D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Neonchameleon]

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

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

 

[MrGrenadine]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gamerprinter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RHGreen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zelda Themelin]

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


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

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

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

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

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


Lot of story there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Leatherhead]

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

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

But do you hate it, or merely dislike it?

And more importantly, what system would you rather use?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

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

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

 

[Janx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Deset Gled]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Voadam]

I generally dislike Vancian resource management.

I don't despise it but I dislike it.

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

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

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

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

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