D&D 5E Confession: I Sometimes Miss Vancian Casting

It's weird, I know. It was often so frustrating playing a spellcaster and running out of useful spells for a given situation. The Vancian system was heavily limited, it wasn't that popular once other options became available, it didn't match anything in the way of standard fantasy tropes. In nearly all measurable ways, the pseudo-Vancian system of 5E is superior. It's more flexible, it at least slightly more closely resembles genre standard. Everyone I know likes it better. Under many circumstances, I like it better.

But...

There was something about trying to pick which spells you'd have access to. Some of my most fun experiences playing wizards in past editions was when I had to try to get creative after I'd run out of obvious spells. Using knock offensively? That's not something I'd ever have done under 5E, but I did it back in 2E, and I still talk about it. (Uh, obviously.)

I dunno. I don't really have a point to this, and given the choice, I wouldn't change 5E to go back. But... I do still miss it, for all its flaws and quirks.

Ahh, nostalgia. In this case it might also be a little bit of Stockholm syndrome...

But I hear you. Constraints, even stupid ones, can often lead to interesting creative solutions to get around them.

cbwjm said:

How do you use knock offensively?

Click to expand...

I cast it on the saddle cinch of a mounted hobgoblin (I think it was a hobgoblin) who was charging me.

MostlyDm said:

Ahh, nostalgia. In this case it might also be a little bit of Stockholm syndrome...

Click to expand...

This is... not impossible.

cbwjm said:

How do you use knock offensively?

Click to expand...

Yeah, tell us! That's got to be half the reason you started this thread anyway, right?

Did you "unlock" a charging enemy's belt buckle?

MostlyDm said:

Yeah, tell us! That's got to be half the reason you started this thread anyway, right?

Click to expand...

Nooooo...

>.>

<.<

Did you "unlock" a charging enemy's belt buckle?

Click to expand...

No, but right ballpark. See above.

Mouseferatu said:

I dunno. I don't really have a point to this, and given the choice, I wouldn't change 5E to go back. But... I do still miss it, for all its flaws and quirks.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I did sometimes enjoy the strategy involved, and the times the system forced me to think on my feet and figure out how to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

While running an expedition, a Druid player used Create Water on a Magma Mephit. I ruled that it hardened its body creating a "shell" that was easier to target and destroy: 1d6 cold damage + Advantage on the next attack. I thought it was a 1st level spell, and in hindsight, would consider upping it to d10 or applying the advantage to a full round.

In my experience, it doesn't come up much unless it's practical(acid splash a lock, ray of frost a beer).

I thought I was going to join in on the nostalgic missing of the old way, pouring over a list of spells, carefully selecting which ones were likely to be useful, weighing the odds of how many uses would be useful...

But then I realized that the end result I am used to seeing is almost identical to how 5th edition works.

To use just 1st level spells as an example, I'd have a few detect magics, an identify or two, something protective, and a few magic missiles - and since two of those are rituals I can cast without preparing, and 4 slots covers about the same amount of protecting and magic missiles, I'm golden.

...but my players who aren't used to such careful planning can actually match my results, rather than end up with a pile of un-cast spells at the end of every adventure because they chose poorly.

One of the exercises friends and I used to do in the 1e and 2e days, was to write up three nonstandard ways to use each spell in AD&D. It was easier to do because the effects were not as definitively described in game mechanics. Fireball had a whole paragraph about the low pressure but exact volume of flame, Leomund's secret chest went into detail about its dimensions, where the chest went, and how extraplanar creatures could access it, web had a detailed description about its volume and what would happen with out anchor points, etc.

So, it was easier to get creative because the DM had to be in on the creativity as well. So, fireball was used to clear ant warrens, to sterilize tools, to summon reinforcements; summon monster was used to provide quick draft labor, to crush unsuspecting enemies (nothing in the rules back then about "solid surfaces"), to provide cover to shoot from; continual light could blind enemies (it was in the spell description, but you know it was because one of Gary's crafty game group planned it first); silence a gargoyle and push it off a roof onto someone, etc.

You don't hear this kind of creativity as much today, but I don't think it's because of the rules so much as the player base doesn't engage in it as much, I think. I heard of someone using a short teleport effect in 4E to trick someone into charging a war elephant off a broken bridge, so that kind of cleverness is still around, we just don't seem to celebrate it as much.