Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Aldarc]

Monte: It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, is D&D. There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go.​

It appears we have our answer: wizard and cleric are Vancian, and if you want to play anything non-Vancian, you don't play a modularized wizard or cleric, but another class entirely. Meh.

 

[harlokin]

I want to play a Vancian Fighter.

 

[Dausuul]

It appears we have our answer: wizard and cleric are Vancian, and if you want to play anything non-Vancian, you don't play a modularized wizard or cleric, but another class entirely.

So long as at least one such other class is included from the get-go in PHB1, I am in favor of this solution. Let the Vancian classes be fully, one hundred percent Vancian, and let the non-Vancian classes be completely their own thing, instead of trying to kludge it all into the wizard.

I don't mind the existence of Vancian classes in D&D, I just want the option to play my beloved arcane casters without having to use the Vancian mechanic myself.

 

[Aldarc]

So long as at least one such other class is included from the get-go in PHB1, I am in favor of this solution. Let the Vancian classes be fully, one hundred percent Vancian, and let the non-Vancian classes be completely their own thing, instead of trying to kludge it all into the wizard.

I don't mind the existence of Vancian classes in D&D, I just want the option to play my beloved arcane casters without having to use the Vancian mechanic myself.

My problem is one of play style and thematics. What if one of my players wants to play something that otherwise plays similarly to the cleric, and with a similar thematic archetype, but with non-Vancian magic instead?

 

[SensoryThought]

I like the idea of a Vancian fighter

You can only swing your sword once a day at level one, but when you do you can kill 2d6 hit dice of monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

My problem is one of play style and thematics. What if one of my players wants to play something that otherwise plays similarly to the cleric, and with a similar thematic archetype, but with non-Vancian magic instead?

They obviously won't have every possible archetype out of the box. I see where you're coming from, and I agree it would be nice to have a "learned scholar of the arcane" and a "wise fighting holy (wo)man" who aren't Vancian. Speaking just for myself, I would be quite happy to see Vancian magic done away with altogether.

However, that obviously isn't going to happen. Too many D&D players love Vancian for it to be left out of the Grand Reunification Edition. So until we get 5E Unearthed Arcana with a spontaneous-casting wizard variant, the warlock and the sorceror will be good enough for me, and I hope the priest turns out to be good enough for your perhaps-hypothetical player. (Assuming the priest is non-Vancian, of course.)

 

[HeinorNY]

I want to play a Vancian Fighter.

I don't remember any pure fighter character in the Dying Earth series.

 

[Izumi]

Have we forgotten who we are?! We are the Adventures in Fantasy Anti-Vancian Brigade! That being said, I dislike Vancian magic so much I want it in EVERY version of 'The Fantasy Game' so I can change it! Remember our motto: "If I didn't have to extract it, it just wouldn't be D&D!"

 

[Hassassin]

Monte: It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, is D&D. There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go.​

It appears we have our answer: wizard and cleric are Vancian, and if you want to play anything non-Vancian, you don't play a modularized wizard or cleric, but another class entirely. Meh.

Well, he also said: "[W]izards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities."

And Bruce: "As Monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks."

From: http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-assassins-wizards.html

 

[SensoryThought]

Reading the transcript I'm sure the idea of Vancian + at wills via feats will make no one happy. Having at wills to fall back on defeats and neuters the Vancian concept. But it looks like the question is answered. Thread over.

Magic fail aside, I like some of Monte Cook's other ideas based on his long term philosophy that 4e style uber balance is not necessary, that variable complexity should exist within and between classes, and that people who master the system should reap the benefits. I think this will make for a good system.