gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I think it's a myth used by some online users to argue against some edition. The incident seems possible, but I've never seen it in game, only on online forums...
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic
- Thread starter Dannyalcatraz
- Start date
I think it's a myth used by some online users to argue against some edition. The incident seems possible, but I've never seen it in game, only on online forums...
Aldarc
Legend
Because if you have never seen something happen at your gaming table, it's impossible for other people to regularly see it at theirs.
Last edited:
Kunimatyu
First Post
I don't like Vancian, and it's completely at odds with "MP" that every computer RPG player knows.
I would keep "MP" as the default, but have an optional "Vancian" rule.
PCs who want Vancian magic get a small boost to their total MP, but they have to prepare spells with a total casting cost equal to their total MP. No big deal.
Incidentally, this also gets around level-based spell slots - you can prepare a few big spells or a lot of small spells, as long as it all fits into your total MP.
I would keep "MP" as the default, but have an optional "Vancian" rule.
PCs who want Vancian magic get a small boost to their total MP, but they have to prepare spells with a total casting cost equal to their total MP. No big deal.
Incidentally, this also gets around level-based spell slots - you can prepare a few big spells or a lot of small spells, as long as it all fits into your total MP.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I did say it was 'possible', I'll even add 'plausible', but in 30+ years of gaming, attending Cons and visit LGS's - I've never seen it happen. Anything is possible though.
Hussar
Legend
Well, GamerPrinter, we saw it all the time to be honest. When the cleric ran out of healing the group stopped. And that's been true since the 1e days, also across 30 years of gaming and a fair number of groups. For me, the 15 minute adventuring day wasn't a wizard thing, it was a cleric thing. You run out of healing, it's time to stop.
Thing was, in earlier editions, you could go a fair bit longer because the combat was just so much less damaging than in 3e. 1e was lethal more because of the proliferation of SoD effects (where healing doesn't really matter anyway) than damage dealing. The monsters were just so much weaker relative to the PC's. 3e changed that. I can't remember ever seeing a combat in 3e where the PC's didn't take damage. Sure, some PC's might get through (probably the wizard), but, some of the PC's were taking damage, and usually fairly significant damage.
So, out trots the cleric and heals.
What stopped the 15 MAD for us was healing wands. Adding in healing wands made the game pacing so much faster - we'd easily doubled the number of encounters between rest periods.
So, the 15 MAD was a direct result of Vancian casting, and the solution was to eject Vancian casting in favor of (what is effectively) at will healing.
jmucchiello - I'm a bit confused. At what point in D&D's history wasn't the wizard based on artillery. That was his role direct from wargaming. Your 1st level MU had his Sleep spell that was an auto-win for a single encounter every day. Sounds a lot like artillery to me. So, I'm not really seeing the point in your questions.
Celebrim - really? You're going to start claiming now that crafting wands was common in AD&D? And, no, a Vancian caster with a wand is not the same as a Vancian caster. Wands are inherently non-Vancian. Multiple wands + scrolls means that you no longer have the "forget" part of Fire and Forget magic. It's changing Vancian to an at-will system.
Thing was, in earlier editions, you could go a fair bit longer because the combat was just so much less damaging than in 3e. 1e was lethal more because of the proliferation of SoD effects (where healing doesn't really matter anyway) than damage dealing. The monsters were just so much weaker relative to the PC's. 3e changed that. I can't remember ever seeing a combat in 3e where the PC's didn't take damage. Sure, some PC's might get through (probably the wizard), but, some of the PC's were taking damage, and usually fairly significant damage.
So, out trots the cleric and heals.
What stopped the 15 MAD for us was healing wands. Adding in healing wands made the game pacing so much faster - we'd easily doubled the number of encounters between rest periods.
So, the 15 MAD was a direct result of Vancian casting, and the solution was to eject Vancian casting in favor of (what is effectively) at will healing.
jmucchiello - I'm a bit confused. At what point in D&D's history wasn't the wizard based on artillery. That was his role direct from wargaming. Your 1st level MU had his Sleep spell that was an auto-win for a single encounter every day. Sounds a lot like artillery to me. So, I'm not really seeing the point in your questions.
Celebrim - really? You're going to start claiming now that crafting wands was common in AD&D? And, no, a Vancian caster with a wand is not the same as a Vancian caster. Wands are inherently non-Vancian. Multiple wands + scrolls means that you no longer have the "forget" part of Fire and Forget magic. It's changing Vancian to an at-will system.
Celebrim
Legend
Which is precisely why I don't want to see mana points become default; I prefer as a DM that the players have to split there allocation around both weaker and more powerful spells.
Wow- in this respect, you are like the perfect anti-Me! No wonder my stories about not seeing the 15MWD drive you nuts!
Aldarc
Legend
It's all part of the different tactical challenges of mana points. It's spend as you see fit and then reap the consequences. If they spend on mainly big-ticket items and then run out, then that's tough for them when they face further obstacles that day. Spend smart. Budget smart.
Hussar
Legend
Why?
That's not meant as snarky in the slightest. I'm honestly curious.
-------
DannyA - oh yeah. Totally. If I played or my players played the way yours do, I'd be smoking PC's every session.
kenttaylor
First Post
Amberian Magic
I'm actually toying with a slightly different explanation for traditional D&D magic using the reasoning found in Roger Zelazny's 2nd chronicles of Amber. Basically the main character is a "wizard" who casts maybe 95% of a spell (he calls it "hanging" the spell) and then, when he wants to use it, he does a quick trigger to cast the final 5% at which point the spell discharges. It could take him a full day to prepare (or "hang") a full allotment of combat ready offensive and defensive spells. I never actually read Vance but it seems to me this is a pretty decent explanation for what D&D portrays without the terminology of "cast and forget" which appears to stick in many peoples craw.
So, a wizard rests each day and then spends whatever amount of time (I think 1e used 10 minutes per spell level but maybe with a maximum) "hanging" or preparing the spells they want to use that day. As an added twist (and in honor of the rituals of 4e) maybe the wizard could cast a spell cold from their spell book but spend the full time doing so. I'm thinking perhaps 5 minutes per spell level. In fact, with such time constraints, maybe it would be OK to say that the wizard can prepare the number of spells allotted on the progression table but that there is no limit (except for time) on the number of spells they can cast by reading from their spell book.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain the rationale behind preparing spell in the "Amberian" (or perhaps Zelaznian) rather than Vancian way. Anyone ever tried this? Does it help with the logical wall that cast and forget seems to cause?
I'm actually toying with a slightly different explanation for traditional D&D magic using the reasoning found in Roger Zelazny's 2nd chronicles of Amber. Basically the main character is a "wizard" who casts maybe 95% of a spell (he calls it "hanging" the spell) and then, when he wants to use it, he does a quick trigger to cast the final 5% at which point the spell discharges. It could take him a full day to prepare (or "hang") a full allotment of combat ready offensive and defensive spells. I never actually read Vance but it seems to me this is a pretty decent explanation for what D&D portrays without the terminology of "cast and forget" which appears to stick in many peoples craw.
So, a wizard rests each day and then spends whatever amount of time (I think 1e used 10 minutes per spell level but maybe with a maximum) "hanging" or preparing the spells they want to use that day. As an added twist (and in honor of the rituals of 4e) maybe the wizard could cast a spell cold from their spell book but spend the full time doing so. I'm thinking perhaps 5 minutes per spell level. In fact, with such time constraints, maybe it would be OK to say that the wizard can prepare the number of spells allotted on the progression table but that there is no limit (except for time) on the number of spells they can cast by reading from their spell book.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain the rationale behind preparing spell in the "Amberian" (or perhaps Zelaznian) rather than Vancian way. Anyone ever tried this? Does it help with the logical wall that cast and forget seems to cause?
