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

[innerdude]

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]

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.