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

[Diamond Cross]

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.



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


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.



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.



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.



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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Yeah, remember that time in Dresden Files when Harry used a Time Stop spell then cast Genesis to make a new - wait, no?

What about when Harry Potter cast a spell that solved all his problems. Still no?

Neither of those are D&D wizards. Harry Dresden relies on cunning, intelligence, and wit nine times out of ten, and when he utilizes magic, it's almost always to back up his cunning, intelligence, and wit, not the other way around. Harry Potter is much the same.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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]

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.
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.

...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]

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]

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]

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!