to one class, yet other classes are constrained by the application of the whole. Plus, I think that a mixed Vancian magic system, would be far more flexible and organic than a pure Vancian magic system.




Yeah I am with you on that, but the premise of this thread is that it should be obliterated from the game. Go the way of the Dodo as someone said upthread. [ EDIT - heh that was you! ] I do not agree with that premise, and that is the premise I am discussing.



Aldarc said:


> In DA's hypothetical, he has said that pro-Vancians would be changing all game systems to Vancian.




In a hypothetical. But the thing is, outside that hypothetical they're not. Anti-vanicans, however, are trying to abolish vancian within this very thread!



Aldarc said:


> If I could make an addmendum: Vancian works fine _for some people_. All too frequently, the magical assumptions of Vancian magic is not compatible with the sort of worlds I want or mages I want for my worlds.




Fine, that is a personal addendum that applies to you individually and your own personal preferences. 

However there is no call (or justification) for imposing your individual preference on others who were happily playing the game as-is before you came along and told them all that they're having badwrongfun and everything should be officially changed to suit you.



Aldarc said:


> But in D&D, the cleric, the wizard, the druid, the ranger, the paladin, the sorcerer (to an extent), all operate using the same magical assumptions.




Indeed.


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

innerdude said:


> First of all, how does the argument "It makes D&D unique and  flavorful!" add any weight whatsoever to the "burden of proof"?
> 
> This is basically another way of saying, "I like it!"




Because it is one of the many obstacles you'll need to overcome if you wish to affect change. Not the main thing, for sure, but part of it.

Also, how is that different from your reasoning for change, which is basically saying "I don't like it!"?



innerdude said:


> But here's my reasons why the "status quo" should change:
> 
> <other stuff>




That's a great justification for your own very valid and well thought-out preference. Not far off the same for many others as well, I'm sure.

However it isn't for mine. Nor for many other people who are participating in this thread.



innerdude said:


> But another  reason to not simply play Savage Worlds all the time is because I  happen to like a lot of the 3.x rules structures. I like feats. I like  the general feel of class progressions. I like the campaign settings and  modules based on the 3.x rules, and don't always want to have to  convert them on the fly to another system. As a GM, there are a lot of  compelling things about the 3.x rules. They're supported. They're  popular. The industry's best producer of modules and adventures actively  supports it.




Sure thing. However many others also like the 3.x rules as-is, vancian included. Aren't they equally entitled to play the game that prefer? Why should a long-established and much loved aspect for them change just so your preference can be pandered to?



innerdude said:


> And I'd like it even more if Vancian casting wasn't the default.




You are entitled to that opinion. I maybe even share it, or at least understand it. But I won't try to impose it on anyone else, or call for the stewards of the game* to do so on my behalf.

Might I suggest a compromise? Instead of calling for the obliteration of vancian magic in PF2.0, advocate the retention of a vancian class (probably wizard), and the use of another system for sorcerers, clerics, druids, and so on?

[aside - I like the way you're making your points with civility. Respect. Have some XP (up-thread)]

* [EDIT - I am not insinuating that the creators of a possible PFv2.0 (presumably paizo) are the true and only stewards of the game or anything like that... I'm edition neutral! WotC are equally "stewards" IMO. I was using the term to refer to the folks who do the designing of a game that we all share, is all].


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 20, 2011)

> How does suggesting replacing Vancian casting with an alternative magic  system "take away your fun"? You can house rule it back in to any  D&D style system you choose--just as we've been told we can house  rule it out




Then you really haven't read my full message yet.

If you want to change the system for your group and your group only that's fine. But it's unfair to those of us who do like the system and want to use it to "make it go away" completely. Making it go away completely means taking it away from people who do like and enjoy the system, forcing them to use the system you (generic not specific) prefer, and that's just not fair to those who do like and enjoy the system. I would not presume to do the same thing to you out of common courtesy, respect and consideration. That's how it ruins the fun.

And it's also a huge tradition for D&D. It's what D&D started with. Many people like tradition. There's nothing wrong with that. Or at least there shouldn't be. I'll never understand this attitude of it always must be shiny and new or it's useless.

And yes, common courtesy and respect works both ways as well. people should respect people who like tradition and a specific system and people who like shiny and new should be respected as well. It shouldn't matter what system a person uses, that's tribalism, it should only matter how one enjoys the game and have fun with their friends.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I feel as if your summation of my argument is insulting. I do not feel as if that's a fair representation of my argument, nor do I think that's close. And with all due respect to you as well, I think this is blatantly a false analogy. Soft drinks are not game systems. Plus, if you take this line of reasoning to its extent, then there is little in a system which you can make an argument for changing or improving. Because there are "already other flavors of Coke out there, as well as scores of other sodas." But such a line of reasoning is not productive for the very discussions we have on this forum regarding things we want out of a system. For example, let's play around with another substitution based on some recent threads of late: 'I can't stand 4E class powers, so WotC needs to change the flavor of 4E to something I like."




I simply do not agree. That's what this entire argument is all about, as evidenced by "The Vancian system has got to go away". It's funny what people see and don't see.

And the first thing most people do is to try to change them system to suit how they think a system should be. You yourself have made arguments on what you think a good system is and in short have made arguments why the Vancian system should be changed because according to you it is not a true system because it's an artificial system. Which to me is a completely nonsensical argument because it's an rpg and all rpgs use systems to try to represent what people can do in any given situation, diceless or not. And all arguments are about how you think the system should be changed to suit your tastes in disregard to how other people might feel about changing something they love, so of course, there will be resistance to your suggestions.


Few people even think to try other systems that they might like before trying to change a system to suit their tastes as well.

So it is indeed an apt analogy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> How about classes? 3e changed the status quo. Or saving throws? Those used to be absolutes rather than against a target unmber. Or the benefit of stats (Str/Int/Wis/Con/Dex/Cha)?  Who provided the burden of proof that those had to be changed? Perhaps nobody showed how the skilsl system needed a dramatic revamp.



Two different things going on here: trying to convince fans of D&D in a forum that the game should be changed and convincing the IP holders & designers of the same.  The former is about winning hearts & minds of fans.  The latter is about convincing a company to risk money by spending it on redesigning a successful product.

In this thread, we've just been talking, doing the former.  What you're jumping to in this post is the latter.

However, even in the latter, the same thing happens- it's just more structured and focused on a smaller number of people.  The company (presumably) does market research and gathers consumer feedback.  That data is then analyzed and presented to the decision-makers in the company.  If and only if the decision makers are convinced that change is a good idea will there be change.

In the former, you have thousands to convince, in the latter, just a few people- perhaps as few as a dozen in a typical mid-sized company.

So, noting the changes in the game over time, its clear the IP holders & designers WERE persuaded that certain changes needed to occur.  And then the performance of the revised games in the market- along with customer feedback (direct and indirect) shows them whether the changes were good or not.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So, Vancian magic should stay because it was in the game originally and shouldn't be changed unless someone can prove it should.



You must keep in mind that the goal being discussed is keeping large portions of fans of the prior ideas intact.  So, towards THAT goal, the answer to your question is easily "yes".  That doesn't mean you can't get rid of vancian magic and easily make an "as good" or even "better" game.

But if you make a game that is vastly better than Monopoly and you call it Monopoly, but it doesn't involve anything to do with buying or trading property, then the game won't be Monopoly.  It was in the game originally and now is strongly associated with it and it needs to stay.



> How about classes?



People complained about changes in classes when 2E, 3E, and 4E came along.  I'm sure people complained about class changes before then as well, I just was not there to be part of it.

However, I don't think those struck as fundamental a chord with the fan base as Vancian magic does.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you a swordfish steak instead.  Please enjoy."
> 
> "Sir, you ordered prime rib, but we've decided to give you something else.  Please enjoy."
> 
> Sir doesn't really care that you have or haven't decided what to replace his steak with, he's just pissed off that you took his steak.



Who's ordering prime rib? 



> But actually, Aldarc, I didn't use HERO as an example.  I used GURPS.  When you asked, I said I could model D&D with HERO, and we went down that tangent.



Can't you recreate a Vancian magic system with GURPS? 



Mon said:


> Indeed. Vancian magic isn't attempting to emulate an organic flavour of magic so you won't get much traction saying it fails at that. Vancian attemts to emulate another flavour of magic. Why is one flavour better than the other? It's not, outside the realm of personal preference.



A greater breadth of emulation. 



> All of those "advantages" are based on personal preference, so how can you claim this as fact? Do spell point systems give the same interesting tactical decision that vancian does? What about build-on-the fly systems? Fatigue systems? Unlimited spammability systems? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope.



And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions? 



> When we get past all of that posturing, the thing vancian can't replicate is an adherence to your personal preference for flavour/play style. However is does adhere to these things for other people (possibly within only a limited scope, as is the case with me).



I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them. 



> It depends greatly on what it is that they're reading.



Stop dodging the question. 



> Also, spell slots too represent a resource representing how much mojo you have before you're tapped out.



But spell slots are statically tied to specific spell levels unless you have a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved that allows for a fluid degree of spell-weaving of spell slots. In D&D's Vancian system, if you run out of level 5 spells, but have level 4 and level 6 spells you are not out of mojo, but you are somehow unable to cast further level 5 spells? Huh? 



> In a hypothetical. But the thing is, outside that hypothetical they're not. Anti-vanicans, however, are trying to abolish vancian within this very thread!



Why would they? Pro-Vancians have a stranglehold on the most popular roleplaying game system? 



Diamond Cross said:


> I simply do not agree. That's what this entire argument is all about, as evidenced by "The Vancian system has got to go away". It's funny what people see and don't see.
> 
> Few people even think to try other systems that they might like before trying to change a system to suit their tastes as well.
> 
> ...



No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Who's ordering prime rib?




The people who entered the steakhouse and ordered prime rib =  the people who played D&D with Vancian magic and want Vancian magic.



> Can't you recreate a Vancian magic system with GURPS?



Asked and answered previously: I don't know.



> And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions?



(Not directed at me) Nobody is saying that SP systems can't provide interesting tactical decisions.  They don't provide the same tactical decisions, though...at least, not until the SP well is running low.



> I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them.




I happen to have multiple magical preferences, and Vancian magic just happens to be included.

With all of the games out there without Vancian magic, why do you feel the need to remove it from its home system?



> Why would they? Pro-Vancians have a stranglehold on the most popular roleplaying game system?




Here's something you could do to make _everyone_ happy.  Leave D&D alone and make your own clone of D&D with a non-Vancian magic system.  There is no copyright in rules mechanics, so you'd be perfectly free to do so.



> No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.




You're perfectly able to go to Coke and see if they have produced something more to your liking- they have over a thousand products in their line.

You're perfectly able to go to one of Coke's competitors and do likewise.

You're perfectly able to make your own, custom cola drink.

You're also perfectly able to go to Coke and lobby for them to change their formula to suit your tastes.

But if you choose that last option, don't be surprised to find that people might disagree _strongly_ with your desires.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Not directed at me) Nobody is saying that SP systems can't provide interesting tactical decisions.  They don't provide the same tactical decisions, though...at least, not until the SP well is running low.



Yet a mixed Vancian magic system can provide similar tactical decisions, can it not? 



> With all of the games out there without Vancian magic, why do you feel the need to remove it from its home system?



My original stance was too extreme. I dislike Vancian magic as it exists in D&D, and I do stand by my preference for it going the way of the dodo, but my biggest opposition to Vancian magic is the strangehold that it holds on D&D magic in lieu of a greater breadth of options. Despite what you may insist, it does not actively support other options. The cleric uses Vancian magic. The wizard uses Vancian magic. Just about everyone and their demon dogs use Vancian magic. It's the natural in-game assumption. Other options are not actively supported. It's the default. I like the car that I drive, both its model and brand, but I do not want to feel obligated to buy a new brand or model just for a single feature that I want replaced. 

[







> Here's something you could do to make _everyone_ happy.  Leave D&D alone and make your own clone of D&D with a non-Vancian magic system.  There is no copyright in rules mechanics, so you'd be perfectly free to do so.



Danny, this sort of dickish behavior is completely uncalled for.


----------



## Mon (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions?




On the basis they they don't?  i.e. plan ahead for the day when choosing spells, and then having their use structured in a certain way (spell slots) throughout the day. It is a fun part of the game for some people.

I never said they don't provide an interesting tactical decision. I said they don't provide the same one. Please be certain to read what I actually say in future.



Aldarc said:


> I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them.




Me too, except vancian is included. However I'm not barging into a game and demanding everything change at the official level just to suit my personal preferences. 

That behaviour might be about the only thing that separates you and I on this topic... since my opinion (as stated several times already) isn't so far off yours with regard to non-wizard classes.



Aldarc said:


> Stop dodging the question.




Whose dodging questions? Here is what I said on the matter in exactly the same post, immediately underneath...



			
				Mon said:
			
		

> I would say most fantasy I have read doesn't go very far into "how/why" much at all. From those that do, a great many sources refer to conjuring spirits/demons/things to do the magic for you, or praying to gods to do it for you, or just speaking certain words, or only ever using long rituals. None of which imply spell points (or vancian). Each is different.




Please read my entire post in future, so I don't need to keep repeating myself .



Aldarc said:


> But spell slots are statically tied to specific spell levels unless you have a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved that allows for a fluid degree of spell-weaving of spell slots. In D&D's Vancian system, if you run out of level 5 spells, but have level 4 and level 6 spells you are not out of mojo, but you are somehow unable to cast further level 5 spells? Huh?




Because your spells are pre-assigned to take up their amount of available mojo... as you say it is static. Still reflects how much juice's you've got, though. Just in a different way... a way many people who aren't Aldarc find interesting.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Mon said:


> I never said they don't provide an interesting tactical decision. I said they don't provide the same one. Please be certain to read what I actually say in future, and not try to re-frame it to suit yourself.



I misunderstood. I did not reframe it to suit myself. 



> Me too, except vancian is included. However I'm not barging into a game and demanding everything change at the official level just to suit my personal preferences.



And I am moving away from that position as well towards advocating for a flexible enough magic system that would allows players or DMs to modify the spell system as they see fit. As we agree upon, the Vancian system has a near stranglehold on the entirety of the system. I want a magic system that would allow me to play either a non-wizard or a wizard with or without Vancian magic. 



> Whose dodging questions? Here is what I said on the matter in exactly the same post, immediately underneath...
> 
> Please read my entire post in future, so I don't need to keep repeating myself.



I am reading your entire post, so stop insulting my intelligence by framing it as you keep doing it. My question is in regards to how most fantasy and fiction treats magic. They may not get into the quirks of the system to explain the details, but that does not mean that magic generally 'operates' along non-Vancian lines or assumptions. 



> Em, because your spells are pre-assigned to take up their amount of mojo... as you say it is static. Still reflects how much juice's you've got, though. Just in a different way... a way many people who aren't Aldarc find interesting.



But why is mojo on such a bizarre spell level basis such that you do not so much run out of mojo as much as you run out of level 5 mojo? As other people have suggested, 4E operates on Vancian lines, yet it does not follow the assumption that you run out of X spell level of mojo. Instead you run out of per encounter or per day mojo.


----------



## Gansk (Feb 20, 2011)

Here's a interpretation of D&D magic from someone who actually read the literature that inspired it (works listed in Appendix N of Gygax's AD&D DMG):



> First, know that the DCC RPG is impossible to power-game, for various reasons, most of them related to the heavy influence of randomization...on everything. I won't say much more than that, but there's no way to min/max this system. What makes it still fun is that the randomization is "bracketed" within certain limits of effect.
> 
> For example: there is a critical hit system, which Harley and I have been spending a lot of time working on, which is a ton of fun. Every class has a crit die and crit table for each level. For example, a level 1 warrior has a 1d12 crit die on crit table III, while a level 1 wizard has a 1d6 crit die on level I. As someone advances in level, their crit die gets higher and they may jump to different crit tables. (One crit table, used by thieves and elves, represents finesse. Another, used by 0-level characters, wizards, and halflings, represents lucky but not necessarily lethal blows. Another set, used by warriors in a steadily advancing progression, represents power and strength. And so on.) The combination of crit die and crit tables allows for lots of exciting random results in combat...and emulates pretty well the kind of combat you read about with John Carter and Conan and Elric...but the randomization runs in brackets. Level 4 randomization typically results in "better randomness" than level 1 randomization.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ranes (Feb 20, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Danny, this sort of dickish behavior is completely uncalled for.




Since when has making an entirely reasonable suggestion been 'dickish behaviour'?

Please, for all our differences, the tone has generally been polite. Let's keep it that way.

Otherwise we're all dicks. And, while I am a dick, I quite enjoy getting by, for the most part, without being called one. And people starting to point the finger and labelling others 'dicks' makes me nervous. Please don't make me nervous. You wouldn't like me when I'm nervous.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2011)

Ranes said:


> Since when has making an entirely reasonable suggestion been 'dickish behaviour'?



How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make _everyone_ happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2011)

Allow me, please, to lob in some experiences we've had in messing with the pure-Vancian system in 1e.

A long time ago, i.e. about 1983, both DMs and players were getting frustrated with the as-written 1e casting system, for two main reasons: 1) pre-memorization was both too fiddly and too limiting, and 2) casters of all types were just too weak at very low level.

The solution was a spell-point system.  The specific details were then hammered out over about 5 years of discussion and playtesting and ended up as (coloured numbers lead to footnotes below):

- spells at ascending levels cost 1-2-3-5-8-12*-17*-23*-30* s.p. to cast1
- spell points rolled at each level like hit points except what you roll varies by level; high Int or Wis as appropriate can give a bonus
- Clerics became fully "wild-card" in everything; if they have the points left and a spell's on their list they can cast it regardless of level (in other words, they could use every spell point on 1st-level spells if they liked)2
- Wizard types still have to pre-memorize their highest two spell levels but can assign as many s.p. as they like to such, thus someone with 30 s.p. can pre-memorize all 30 as high-level spells if desired; whatever is left over goes into a wild-card pool for casting lower-level spells
- prayer and study take about the same amount of time as before

1 - lots of variance over time on the numbers marked with '*', what I list here is one sequence I remember.
2 - we quickly found that making Clerics fully wild-card wasn't that big a deal; most of their spell power was probably going to be tied up in curing anyway (usually by party demand), and wild-carding gave them more variety.

In one form or another this served us well enough for 25 years, even getting ported over to a long-running 3e game where we found the same results.  At low levels, it's excellent.  At mid levels, it's not bad.

At high levels - beyond about 8th - it shatters.  

Clerical curing becomes overpowered, and wizards become able to do too much.

So, how to fix this?

The 3e guy has gone or is going back to pure Vancian, I think.

What I've done - as what amounts to a big-time experiment - is to make all casters in my current campaign work like 3e Sorcerers.  They're back to being restricted to how many spells of each level they can cast in a day, but within those levels if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it.

At low level the results were excellent.  Wizards in particular were casting spells that had never before seen the light of day.

At mid-level, the jury is still out - my parties are generally just reaching the 5th level point - but so far it looks encouraging.

Once they get to the 8th-10th range (a long time off, at this rate) then I'll know whether this really works or not.  The one real advantage I've found so far is it's easier for me to stat out high-level caster opponents.

Lan-"when in doubt, cast another fireball"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make _everyone_ happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.



I think it's more like this: if you want to strip D+D's spellcasting system down to the ground and rebuild it, more power to you.  Maybe you'll come up with a system that blows Vancian out of the water (and if you do, please share).

But don't expect everyone else who plays D+D - nor the designers - to chuck Vancian out just because you don't like it.

For better or worse D+D is what it is; and if you want to kitbash it that's great, but it falls to you to do the heavy lifting.  See my previous post this thread - we've been flailing at casting systems for almost 30 years.

Lan-"master of the toolbox"-efan


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make _everyone_ happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.




Well, first, it wouldn't make anyone unhappy if that's what you did. Secondly, it is - by extension - reasonable. Thirdly, I don't see the rudeness in making such a suggestion. Fourth, look at Lanefan's most recent contribution. How does his experiment detract from anyone else's enjoyment?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> What I've done - as what amounts to a big-time experiment - is to make all casters in my current campaign work like 3e Sorcerers.  They're back to being restricted to how many spells of each level they can cast in a day, but within those levels if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it.
> 
> At low level the results were excellent.  Wizards in particular were casting spells that had never before seen the light of day.
> 
> ...



You should check out Arcana Evolved, which has a similar spell system as you detail here. All spellcaters have certain spell slots per level. They can 'ready' a certain number of spells per day, from which they can spontaneously cast. But spellcasters can also weave their spells, which means they can also sacrifice a spell slot of a level for two spell slots of a lower level or spellweave three spell slots of a level for a single spell of a higher level spell slot. Furthermore, a given spell can be both heightened (uses up a higher spell slot) or diminished (uses a lower spell slot instead).



Ranes said:


> Well, first, it wouldn't make anyone unhappy if that's what you did. Secondly, it is - by extension - reasonable. Thirdly, I don't see the rudeness in making such a suggestion. Fourth, look at Lanefan's most recent contribution. How does his experiment detract from anyone else's enjoyment?



Except Danny did not say that it would make people unhappy if I did that, but that everyone would be happy if I did.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 21, 2011)

> No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke  analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your  analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another  system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.



Analogies do not neuter discussion, they're meant to help people understand another point of view. And actually what you're describing is a false dichotomy, which artificially sets up an either or position. From the wiki:



> A *false dilemma* (also called *false dichotomy*, the *either-or fallacy*, *fallacy of false choice*, *black and white thinking* or the *fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses*) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.



And the false dilemma is being set up by the original premise of the thread. Which is "I don't like it so it's got to go away and be taken away from others because I can't stand it or it has to change to suit my personal tastes". Which is a pretty offensive thing to say and a disrespectful attitude to take.

I was simply trying to offer an additional option, and trying to help you understand why that attitude is inflammatory and not necessary.

Many people like the system as is. Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like? 

And that's the entire crux of the problem, is some people feel that these people who like the system as is shouldn't be allowed to play it because others don't like it.

Common courtesy, and respect works both ways. That means a person shouldn't be bothered if another person likes to play a different game and shouldn't impose like that.

And no, I am not trying to argue the other way around either.







> How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make _everyone_ happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.




Actually it isn't. It's pretty rude to tell people that they have to stop doing something they like because you don't like it.

Think of it like this. How do you feel if you're doing something you enjoy and somebody comes up and tells you your can't read your favorite book because they don't enjoy it and think nobody else should read it but it's your favorite book.

Are you going to stop reading and rereading your favorite book because they don't like it?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> You should check out Arcana Evolved, which has a similar spell system as you detail here. All spellcaters have certain spell slots per level. They can 'ready' a certain number of spells per day, from which they can spontaneously cast.



I just skip this readying step - if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it.  Simpler. 







> But spellcasters can also weave their spells, which means they can also sacrifice a spell slot of a level for two spell slots of a lower level or spellweave three spell slots of a level for a single spell of a higher level spell slot. Furthermore, a given spell can be both heightened (uses up a higher spell slot) or diminished (uses a lower spell slot instead).



Interesting ideas, but one of the things I'm trying to avoid is Magic-Users in particular having access to too many 3rd-level spells (i.e. most of the key boomage and utility spells) in a day.  If they can blow up their 1st and 2nd (or 4th and 5th, once they get so high) slots to make more 3rds, that defeats the purpose.

Being able to cast diminished 3rds as 2nds also defeats the purpose.

That said, I always allow a caster to intentionally weaken a spell - it still uses the same slot up to cast but an 8th-level caster, say, could intentionally cast a fireball of only 5d6 if she liked.  You can never cast a spell below its minimum, though, so no 3-dice fireballs allowed.

Lan-"would a diminished 'fly' spell just let you hop like a grasshopper?"-efan


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Except Danny did not say that it would make people unhappy if I did that, but that everyone would be happy if I did.




True. He said that it would make everyone happy if you did that (which may not necessarily be the case).

But look on the bright side: he did not say that it wouldn't make everyone unhappy if you didn't do that.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Analogies do not neuter discussion, they're meant to help people understand another point of view. And actually what you're describing is a false dichotomy, which artificially sets up an either or position. From the wiki:
> 
> And the false dilemma is being set up by the original premise of the thread. Which is "I don't like it so it's got to go away and be taken away from others because I can't stand it or it has to change to suit my personal tastes". Which is a pretty offensive thing to say and a disrespectful attitude to take.



Yet there are also people in this thread who are saying, "My personal preference for this game to have Vancian magic is here to stay, so deal with it or don't bother playing." 



> Many people like the system as is. Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like?
> 
> And that's the entire crux of the problem, is some people feel that these people who like the system as is shouldn't be allowed to play it because others don't like it.



Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes made to that system. And that is the crux of the problem, because I cannot play the game as I like so long as Vancian magic continues to stranglehold the system. But my opposition to Vancian magic has been met with a response that amounts to suggesting that I throw the baby out with the bath.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes made to that system.




A perfectly reasonable position to be in.

Here's a thing. Having played one form of this game or another for many years, along with numerous other systems, I like the game the way it is. Except, by 'the game the way it is', I'm talking about a dead version, one that has been surpassed by a newer edition, an edition I don't care for.

We all accept the idea there will be other editions in the future. These editions may change in ways none of us in this discussion care for at all. We all accept that there are other games systems that do things differently from the way we play and we all house-rule some aspects of whatever game we play in ways that would not appeal to entirely reasonable people with different tastes.

We all live with this. By living with it, we accept that whatever game we play, we have to find players who share our preferences. The number of people who do diminishes over time. Even our own tastes are susceptible to change over time.

Given this, why not be happy with a solution that employs house rules and alternate systems? Why instead try to remove a fundamental part of something from one 'official' version of the rules of a game? What is to be gained that cannot be gained some other way, some way that's less disruptive to those people who just want their system of choice to still be the way that system was designed?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Interesting ideas, but one of the things I'm trying to avoid is Magic-Users in particular having access to too many 3rd-level spells (i.e. most of the key boomage and utility spells) in a day.  If they can blow up their 1st and 2nd (or 4th and 5th, once they get so high) slots to make more 3rds, that defeats the purpose.



However, you could potentially address this by adjusting the typical spell levels in which those "key boomage and utility spells" are gained or the number of spell slots per level. I also would recommend going the 4E route and converting some of those spells into magic rituals. 



> Being able to cast diminished 3rds as 2nds also defeats the purpose.



By diminished and heightened, these spells generally have different effects. For example, the diminished version of AE's fireball spell (sorcerous blast) does not "blast" but only affects the creature struck, while the heightened version damages using 1d8 points per level instead of 1d6 points per level. And this addresses your earlier point. They are able to use a third level spells, but by heightening those spells, they are encouraged to use them as 4th level spell slots for greater "boomage." 



> Lan-"would a diminished 'fly' spell just let you hop like a grasshopper?"-efan



Ald-"diminished 'Flight' does not confer flight but increases the flying speed of a creature already flying"-arc.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 21, 2011)

> Yet there are also people in this thread who are saying, "My personal  preference for this game to have Vancian magic is here to stay, so deal  with it or don't bother playing."





> NO! They are NOT!Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes  made to that system. And that is the crux of the problem, because I  cannot play the game as I like so long as Vancian magic continues to  stranglehold the system. But my opposition to Vancian magic has been met  with a response that amounts to suggesting that I throw the baby out  with the bath.




Stop arguing in opposites and directly answer my question. That is a very rude way to argue. The only purpose to arguing in this fashion is to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that it is unbalance and that everybody has to play the way you want to play. You're also cherry picking which is considered a dishonest way of discussing something._*

I am not, nor has anybody else tried to make that claim. That is an outright lie. My entire argument as had been is that it's fine for you to change it for yourself, but let us play the game we like.*_


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> _*I am not...*_




If I gave out experience, I'd give you some for not using caps lock as well. Seriously, arguments do not benefit from typographical embellishment.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Stop arguing in opposites and directly answer my question. That is a very rude way to argue. The only purpose to arguing in this fashion is to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that it is unbalance and that everybody has to play the way you want to play. You're also cherry picking which is considered a dishonest way of discussing something.



_As I said, I'm moving away from an extreme position. I would like Vancian magic abolished, as per my preference. But I do not think they shouldn't be allowed to play the game they like, though with the understanding that I too should be allowed to play the game that I like. 




			I am not, nor has anybody else tried to make that claim. That is an outright lie. My entire argument as had been is that it's fine for you to change it for yourself, but let us play the game we like.
		
Click to expand...


I assume this is your question you want me to answer directly? 



			Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like?
		
Click to expand...


DC, just because that's not the argument that you have been making does not mean that other people have not suggested that I play something else, which has been said. That is what DA said. Basically, "Leave D&D alone and go play something else to make everyone happy." 



Ranes said:



			If I gave out experience, I'd give you some for not using caps lock as well. Seriously, arguments do not benefit from typographical embellishment.
		
Click to expand...


Then you would be giving me those experience points. Diamond Cross misquoted my post. "NO! They are NOT!" is something I never said, but Diamond Cross's point to the first quote that he accidentally placed at the beginning of my second quote._


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Leave D&D alone and go play something else to make everyone happy.




I stand corrected. That line would have benefited from typographical embellishment.


----------



## Wiseblood (Feb 21, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I certainly agree. In 3.5/P this kind of magic is just unbalanced. It reminds me of Magic the Gathering. A lot of dud abilities/spells, some strong, and a few just amazing things.
> 
> And of course everyone takes the gems. Human nature. But perhaps the real problems are
> 
> ...




By your argument (forgive that term please) you don't actually dislike the Vancian system but the spells some too strong some too weak. To discard the system based on your arguments would in fact be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Ranes said:


> I stand corrected. That line would have benefited from typographical embellishment.



I'm sure that it would if I meant it. As it is a paraphrase of something aimed at me, I certainly would not want to mean it. Perhaps I should go back in put that in quotes to make it more clear that my statement is not an imperative directed at Diamond Cross, but a paraphase of a statement directed at me?


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Or I could edit my post and add the words 'just kidding'.

Wait. What am I thinking?


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 21, 2011)

Just write the rules set you want to play, and run with it.  You could even publish it as an alternate rule system, like the Arcana Unearthed book did.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Ranes said:


> Or I could edit my post and add the words 'just kidding'.
> 
> Wait. What am I thinking?



I thought you may have been kidding, but when I looked back at my post, I saw how it could be misread and so I edited it to make it more clear.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 21, 2011)

I'll admit, I'm still a little surprised at the strong positions in favor of Vancian casting in D&D, but having looked over some of the replies, it's clear that this is a hot-button issue, and I'll try to be respectful. 

So far, the arguments for it seem to be: 


It's "balanced," such as it is, in conjunction with the rest of the OGL mechanic.
It creates unique flavor for the D&D milieu.
It's the traditional, long standing system for D&D, which is an aid for creating for lack of a better term "a true D&D experience."
I'm certainly willing to admit that none of those are bad. 

My arguments against it are: 



It creates a relatively static economy of action system that is based much more on the _choice of spell_ than on other in-game player choices and actions. Consequently, many casters in D&D seem to feel as if they're being played as a mechanical trope, rather than an actual character.
The supposed benefit of "flavor" is largely lost because all casters have the same basic action mechanic/resolution. The effect, once again, is to largely reduce playing a casting class to "Spell Picking 101," instead of producing more robust, dynamic in-game action options.
 Narratively it feels less organic than other systems.
In spite of attempts at balance, it has been, and continues to be, the largest point of game balance contention of any portion of the 3.x / OGL rules. As a result, a complete re-imagining, or at least serious re-evaluation of Vancian casting's place in the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game might not be out of line.
 However, having seen that many people are apparently very attached to Vancian casting per se, I think my position going forward is not to do away with it entirely, but as has been suggested by others, to give each casting class a unique mechanic. This would allow for more diversity in gameplay styles, serves the current needs of tradition and flavor, while giving a GM more flexibility in houseruling if he/she chooses to stick with one of the mechanical options. 

To me, some foundational principles for the mechanical divisions would be: 



Mechanical trade-offs between upper-level power limits (in terms of spells) vs. the flexibility in using those spells. Meaning, a character that gets to pick-and-choose their spells every day has a spell level cap lower than that of someone who can cast more powerful spells, but doesn't get to change them. The player choice becomes more dynamic--do I sacrifice upper-end power for flexibility, or do I choose more raw power at the expense of versatility?
I don't dislike the concepts of domains and spell schools, but they're largely irrelevant as anything other than a mechanical construct, at least in terms of my gameplay. If they're going to be used, the concepts of domains and spell schools should be one of the primary, central features of the mechanical system, and not just a "side note." D&D sets up these highly detailed spell schools, domains, opposing schools, etc., but the vast majority of players ignore it, or simply treat it as a mechanic for getting more/better spells. If such features are going to be included in the system at all, they need to be meaningful, and have a real mechanical and in-game impact on how the mechanic works. Otherwise, it's largely unnecessary fluff. Interesting fluff, perhaps, but unnecessary, and as both a GM and player, I don't think I can think of a single instance where the school of the spell had any real, relevant impact on in-game play.
The economy of action scale for Vancian needs to be reviewed, both in terms of character choice, action costs, and economic costs. The idea of limiting spell usage for balance purposes by imposing an economic and/or XP cost is in theory good, but in actual gameplay it's more of a hassle than useful. In my experience, players want to be able to cast the stuff they have access to. They don't want to have to go on quests to find harpy dung and a roc feather just to be able to cast a spell. Again, I realize this is largely for balance purposes, but such restrictions are largely "unfun" for the player, a hassle for the GM to track, and in my experience almost totally ignored.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 21, 2011)

> It creates a relatively static economy of action system that is based much more on the _choice of spell_  than on other in-game player choices and actions. Consequently, many  casters in D&D seem to feel as if they're being played as a  mechanical trope, rather than an actual character.
> The supposed  benefit of "flavor" is largely lost because all casters have the same  basic action mechanic/resolution. The effect, once again, is to largely  reduce playing a casting class to "Spell Picking 101," instead of  producing more robust, dynamic in-game action options.
> Narratively it feels less organic than other systems.
> In  spite of attempts at balance, it has been, and continues to be, the  largest point of game balance contention of any portion of the 3.x / OGL  rules. As a result, a complete re-imagining, or at least serious  re-evaluation of Vancian casting's place in the World's Most Popular  Role-Playing Game might not be out of line.




So what system does not do all of this?  Have you ever found a system that does not have any of these so-called flaws?

And you know what, I don't think you can actually design a system that some people wouldn't find these same flaws in and would try to change it to fit their preferences. Or if you could it would probably be very complicated and possibly even a book onto itself. 

Instead of trying to change the system, why not try other systems first? This is not an insult nor is it meant to be insulting. It is a serious question. You might actually find a system you really like that fits your needs, which is why this is a valid question.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2011)

Here's what Dannyalcatraz _actually_ said:



> Here's something you could do to make everyone happy. Leave D&D alone and make your own clone of D&D with a non-Vancian magic system. There is no copyright in rules mechanics, so you'd be perfectly free to do so.




IOW, make a homebrew game with the D&D mechanics you like in place, substituting your preferred magic system.  Get others to play it.  If it's any good, you may even be able to self-publish it and make money at it.

Those who like D&D as is are happy, since their game keeps it's Vancian casting.  You have a version of D&D that has no Vancian magic, so you are happy.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 21, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Here's what Dannyalcatraz _actually_ said:




Blimey. You wait ages for a time when typographical embellishment is actually called for and suddenly...


----------



## Mon (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I misunderstood. I did not reframe it to suit myself.




Apologies. Edited it out of my previous post.



Aldarc said:


> I am reading your entire post, so stop insulting my intelligence by framing it as you keep doing it.




No insult to your intelligence is intended. I am merely expressing frustration that you seem to be skimming my posts (because your responses occasionally seem to disregard certain things I said in them).



Aldarc said:


> My question is in regards to how most fantasy and fiction treats magic.




Yes, and my answer regards the same thing (see below). No dodging, as you accused.

Here is what I said...

"_I would say most fantasy I have read doesn't go very far into "how/why" much at all. From those that do, a great many sources refer to conjuring spirits/demons/things to do the magic for you, or praying to gods to do it for you, or just speaking certain words, or only ever using long rituals. *None of which imply spell points (or vancian). Each is different.*_"

So, to paraphrase... readers would likely assume magic works however it is described in what they're reading because each is different. Not vanican (except in vance), or spell points, or true20-style, anything else as a universal (or even predominant) choice.



Aldarc said:


> They may not get into the quirks of the system to explain the details, but that does not mean that magic generally 'operates' along non-Vancian lines or assumptions.




I think you're agreeing with me here.



Aldarc said:


> But why is mojo on such a bizarre spell level basis such that you do not so much run out of mojo as much as you run out of level 5 mojo? As other people have suggested, 4E operates on Vancian lines, yet it does not follow the assumption that you run out of X spell level of mojo. Instead you run out of per encounter or per day mojo.




Except when you've used you 5th level daily (for example).


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2011)

One other "balancer" I just remembered that 1e had but has somewhere since been lost: casting time and resulting interruptability.

If a spell takes time to cast, even within a round, that means in combat there's a lot more opportunity to interrupt it.  Do away with combat casting and make it that ANY interruption destroys the spell (with a possible surge of wild magic as a side effect) and spellcasters come down to earth in a real big hurry.

Lanefan


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Mon said:


> So, to paraphrase... readers would likely assume magic works however it is described in what they're reading because each is different. Not vanican (except in vance), or spell points, or true20-style, anything else as a universal (or even predominant) choice.
> 
> I think you're agreeing with me here.



I think I miswrote what I meant. It should be, "[Fantasy novels and myths] may not get into the quirks of the system to explain the details, but that does not mean that magic generally 'operates' along _Vancian_ lines or assumptions." But to clarify that more succinctly, I think most fictional magic operates along non-Vancian lines. I admit that this is somewhat unfair considering that non-Vancian magic is basically over other magic system and not a single one, but the depiction of magic is usually something of a blend of non-Vancian systems. IMO, creating a magic system this blend allows for the greatest magical utility for roleplaying. 



> Except when you've used you 5th level daily (for example).



I did mention "per day mojo" in my post. I disagree with you here or at least I interpret it differently. I'll try my best to articulate that, so please be patient. In the case of daily powers, they can be swapped as you gain levels and 'unlock' a new daily power level. The emphasis is on the power being a daily. You choose daily powers, which can be of a maximum power level. You "fire-and-forget" a daily power. The emphasis of power resource management is on it being a _daily power_. But in the case of more standard D&D Vancian magic, the focus is on the spell level of the spell slots. The power resource management is that you run out of a set number of spell slots per level. What this means for purposes of our discussion is that daily powers can be interpreted as being powers that exhaust your daily energy. But again, the resource management in standard D&D Vancian magic is on the spell level slots, so you run out of level 5 spells, despite you somehow having enough energy for casting level 6 and 7 spells. 

*Standard D&D Vancian:* resource management emphasizes a limited number of spell slots per level. 
*4E D&D Powers:* resource mangagement emphasizes a limited number of encounter/daily/utility powers. 

One of my gripes about 4E powers is that they are not more like known powers you can spontaneously use for a given amount of times. Once you use a "per encounter" power you cannot use it again. While I can understand the intent to prevent abuse of specific encounter powers or encourage a varied power use, I dislike how that prevents the system from being more "organic." While I like how the power system balances classes (in theory) and gives the non-magical classes their own "spell lists" to make them more engaged, I honestly doubt that 4E's magic system would be my first choice of spell systems. (That's one of the reasons why I found an earlier comment somone directed at me in this thread being defensive about 4E to be somewhat...odd... to say the least.)


----------



## Mon (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I think I miswrote what I meant. It should be, "[Fantasy novels and myths] may not get into the quirks of the system to explain the details, but that does not mean that magic generally 'operates' along _Vancian_ lines or assumptions."




No worries. Typos are a common mistakw.



Aldarc said:


> But to clarify that more succinctly, I think most fictional magic operates along non-Vancian lines. I admit that this is somewhat unfair considering that non-Vancian magic is basically over other magic system and not a single one, but the depiction of magic is usually something of a blend of non-Vancian systems. IMO, creating a magic system this blend allows for the greatest magical utility for roleplaying.




Reasonable. However is it a subjective statement rather than an objective truth. For example, you could substitute any other magic system for vancian in the above paragraph and it would remain equally reasonable (and subjective).

So, it all comes back to personal preference ... something that you can't easily convince folks to change no matter how superior your preference might seem to be to you.



Aldarc said:


> I did mention "per day mojo" in my post. I disagree with you here or at least I interpret it differently. I'll try my best to articulate that, so please be patient. In the case of daily powers, they can be swapped as you gain levels and 'unlock' a new daily power level. The emphasis is on the power being a daily. You choose daily powers, which can be of a maximum power level. You "fire-and-forget" a daily power. The emphasis of power resource management is on it being a _daily power_. But in the case of more standard D&D Vancian magic, the focus is on the spell level of the spell slots. The power resource management is that you run out of a set number of spell slots per level.




Agree this is how it works.



Aldarc said:


> What this means for purposes of our discussion is that daily powers can be interpreted as being powers that exhaust your daily energy. But again, the resource management in standard D&D Vancian magic is on the spell level slots, so you run out of level 5 spells, despite you somehow having enough energy for casting level 6 and 7 spells.




I don't see that as being different from expending your first level daily power and somehow still having the (more powerful) 5th level one available. But I see where you're coming from. 

Vancian magic is not at all about gradual energy expenditure over time in the way spell points are... it's going for a completely different angle. _It still represents your total available mojo, and it's expenditure, however._ If your available mojo/energy is represented by nine apples, and you allocate 2 for breakfast, 3 for lunch, and 4 for dinner then eating breakfast doesn't stop you having your four at dinner time.



Aldarc said:


> One of my gripes about 4E powers is that they are not more like known powers you can spontaneously use for a given amount of times. Once you use a "per encounter" power you cannot use it again. While I can understand the intent to prevent abuse of specific encounter powers or encourage a varied power use, I dislike how that prevents the system from being more "organic." While I like how the power system balances classes (in theory) and gives the non-magical classes their own "spell lists" to make them more engaged, I honestly doubt that 4E's magic system would be my first choice of spell systems. (That's one of the reasons why I found an earlier comment somone directed at me in this thread being defensive about 4E to be somewhat...odd... to say the least.)




Fair enough.

For the record, I am not trying to change your opinion or prove you wrong in this discussion (as I said, I share parts of it), just convince you to cut back a bit on the imposition on others. Kudos to you for doing so (as you said, you've moved away from the extreme side). If I could give you XP again I would do so, but I need to spread some more around since I already gave you some after feeling bad about wrongfully accusing you of rephrasing earlier.


----------



## giant.robot (Feb 21, 2011)

> ne of my gripes about 4E powers is that they are not more like known powers you can spontaneously use for a given amount of times. Once you use a "per encounter" power you cannot use it again. While I can understand the intent to prevent abuse of specific encounter powers or encourage a varied power use, I dislike how that prevents the system from being more "organic." While I like how the power system balances classes (in theory) and gives the non-magical classes their own "spell lists" to make them more engaged, I honestly doubt that 4E's magic system would be my first choice of spell systems.




Keep in mind what "encounters" actually are: intense action punctuated by a short rest. A more descriptive name for "Encounter powers" would be "Power that you can use once per short rest". I find keeping that concept in mind really helps with the narrative around encounter powers. Likewise "daily" powers are simply powers you can use once between extended rests.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2011)

> I think most fictional magic operates along non-Vancian lines.




I would say that- but for a very few exceptions- determining how magic works in a work of fiction is more about game design than the way the writer thinks about magic's mechanics...if the writer has done so at all.

Two Notable Exceptions:

There is one series of fiction (I _think_ it's Gordon Dickson's _Dragon & the George_ books, but don't quote me on that) in which magic users have "
magic accounts just like checking accounts.  You have a balance.  You subtract by casting.  You add by doing other things.  But your "experience level" has nothing to do with your balance.  It is entirely possible for a "noob" to have a whopping huge account, and a learned Mage to be stuck for a while with nothing.

Larry Niven's _Magic Goes Away_ stories are a classic mana system.  Mana powers magic, but it is not a personal resource in large amounts.  It must be gathered from objects & creatures in the caster's vicinity.  And it is amazingly precious- it doesn't recharge on the time scale of human lives, so once an area is depleted, it is devoid of magic for _aaages._.


The former system looks like a natural for spell points.  But by it's nature, SPs modelling this system _exactly _would be allocated in a somewhat random fashion, leading to all kinds of balance issues.  A skills based system- or SP/skill fusion- might be better.

The latter was actually modeled well in the original Dark Sun's Defiler magic- a Vancian system.  Using a SP system here could lead to very short battles, since the first caster to get a stranglehold on the local mana _cannot_ lose...because by doing so, he simultaneously powers his own magic while preventing others from powering theirs.

But other books?

Why do these elves in this series cast levin bolts effortlessly?  It could be because thats a natural to them as breathing.  Or are they tapping into an external source?  Or are they flinging about their personal life force?

Unless the author tells you, you're projecting your personal perspective as a gamer or designer onto the fiction.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I know I can do Vancian magic in HERO- I've done so in the past- it is one of the things that, to me, helps separate D&D from all those other FRPGs out there.





Have to spread XP, etc. HERO is a great choice for non-Vancian, flavorful magic systems.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

Wepwawet said:


> First I want to say that I've always hated the Vancian system. That's actually the one reason that made me jump to 4E without looking back.
> 
> IMO, the biggest problem is not the "fire-and-forget" aspect. In other systems the same happens when one is depleted of mana.
> The problem is the pre-selection and preparation of spells. Like, a caster has to count on whatever spells he thought would be good for the day, and that's it. All magical power you have has to be used on exactly those. That's just nonsense.




I used to agree with this. Then we tried playing a 1e game using a houserule that spell slots determined only number of castable spells with no pre-memorization. The casters came to dominate play since they always had the perfect spell. We went back to memorization after a few months.

There are ways to balance casters with non-casters without memorization but you have to abandon all aspects of the Vancian system to get there.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.
> 
> If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




After 2 years of 4e's design to give everyone something to do in every situation, I vehemently disagree with this. I very much prefer a rotating spotlight approach.

If everyone is special, then no one is special.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 21, 2011)

> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




They are both very much needed members of the party and both have very much to do. It's a bunch of nonsense that mages outshines the fighter. They're both huge contributors to a party.

But you know what? I've now realized that there is one great balancing factor that people are overlooking.

That is spells run out and casters, especially mages, are at their weakest when they have no spells to cast. When this happens they can only use slings daggers and staff. They can't really wear armor. It also takes them at least a quarter of the day.

A fighter does not have this problem. Hit points be damned, because casters have far less hp than fighters. A Fighter has a d10 in comparison to a d4. Barbarians have a d12. Not including their Constitution bonuses or any other bonuses from things like feats (for 3.5e) or abilities. You can take away a fighter's equipment, but they can still defend themselves and dish out a lot of damage. And, when it came down to it, without the spells a mage would lose to a fighter type every time.

Clerics do have some fighting abilities, but that is not their focus. Their focus is on the spells they get from their deity they serve. And parties will last a lot longer if the Cleric has healing magics. In 1e and 2e their roles were primarily the medic.

Basically, fighters would be infantry and front line soldiers, clerics would be medics, and mages are artillery.

So this entire thing is absolutely nonsense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2011)

> That's just nonsense.




Since we're talking about translating non-existent supernatural effects from works of fiction into games, I find this humerous.  Doubly so since it actually does model a magic system found in a work of fiction.

So lets look at a RWish situation: you are a member of a special forces team that is being sent to steal secrets from a safe in an enemy stronghold.  Your job is cracking the safe, so you've brought everything you need to bust into a safe of the kind known to be used there, plus a couple of others, just to be sure.

The mission goes like clockwork until you get to the actual safe- unbeknownst to your intelligence sources, the safe has been reinforced by a metal that can't be cut at the temperatures your torch can generate, and has other features you've never seen before and is boobytrapped.  Your gear is useless, the mission is a bust.

Youve been thwarted, just like the Mage who didn't have the right spells.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2011)

> Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?




Different, yes, but not objectively better.


----------



## Mort (Feb 21, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> They are both very much needed members of the party and both have very much to do. It's a bunch of nonsense that mages outshines the fighter. They're both huge contributors to a party.
> 
> But you know what? I've now realized that there is one great balancing factor that people are overlooking.
> 
> ...




Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 21, 2011)

Mon said:


> Reasonable. However is it a subjective statement rather than an objective truth. For example, you could substitute any other magic system for vancian in the above paragraph and it would remain equally reasonable (and subjective).
> 
> So, it all comes back to personal preference ... something that you can't easily convince folks to change no matter how superior your preference might seem to be to you.



Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.  



> Vancian magic is not at all about gradual energy expenditure over time in the way spell points are... it's going for a completely different angle. _It still represents your total available mojo, and it's expenditure, however._ If your available mojo/energy is represented by nine apples, and you allocate 2 for breakfast, 3 for lunch, and 4 for dinner then eating breakfast doesn't stop you having your four at dinner time.



Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard. 



giant.robot said:


> Keep in mind what "encounters" actually are: intense action punctuated by a short rest. A more descriptive name for "Encounter powers" would be "Power that you can use once per short rest". I find keeping that concept in mind really helps with the narrative around encounter powers. Likewise "daily" powers are simply powers you can use once between extended rests.



I understand that, but you can't cast the same encounter power more than once per encounter as opposed to having x amount of "encounter power mojo." 



Mort said:


> Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.



To be fair to the Vancian system, that's not so much the problem with Vancian magic itself, but the spells that are alloted for those spell slots, which contributes to the exponential change. I could see that, in theory, the Vancian system could provide a more linear progression of power. But to do so would require dumping (or converting into ritual spells like in 4E) some of those upper level spells and stretching out the upper level spells to make for a more linear power progression that matches.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

Mort said:


> Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.




Honestly, I think this is more a result of changes to other parts of the system than inherent to Vancian magic systems. The difficulty of interrupting spell casting after changes to the initiative system, the introduction of meta-magic feats, the ability to sac cast healing by clerics, a presumption of easily acquired caster only magic items, and prestige classes that stacked class powers on top of caster level progression, for example, all added to the imbalance of caster to non-caster.


----------



## innerdude (Feb 21, 2011)

In looking over some of my own previous posts, and some of the replies to the thread, I think I've realized that there's a big difference between wanting to do away with Vancian magic altogether, and wanting to change the "bog standard" implementation of it in the standard OGL rules. 

If I were to rephrase the original intent of this thread, I think it would lean closer to the latter: I am dissatisfied with the "bog standard" implementation of Vancian magic, and specifically want the 2nd iteration of the Pathfinder RPG to not use it, or to use a revised/tweaked setup for it. 

I think overall this discussion has been productive, and I've certainly been exposed to alternative opinions to mine that I respect. I don't know that I necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them, and their intent. 

But I'm still largely unclear why so many feel so strongly about the need to preserve Vancian magic in D&D. Is the "soul" and "flavor" of D&D truly so strongly tied to Vancian magic that it's impossible, as asked in the "Of Roads, Rome, and the Soul of D&D" thread, to have a "D&D experience" without it? 

Some may disagree, but I think most of us recognize that even if 4e uses a "Vancian" design for its powers, it's a fairly broad departure from "bog standard" Vancian casting in the 1e-3e sense. 

Now for many reasons, I do not like the 4e rules system, and would only willingly play it if my entire gaming group agreed to do so. But I think the 4e implementation of magic/powers is a clear indication that there's a flexibility available in gameplay by moving away from Vancian casting--or at least re-examining its core tenets and assumptions. There's a lot of "wiggle room" in the Vancian system to update it, make some minor variations, etc. 

I guess I'm just not fully understanding the "Sacred Cow-ness" of Vancian magic. I expected there to be some debate about the system's merits; I didn't expect the level of vehemence in defending it, and certainly didn't expect to be accused of "taking away people's fun." 

I think maybe the question is, if Vancian casting really is an intrinsic part of the "soul" of D&D, then if it is ever removed entirely, does D&D really cease to exist? In my opinion it does not, but clearly some would say that it does.


----------



## Mon (Feb 21, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.




I get that is how you feel. You want D&D to be a bit more (or a lot more) like GURPS or HERO (which shoot for totally generic everything, magic included).

I, however, don't. The flavour of magic systems across sources varies greatly from my perspective. Is there really a middle ground, or just some common tropes? You could also substitute any magic system for "vancian" in your more recent response quoted above, for example.

(Don't worry I am not going to keep on saying that every time, I'm just sayin' things are diverse and you've yet to move away from your own opinion - an opinion I understand ... really, I do... but opinion none the less, and one that many don't share).

(also, a lot of this is just my opinion which I know many don't share)



Aldarc said:


> Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard.




Me, I would prefer a slightly different approach... vancian wizards, then something completely different for other classes. I think that having different classes that represent different systems/sources of magic is a better approach than trying to come up with a generic universal magic system and then shoehorn everyone into it. To do so would be simply killing one tyrant and instating another.

Of course, it could get silly with all the magic systems after a while. That would need to be kept in check. You would probably keep most folks happy  and cover a lot of bases with just three or so, though.

Just my 2c since we're expressing preferences here.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2011)

Gryph said:


> After 2 years of 4e's design to give everyone something to do in every situation, I vehemently disagree with this. I very much prefer a rotating spotlight approach.
> 
> If everyone is special, then no one is special.




...And if only some classes are special, then those that don't play it are not only "not special," but their lack of special is accentuated by how special the others are.



I'll tell you this though - I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide.  And I've never seen the problem of "Everyone is special, nobody is."  And this includes 4e.


RE: Balance:

D&D has long been balanced under three assumptions.  First, balance over levels.  Second, balance over day.  And lastly, balance over the encounter.

The idea behind the first is that wizards at low levels would be weak, while reigning supreme at high level.

The idea behind the second and third is that wizards are balanced around having so many spells each "day" and that, while they can rock an encounter rather hard, they can't rock the whole day due to limited resources.

The problem with the first is that nobody likes to be useless.  People generally don't want a character that just sits on the sidelines and does nothing - nobody plays a game of football and actively wants to be water boy.  Balance over levels actively encourages this - as a wizard you have to wait and wait and wait for your time to shine.  As a fighter, it's even worse - every fight and every level you grow closer to being utterly obsolete.  This is what lead to the idea of the "sweet spot" - the point in the game where _all_ players could enjoy playing.  Of course, the existence of the "sweet spot" means the opposite also exists - those levels that are utterly not-fun.

The problem with the second is that "day" is nebulous.  If you have one fight in the day, then some classes are going to grow *magnificently* powerful, as was seen in the fifteen minute workday.  Hypothetically, if you have fifty fights in the day, then wizards are back to side-lining, though in practice this turned out to not be true, with a mix of vastly numerous spell slots and fighters being unable to replenish their HP.  To help fix this, 3.x set out to create a "standard adventure day."  Four encounters of roughly equal CR, where equal CR represents a fight that should take out roughly one fourth of your resources.  3.x was then - again in theory - balanced around this.  Now, did they succeed or fail?  That is to some measure up to personal belief; however, that both 4e _and Pathfinder_ changed both CE and numerous spells that were "balanced" in this system speaks considerably.

So, balance by encounter.

Balance by encounter is relatively easier then the other two because there is no nebulousness in it's terminology.  An encounter starts with conflict and ends when a five minute rest period is available.  If 3.x was built around a hybrid of encounter/daily leaning on daily, then 4e is leaning on encounter.  There are still marks of the daily balance, such as, well, daily powers, but for the most part the combat part of the game is balanced around the encounter.

The problem with Vancian is that it is inherently built on the first two methods of balance, and on all their inequalities.  It is centered around balance by level - it's where the concept of linear fighters vs quadratic wizards originates from.  Spells increase in power vastly faster then extraordinary or supernatural abilities.  Vancian is also by definition a daily-originated power, which means the number and strength of fights are put to the challenge of being vaguely mapped about to the number and potency of spells.

What makes this so difficult is how much easier it is to capsize the boat with the first two methods of balance.  3.x provides that example perfectly.  In theory wizards start very weak but end strong.  In practice, even in the PHB, there is a wide variety of spells that even at level end simply end the encounter immidietely.  In theory wizards use their spells when they are most needed and not at other times, but with wildly fluxuating numbers of spell slots, wizards can either be starved or, as is far, far more likely, they can have so many spells they're just throwing them around as the stride on.  Even worse, the concept of the "day" is broken exceedingly fast by spells that allow you to essentially rest on command, such as Rope Trick, leading to the fifteen minute work day.

Mind you, all of this is _just combat balance_.  It's not even touching balance outside of combat.


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 22, 2011)

I am playing two different games using two game systems.  

The first is a mid-high level game with the PC a 14th or 15th level.  We have One Bard/lyric thaumaturge w/cloistered cleric of Gar Glitergold cohort, One Wizard, One rouge, One fighter, One ranger/deep warden, One Cleric of Mystra, One Cleric/Prestiege Paladin of Sune w/wizard cohort, One Cleric of Sharess w/Brass dragon cohort.  the cleric of Sune and Cleric of Sharess are not full level cleric.  As you see we accept the Vancian magic system in this game.

The other game is Hackmaster Basic which uses Vancian magic and does not use it at the same time.  We have One Fighter, One Thief, One Mage, One Thief/Mage and One cleric of the Eternal Lantern.  

In this system Cleric are on a strict Vancian magic system, they get to memorize one spell per spell level each day.  They get a new spell level every time they gain a level.  They do get some bonus spells for high wisdom but they cannot memorize the same spell twice.   

Mages on the other hand memorize one spell per spell level they have but they do not loose them when cast.  They get spell points to cast spells and they can pump extra spell points into a spell as it is being cast.  they can cast a non-memorized spell anytime they want but it cost twice the normal amount of spell points.  So an apprentice level spell cost 30 spell points to cast if memorized or 60 if it is not; a journeyman spell cost 40 or 80; 1st level 50 or 100 spell points; ect.

The thief/mage is in effect a half-level mage.  At first level they get 60 spell points and one random apprentice spell.  This is my character.  He has one spell Springing.  It cost him 30 points to cast so he can cast it twice per day or he can pump extra spell points to increase the distance he can jump or how long it lasts.  It normally allows him to jump 20 feet forward every second for 2 minutes.  I can have him blow all his spell points into one casting to allowing him to jump 50 feet each second for 2 minutes or 20 feet for 5 minutes or some other combatant of the two variables.

So in the Hackmaster Basic game we use both Vancian spell system and spell point system.

There are other systems where it is mixed and it works, go try one.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide.  And I've never seen the problem of "Everyone is special, nobody is."  And this includes 4e.




Really? My experience is almost as near to opposite that as it it could be. When it hasn't been, there have been other flaws in the system at least as significant as the one you purport exists in Vancian D&D. Of course, I could house rule those, if I chose, instead of declaiming to the system's players that they should give up something they might not see as problematic.



ProfessorCirno said:


> RE: Balance:
> 
> D&D has long been balanced under three assumptions.  First, balance over levels.  Second, balance over day.  And lastly, balance over the encounter.
> 
> ...




Well, you probably do have to wait. 'Wait and wait', on the other hand, is vacuous hyperbole. And, when the time does arrive, there's every chance it has nothing to do with the magic at your disposal.



ProfessorCirno said:


> As a fighter, it's even worse - every fight and every level you grow closer to being utterly obsolete.  This is what lead to the idea of the "sweet spot" - the point in the game where _all_ players could enjoy playing.  Of course, the existence of the "sweet spot" means the opposite also exists - those levels that are utterly not-fun.




Nearly true. The game system is flawed. The idea of a level not being fun is, however, risible, unless your DM is utterly witless. If that is the case, it's nothing that a game system can mechanically fix. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that, at the highest levels of the game, the fighter begins to struggle. DMs can accommodate this but, even if they don't, the fighter's difficulties cannot be ascribed to Vancian magic as a mechanism. The problem is deeper than that.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with the second is that "day" is nebulous.  If you have one fight in the day, then some classes are going to grow *magnificently* powerful, as was seen in the fifteen minute workday.




Er, right. And the fix for that is simple and not system related.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Hypothetically, if you have fifty fights in the day, then wizards are back to side-lining, though in practice this turned out to not be true, with a mix of vastly numerous spell slots and fighters being unable to replenish their HP.




If you expect players to swallow that argument, you really need to think again. It's loaded to the gills with assumptions. 'Vastly' numerous spells? I beg to differ. Fighters unable to renew their HP? What? They're not allowed to spend their money on potions or items now?

You can (and have) put forward better arguments than this guff.



ProfessorCirno said:


> To help fix this, 3.x set out to create a "standard adventure day."  Four encounters of roughly equal CR, where equal CR represents a fight that should take out roughly one fourth of your resources.  3.x was then - again in theory - balanced around this.  Now, did they succeed or fail?  That is to some measure up to personal belief; however, that both 4e _and Pathfinder_ changed both CE and numerous spells that were "balanced" in this system speaks considerably.




It speaks only about the designers' personal taste for a particular style. Anything else is pure speculation.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with Vancian is that it is inherently built on the first two methods of balance, and on all their inequalities.




Loaded. Subjective.



ProfessorCirno said:


> It is centered around balance by level - it's where the concept of linear fighters vs quadratic wizards originates from.




Best line of your post (he argues, subjectively), because it sounds good. Except, it's not true. There is no second, unknown higher power. Nice try through.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Spells increase in power vastly faster then extraordinary or supernatural abilities.  Vancian is also by definition a daily-originated power, which means the number and strength of fights are put to the challenge of being vaguely mapped about to the number and potency of spells.




And limited choice. Don't forget that. It's a biggie. As are a bunch of other factors you don't acknowledge but I will at least allude to.



ProfessorCirno said:


> What makes this so difficult is how much easier it is to capsize the boat with the first two methods of balance.  3.x provides that example perfectly.  In theory wizards start very weak but end strong.  In practice, even in the PHB, there is a wide variety of spells that even at level end simply end the encounter immidietely.




If - and only if - they have that wide a variety in their spell books and magic item inventory, which they shouldn't and usually don't. Their spell books should not be the sum of all the spells in the PHB, SpC or whatever.



ProfessorCirno said:


> In theory wizards use their spells when they are most needed and not at other times, but with wildly fluxuating numbers of spell slots, wizards can either be starved or, as is far, far more likely, they can have so many spells they're just throwing them around as the stride on.




Maybe in your game.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Even worse, the concept of the "day" is broken exceedingly fast by spells that allow you to essentially rest on command, such as Rope Trick, leading to the fifteen minute work day.




Although in every game that I've DMed the party has, at some point, acquired Rope Trick, I have rarely - and I choose the word advisedly - seen a party experience the fifteen minute workday. I have seen parties take entire days out to recover from a rough encounter (or day of encounters) but the fifteen minute workday is the equivalent of a moral panic among unimaginative DMs and players alike. It has nothing in particular to do with Vancian magic. Those same people would be faced with fifteen minute workdays, even if they had a points-based magic system at their disposal.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Mind you, all of this is _just combat balance_.  It's not even touching balance outside of combat.




Absolutely, I'm sure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2011)

> I'll tell you this though - I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide.




Ever play RIFTS?

Ever play HERO where someone builds their PC as a super-normal (IOW, highly trained & skilled, but with no one aspect outside of human boundaries)?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2011)

Gryph said:


> I used to agree with this. Then we tried playing a 1e game using a houserule that spell slots determined only number of castable spells with no pre-memorization. The casters came to dominate play since they always had the perfect spell. We went back to memorization after a few months.



Interesting, as your houserule is pretty much precisely what I'm doing right now as well.  When you did it, what character level did you find things broke down at?  I'm up to the 4th-5th level range now and so far so good...

Lanefan


----------



## Gryph (Feb 22, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Interesting, as your houserule is pretty much precisely what I'm doing right now as well.  When you did it, what character level did you find things broke down at?  I'm up to the 4th-5th level range now and so far so good...
> 
> Lanefan




If I remember right, and this was 1e days, I was playing a 6/5 F/MU and joined a running group so I was a level or behind. Single class casters were 7 or so for the magic user and 8 or 9 for the cleric. 

The DM ended up getting into a cycle of increasing items to the non-casters to try and keep things balanced and you can probably guess what that did.

We used that rule for a couple of months worth of sessions and I think we all leveled up once in that time. The DM ended up doing a bit of a reset and took away a few items at the same time we went back to memorization.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2011)

Gryph said:


> If I remember right, and this was 1e days, I was playing a 6/5 F/MU and joined a running group so I was a level or behind. Single class casters were 7 or so for the magic user and 8 or 9 for the cleric.



Which isn't all that far away from where I've found things tend to break down in any case: around 9th-10th.

So I'm good for a few years yet. Nice to know! 

Lanefan


----------



## Gryph (Feb 22, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Which isn't all that far away from where I've found things tend to break down in any case: around 9th-10th.
> 
> So I'm good for a few years yet. Nice to know!
> 
> Lanefan




Could well be. If we had tried that out starting with new characters I think it would have taken a while to feel broken. We may have even tried some other variants to balance the higher level spells. 

There's a lot of water under that bridge now, and sadly not all of those friends are still with us.

Good Gaming


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2011)

Putting on my mediator hat...

What do you think this thread would have been like if it had been entitled "Designing Non-Vancian D&D campaign: please help!"

I bet it would be very different.  Heck, I probably would have tried constructive posts to help...and I probably wouldn't be the only pro-Vancian who did.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 22, 2011)

I think the OP might have been fine with that, Danny, but for the first few pages of this thread it was pretty much just 1 guy posting and saying "But I don't WANT to play a game where I don't get to monopolize EVERYTHING!!!" over and over again.  

That tends to make a thread go 16 pages for no reason at all, in this place.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Putting on my mediator hat...
> 
> What do you think this thread would have been like if it had been entitled "Designing Non-Vancian D&D campaign: please help!"
> 
> I bet it would be very different.  Heck, I probably would have tried constructive posts to help...and I probably wouldn't be the only pro-Vancian who did.



A good mediator does not stir the hornet's nest up again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2011)

Unless he's teaching a lesson...


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unless he's teaching a lesson...



The lesson has already been taught and learned, and even acknowledged by the OP, thus making your mediation both redundant and trouble-stirring.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2011)

Maybe si, maybe no.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ever play RIFTS?
> 
> Ever play HERO where someone builds their PC as a super-normal (IOW, highly trained & skilled, but with no one aspect outside of human boundaries)?




A long-running Champions campaign of mine had one of those: Neil Dufferin, retired super agent.  Probably one of the most effective, pivotal characters in the campaign; certainly the de facto leader of the group once the nominal leader's ties to VIPER came out...

And we're not talking about a low-point gritty Champions campiagn either.  Character were built on 400 Active Points to start and earned over 100 points in experience during play by the time the campaign retired.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 22, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> That's one of the biggest reasons I just don't like 4e. The 4e magic system feels extremely limited and very bland to me. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Vancian system. The only time it's a problem is when I have a player who makes it a problem. And then, I don't blame the system, I blame the player.




I could be wrong as I am no 4E expert but what is magical about 4E magic? From the little I see they have taken away massive spellbooks and your ability to pick and choose. Now a wizard is no different than a fighter beyond the flavor text that says the wizard casts a spell and the fighter shoots an arrow.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 22, 2011)

Actually my friend who has read the 4e books claims 4e is not any longer a table top RPG but rather a MMORGP in disguise, which he personally believes that's why they changed the system so drastically.

I however, have not read the 4e books so I really couldn't say anything about them.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> See, this just gives me flashbacks to pre-4e Shadowrun where everyone would go out for pizza while the GM had his hour and a half one-on-one session with the Decker.
> 
> It wasn't fun.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry that poor DMs and GMs have sullied your experience in this regard.

Rest assured that some of us play in really fun campaigns where all characters have their moments to shine, run by DMs who manage the game well enough to keep Magic Users from being swiss army knives.

For one thing, you can't memorize the perfect spells in the morning if you have no idea what you're going to face in the afternoon.

Anyway, enjoy your game your way, but know that the alternative is a blast (pun intended) as well.


----------



## Haltherrion (Feb 25, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Actually my friend who has read the 4e books claims 4e is not any longer a table top RPG but rather a MMORGP in disguise, which he personally believes that's why they changed the system so drastically.
> 
> I however, have not read the 4e books so I really couldn't say anything about them.




I think they had an eye on MMORGs when they designed the system...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 25, 2011)

Changing the thread title this late is not cool.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Changing the thread title this late is not cool.



Particularly as doing so takes the "read" flag off thus it shows as unread; the only reason I realized it was the same thread was the titles list appeared to show I'd posted in this thread yet had never read it...which is a pretty neat trick if you can pull it off. 

Lan-"I'd better memorize _Stealth Post_ again tomorrow"-efan


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 26, 2011)

*re*



innerdude said:


> I'm on record as being a fairly strong supporter of the 3.x / Pathfinder rules.
> 
> But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.
> 
> ...





Vancian Magic is why I have gravitated more towards the sorcerer and spontaneous caster classes. Those classes seem to use magic more like standard fiction wizards than Vancian wizards.

I would love to see Paizo fashion a different magic system. Equally as potent, but different mechanically. I don't want that watery 4E garbage magic system or anything close. But I would like something more of what  you see in fiction while at the same time still capturing the high fantasy and versatile magic of D&D. 

But I would prefer they do something along the lines of what they've done with the sorcerer, summoner, witch, and the like where arcane casters are very focused on specialized areas of magic. Very few wizards in fiction are generalists, in fact none I know of. Most wizards have some area of arcane lore they specialize in. Even Gandalf was focused on fire magic and lore.

I would love to see the magic system built around types of arcane casters rather than generalist, do everything arcane casters.

But I will reiterate that I don't want any watery soup 4E type of system. That magic system is what drove me away from D&D it was so unbelievably unimaginative and underpowered. Made arcane casters seem like sad little chump shadows of their former selves. I don't want that in _Pathfinder_.

Wizards aka arcane casters should always be fearsomely powerful beings wielding arcane power that strikes fear in the heart. That is a hallmark of fantasy whether it be mythology or standard fantasy fiction. Heck, even historically those that were thought to have wizardly type powers like witches and warlocks were greatly feared. That part should always be a part of any arcane caster. It shouldn't be solely a role-play mechanic like it is in 4E, it should be an inherent part of the class. If you come after a wielder of arcane power, you better bring friends and come prepared or you are most likely going to end up dead if you aren't another wielder of arcane power. 

That is how fantasy should be.


----------



## Runestar (Feb 26, 2011)

The solution is simple - we should go back to 2e and bring back the netherese arcanist.

Basically, they used the spell point system, learnt spells as a wizard, and could cast any spell they knew spontaneously.

Now, we get the best of all worlds. No need to differentiate between wizard, sorc and psion. 

Yep, they were so broken that even the goddess of magic had to personally step in to put a stop to this nonsense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2011)

> But I would like something more of what you see in fiction while at the same time still capturing the high fantasy and versatile magic of D&D.




As pointed out in many threads, "what you see in fiction" is as vague as it gets.

First if all, Vancian magic arises from a work of fiction, so it actually satisfies your plea.

Second, there are nearly as many different "magic systems" as writers.  A writer doesn't necessarily have a coherent concept of magic when they sit down to write a work of fiction.  Some do, but for others, it's just a deus ex machina.

And some of those mythological/literary magic systems REALLY wouldn't work well for RPGs.  A true mana system- as depicted in Niven's "The Magic Goes Away" cycle of stories (based on RW faith traditions & legends of "mana") would be quite unsatisfying for most gamers because mana to power spells is not a personal resource in any great amount- it must be gathered to the caster from his surroundings.  And when it is depleted, it is does not replenish for generations.  (Amazingly, some of that feel was well captured in the original _Dark Sun_ setting's mechanic for Defiler magic.)

So, when you talk about literary magic, 1) don't dismiss Vancian, because it IS literary in origin, and 2) be specific about whose literary magic you prefer.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 26, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Actually my friend who has read the 4e books claims 4e is not any longer a table top RPG but rather a MMORGP in disguise, which he personally believes that's why they changed the system so drastically.
> 
> I however, have not read the 4e books so I really couldn't say anything about them.




Good news - your friend is wrong!



MrGrenadine said:


> I'm sorry that poor DMs and GMs have sullied your experience in this regard.
> 
> Rest assured that some of us play in really fun campaigns where all  characters have their moments to shine, run by DMs who manage the game  well enough to keep Magic Users from being swiss army knives.
> 
> ...




Yes, those poor DMs and GMs that played the game by the rules.

Wizards don't need the one perfect spell.  They need the "good enough for this situation" spell, which is most of them.



DocMoriartty said:


> I could be wrong as I am no 4E expert but  what is magical about 4E magic? From the little I see they have taken  away massive spellbooks and your ability to pick and choose. Now a  wizard is no different than a fighter beyond the flavor text that says  the wizard casts a spell and the fighter shoots an arrow.




And what's magical about 3e magic?  Having a big spell book makes it  "magical?"  Is that it?  Being better then everyone else?  Is that what  does it?  Because at the end of the day, the only difference is that the  3e wizard has unlimited options and the fighter has one or two.  That's  not being "magical."  The spells are still all strict formula that  someone else designed that you pick though.

If your players have it, it is no longer mysterous - it is now a tool.   The only magic system that's felt actually mysterious and magical was  WoD's Mage's.  And 4e's ritual system comes damn closer then 3e's Vancian ever did.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 26, 2011)

Sigh, being right is serious business.

And what many people are forgetting is that whenever anybody talks about needing to change the system, any system, there will always be opposition to change. And those same people will balk at other people who want to change the system they like.

All this does is create a moebius strip.

And nothing ever just stops.

But who cares because being right serious business.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2011)

> All this does is create a moebius strip.




I once went to a show by a Möbius stripper.  Quite frustrating- she was nearly naked and after she did a quick spin around the pole, she was suddenly and mysteriously fully dressed again!


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 26, 2011)

Well, better than nothing!


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 27, 2011)

*re*



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As pointed out in many threads, "what you see in fiction" is as vague as it gets.
> 
> First if all, Vancian magic arises from a work of fiction, so it actually satisfies your plea.
> 
> ...




Now that I think more about it, D&D magic doesn't need to change. There are truly so many options at the moment that simulate different types of fictional magic and abilities that pinpointing one is kind of pointless.

All magic systems are artificial. D&D magic is probably the best magic system ever made to be honest when you look at how well it works for just about any concept. 

Now that I've tried, I honestly can't think of a better system. D&D is truly the most robust and interesting magic system I've ever come across. It's breadth is amazing. I can spend hours and hours buildings caster concepts utilizing the D&D magic rules in a way I can't in other game systems.

I have a Life Oracle right now that can heal people while paralyzed within 30 feet of her.

I created a blaster evoker wizard built around _Chain Lightning_ and Admixture specialization.

I have an Orc Blooded sorcerer that will be able to boost his strength to around 34 when he decides to go into _transformation_ combat mode.

I have an Inquisitor that can look into the hearts of men and know when they are lying as well lay the smack down strong with the power of his god.

I have to say that the D&D magic system doesn't need any change. Never did.  It is the most versatile and interesting magic system out there in my opinion. And allows you to build any type of caster you want. Look at the magnitude of imaginative ways the _Pathfinder_ game designers used the D&D magic to fashion different types of casters to cater to many different archetypes.

I think that is the sign of a great magic system when it is so versatile you can do anything with it.

I have to say I was wrong. Vancian magic fits in fine with the overall D&D magic system and provides a unique flavor for the classes that use it in D&D like the wizard, cleric, and witch. And the overall D&D magic system incorporated spontaneous magic in 3rd edition to fit a different type of fictional caster and that has expanded the D&D magic system in new and creative ways.

D&D magic doesn't need to change. It would in fact be a disservice to the game to change a magic system that has so many imaginative ways that it can be used. I guess I'm back on the side that wants to keep the D&D magic system as it is. Don't need anything else. Don't want anything else. The D&D magic system fuels my imagination and has me thinking of new spell strategies all the time. Keep it as is.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 27, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Good news - your friend is wrong!




Opinions differ. So no, his friend isn't wrong.





> Yes, those poor DMs and GMs that played the game by the rules.
> 
> Wizards don't need the one perfect spell.  They need the "good enough for this situation" spell, which is most of them.




I guess all those creatures with spell resistance or wizards with counter spells never got much us in your campaigns like they did in mine. If you design your enemies according to the players they are facing, you can challenge even the mighty wizard.

And _Pathfinder_ cleaned up a lot of spells that made everything an instant win. 



> And what's magical about 3e magic?  Having a big spell book makes it  "magical?"  Is that it?  Being better then everyone else?  Is that what  does it?  Because at the end of the day, the only difference is that the  3e wizard has unlimited options and the fighter has one or two.  That's  not being "magical."  The spells are still all strict formula that  someone else designed that you pick though.




What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.

I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.

Where Raistlin is indeed better than everyone else.

Where Gandalf is the only one that can go against the Balrog or battle the Witch King of Angmar on equal ground.

Where Merlin is the powerful person in the Arthurian legends and could take out any of the knights if they were to go head to head.





> If your players have it, it is no longer mysterous - it is now a tool.   The only magic system that's felt actually mysterious and magical was  WoD's Mage's.  And 4e's ritual system comes damn closer then 3e's Vancian ever did.




I thought the ritual system was cool until I thought about it and the ritual system is nothing more than casting time in 3rd or earlier edition. 

If you really want to work in certain spells as castable by any class, you can do with that special abilities or feats in 3rd edition. Problem solved. If _Pathfinder_ ever wants to let fighters cast some "ritual" type spells that is what they'll do. Easily meets the criteria.

But 4E has put themselves in a corner when it comes to combat teleports that can get your whole group out of battle and somewhere safe. Now it's a ritual and will take too long to cast while in battle. Mind control that lasts longer than a round is non-existent. It's all do a little damage and some secondary effect the creature saves for every round.

Sure, that's real magical. Roll my 3d10 and hope the creature doesn't save on its turn. Loads of versatility in that system isn't there?

I imagine you don't want versatility. You must have played with players that made you feel small and worthless if you weren't playing a wizard. That min-maxed with a DM that couldn't create challenges to counter the mighty wizard.

I guess there's no way _Pathfinder[/] game designers could reign in some of the damage done with the Spell Compendium. Which was the main culprit behind the power creep of wizards. By core wizards and arcane casters were balanced, especially once they got rid of the extra spell from haste.

What messed up arcane casters in 3rd edition was the power creep from certain spells in the Spell Compendium and the Archmage prestige class (the first iteration). Don't act as though the wizard has been inherently more powerful for all iterations of D&D. They certainly haven't. 

They've had their moments to shine. But every other class has as well.

And in Pathfinder every class in the game save for the rogue is powerful in their own right and stands up fine compared to the wizard. In fact, at this point in time the player playing the wizard in our group is rather underwhelmed with the class because the Invulnerable Raging barbarian and the Two-hander fighter are beasting through about everything we face while he is often engaged in a support role because it's more effective for him to help them kill the enemy rather than do it himself.

Quit acting like it's still 3rd edition and no one bothered to reign in the magic system. So far Pathfinder arcane casters are pretty reigned in as far as being able to end major combats by themselves. I'm having more trouble dealing with the melee classes than the arcane casters. And the most annoying arcane caster at the moment is the friggin bard.

The bard is incredible versatile and does such an incredible job of boosting the group he's making it a pain in the behind to stop the melee characters from stomping everything in their path. 

Games can change. Pathfinder's changes eliminated a lot of the no brainer arcane combos that became problematic in 3rd edition. It wasn't the system that was bad, it was certain spells and certain prestige classes that messed up 3E._


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 27, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.
> 
> I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.
> 
> ...




Are the wizards the same level as the non-wizards in this fiction? If they aren't, there's your imbalance straight out of the gate.

Conan iirc gets knocked unconscious three times. Once by magic, twice by slingstones. Clearly slingstones are as powerful as magic, and the game shold reflect it.

Dragonlance isn't exactly a source for wizards in D&D, being derived from it. And I'd argue Raistlin is higher level than most, when he's the most powerful wizard on Krynn.

Who was it killed the Witch-King? Eowyn and Merry, wasn't it? No wizards needed.

If you want to include Arthurian legend, then you might want to remember the time Lancelot beseiged the City of Enchanters. On his own. And they had to persuade him to leave, rather than use magic to drive him off.

A lesson: Fictional examples don't exclusively go in favour of wizards being more powerful.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 27, 2011)

Yeah, it's sheer utter nonsense that the wizard is better than everybody else. The wizard does have a lot of power, but it's meant to be that way for the wizard is meant to be artillery. The wizard's greatest weakness is that they are not close combat people. Especially in 1e and 2e. In 3e they could multiclass far more easily and actually take a level or two in fighter, but that also means sacrificing some levels which could be used to increase his magic.

In fact. I'd bet that if you took three low or first level fighters against one mage without his spells, the fighters would win. The mage must be a minimum of tenth level. There must be no magic items either, for both sides. other than that, there is no limit to other equipment.

I'd bet that the fighters would win. Or do tons of damage.

Probably even without armor.

The point to this is to illustrate the great weakness of the mage. A Cleric also has this problem, but not to the extent mages do. Because Mages can't use armor. And fighters have tons of hit points. In 3.5e a tenth level Wizard is not likely to have more than 86 hit points, assuming a Constitution score of 18 (which gives a +4 bonus to hp per level) and mages are not likely to have that high of a Constitution score. This doesn't count the toughness feats though.

In contrast, a low level fighter, let's go ahead with first level, could start out with a maximum of 14 hit points, not counting feats. Three fighters have a potential damage of with a longsword of d8 damage of dishing 24 points of damage per round, with a probable average of 8 per round, without any Strength bonuses to damage. With a Strength of 18, that's a further potential of an additional 12 points per round.

A 1st level fighters' BAB is +1. A wizard's BAB is +0. A Strength of 18 gives a +4 to hit for a total of +5 to hit. A wizard is not likely to have this high of a strength.

Since a Wizard can not wear armor, they would have an AC of 10 without Dex or magic item bonuses. That means a first level fighter would need to roll a five or higher to hit a tenth level Wizard. How long can a wizard last against that? 

Give the fighters chainmail, and that means they'd have a minimum AC of 15. With a shield that would increase to 17. If a wizard didn't have any bonuses, that means a wizard would have to roll a fifteen or seventeen or higher to hit. Plus a wizard's more than likely to have a a d4 dagger, or a d6 staff. Without any bonuses, that would be two or three rounds before defeating just one of them.

Do the math. The fighters would win.The fighter really overshadows the wizard.

Of course, single lightning bolt would take the fighters out. Maybe. Even if the Wizard did have his spells, he could still lose them because of these rules that many are overlooking:


> *Injury*
> 
> If while trying to cast a spell you take damage, you must make a Concentration  check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the level of the spell you’re  casting). If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The  interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between when  you start and when you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time  of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the  spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).



So, facing three first level fighters, that's a potential of three times of losing the spell. However, of course, a single lightning bolt would take them all out which is why you would need one of them to be an archer. And this is a_ tenth level wizard_ we're talking about. Or the wizard could cast a magic missile which would be 5d4 + 5 points of damage, for a range of 10 to 25 points of damage. Still, that's against one opponent. And the magic missile can still be dispelled depending on initiative. A smart fighter would delay the attack until the caster started casting so they could dispel the spell.

Even if the Wizard would be given magic items to increase AC, the fighters still have that huge bonus of plus 5 to hit for every melee roll. That means if the Wizard had an equal AC they would still need to roll a 10 or a 12 on a d20. 

Higher level fighters would of course have more attacks. A tenth level fighter has two attacks and a BAB of +10/5 which means +10 for the first attack and +5 for the second one.

And that's why they turn to magic.

Another way to test this out is that you can play DDO (Dungeons And Dragons Online) and play a Wizard or a Sorcerer and see how far you actually get on your own. It's free to play. or even other games such as Neverwinter Nights.

There you can see the strengths and the weaknesses of a mage.

I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.

I hope this little example dispels the nonsense of a wizard is so superior to the fighter that the fighters are absolutely useless.

If anything a fighter is superior to a wizard. But neither class can do everything, which is why they form teams so they can compliment each others abilities.

However, the example uses 3.5e rules.

And the big difference between literature and RPGs is that a writer has full control of the characters and situations they write about.

in short....
 *
FIGHTERS KICK ASS! *They are not a useless class to play.


----------



## Haltherrion (Feb 27, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.





I have played a lot of wizards in my day in every flavor of D&D and until 4E they have always felt to me like a favored class (especially so for the earlier editions where wizard XP progression took off about level 6). By 3.5 they could be tempered, especially with a focus on foes with SR but overall, yes, their damage output and utility magic was potent once you hit level 8ish (depending on the system) and in our groups they often stood above the rest of the party, certainly warriors.

It might have been different for your group but other experiences on the balance between the two seem quite legit to me. Interestingly, 4E has taken all that away and, also interestingly, I no longer see the rush to play the arcane caster that there used to be. Pre-4E there were always enough players interested in a wizard or wizard-like character that my group had to rotate who got the spot campaign to campaign. I played them so much earlier in my gaming career I swore off them last four campaigns or so. Let someone else have the chance for glory.

As for fighter versus mage, give a mage full range on his utility and mobility spells and I don't see how the fighter survives. Improved invisibility, fly, 500 yard range damage dealing spells. It's a bit much for a warrior to deal with. They have their place but I wouldn't bet on the fighter unless they were in a confined space or the warrior had surprise. But yes, fighters can certainly be fun to play. In any given campaign, many classes are fun and across the gamut of games, all classes can be fun.

And as for using SR to balance mages, I used it as I had little option but that was always an awkward thing to do: non-SR foes, the casters rocked, SR foes, the casters sat around very frustrated. If you had a whole session of SR foes, not much fun at all for the casters even though the situation often demanded it (if you were tooling around the Abyss for instance).

(Full disclosure: While I wouldn't consider myself anti-Vancian, it has never been a favored feature of the game for me.)


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 27, 2011)

> As for fighter versus mage, give a mage full range on his utility and  mobility spells and I don't see how the fighter survives. Improved  invisibility, fly, 500 yard range damage dealing spells. It's a bit much  for a warrior to deal with. They have their place but I wouldn't bet on  the fighter unless they were in a confined space or the warrior had  surprise. But yes, fighters can certainly be fun to play. In any given  campaign, many classes are fun and across the gamut of games, all  classes can be fun.




You overlooked the main points I was making which are. 

*Magic can be disrupted.

Mages are not up close combat. 

And spells run out.
*
Those are the three greatest balancing features to the system that everybody are overlooking in order to change the class. They are huge weaknesses to the wizard.

And it works. Regardless of the stupid arguments of the power of magic is exponential. So what? There are balances built in to the system, and they are big ones.

I'm very frustrated that people are overlooking these things.

Sure, magic is difficult to fight against, but not impossible. If it were impossible then all literature would be about wizard fights and there'd be no characters like Conan who kicks wizard butt, regardless of the differences between literature and rpgs.

And if things were easy it wouldn't be fun or even worthwhile to play the game now, would it? If it were completely impossible to play against a wizard you _wouldn't need anything else to play._ That's the meat and drink of telling a good story and what makes characters heroes, is that they do overcome incredible odds and incredibly powerful foes. Not being able to do this makes any story useless and doesn't inspire anyone.

Nothing worthwhile is easy.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 27, 2011)

Haltherrion said:


> I have played a lot of wizards in my day in every flavor of D&D and until 4E they have always felt to me like a favored class (especially so for the earlier editions where wizard XP progression took off about level 6). By 3.5 they could be tempered, especially with a focus on foes with SR but overall, yes, their damage output and utility magic was potent once you hit level 8ish (depending on the system) and in our groups they often stood above the rest of the party, certainly warriors.




Perhaps in 3e, but not in earlier editions.  A wizard had to be very careful which spells he cast and when.  Generally speaking, most spells had a casting time equal to their level.  A fireball has a casting time of 3.  That's 3 segments in which your spell can be interrupted by a kid with a rock.  Higher level spells are even worse.  Meteor swarm looks good on paper, but you have to be within a bow shot to cast it.  Great if you can open with it, but that's two rounds of standing there with no dex bonus.  Magic users have the potential to be very powerful, but it's rarely realized.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 27, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.



I have played quite a number of them (from levels 1-20), so there is no need to be presumptuous. Having also played fighters across similar levels, and there is no contest. It's better to be a wizard. The pay-off is substantially better. But this is all part of the linear vs. exponential power progression that separates non-mages from mages. 



> I hope this little example dispels the nonsense of a wizard is so superior to the fighter that the fighters are absolutely useless.
> 
> If anything a fighter is superior to a wizard. But neither class can do everything, which is why they form teams so they can compliment each others abilities.



*Diamond Cross critically fumbles his dispel check.*


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 27, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> I have played quite a number of them (from levels 1-20), so there is no need to be presumptuous. Having also played fighters across similar levels, and there is no contest. It's better to be a wizard. The pay-off is substantially better. But this is all part of the linear vs. exponential power progression that separates non-mages from mages.
> 
> *Diamond Cross critically fumbles his dispel check.*




Which all of that is a bunch of nonsense. It's not better to be a wizard. 

You might as well never play anything else other than a wizard ever again.

It is you who critically fumbled your listen check.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 27, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Which all of that is a bunch of nonsense. It's not better to be a wizard.



It's definitely better to be a wizard due to the benefits that a your spells provide you that other classes lack. But whereas the sorcerer knows a limited selection, the wizard is able to draw from an enormous spellbook. Many of the downsides that you listed to being a wizard can be easily mitigated (if not practically ignored) by a smart player. So good upper level mages will never let a melee fighter get close. The wizard will have max ranks in Concentration, Combat Casting, and other tricks of the trade. And there is a slim chance that a wizard will run out of spells before a fighter runs out of hit points. A fighter is boosted by his magic items. A wizard will also have magic items of their own that can nullify the advantages of a X-mas tree fighter. 



> You might as well never play anything else other than a wizard ever again.



And this is what a fair share of people did. The advantages are too great to ignore.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 27, 2011)

> It's definitely better to be a wizard due to the benefits that a your  spells provide you that other classes lack. But whereas the sorcerer  knows a limited selection, the wizard is able to draw from an enormous  spellbook.



Which is a fourth huge balance because a wizard can not have spells without his spellbook.


> Many of the downsides that you listed to being a wizard can be easily  mitigated (if not practically ignored) by a smart player. So good upper  level mages will never let a melee fighter get close. The wizard will  have max ranks in Concentration, Combat Casting, and other tricks of the  trade. And there is a slim chance that a wizard will run out of spells  before a fighter runs out of hit points. A fighter is boosted by his  magic items. A wizard will also have magic items of their own that can  nullify the advantages of a X-mas tree fighter.



Yes, smart players will make it difficult for their opponents. Not everybody is smart though, and there's also inexperienced players as well. The only way to "balance" this is to simply not allow this to happen in the game. Which is sheer utter nonsense.

It's like a game of chess. There will be much smarter players than others. So why allow the smarter player to play a game of chess? It must all be balanced. Same thing in sports as well, there will always be smarter players who will make it more difficult for their opponents.

That's why this is a nonsensical argument. Because basically what you are arguing for is to not allow these advantages to be put into play for the sake of balance. It's utter crap.

And if everything's the same then nobody learns how to use strategies and the game is not fun to play.



> And this is what a fair share of people did. The advantages are too great to ignore.



I've never seen this. I've only seen people who wanted to play wizards because it was fun to play them, not to have a super powerful impossible to beat god character for bragging rights.

But I know there are power gamers out there who probably would. But then again, any power gamer takes the best advantages they can to dish out as much damage as they can to be the biggest baddest tough guy around, and they can do that with any class.

It doesn't matter how you change the class to balance it either. These kinds of people are very good at finding ways to be very tough in their chosen class, regardless of the class. Oh, and they never have any variation when they find the right combination either.

However, I am not a power gamer. I do use min/maxing to a certain extent, but I also do things because I want to see what it does or to have a bit of fun with it now and then. Because sometimes I like to have characters who are really good with a bow, or who are really good at say brewing because they really super love ale (In fact I once made a mage who loved ale so much he made almost twenty different spells that dealt with ale, including a couple of offensive spells. Imagine if you will a stream of super heated ale that did as much damage as a magic missile, if you will). I don't always take power attack cleave and great cleave, sometimes I take weapon finesse to have a swashbuckler character as well.

Edit:

And you know what? The Rogue does even better against wizards. They have Improved Evasion, Stealth, and Sneak Damage.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 28, 2011)

Heh, in my experience the balance of being a wizard is called 'Dogpile the guy in a pointy hat!'

How long does an enemy spellcaster last against a typical party of adventurers? In my experience, not more than a few spells, 'cause _everything_ gets thrown at him. (Including, thanks to a half orc barbarian, a kitchen sink... he actually asked if there was one, just so he could throw it at the Foozle.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Heh, in my experience the balance of being a wizard is called 'Dogpile the guy in a pointy hat!'
> 
> How long does an enemy spellcaster last against a typical party of adventurers? In my experience, not more than a few spells, 'cause _everything_ gets thrown at him. (Including, thanks to a half orc barbarian, a kitchen sink... he actually asked if there was one, just so he could throw it at the Foozle.)
> 
> The Auld Grump




So the balance is that one character is so powerful everyone else has to focus fire on him*?

*And fail because he's actually an illusion and the real one is invisible**
**And flying***
*** And has polymorphed into a hydra and is thus better at attacking things then the fighter is.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 28, 2011)

Well I'm certainly convinced. The wizard is so damned powerful you don't need to play anything else. Let's just get rid of all the other classes. Let's just call the game Wizards And Dungeons and be done with it. A wizard is just the mini god and will clean anybody else's clock. I certainly will never play any other class nor any other games ever. Playing a wizard is an automatic win! playing a wizard means nobody else can win at anything else. One wizard is equal to a thousand thousand fighters at first level and only increases in godly manliness at each level thereafter!

HOORAY!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 28, 2011)

> What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone  else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm  worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.




No, they aren't.  Wizards are deus ex machina or antagonists that go down like a chump.  The protagonist is _never_ a D&D wizard.  Magic is never the answer to anything in fiction and mythology - and frequently is the answer to _nothing_.



> I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than  everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.




Conan murders wizards all the time.  He's a one man wizard killing machine.



> Where Raistlin is indeed better than everyone else.




Really?  This is your argument?  Using a *D&D book* to prove a point about fiction and D&D?



> Where Gandalf is the only one that can go against the Balrog or battle the Witch King of Angmar on equal ground.




First off, Gandalf is Michael the Archangel, not a level 5 wizard.

Secondly, Gandalf doesn't do anything against the Balrog.  He doesn't do much against the Witch King of Angmar.  Gandalf doesn't really do a whole lot of magic at all, because he's not the protagonist, he's the walking deus ex machina.



> Where Merlin is the powerful person in the Arthurian legends and could  take out any of the knights if they were to go head to head.




Merlin was *the antichrist*, not a level 5 wizard, for starters.

Secondly, again, what does he do?  Merlin doesn't do a whole lot of magic.  What he does is present _knowledge_.  That's the role of most wizards - to provide deus ex machina and to give knowledge.

You are factually incorrect.

When you read novels, when you read mythology, when you watch TV shows and movies, when you play video games, the protagonists are universally warriors and fighters and rogues and martial characters.  Conan, d'Artagnan, Solomon Kane, Fafhrd, the _entire LotR crew_, Sinbad, Roland, Hercules, Odysseus, Beowulf, Fionn Mac Cumhaill, Cu Chulainn, Sigurd.

Fiction and fantasy is almost entirely based on warriors doing awesome stuff.

Even the characters with magic spend far more time _not using it_ then they do using it.  Harry Dresden doesn't cast Time Stop then Fly then Fireball to solve his problems, he uses his wit and his deduction.  Harry Potter uses friendship and knowledge, not raw arcane might.  Turjan spends most of his time swashbuckling - hell, he only knows three spells throughout most of the book.  The Grey Mouser is 99% thief with only 1% wizardry.

Let's give an example.  The first Harry Potter movie (never read the book :B) is a perfect example of your standard hero's quest, and has the standard hero's quest ending.  Several trials face the protagonist and side kicks - and each one is solved differently.  At the Death Plants, Hermoine utilizes superior knowledge to understand the task and how to escape it.  At the chess board, Ron uses tactics and quick thinking - along with sacrifice - to surpass it.  Harry has to rely on his own _very physical_ capabiities in flight to grab the key.  And finally, the BBEG is defeated not by a Slay Bad Guy spell, but by the deus ex machina of love.

No wizardry needed.

Even the D&D books follow this pattern.  You mentioned Raistlin, but Raistlin *doesn't do much*.  He's missing for a fair enough chunk, and most the time he's jabbing with his dagger or just staying out of the fight.  The only times his magic becomes God Mode is when he _is no longer a protagonist_ and is using it as deus ex machina.  When he's an actual part of the group, what does he do?  The same thing all wizards do!  He imparts _knowledge!_


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 28, 2011)

> So Guttorm went in to Sigurd the next morning as he lay upon his bed,  yet durst he not do aught against him, but shrank back out again; yea,  and even so he fared a second time, for so bright and eager were the  eyes of Sigurd that few durst look upon him. But the third time he went  in, and there lay Sigurd asleep; then Guttorm drew his sword and thrust  Sigurd through in such wise that the sword point smote into the bed  beneath him; then Sigurd awoke with that wound, and Guttorm gat him unto  the door; but therewith Sigurd caught up the sword Gram, and cast it  after him, and it smote him on the back, and struck him asunder in the  midst, so that the feet of him fell one way, and the head and hands back  into the chamber.​



Fighters own and wizards shouldn't be the "top dog," period.

Edit: Alternately, there's your Healing Surge.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 28, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well I'm certainly convinced. The wizard is so damned powerful you don't need to play anything else. Let's just get rid of all the other classes. Let's just call the game Wizards And Dungeons and be done with it. A wizard is just the mini god and will clean anybody else's clock. I certainly will never play any other class nor any other games ever. Playing a wizard is an automatic win! playing a wizard means nobody else can win at anything else. One wizard is equal to a thousand thousand fighters at first level and only increases in godly manliness at each level thereafter!
> 
> HOORAY!




This but unironically is the path 3.x took.



Diamond Cross said:


> Edit:
> 
> And you know what? The Rogue does even better against wizards. They have Improved Evasion, Stealth, and Sneak Damage.




Seriously, how does any of this help at all?

Evasion?  The smart wizard isn't throwing fireballs.  Stealth?  I cast _light_.  Sneak damage?  You can't sneak attack someone who you can't hit.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 28, 2011)

> This but unironically is the path 3.x took.




That's a bunch of crap and you know it. 


> Evasion?  The smart wizard isn't throwing fireballs.  Stealth?  I cast _light_.  Sneak damage?  You can't sneak attack someone who you can't hit.




Not all wizards have the same spells. Evasion allows the Rogue at 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw  against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save,  she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is  wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. Improved Evasion works like evasion, except that while the rogue still takes no damage on a successful Reflex saving throw against attacks henceforth she takes only half damage on a _failed_ save. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of improved evasion. Advantage goes to the Rogue.

And any good Rogue has a Ring of Invisibility. 

Light does not necessarily ruin stealth. Especially if there are lots of places to take cover from. Again, it all depends on terrain and other variable circumstance that you people are ignoring. Those are very generalized statements and poor arguments. And the Rogue could have items that provide Spell Resistance or other benefits.

And what makes you say a rogue can't hit a wizard? Wizards do not have high AC and Rogues can hit them from behind while the fighter is attacking from front. It's actually pretty easy to hit a mage because they don't have high AC. Even with magic items.

So all this stuff about wizards being so uber they just can't be beat is completely ridiculous and sheer crap. 

They are powerful people, but they are not gods and any fighter worth their salt will beat a wizard and also have items to help them against wizards as well, such as a Brooch Of Shielding and shields that provide energy resistance or spell resistance.

For every spell there is a counter. There is both counter spelling and spell disruption just to name two. For every move by a wizard there is a counter. You just have to know what it is and use your brains. 

But nobody's listening. Things don't need to be changed, people just have to play smarter and be aware of their options. And there's lots of them,


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 28, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> That's a bunch of crap and you know it.




Nope.avi

Your entire argument boils down to "No see, if wizards are played terribly..."

I very pointedly used "_Smart_ wizard" in my example.  One who is flying because overland flight is cheap and easy and lasts all day.  One who has a plethora of scrolls to handle utility or less essential spells because they can make those and have the gold to do it.  

That you think SR and AC are worth _anything at all_ in 3.5 speaks volumes on it's own.  AC scales like garbage - the best defense is *spells*.  Mirror Image is a better mitigation of attacks then AC is, as is displacement, as is Stoneskin, as is Flight, as is etc etc etc.  SR is hilariously easily bypassed as well.

I think this is where the discrepancy lies.  Certainly if a wizard is never prepared and only throws out fireballs or blasting spells, they aren't that powerful.  But if your wizard is doing that, _they aren't good at being a wizard_.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 28, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, they aren't.  Wizards are deus ex machina or antagonists that go down like a chump.  The protagonist is _never_ a D&D wizard.  Magic is never the answer to anything in fiction and mythology - and frequently is the answer to _nothing_.




Well duh, such fiction is supposed to appeal to "the common man." You know the dumb peasant who is being oppressed by the system and whatnot.  

Actually I think it's about time to dissect this stuff for what it really is. Half* of those stores were written in times when people believed them to be true. Furthermore they used religious frameworks to explain and justify magic. The common man doesn't use magic, that is the stuff of the holy men and women above their station, so it's right out for "the peoples self-insert" to go around performing miracles without someone else doing the divine for them. The Hero instead gets to perform the grunt-work like the people are doing day to day. In the cases where the protagonist has magic but doesn't use it, that is again to make the character more relatable. The Common Joe cannot make their enemies explode with a word, but they can (somewhat futility) sock them in the jaw or potentially out think them.

As for "the evil wizard" archetype; It's a paper thin rant that basically says "That smartass in power is the one causing all the problems in today's world, and they are league with the forces of EVIL! If only I could punch his lights out, everything would be better!"

The other half* are ripping them off for the most-part. And now I am sure some literature major is going to come in and tell me how wrong I am.  

Oh, and finally, you can see the "Power solves problems" style of stories in comic books, especially the silver age ones.


_*By half I do not mean 50%, I mean the part that this obviously applies to._

I'm just kind of tired of people saying games should play out like stories~


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 28, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Opinions differ. So no, his friend isn't wrong.




His friend wasn't stating an opinion if what's relayed was accurate.  His friend was stating something as a fact.



> I guess all those creatures with spell resistance or wizards with counter spells never got much us in your campaigns like they did in mine. If you design your enemies according to the players they are facing, you can challenge even the mighty wizard.




Indeed.  And you need to either make your entire ecology anti-magic or if you are challenging the wizard you are going over the rest of the party's heads.



> And _Pathfinder_ cleaned up a lot of spells that made everything an instant win.




And missed some.  Which means that spells are still an instant win.



> What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.




I want my games to tell me the truth.  Character level approximates power level.  If you want your wizards to be better than everyone else in a balanced system, it's trivial.  Set a house rule where wizards are five levels higher than everyone else in the party.  This keeps balance _and_ gets your desired result.



> I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.
> 
> Where Raistlin is indeed better than everyone else.
> 
> Where Gandalf is the only one that can go against the Balrog or battle the Witch King of Angmar on equal ground.




Thulsa Doom was an NPC.  Gandalf was an NPC.  Dragonlance is D&D derived fiction.  If I wanted my RPGs based on the fiction you describe then yes, wizards would be more powerful than everyone else.  But you would not be allowed to play one unless you were also allowed to play an angel (Gandalf), or the BBEG (Thulsa Doom).



> Where Merlin is the powerful person in the Arthurian legends and could take out any of the knights if they were to go head to head.




And speaking of NPCs...  Merlin gets _very_ little time in the stories.  They are all about Arthur or the Knights.  Merlin's no more a PC than the corporate executive who hires you to do the job in a Shadowrun game.



> I imagine you don't want versatility. You must have played with players that made you feel small and worthless if you weren't playing a wizard. That min-maxed with a DM that couldn't create challenges to counter the mighty wizard.




I don't want versatility because I can tear the guts out of almost any fictional plot with the versatility of a 3.X mid level caster.  I have imagination and tactical skill.  And can leave DMs carefully planned plots derailed with _4e_ wizards.  I have no wish to play someone who is "better than everyone else" - it's not fair on the other players, it's not fair on the DM, and it in no way reflects the fiction.



> I guess there's no way _Pathfinder_[/] game designers could reign in some of the damage done with the Spell Compendium. Which was the main culprit behind the power creep of wizards. By core wizards and arcane casters were balanced, especially once they got rid of the extra spell from haste.




And apparently you've never played at the same table as someone really using the PHB.  The Polymorphs are core.  The standard Illusion spells are core.  Wild Shape is core.  Summon Nature's Ally - Unicorn is core.



> What messed up arcane casters in 3rd edition was the power creep from certain spells in the Spell Compendium and the Archmage prestige class (the first iteration). Don't act as though the wizard has been inherently more powerful for all iterations of D&D. They certainly haven't.




Something which you seem to think is a bad thing if I'm to take your own words.  But there are some bad offenders in Core starting with Silent Image and Alter Self.



> And in Pathfinder every class in the game save for the rogue is powerful in their own right and stands up fine compared to the wizard. In fact, at this point in time the player playing the wizard in our group is rather underwhelmed with the class because the Invulnerable Raging barbarian and the Two-hander fighter are beasting through about everything we face while he is often engaged in a support role because it's more effective for him to help them kill the enemy rather than do it himself.




Yes?  Your point?  The goal of strategy is not to defeat your enemy, it's to make him _irrelevant_.  Evocation doesn't cut it in 3.X.  Save or Die, walls, other means of rendering foes irrelevant does.



> And the most annoying arcane caster at the moment is the friggin bard.




Heh.  The 3.5 bard was the class I ran a DM ragged with.  Mostly because he told me that bards were useless so I went through the system and learned to play one.  And then there was the Bard/Druid/Artificer 4th level team that took a campaign that was meant to be for 5 5th level PCs at a run.  (Literally - between Inspire Courage and all carrying temporary bane weapons and a night attack, we were taking the dungeon before the orcs could draw their weapons).



> The bard is incredible versatile and does such an incredible job of boosting the group he's making it a pain in the behind to stop the melee characters from stomping everything in their path.




And this is what the wizard should be doing.  The melee characters could be replaced by animal companions or crafted golems.



> _Games can change. Pathfinder's changes eliminated a lot of the no brainer arcane combos that became problematic in 3rd edition._



_

A lot != all.  And from the sounds of things, your wizard isn't being played as smartly as the bard.




			It wasn't the system that was bad, it was certain spells and certain prestige classes that messed up 3E.
		
Click to expand...



And certain classes.  Wizard.  Druid.  Cleric.  Artificer._


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 28, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Yeah, it's sheer utter nonsense that the wizard is better than everybody else. The wizard does have a lot of power, but it's meant to be that way for the wizard is meant to be artillery. The wizard's greatest weakness is that they are not close combat people.




So the wizard's greatest weakness can be overcome by hiring bodyguards.



> In fact. I'd bet that if you took three low or first level fighters against one mage without his spells, the fighters would win. The mage must be a minimum of tenth level. There must be no magic items either, for both sides. other than that, there is no limit to other equipment.




And I bet that if you took one first level wizard against five tenth level fighters and hogtied and blindfolded the fighters the wizard would be able to slit their throats.  Which is about equally as hypothetical a situation.



> The point to this is to illustrate the great weakness of the mage.




That if you take away all of their power by taking away their spells and arbitrarily leaving the fighters the tools of their trade they have problems.  Likewise if you take away all of a fighter's power by hogtying them they have problems.



> Since a Wizard can not wear armor,




Oh, but they can.  Mithral Chain Shirt (which is, of course, non-magic).  With a mithral buckler.  No ACP therefore no problem.  Make it a mithral twilight chain shirt and it doesn't get in the way of spellcasting.  Mithral Twilight Chain Shirts are the 3.5 version of Elven Chain.



> Do the math. The fighters would win.The fighter really overshadows the wizard.






> Of course, single lightning bolt would take the fighters out. Maybe. Even if the Wizard did have his spells, he could still lose them because of these rules that many are overlooking:
> So, facing three first level fighters, that's a potential of three times of losing the spell. However, of course, a single lightning bolt would take them all out which is why you would need one of them to be an archer. And this is a_ tenth level wizard_ we're talking about.




Try invisibility.  The wizard gets away.  And wins the next day.



> I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.




Given quite how hypothetical your examples are I wonder if you've ever seen a well-played wizard.



> in short....
> 
> *FIGHTERS KICK ASS! *They are not a useless class to play.




At tenth level I've beaten up a weapon specialist fighter with a _bard_ in melee.  (Twinked out Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, alter self for the AC - the bard had as many hp (including temps), as good an AC, and did as much damage with his harmonic crystal echoblade longsword).



Haltherrion said:


> It might have been different for your group but other experiences on the balance between the two seem quite legit to me. Interestingly, 4E has taken all that away and, also interestingly, I no longer see the rush to play the arcane caster that there used to be. Pre-4E there were always enough players interested in a wizard or wizard-like character that my group had to rotate who got the spot campaign to campaign.




Absolutely agreed.



Diamond Cross said:


> You overlooked the main points I was making which are.
> 
> *Magic can be disrupted.*




Fighters can be ignored.



> *Mages are not up close combat. *




Well, yes.  That's what hirelings are for.



> *And spells run out.*




So do hit points.  



> And it works.




*Oh no it doesn't!*  Which is the whole point.  The smarter and better with the system wizards get the better they get at circumventing these limits.



> Regardless of the stupid arguments of the power of magic is exponential. So what?




So ability to hit things with a sword _isn't._  If fighters and wizards scale at different rates, if they are balanced at level 1 they aren't at level 10 and if they are at level 10 then they aren't at level 1.



> I'm very frustrated that people are overlooking these things.




*We aren't.*You are getting frustrated because we are pointing out that you can point out in neon signs things you claim that balance wizards - but they don't work and we have either seen them not work or made them not work by playing wizards ourselves.  



> Sure, magic is difficult to fight against, but not impossible. If it were impossible then all literature would be about wizard fights and there'd be no characters like Conan who kicks wizard butt, regardless of the differences between literature and rpgs.




*D&D is not Conan.*  Just because D&D magic isn't balanced doesn't say anything about magic in Conan's world.  The problem is that pre-4e D&D magic is overpowered.  If you give all spells a casting time of a minute or more then the pointy end of a sword can kill even a mage who casts _Wish_.  Despite wizards ruling the world.



> And if things were easy it wouldn't be fun or even worthwhile to play the game now, would it?




And _that_ is why I don't play 3.X wizards.  Because it _is_ easy.



> Nothing worthwhile is easy.




Which is exactly the problem.



JRRNeiklot said:


> Perhaps in 3e, but not in earlier editions. A wizard had to be very careful which spells he cast and when. Generally speaking, most spells had a casting time equal to their level. A fireball has a casting time of 3. That's 3 segments in which your spell can be interrupted by a kid with a rock. Higher level spells are even worse. Meteor swarm looks good on paper, but you have to be within a bow shot to cast it. Great if you can open with it, but that's two rounds of standing there with no dex bonus. Magic users have the potential to be very powerful, but it's rarely realized.




Magic is at its strongest when out of combat.  Agreed.



Aldarc said:


> It's definitely better to be a wizard due to the benefits that a your spells provide you that other classes lack. But whereas the sorcerer knows a limited selection, the wizard is able to draw from an enormous spellbook. Many of the downsides that you listed to being a wizard can be easily mitigated (if not practically ignored) by a smart player. So good upper level mages will never let a melee fighter get close.




QFT.



Diamond Cross said:


> Which is a fourth huge balance because a wizard can not have spells without his spellbook.
> Yes, smart players will make it difficult for their opponents. Not everybody is smart though, and there's also inexperienced players as well. The only way to "balance" this is to simply not allow this to happen in the game. Which is sheer utter nonsense.




So the most complex classes (wizards, druids, clerics, artificers) should only be played by inexperienced players?  That's just perverse.



> And if everything's the same then nobody learns how to use strategies and the game is not fun to play.




You want a game that isn't fun to play?  Noughts and Crosses/Tic Tac Toe.  That's because the game is _solved_.  It's a draw with two best opening moves and then only one choice after that (allowing for symmetry).  The game comes closest to being fun for people who don't know the strategies.



> I've never seen this. I've only seen people who wanted to play wizards because it was fun to play them, not to have a super powerful impossible to beat god character for bragging rights.




I _don't_ want to play 3.X wizards _because_ they are super powerful impossible to beat god characters.  It's more fun to play something that .



> But I know there are power gamers out there who probably would. But then again, any power gamer takes the best advantages they can to dish out as much damage as they can to be the biggest baddest tough guy around, and they can do that with any class.




And any smart adventurer takes the best advantages they can.  Because that is what keeps them alive.



TheAuldGrump said:


> Heh, in my experience the balance of being a wizard is called 'Dogpile the guy in a pointy hat!'
> 
> How long does an enemy spellcaster last against a typical party of adventurers? In my experience, not more than a few spells, 'cause _everything_ gets thrown at him. (Including, thanks to a half orc barbarian, a kitchen sink... he actually asked if there was one, just so he could throw it at the Foozle.)
> 
> The Auld Grump




In short the balance of being a wizard is that the other side considers him too powerful to live.  It's called "Dogpile Angel Summoner".

QUOTE=Diamond Cross;5479085]Not all wizards have the same spells. Evasion[/quote]

Assumes that I'm throwing a fireball or other direct damage spell.  Unlikely.



> And any good Rogue has a Ring of Invisibility.




At 20,000 GP.  That's a high level rogue - about the point at which wizards are slinging round permanency, arcane sight, and see invisible.



> And what makes you say a rogue can't hit a wizard? Wizards do not have high AC and Rogues can hit them from behind while the fighter is attacking from front.




And the wizard is up in the air, out of reach.



> It's actually pretty easy to hit a mage because they don't have high AC. Even with magic items.[/quote
> 
> Are they expecting trouble?
> 
> ...


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 28, 2011)

> *We aren't.*You are getting frustrated because we are  pointing out  that you can point out in neon signs things you claim that  balance  wizards - but they don't work and we have either seen them not  work or  made them not work by playing wizards ourselves.



Yes  they do work.

Every single one of your examples actually supports one of my main points, not yours.  And that point is that a smart player will always take the best  advantages they can to make it more difficult for their opponents in  order to overcome them. That is what the game is all about. I wouldn't  be playing the game if everybody was a cookie cutter impotent clone that  couldn't do anything. For everything there is already a counter. That is why the system works. 

You're doing things piecemeal. You're also forgetting the kinds of things that Wizards fight. There are very powerful monsters out there that takes a team of people to fight, and a wizard alone can't fight them.

Your arguments is that this shouldn't be allowed. And that these advantages should be taken away. Would you make the same arguments for sports games? Or other games? 

And those arguments are your guys' arguments. The wizard is too powerful. No, it's not. That is an outright lie. The other lie is that the fighter is always static and never changes. It does. Fighters get more attacks and more feats than a Wizard does, and thus dish out far more damage at higher levels. They get extra chances to disrupt wizards' casting. More powerful wizard spells take longer times to cast. Two or three attacks in a single round gives two or three chances to disrupt that casting.



And if you have to change things so much, you might as well write your own game and try to publish it. Because changing the rules so much means it's not the same game. Whether it's D&D or not is another argument entirely.

And no, I'm not being snarky with that remark. Because if you're that dissatisfied with the rules, then why play the game? 

I would not want to play in that kind of a game.

And I'd bet that you'd balk at the same kinds of arguments if somebody wanted to change your favorite rules using the exact same arguments against you.

And the fighter's get more powerful too. You're claiming they never  change they're always static and a wizard is always dynamic. No, it  doesn't.

On Mithral:

All it does is reduce the category of armor, from heavy to medium, from  medium to light, and Mithral Chain still has an Arcane check of 10%. A Buckler doesn't have an ACP. I don't know where this Twilight ability appears. It doesn't appear in the SRD.


> We are simply pointing out that you are selecting extreme corner cases  in which the fight is almost fair.  The problem is that it's a game of  battleships, but the wizard has a grid four times as large as the rogue  (and about ten times as large as the fighter).




It's not an extreme corner case because Wizards do indeed run out of spells per day. So they can and often do get caught with their pants down. Especially when exploring dungeons. A cooperative party will often allow Wizards' time to rest and re memorize their spells. If you've never seen this then you have not played wizards.

And yes, by saying that you are indeed ignoring that a Wizard doesn't have unlimited spells, they do run out of magic. You seem to think that this is a completely unlimited resource. It is not. 

And, yes magic missile. Because a smart and ethical wizard would save his more powerful spells for more powerful circumstances, such as facing a party of fifty Orcs.


> Hideously expensive and highly ineffective.  The fighter's will defence  sucks.  So does the rogue's.  And the armour SRs aren't strong enough.




And SR can be cast by the Spell itself. It creates SR equal to 12 plus caster level. And regardless, it still gives the spell another chance to fail. 

But that's kind of weird though when compared to the Armor SR. Because 
Spell Resistance is a 5th level spell. Wizards first learn 5th level spells at 9th level so that means the minimum an SR can be is 21, not 13 or 19 (12 plus 9th level Caster = 21). So that must be some kind of an error. So yeah, I'd have to go with the Armor SRs are indeed too low. But this is a real fix, not an outright change for the sake of change to my preference. There is a difference between fixing an error and changing the rules to suit one's preference.

And of course you can always have feats or items that boost Will saves.

The system does indeed work. For everything there is a counter. Every single spell you come up with can be countered by knowledgeable players. Not all wizards have the same spells, not every wizard is going to have the Invisibility spell, especially if they specialize in the school that forbids them from learning the school invisibility belongs to.

And I'm not that knowledgeable. 

Good players use this to the best of their skills. By changing things around you are not allowing players to use their imagination and restricting them heavily. 

And I wouldn't want to play a game that doesn't allow for these advantages.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 1, 2011)

Ah the good old once ever y6 months Vancian debate...

I've missed this 

Personally I still believe the problem is that D&D after level 10 was never designed intentionally to be played with. At least not with melee characters. As an long forgotten earlier thread mentioned, none of the early D&D books actually had monsters suitable for high level spellcasters (remember that the Q in the GDQ series was for levels 10-14).

Furthermore, if you read Gygax accoutns of his own games, he mentions all the players being spellcasters (the various named high level spells) and having henchmen that they would use occasionally (suspiciously sounds like Ars Magica troupe play IMO).

Personally I don't have a problem with Vancian system itself....just some of the spells themselves (did not help that 3.x took off so many of the limiters when it moved from 1e/2e --the system looks the same, but the underlying/supporting mechanics have VASTLY changed the Vancian system)


----------



## billd91 (Mar 1, 2011)

AllisterH said:


> Furthermore, if you read Gygax accoutns of his own games, he mentions all the players being spellcasters (the various named high level spells) and having henchmen that they would use occasionally (suspiciously sounds like Ars Magica troupe play IMO).




If that's the case, then he was forgetting one of the most well-known characters of those early campaigns - Robilar.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2011)

AllisterH said:


> Personally I don't have a problem with Vancian system itself....just some of the spells themselves (did not help that 3.x took off so many of the limiters when it moved from 1e/2e --the system looks the same, but the underlying/supporting mechanics have VASTLY changed the Vancian system)



I rather suspect that part of the issue here is there's some whose only experience of a Vancian system *is* 3e, so no wonder they're looking at it dubiously...

Lanefan


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 1, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I rather suspect that part of the issue here is there's some whose only experience of a Vancian system *is* 3e, so no wonder they're looking at it dubiously...
> 
> Lanefan




I didn't mind Vancian magic in earlier editions. It didn't seem to reflect the way spellcasters worked in the fiction I read, but then I wasn't playing D&D to simulate any particular fiction. With 3e, spellcasting was made easier, saving throws didn't improve as far, saving throws were made relative to the power of the spellcaster rather than absolute, casters got more spells, item crafting was made trivial; it's hardly a surprise that people think spellcasters are too powerful, when so many of the balancing factors were thrown out. I ran a 2-session adventure with the Rules Compendium around Christmas, and you should have heard the whining from one player who hadn't played before 3e, about how spellcasting had been nerfed and this wasn't proper D&D.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 1, 2011)

*re*



Neonchameleon said:


> His friend wasn't stating an opinion if what's relayed was accurate.  His friend was stating something as a fact.




It was an opinion. Pretty easy to see that.





> Indeed.  And you need to either make your entire ecology anti-magic or if you are challenging the wizard you are going over the rest of the party's heads.




No. You don't. Period.





> And missed some.  Which means that spells are still an instant win.




No. They did not. 




> I want my games to tell me the truth.  Character level approximates power level.  If you want your wizards to be better than everyone else in a balanced system, it's trivial.  Set a house rule where wizards are five levels higher than everyone else in the party.  This keeps balance _and_ gets your desired result.




I want my games to simulate fiction. We differ on what we want. 





> Thulsa Doom was an NPC.  Gandalf was an NPC.  Dragonlance is D&D derived fiction.  If I wanted my RPGs based on the fiction you describe then yes, wizards would be more powerful than everyone else.  But you would not be allowed to play one unless you were also allowed to play an angel (Gandalf), or the BBEG (Thulsa Doom).




If I feel like playing Thulsa Doom, I will play him. Thulsa Doom was more about a goal than being an NPC. Nothing is to prevent me from playing an evil priest worshipping a serpent god who wants a lot of power as long as I can find a group to play with.





> And speaking of NPCs...  Merlin gets _very_ little time in the stories.  They are all about Arthur or the Knights.  Merlin's no more a PC than the corporate executive who hires you to do the job in a Shadowrun game.




Merlin is still a wizard archetype. He used magic to support the knights and manipulate the game world. Because of reasons simulated by role-playing like people not wanting to follow a strange wizard that wasn't human.





> I don't want versatility because I can tear the guts out of almost any fictional plot with the versatility of a 3.X mid level caster.  I have imagination and tactical skill.  And can leave DMs carefully planned plots derailed with _4e_ wizards.  I have no wish to play someone who is "better than everyone else" - it's not fair on the other players, it's not fair on the DM, and it in no way reflects the fiction.




It's fairly obvious you play with DMs that don't plan for the characters they are dealing with. Luckily for me your chance of derailing my carefully laid plans would be pretty much impossible since I I have imagination and tactical skill and will design an encounter to appropriately challenge you and the entire party. I have access to the entire plethora of monsters and classes as well.

I guess because DMs were throwing Moe, Larry, and Curly at parties the system had a problem eh?





> And apparently you've never played at the same table as someone really using the PHB.  The Polymorphs are core.  The standard Illusion spells are core.  Wild Shape is core.  Summon Nature's Ally - Unicorn is core.





I guess you've played against a bunch of creatures with weak fort saves that easily get polymorphed. Or perhaps you were doing the one day adventuring day that so imbalanced previous groups. Something I don't do at all.

You know what? The one day adventuring day is pretty much what makes players like you able to abuse so much. I decided that all those intelligent BBEG coming after you, well they don't let you rest. And guess what, they have vast resources when it comes to evil minions. And they know all the little tricks adventurers like yourself use like _rope trick_ and the like for hiding. They have counters for such.

They are also smarter than those foolish wizards who memorize save or die spells. They often amp up their melees and minions to levels to crush what they face.

I'd love to have you come to one of my campaigns. I know how players think. It is the module designers that have to create modules for the standard four man, 15 point stat adventuring group. I don't have to. I don't. I design encounters according to my players.

Which is what DMs are supposed to do. 

And "imaginative and tactical" players like yourself find out the hard way that a prepared DM has as much and more in his arsenal than your wizard.

The game is about fun. And you can have fun with any system. You go with your preference. My preference is hyped up, powerful magic. I have little trouble challenging my players.





> Something which you seem to think is a bad thing if I'm to take your own words.  But there are some bad offenders in Core starting with Silent Image and Alter Self.




Please, you had trouble with _Silent Image_ and _Alter Self_? I never had any trouble with either of those spells. My biggest problem was amped up melees with _haste_.

Why are you having trouble with these types of spells? Are you a DM that is unhappy if your players mow down trash? I don't care if my players mow down trash.

What I care about is designing a few key encounters that challenge my players. The players are supposed to mow down most of what they face with ease. A DM is supposed to allow them do it so they are slowly using resources and aren't sure when they are going to run into the BBEG encounter who has power similar to them and will challenge them.

My job as DM is pacing. I don't let my players use the "one encounter adventuring day" or the like. Which is probably why I didn't have all these problems I read about on the board with the 3.x system.

Those problems are for DMs that run by the exact rules. That allow cheese from players. That don't breath life into the game and expect the players to develop and play consistent personalities. As well as don't make their BBEG encounters with personality or tailor them to challenge their particular group which may not be the standard four man, 15 point build characters.

I don't have that problem. I've been playing too long.





> Yes?  Your point?  The goal of strategy is not to defeat your enemy, it's to make him _irrelevant_.  Evocation doesn't cut it in 3.X.  Save or Die, walls, other means of rendering foes irrelevant does.




The goal of strategy is to defeat your enemy. Why try to paint it as anything else.

I use walls and such to help defeat the enemy. At the end of the day that is the end goal of any strategy against an enemy.

But the enemy can use the same strategy right? This is a group game, right? It isn't for the fighter to accomplish the task alone. Or the wizard. Or the cleric. Or the rogue.

If the wizard's spells and arcane might weren't necessary, then why even have them around?

Team game, once again.

But you somehow think the wizard was above the team because one on one when prepared he could destroy the melee classes. Yet if he wandered into an encounter with most BBEG's alone, he would be destroyed.





> Heh.  The 3.5 bard was the class I ran a DM ragged with.  Mostly because he told me that bards were useless so I went through the system and learned to play one.  And then there was the Bard/Druid/Artificer 4th level team that took a campaign that was meant to be for 5 5th level PCs at a run.  (Literally - between Inspire Courage and all carrying temporary bane weapons and a night attack, we were taking the dungeon before the orcs could draw their weapons).




Yeah. The bard is good at boosting the party. Best class in the game.





> And this is what the wizard should be doing.  The melee characters could be replaced by animal companions or crafted golems.




No. They can't. 

You say "smart wizards" can destroy the game. I say "smart melee" are far, far, far better than animal companions or crafted golems. If you take your golem/animal companion force against a wizard with a bunch of "smart melee", you''ll get your clock cleaned.

Melee do tons of damage. Especially in _Pathfinder_ where so many more creatures can be crit and sneak attacked including golems and most undead.





> A lot != all.  And from the sounds of things, your wizard isn't being played as smartly as the bard.




Or maybe the BBEG has good saving throws, defenses, and a well-designed strategy and is resisting what the wizard wants to do? Or did you forget about that part?

Sounds to me more like your DM wasn't any good. He designed encounters that weren't capable of challenging you. Wouldn't happen in my campaign. You would be challenged. You would be scared for your character's life. I guarantee it. 




> And certain classes.  Wizard.  Druid.  Cleric.  Artificer.




I've been gaming a long time. Several system.

Bottom line rule for good DMing "Know Thy Players". I haven't found a system, Not 4E, not GURPS, not any system, that players couldn't exploit. Not a single one. And players always try to give themselves the biggest advantages they can.

Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion. That doesn't mean every trash encounter should be challenging. Your players should destroy trash often. They are heroes and deserve to feel like them.

But a DM should incorporate a few key encounters into any module where the players are going to feel challenged or at least like they are in an epic, memorable fight. If your DM is letting your wizards "cheese" the encounter, then they are designing the encounter poorly.

Now that being said, the _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting_ was way out of hand in its first incarnation for 3E. It was fun for the power mongers. But it was a nightmare for the DM. And the _Spell Compendium_ added some ridiculous spells that shouldn't have made it in. And the original _haste_ was pretty ridiculous. When you have clerics drinking _haste_ potions and casting double _destructions_ that's a little much do deal with.

But as I said _Pathfinder_ has curtailed much of the problem in 3.x. I'm not sure what spells you think they missed, but I don't see much. _Alter Self_ and the polymorph line are good, but not overpowered. There are no real save or die spells. All hold spells or crowd control usually grant a save every round.

And as far as eliminating every means for a wizard to take an enemy out. Are you serious? That wouldn't be very impressive magic would it? Not a game I would want to play.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 1, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> At tenth level I've beaten up a weapon specialist fighter with a _bard_ in melee.  (Twinked out Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, alter self for the AC - the bard had as many hp (including temps), as good an AC, and did as much damage with his harmonic crystal echoblade longsword).




I haven't seen a bard yet that can beat a well-designed melee in battle. Might be able to mind control him, but kill him straight up. Love to see you pull that off against an Invulnerable Rager or Two-hander fighter.





> Fighters can be ignored.




Yeah. So what?




> So ability to hit things with a sword _isn't._  If fighters and wizards scale at different rates, if they are balanced at level 1 they aren't at level 10 and if they are at level 10 then they aren't at level 1.




Balanced how? One on one against each other? Damage output? Versatility?

You are never going to be able to balance two classes with extremely different capabilities. Impossible.

Fighters do melee damage far better than wizards. Which is what they should do.

Wizards cast magic, which is inherently more dangerous, far better than fighters. Which is what they should do.





> *D&D is not Conan.*  Just because D&D magic isn't balanced doesn't say anything about magic in Conan's world.  The problem is that pre-4e D&D magic is overpowered.  If you give all spells a casting time of a minute or more then the pointy end of a sword can kill even a mage who casts _Wish_.  Despite wizards ruling the world.




Wizards should be the most dangerous class in a given world. The part that isn't simulated well and should be is that it is extremely difficult to become a powerful wizard. While it is extremely easy to learn to fight. That part is supposed to be role-played and part of the world design.

You know, because D&D is first and foremost a role-playing game designed to be used for cooperate story telling. 

Did we forget that? It isn't first and foremost a game perfectly balanced for all characters to be somewhat equal in battle so no one feels like anyone else is better than them.

D&D is all about cooperative story-telling. The illusion the DM is supposed to create is that all characters have an interesting and useful part in said story. Even if the wizard could take all the other character's in one on one battle. That shouldn't matter. Because if he is doing something like that, then he is a bad guy and needs to be taken out by some adventuring group with a wizard interested in helping a party rather than being cheesy, "I do everything myself" player.





> And _that_ is why I don't play 3.X wizards.  Because it _is_ easy.




Or maybe because your DM wasn't designing challenging encounters for you go against.





> So the most complex classes (wizards, druids, clerics, artificers) should only be played by inexperienced players?  That's just perverse.




That only leads to party death. We had the most inexperienced players playing the cleric and wizards. It usually lead to their death and the death of the party. Not knowing spell strategy can get an entire party killed.

Even with an experienced wizard, it is usually a pain to survive. Most of my designed enemies kill wizards on sight as soon as they determine who the arcane caster is, they go out of their way to kill that person. Like any intelligent enemy would do.

Probably why I didn't have the problems that so many on this board post about with 3.x casters. I made enemies in my game react according to the world in which they were in. Which meant their strategies were built around killing the arcane and divine casters if they showed their hands too early. There aren't many wizards or even clerics that can withstand an dedicated onslaught by the BBEG and his minions.





> I _don't_ want to play 3.X wizards _because_ they are super powerful impossible to beat god characters.  It's more fun to play something that .




This is total hogwash. Not my experience and nothing more than opinion by someone who wants to overhype the wizard. Please stop spreading the lies. They're totally ridiculous and not at all a true statement.

There were plenty of challenges for wizards in any version of D&D. 

Wizards and arcane casters were powerful and versatile, but hardly unbeatable or god characters. I get tired of hearing flat out untrue, ridiculous statements.




> In short the balance of being a wizard is that the other side considers him too powerful to live.  It's called "Dogpile Angel Summoner".




How it should be. And the problem is not too powerful to live, it's too much of a wild card to overlook.




> Assumes that I'm throwing a fireball or other direct damage spell.  Unlikely.




I guess there were no counters to your hold spells or save or die spells eh? Yeah, ok. Continue with that fallacy.





> And the wizard is up in the air, out of reach.




I guess no one has a bow or any ranged attacked. So now we're assuming "stupid" melee. I guess melee can't do a single thing to counter a flying mage but sit there and die. Yeah, right.





> Oh, they can be beaten.  You've managed to corner the wizard with two PCs of about his level (fighter and rogue), somehow got the heavily armoured fighter in, and dropped a teleport anchor.  Whereas when the wizard comes hunting the fighter the fighter's stuffed.




He should be stuffed. Why should a fighter be able to take on a wizard straight up? Why should that be? Game balance?

I wouldn't want to play a game where the wizard is designed to be balanced one on one against the fighter. That is ridiculous.

I use a sword.

I use magic.

We should have an equal fight. Are you serious? 




> In short, in order to go hunting a wizard you need to already know what is in his spellbook.  And which spells from that spellbook he will have prepared.




You are correct. A fighter hunting a wizard should be sweating. He should bring friends. He should be frightened. You know, like he would be in a story.

How many stories you read where the fighter and wizard square off and they are equal? I can't think of one.

Every single story, no matter the author, always has regular melee oriented frightened of the wizard types. Whether it is the king who has all wizards killed to control arcane power. The king who has wizards working for him to maintain the balance of power. The king who is a wizard. The melee hero trying to take out the wizard tyrant. I could go on for ages.

This is a role-playing game first. It should simulate fiction, not be written with balance in mind.

The only reason I play D&D is because it is cooperate story telling. If I wanted a game built around balance, I'll play an MMORPG where story is secondary and primary is balanced characters because they are going against each other all the time.

Not interested in my role-playing game being like an MMORPG focused on balance. I play D&D and the like to tell stories and participate in a story, not to stroke my ego by accumulating items and power. If D&D didn't provide an experience like being in a story, I wouldn't even play it. Which is why I went with _Pathfinder_. It better simulates how I like to tell stories.





> People are listening.  We are simply pointing out that you are selecting extreme corner cases in which the fight is almost fair.  The problem is that it's a game of battleships, but the wizard has a grid four times as large as the rogue (and about ten times as large as the fighter).




Why is anyone trying to argue that wizards and fighters are equal. They aren't. They shouldn't be in any role-playing game that is trying to simulate fiction. Shouldn't even be a close call one on one.

The discussion should be centered around whether fighter-types have a useful and fun role in a D&D campaign. The answer is yes they do.

You can make an interesting and fun melee character that can be a strong, interesting, and useful participant in a D&D adventure aka story. Players do it all the time. 

D&D isn't about a fighter being able to go toe to toe with a wizard. Never has been about that. D&D is game where people get together and make an adventuring party to participate in cooperative story telling. The DM's job is to make that story fun for all. Partly by creating an interesting narrative and partly by designing challenges for the entire group.

This talk of one vs. one balancing is rubbish. 

Why? We could go back and forth all day about what classes and builds would win.

Like a high level fighter is almost always going to murder a rogue.

An invulnerable rager with _come and get me_ is almost always going to murder almost any kind of fighter. And the rogue is going to be murdered by both.

A well-designed battle cleric will almost always murder a mage due to the mage's weak fort save.

There are all kinds of trumps and dangers out there for every character to face.

That's why D&D isn't designed with balanced combat in mind, but useful role. That's how it should be designed. It should try to capture the elements of storytelling that drew the first players to the game. D&D wouldn't even exist if it weren't a game that attracted the lover of fantasy stories first. I still remember when D&D first came out. Most of the people DMing and buying the game were people that loved fantasy books. The main attraction was a chance to be the type of fantasy hero we all loved to read about. Game balance wasn't first and foremost on anyone's mind. The best DMs were those that did the best job drawing you into your character and making you feel like you were part of a story.

D&D isn't a one vs one game. No idea why there is some strange argument that a fighter and wizard should be balanced. They shouldn't be. It would take all the flavor out of them.

A wizard should inspire fear in the mundane fighter. It's part of fantasy tropes in almost every piece of fiction I've ever read. But that doesn't mean the fighter doesn't have a useful role or a means to victory. All it means is that the DM is going to have to come up with an interesting means by which they fighter can win. In otherwards, it is DM's job to create a story that provides the means for the fighter to achieve victory, even if mechanically the victory seems impossible.

That's how D&D is supposed to work. It is not supposed to be a game focused on the game designers perfectly balancing all classes until all the fantasy flavor is removed in favor of a catering to players that want every class to be able to go one on one and have a fair chance of winning. Never seen an ounce of fiction written with that in mind.

But I have seen MMORPGs highly focused on that type of game balance. It is in fact one of the highest priorities of MMORPG game designers known as class balance. It used to be lower on the list of pen and paper game designers because they were more focused on how well a game system could be used to simulate fiction.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 1, 2011)

No, I've basically already posted on how you're more or less 100% incorrect regarding wizards.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 1, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> It was an opinion. Pretty easy to see that.




It was stated as a fact.



> No. They did not.




You are changing your claim.  First you said most.  Now you're claiming it's all.  Right.



> I want my games to simulate fiction. We differ on what we want.




Except you want to play NPCs.  You are claiming that wizards should be more powerful because Gandalf and Merlin are.  When one's an NPC and the other's a quest giver.



> If I feel like playing Thulsa Doom, I will play him.




So you want once more to play the uberpowerful NPC.  Some "simulating fiction" you're doing there.



> Thulsa Doom was more about a goal than being an NPC.




Goal and methods.  And his methods made him an NPC.



> Nothing is to prevent me from playing an evil priest worshipping a serpent god who wants a lot of power as long as I can find a group to play with.




OK.  And there's nothing preventing you playing a half dragon half drow wizard wielding two scimitars and calling himself Drizzle Do'Elminster.



> Merlin is still a wizard archetype. He used magic to support the knights and manipulate the game world.




He is also an NPC very clearly.  You're arguing the case that wizards should be powerful _but NPCs_.



> It's fairly obvious you play with DMs that don't plan for the characters they are dealing with. Luckily for me your chance of derailing my carefully laid plans would be pretty much impossible since I I have imagination and tactical skill and will design an encounter to appropriately challenge you and the entire party. I have access to the entire plethora of monsters and classes as well.




Point 1: You seem to believe that the entire world should be set up to reflect the party.
Point 2: People claim that _4e_ is encounter based?
Point 3: This is not what you say you do below.



> I guess because DMs were throwing Moe, Larry, and Curly at parties the system had a problem eh?




If the game told the DM that that should be a decent challenge, then yes.  The game has a problem.  This can be fixed by an experienced DM - but the designers failed.



> I guess you've played against a bunch of creatures with weak fort saves that easily get polymorphed.




The problem with Polymorph is not and never has been _Baleful Polymorph_.  It's alter self, polymorph, polymorph other, polymorph any object, shapechange.



> Or perhaps you were doing the one day adventuring day that so imbalanced previous groups. Something I don't do at all.




So all your bad guys have to run plans to really tight deadlines?



> You know what? The one day adventuring day is pretty much what makes players like you able to abuse so much. I decided that all those intelligent BBEG coming after you, well they don't let you rest. And guess what, they have vast resources when it comes to evil minions. And they know all the little tricks adventurers like yourself use like _rope trick_ and the like for hiding. They have counters for such.




That you've houseruled into the system.  Just because you can DM Fiat something out of the game doesn't make it a problem.  It means that you've got round it.



> They are also smarter than those foolish wizards who memorize save or die spells. They often amp up their melees and minions to levels to crush what they face.




Which is when you teleport out.



> I'd love to have you come to one of my campaigns. I know how players think. It is the module designers that have to create modules for the standard four man, 15 point stat adventuring group. I don't have to. I don't. I design encounters according to my players.




No you don't.  You point this out very clearly below.



> Which is what DMs are supposed to do.




And the system should support them.



> And "imaginative and tactical" players like yourself find out the hard way that a prepared DM has as much and more in his arsenal than your wizard.




Of course they do.  DMs always win the DM/PC arms race.  They have license to cheat after all.  But by the point the wizard is running the arms race, the fighter has stopped being any more use than a grog in Ars Magica.



> Please, you had trouble with _Silent Image_ and _Alter Self_? I never had any trouble with either of those spells. My biggest problem was amped up melees with _haste_.




Sounds as if you are running a seriously combat heavy game



> Why are you having trouble with these types of spells? Are you a DM that is unhappy if your players mow down trash? I don't care if my players mow down trash.




I wasn't DMing it.  I was the PC.



> Those problems are for DMs that run by the exact rules.




You mean it's a system problem.  And that you don't play D&D 3.X.  You play Celtavian D&D.  Congratulations.  You have just proved my point.  You need to house-rule to nerf the wizard.



> That allow cheese from players.




Cheese that's allowed in the system.  Again a game design problem.



> I don't have that problem. I've been playing too long.




Which says good things about you.  Not about 3.X



> The goal of strategy is to defeat your enemy. Why try to paint it as anything else.




If you even need to ask it would take too long to explain.



> If the wizard's spells and arcane might weren't necessary, then why even have them around?




But the fighter's swordplay _isn't_ necessary.  The cleric's works against mooks.  And the cleric has better defences and a deeper reserve of hit points for mook trashing (he has the healing spells).  Plus the cleric can really bring it in 3.X against the BBEG.



> But you somehow think the wizard was above the team because one on one when prepared he could destroy the melee classes. Yet if he wandered into an encounter with most BBEG's alone, he would be destroyed.




The problem isn't that the wizard is above the team.  The cleric and the druid are both on the same sort of power level as the wizard.  As is the artificer.  The Fighter is not.



> You say "smart wizards" can destroy the game. I say "smart melee" are far, far, far better than animal companions or crafted golems. If you take your golem/animal companion force against a wizard with a bunch of "smart melee", you''ll get your clock cleaned.




One PC vs 4.



> Bottom line rule for good DMing "Know Thy Players". I haven't found a system, Not 4E, not GURPS, not any system, that players couldn't exploit. Not a single one. And players always try to give themselves the biggest advantages they can.




Of course.  But there's a vast difference in the level of exploits available between WHFRP 2e and 3.X.  However you point out below that you don't follow this rule.



> Now that being said, the _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting_ was way out of hand in its first incarnation for 3E. It was fun for the power mongers. But it was a nightmare for the DM. And the _Spell Compendium_ added some ridiculous spells that shouldn't have made it in. And the original _haste_ was pretty ridiculous. When you have clerics drinking _haste_ potions and casting double _destructions_ that's a little much do deal with.




Polymorphs got worse with every subsequent MM.  But was bad enough in core.  Haste was core 3.0.  Glibness is core 3.5.  So is Sculpt Sound.  



> But as I said _Pathfinder_ has curtailed much of the problem in 3.x. I'm not sure what spells you think they missed, but I don't see much. _Alter Self_ and the polymorph line are good, but not overpowered. There are no real save or die spells. All hold spells or crowd control usually grant a save every round.




Off the top of my head, Flesh to Stone (duration: Instantaneous) is a save or die.



Celtavian said:


> I haven't seen a bard yet that can beat a well-designed melee in battle. Might be able to mind control him, but kill him straight up. Love to see you pull that off against an Invulnerable Rager or Two-hander fighter.




And that is another damning point about 3E.  The level of system mastery required.  Feats for the fighter included Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, EWP: Bastard Sword, two levels of weapon focus and two of weapon specialisation in the bastard sword, and toughness.  Not the best fighter or even close - but all things recommended by the system.  One of the many flaws of 3E.



> Balanced how? One on one against each other? Damage output? Versatility?




Overall contribution.



> Wizards cast magic, which is inherently more dangerous, far better than fighters. Which is what they should do.




So the wizards get to send in the angels...



> Wizards should be the most dangerous class in a given world. The part that isn't simulated well and should be is that it is extremely difficult to become a powerful wizard. While it is extremely easy to learn to fight. That part is supposed to be role-played and part of the world design.




Actually, in a balanced system, that is probably the single easiest thing to simulate.  If it is hard to become a wizard it takes a lot of experience points and wizards are high level only.  From levels 1-10 you are an _apprentice_ wizard.  From levels 11-20 you are a _journeyman_ wizard.  You only actually qualify as a _Wizard_ at level 21.  This is because it is extremely difficult to become a wizard.  And makes wizards the most dangerous _people_ in a given world.  There just aren't many of them.



> Did we forget that? It isn't first and foremost a game perfectly balanced for all characters to be somewhat equal in battle so no one feels like anyone else is better than them.




Your man.  It is made of straw.



> D&D is all about cooperative story-telling. The illusion the DM is supposed to create is that all characters have an interesting and useful part in said story. Even if the wizard could take all the other character's in one on one battle. That shouldn't matter. Because if he is doing something like that, then he is a bad guy and needs to be taken out by some adventuring group with a wizard interested in helping a party rather than being cheesy, "I do everything myself" player.




Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.  You've just described the whole problem here.  Not that the wizard does but that he can unless he holds himself back - and everyone knows it.



> Or maybe because your DM wasn't designing challenging encounters for you go against.
> 
> That only leads to party death. We had the most inexperienced players playing the cleric and wizards. It usually lead to their death and the death of the party. Not knowing spell strategy can get an entire party killed.




Oh!  So you weren't designing challenging encounters for your players to go against!  You were designing killer encounters and mulching the inexperienced.  I thought you were advocating the DM pitching encounters to the party as part of the DM's job.  Not simply turning the difficulty level up to 11



> Probably why I didn't have the problems that so many on this board post about with 3.x casters. I made enemies in my game react according to the world in which they were in.




"Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion."  You weren't challenging your players, you were setting up a scary game world and mulching the wizards when they failed to measure up.  The two are very different.



> This is total hogwash. Not my experience and nothing more than opinion by someone who wants to overhype the wizard. Please stop spreading the lies. They're totally ridiculous and not at all a true statement.




Does calling someone a liar count as a PA?  I haven't reported this but considered it.  Especially when you yourself acknowledge that you don't play D&D as written because you need to pressure the wizard.



> I guess there were no counters to your hold spells or save or die spells eh? Yeah, ok. Continue with that fallacy.




Of course there were counters.  But to make counters you needed to know how the wizards were loaded out.



> I guess no one has a bow or any ranged attacked. So now we're assuming "stupid" melee.




I guess that wizards can't cast protection from arrows or otherwise protect themselves...  It's the arms race.  But the wizard has more tools in his toolbox.



> He should be stuffed. Why should a fighter be able to take on a wizard straight up? Why should that be? Game balance?




Because he's a goddamn fighter.  Taking people on is what they do.  If the fighter can't take a wizard on straight up, and the wizard is tricksier than the fighter then you're playing Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.



> I wouldn't want to play a game where the wizard is designed to be balanced one on one against the fighter. That is ridiculous.




And non-existant.  There are two ways of balancing them - AD&D chose the non-overlapping competencies in which if the fighter ever reached the wizard, the wizard's head would get separated from his shoulders before he was half way through casting a spell.  4e chooses the shared spotlight where they each have different things they do well.



> I use a sword.
> 
> I use magic.
> 
> We should have an equal fight. Are you serious?




The swordsman should win in arms length.  Easily.  A single thrust straight through the heart and the wizard is dead.  Meanwhile the wizard is incanting.  That takes _time_ and time is the one thing you don't have in combat.



> You are correct. A fighter hunting a wizard should be sweating. He should bring friends. He should be frightened. You know, like he would be in a story.




And the wizard should be sweating and preparing traps and summoning guardians.  He should be making the place as scary as possible.  You know, like he would in a story.  Because he knows that the fighter can run him through as fast as he can blink if the fighter ever reaches him.



> How many stories you read where the fighter and wizard square off and they are equal? I can't think of one.




Hint: The fighter normally wins.  Or the wizard uses a sword (e.g. The Grey Mouser.  There are two basic paradigms; the AD&D paradigm where the wizard wins for as long as he can prevent the rubber meeting the road (he's basically a grand vizier), and the 4e paradigm where the wizard can blow up enemies by the horde - but head to head _will lose_ against an equal level fighter.  3e gives the wizard tactical combat without cutting his strategic assets - turning him into angel summoner.



> This is a role-playing game first. It should simulate fiction, not be written with balance in mind.




Find me the fiction where Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit are protagonists together.  I find 4e simulates a style of fiction far more than 3e _ever_ did.  High action pulp, admittedly.  Using Holywood Physics.  (No, it doesn't do gritty - if I want that I break out WHFRP 2e which has a magic system that simulates magic in gritty stories as spells fail to cast at random and blow back, making magic scary even for the wielder).



> A well-designed battle cleric will almost always murder a mage due to the mage's weak fort save.




See: CoDzilla.



> There are all kinds of trumps and dangers out there for every character to face.




*Yes.*Things can threaten Angel Summoner.  But most of them make BMX Bandit irrelevant.



> That's why D&D isn't designed with balanced combat in mind, but useful role. That's how it should be designed. It should try to capture the elements of storytelling that drew the first players to the game. D&D wouldn't even exist if it weren't a game that attracted the lover of fantasy stories first.




And with its focus on spellcasters, 3.X _Fails_.  In sword and sorcery, the heroes are normally the _swordsmen._


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 1, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, I've basically already posted on how you're more or less 100% incorrect regarding wizards.




I have noticed how much you hate wizards in DnD and no matter what anyone says they are wrong and you are right.

People tell you over and over that they have not experienced the uber overpowered wizard who does everything in their game and you deny that their experience is as valid as yours.

If wizards are as over powered as you claim to the point that no other class can keep up with them then why are there not arguments at the table about who gets to play them? If all the other classes suck why do people seem to enjoy playing them. Is it because they are to stupid to realize that they are not really having fun?

People point out ways that clever DMs can use the rules as written to challenge a wizard and you find fault with that basically saying well they don't have to do that with other classes. 

It comes down to finding a system you and your players enjoy and using it. If you don't like a class then don't allow it in your game. 

But don't try and tell people who don't agree with you that they are wrong.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 1, 2011)

billd91 said:


> If that's the case, then he was forgetting one of the most well-known characters of those early campaigns - Robilar.




Robilar is quite genuinely the exception that proves the rule. His player was running _solo_ sessions with Gary Gygax much of the time. And no one argues against the premise that fighters can keep up with the rest of the party _when there is no one else in the party_.



Lanefan said:


> I rather suspect that part of the issue here is there's some whose only experience of a Vancian system *is* 3e, so no wonder they're looking at it dubiously...
> 
> Lanefan




Indeed. AD&D Vancian isn't what I'd choose. But the casting times are long enough that high level spells are not combat viable.  3.X removed the checks and balances on spellcasters.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 1, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Yes they do work.
> 
> Every single one of your examples actually supports one of my main points, not yours. And that point is that a smart player will always take the best advantages they can to make it more difficult for their opponents in order to overcome them. That is what the game is all about. I wouldn't be playing the game if everybody was a cookie cutter impotent clone that couldn't do anything. For everything there is already a counter. That is why the system works.




But this is why the non-limited spellcasters are quite so devestating.  For everything there is a counter - but spellcasters get to change what their "Everything" is on a daily basis.  Fighters get to change it ... never.  All you can say watching a wizard cast spells is that on that day he had the following spells prepared.  And he can change that the next morning for a completely different range of attacks and counters.



> You're doing things piecemeal. You're also forgetting the kinds of things that Wizards fight. There are very powerful monsters out there that takes a team of people to fight, and a wizard alone can't fight them.




But adding BMX Bandit to the team won't help.  Adding a cleric will.



> Your arguments is that this shouldn't be allowed. And that these advantages should be taken away. Would you make the same arguments for sports games? Or other games?




It depends on the advantage.  A boxer fighting by boxing rules vs a MMA fighter fighting by MMA rules?  Yes, I'd take the MMA fighter's advantages away.  Don't care which way.  Or a cyclist in a race with a motorbike rider?  Not much of a sport.



> And those arguments are your guys' arguments. The wizard is too powerful. No, it's not. That is an outright lie. The other lie is that the fighter is always static and never changes.




Strawman.  The problem is _linear fighter, quadratic wizard_.  The fighter gets better at swinging his weapon.  The wizard gets better at spellcasting - and more spells, and more versatile spells.



> And no, I'm not being snarky with that remark. Because if you're that dissatisfied with the rules, then why play the game?




I *don't* play 3.X.  There are damn good reasons I don't play 3.X.



> On Mithral:
> 
> All it does is reduce the category of armor, from heavy to medium, from medium to light, and Mithral Chain still has an Arcane check of 10%. A Buckler doesn't have an ACP. I don't know where this Twilight ability appears. It doesn't appear in the SRD.




Players Handbook 2 (first printed in the Book of Exalted Cheese and I hoped it would stay there).  Reduces ASF by 10% as a +1 enhancement.  Meaning that there is literally no penalty for wearing a Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt even if you aren't proficient because it has no ACP and no ASF.  (Mithral also reduces ACP by 3).  So wizards can wear it without penalty.



> It's not an extreme corner case because Wizards do indeed run out of spells per day. So they can and often do get caught with their pants down. Especially when exploring dungeons. A cooperative party will often allow Wizards' time to rest and re memorize their spells. If you've never seen this then you have not played wizards.




Fine.  The equivalent would be to run the fighter out of hit points.  Four first level wizards vs a fighter on 1hp.



> And, yes magic missile. Because a smart and ethical wizard would save his more powerful spells for more powerful circumstances, such as facing a party of fifty Orcs.




A smart wizard finds good uses for 1st level spells.



> And SR can be cast by the Spell itself. It creates SR equal to 12 plus caster level. And regardless, it still gives the spell another chance to fail.




Of course it can.  It means that the fighter is leaching yet more spells in order to be able to do his thing.



> But that's kind of weird though when compared to the Armor SR. Because Spell Resistance is a 5th level spell. Wizards first learn 5th level spells at 9th level so that means the minimum an SR can be is 21, not 13 or 19 (12 plus 9th level Caster = 21). So that must be some kind of an error. So yeah, I'd have to go with the Armor SRs are indeed too low. But this is a real fix, not an outright change for the sake of change to my preference. There is a difference between fixing an error and changing the rules to suit one's preference.




I agree.  Armour SR sucks.  But it is what it is.



> And of course you can always have feats or items that boost Will saves.




Yup.  And that boost casting stats.  The fighter _needs_ them.  Badly.



> Good players use this to the best of their skills. By changing things around you are not allowing players to use their imagination and restricting them heavily.
> 
> And I wouldn't want to play a game that doesn't allow for these advantages.




There's advantages and overpowering advantages.  10% edges are nice.  Doubling your effectiveness is something else entirely.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 1, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.  You've just described the whole problem here.  Not that the wizard does but that he can unless he holds himself back - and everyone knows it.




Can we ditch this straw man once and for all? The whole Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is so contrived an example that it illustrates virtually nothing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> And now I am sure some literature major is going to come in and tell me how wrong I am.




Well, I for one give your answer far more credence than "Magic is never the answer to anything in fiction and mythology".  That suggests a rather spotty reading of fiction and mythology!

OTOH, that story tellers work to achieve audience identification with their protagonists is hardly controvertial.



> I'm just kind of tired of people saying games should play out like stories~




Me too.

Stories are what happened in the game, to me.  They should not be plotted out before the game even begins.  Indeed, doing so suggests a level of control over the protagonists (PCs) that I would rather avoid.


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 1, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Can we ditch this straw man once and for all? The whole Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is so contrived an example that it illustrates virtually nothing.




What do you mean?  Clerics and Wizards literally can summon angels.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 1, 2011)

I'm going to make this my last post because I'm really burnt out on this:



> The problem is _linear fighter, quadratic wizard_.



No, it isn't. This is pure hogwash. Because you're only comparing the wizard to the fighter and not to any other situations. Such say a powerful demon who also can cast a lightning bolt at will or a large group of 35 Orcs or Kobolds. In DDO there's this one mission where you have to defend against one hundred Kobolds. This is a mission that nobody can do alone, and you need a full team to look out for each other.

It isn't a problem and really this whole argument is the age old "Why can't my Hafling Magic User/Thief have an 18-00 Strength! It isn't fair!" in new dressing.


> The equivalent would be to run the fighter out of hit points.  Four first level wizards vs a fighter on 1hp.



Sleep takes care of the fighter and a coup de grace would end him. In 3.5 Sleep only affects 4hd of creatures and they get a Will Saving Throw. Sleep would have a maximum DC of 15 at first level so there's a good chance that a fighter, assuming he's first level, would fail. But of course, remember, a good fighter waits until the Wizard starts casting the spell so they can have a chance to disrupt the spell. But against three Wizards, he'd have to choose which one to attack for disrupting the spell.

A tenth level fighter would clean their clock, hands down, even if he didn't have any magic items on him at all. 

At tenth level, the fighter could have a Strength of 20 which is a +5 modifier to hit. They also have a BAB of +10/5 which means they have two attacks. With a long sword that's a damage range of 6 to 13. A 1st level Wizard is not likely to have more than 6 hp while a tenth level fighter can have up to 140 hp maximum, assuming, he also has an 18 Constitution. But more than likely will have about 80 hp.

With those two attacks, he has a potential of defeating 16 monsters. depending upon the level. Because a good melee fighter would have, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization.

That's non linear progression. At first level a fighter can not do this. Which is why the linear vs exponential is hogwash. 

The damage increases for a fighter is however, based on weapon damage. So let's give him a magic weapon.

At tenth level I believe the maximum bonus a 10th level character can have is a +3. So we can give him a longsword that is a Baned Weapon (Wizards), Keened, Flaming.

All of those abilities are +1 Bonuses.

A Baned weapon gives a +2 to hit vs the named opponent and an extra 2d6 damage versus the Wizard. Keen doubles the threat range of the weapon, so with his feat the threat range of the weapon would be from 16 to 20. Flaming adds a further 1d6 damage. So the weapon would do 2d6 +1d6 Fire +1d8 damage +5 (Strength Modifier) two times in a round. When it scores a critical, it doubles that damage, and with a threat range of 16 to 20, the odds are very good to score a critical. Maximum Damage, without a Crit is 29. With a crit is 58. That's two times in a single round. That's comparable to a Fireball. The maximum damage a fireball can do is 60 points of damage, without Metamagic. With Metamagic it could be up to 90pts of damage.

So that's also a good chance of disrupting a Wizard's spell, with which the DC is 10 plus Damage Dealt vs d20 + Concentration check. So a DC of 19 to 39 or up to 68. 

A mage at tenth level, assuming he maxed out his Concentration Skill ranks, and without Skill Focus feat or any other modifiers, would be a total of +19 (14 ranks plus 20 INT). So that means a fighter has a very good chance, two times in a single round, of disrupting the Wizard's casting. 

And with the weapon he'd have a To Hit Bonus of +15/+10, not counting any other magical or masterwork bonuses.

And this doesn't include the rules for automatic dying to massive damage, if you wish to use them.

So you see, a fighter can compare to a wizard. That's just one weapon and any adventurer is more than likely to have more than a single different kind of weapon and many other magic items to help them out.  However, it is based on equipment rather than natural magical abilities. And we can go this route with many other different combinations too, and we can even go with a +3 weapon and the fighter would still be comparable to a wizard and still have a good chance to win.

And the rogue would be using this diversion to steal the Wizard's spell components  and items so he or she couldn't cast his other spells. Or just attacking from behind doing massive amounts of sneak damage. 

The other thing to remember to is in a RPG,_ all power is relative_.

At first level Kobolds kick your butt. At a few levels higher, you're Kicking Kobold Butt. At tenth level you can slaughter a small army of Kobolds. At twentieth you wouldn't even bother with them unless there was a huge five thousand Kobold Army.

I have nothing more to say. I know this won't change anybody's mind on the matter.

But at least it's out there somewhere.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 1, 2011)

...So your proof is that a level 10 fighter can kill a level 1 wizard?  Really?

Also a wizard can gve himself higher strength then the fighter with polymorph/shapechange.  Woops!

As for the kobolds, a simple wall spell ends that.

Oh, and fireball is an awful spell.

Again, your examples tell me you've never seen a wzard do anything but throw around fireballs, at which point, yeah, they don't seem all that strong.  But wizards can do far more then that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 1, 2011)

Two entrenched set of opinions arguing like mad for 2+ pages, I think this thread is done.

Clunk.


----------

