Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Blackwarder]

For me, because it bring back the focus on the advanture rather than the combat encounter, vanician magic was flexible, if you found or researched the right spells you could prety much do anything if you learns it before hand.

Spells like charm person, transmute mud to rock and rock to mud and many more could be used in combat and outside of it by imaginative players.

I know that 4e introduced rituals, and on paper they seem like a great idea, but after five years of playing I can say that in my group they were used only when the DM railroaded their need, that might be because the character sheet didn't print the rituals out but the main reason was that the group was more combat oriented.

I like having spells as daily resource, especially if the focuse of the game move from the combat encounter to the advanture itself because than, having daily resource, makes the exploration phase more interesting.

The problem with 3rd ed and the 15 minute advanturing day was, IMHO, that groups tended to blow their biggest spells on the first combat encounter and than head back to rest. That was because the game design was focused on the combat encounter and not the advanture itself which lead to each combat encounter trying to be bad ass because if it wasn't the group would just brush it away with no serious consequences (I'm looking at you city of the spider queen).

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not bashing 3rd here so please don't see it as a new edition wars post, and I freely admit that the folks I played with for the last couple of decades like to fight but I've been playing with roughly the same people from basic through 2nd Ed AD&D to 3rd and now 4th and there has been a marked change with how we play the game.

To sum it up, vanician is good because it puts exploration, interaction and combat on the same playing ground eating from the same bowl of resources, if the game rule will reflect that and put more focus on exploration and interaction than I'll be an happy camper.

Warder

 

[Akaiku]

Because it's only magic if it wins the situation. Magic is great and powerful. Traditional wizards were limited from always winning by limited preparation. They had to know exactly which 'I win' button to have. Combat and non-combat used the same resources cause a wizard's resources is in aforementioned 'I win' buttons. It's a different game then other less wizardly classes play.

Dailys do not do this well because there could be a need for 2 of the same button. Having them at will means they are either op if you can change them or simply a list of things the gm shouldn't throw at you if you can't change them.

 

[BobTheNob]

One time in the 2e days we thought "Vancian sucks, lets develop a mana equivalent" and we did. Then, a month or two later, we brought back Vancian. It was just too dull to watch mages spam fireballs! True story, but I digress...

I don't think Vancian is the best possible solution out there. But AEDU Im just not fond of. Played it, played it and played it some more, and after playing it for a very long time...I just dont like it any more. Its accurate, adaptable, clever...and utterly charmless.

The thing is AEDU was a generic power structure to unify classes. That was (IMHO) its biggest mistake (and when its biggest mistake is its reason for existance, Im really not gravitating toward it!), because thats the source of the dreaded 4e class homogenization, which Im happy to say all indicators point to us walking away from. Without class homogenization, AEDU is reduced to a potential, caster only approach.

So given its now only really a caster only approach, the question is what do people prefer for casters...Vancian or AEDU? Well, Im for Vancian. Others are too, its just the type of play we prefer.

 

[Shemeska]

Because I like D&D, and when I think of D&D magic, that's the first thing that comes to mind.

It's been a core part of the game for longer than I've been alive, and attempts to do away with it haven't exactly been among the most popular of changes.

 

[Incenjucar]

I really wonder how much of the "Vancian" love is from the Vancian system and how much is from the power and complexity of the individual spells, which is NOT related to being Vancian.

Certainly many people love Vancian in and of itself, but I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a Vancian caster using 4E's assumptions, or a 3E caster with spells balanced to be equal to a 3E fighter's output potential.

 

[kevtar]

I really wonder how much of the "Vancian" love is from the Vancian system and how much is from the power and complexity of the individual spells, which is NOT related to being Vancian.

Certainly many people love Vancian in and of itself, but I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a Vancian caster using 4E's assumptions, or a 3E caster with spells balanced to be equal to a 3E fighter's output potential.

This is an interesting point. It is a combination of factors, the spells and the system, and not simply just the system. Personally, since it seems that "Vancian" magic is back for 5e (along with some at-will stuff), I think they will be taking a closer look at how spells operate and, like you say, they may use the Vancian system with spells that are much more in line to other classes' powers (or maneuvers or whatever they will call them). I'm hoping that they recognize a serious flaw in 4e magic, and that was they gained parity at the expense of class distinctiveness (in my opinion).

 

[Lwaxy]

Unfortunately, people equal Vancian with D&D. For me, it was always one big annoyance in the game, and in most groups we didn't really use it unless a player wanted to.

Using a mana system here and will continue to do so as it is much more logical. Vancian style, we only use when a wizard wants to use up daily mana points and then can prepare for the next day to cast at a lower cost.

Limit the amount of same spells a day per spell level and you are fine. I saw a lot more creative use of different spells than before.

I like Vancian as an option to differentiate one magic user from the other but definitely not as standard. The idea that D&D won't be complete without it is a bit silly to me. It is the same as claiming D&D is only a battle game when it can do so much more.

 

[FireLance]

I think people attribute more to the Vancian system that it actually means.

To me, the core Vancian system contains the following attributes:

1. Spell slots - A spellcaster's access to spells is expressed in terms of spell slots. Each slot can contain a single spell. This distinguishes the Vancian system from systems that make use of spell points (such as 3e psionics).

2. Preparation - A spellcaster has to decide beforehand which spells occupy his spell slots. This distinguishes the Vancian system from spontaneous casting systems (such as the 3e sorcerer).

3. Fire and forget - Once a spell is cast, it is removed from the spell slot and cannot be re-used until the spellcaster prepares it again.

The following elements are strongly associated with traditional D&D-style Vancian spellcasting, but are (IMO) not core elements of a Vancian system:

4. Daily refresh cycle - spellcasters are only allowed to prepare spells once per day, or each spell slot can only be prepared to hold a spell once per day.

5. Generic spell slots - each spell slot can hold any type of spell: offensive, defensive or utility.

6. Wide variety of choice - spellcasters can choose what spell to prepare in each spell slot from a wide variety of options, either because they automatically gain access to them (as was the case for the 3e cleric) or because they can gradually build up these options (e.g. a 3e wizard adding spells to his spellbook).

When comparing the AEDU system to the Vancian system, the key dissatisfaction is usually that it is less flexible, in particular, points 2, 5 and 6. Most classes do not get to choose which daily power to prepare after an extended rest, utility powers are siloed from attack powers, and even for classes who do get to choose which spells to prepare, there are usually only two to three options per spell slot. Because of point 4, some are also uncomfortable with the idea of encounter spells.

Some of the inflexibility issues can possibly be fixed, such as granting more classes the choice of daily powers to prepare, and increasing the number of choices for each class (points 2 and 6). However, certain inflexibilities, such as the split between attack and utility powers, and factors such as the presence of encounter powers (points 4 and 5), are inherent to the AEDU system.

 

[DonAdam]

As I've played more and more 4th ed, I think the encounter power system suffers from this problem. Lots of per-encounter resources make fights feel like they have few consequences, and make lots of fights feel the same. It often feels like going down a checklist of encounter powers.

That said, I think it's a good idea for different classes (or builds/subclasses) to lean more heavily on encounter vs. daily powers. I like how encounter powers give martial characters something more to do, and they effectively serve as a de facto fatigue system (no more power strikes for me! I'm beat.).

The more traditional Vancian system has the benefits of empowering strategic planning as an alternative to kick down the door and of introducing interesting resource management. Memorized spells are discrete, weird things. I find them far more fun to manage than a dial with points.

The downside to the traditional system is that it works well only in multiple-encounter days, but the Daily powers in 4th suffered exactly the same problem. I hope there's a good way to deal with "one big fight" days in 5e.

 

[steeldragons]

Cuz if it ain't broke, don't fix it.