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

[Aberzanzorax]

Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.

If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.

Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?

In my opinion, no, it would not be better to build a game where everyone has something to do in every encounter.

I like a game where some classes shine in some cases while other shine in others. I think it helps differentiate them. Sometimes, part of the fun is having limitations.


To the OP, why not just use psionics and drop magic? This seems like more of a houserule than a direction the actual game needs to go in.

I mean, what you're looking for already exists. Why not just houserule that "magic" = psionics?

 

[avin]

I find GURPS mana/fadigue style of magic the best. You can't cast 5 fireballs because you haven't memorized, you can't cast it because you are tired and can't manipulate mana.

Will give PF another shot if they make simple rules for grapple and kill vancian magic for once.

 

[BryonD]

I love Vancian magic.

I love getting away from Vancian magic.

I love thai food.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

...I know I want to say someting...I just can't quite find the right words. Lets just blather on for a bit...

Having played AD&D in one form or another for the last 3+ decades, I have seen (and gone through myself) the "uncertainty" of Vancian magic. In the end though...it works.

Mechanics *do* matter. They matter MUCH more than people like to admit. Example: go to a group of 4e people and tell them you'll run a game set in the current 4e Forgotten Realms setting...using Runequest II rules. How many of those 4e'ers will say "Sure! Lets get started!" without batting an eye? My guess...not many or none. Why? *System Mechanics Matter*

Setting flavours *do* matter. They matter as much as mechanics. The hard-core FR'ers who love the 'new Realms' would jump at the chance to play in a new FR campaign using Runequest II rules. Why? *Setting Flavour Matters*

Taking those back to the idea of Vancian magic...same thing. The flavor of them matter, as do how they are utilized. Some like one more than the other.

IME, the *best* argument for the Vancian system is that it actively encourages the group over the individual by setting it up so that when the wizard does start to run out of spells, it's up to the group to protect/help him. While the wizard has spells, they wait for the wizard to dictate much of the tactics and situations. The wizard shines when he has a spell for something (or has spells), and the fighters shine when the wizard doesn't. Each is responsible for the others safety and success. The BEST thing about 1e AD&D was that it was most definitly a "Group-Oriented" rpg approach. The players were "highly encouraged" to craft characters that worked together, covered eachothers weaknesses, and this translated into play. It also placed a lot of *player* input to succeed, as opposed to *character* input to succeed. In short, 1e made players think creatively, think about group tactics, and yes, think about potential situations. With Vancian magic, the players needed to have their characters do actual 'work' to find out information about what they were going to do, where they were going to do it, and who they were going to do it to. Fighting a necromancer with his horde of undead? Memorize more non-mind affecting spells. Fighting a orc warlord and his minions? Memorize more mind-affecting spells. Infiltrating a bandit lords hillside fort? Memorize reconasance and stealth type spells. With a non-Vancian system...who cares? Just wade in and start casting whatever...no need to plan or think much about it; as long as you have the spell points you're golden.

Overall, I like the Vancian system. It does have some quirks, to be sure, but it definitly feels like it's one more thing to encourage the group over the individual (and, as a DM and player, I'm sick of individual players making stupid characters that are disruptive, incongrous, or outright hostile to other PC's in the group simply because the rules give them the option to make that character...but that's a whole other ball of worms for another thread...).

Besides, it's just as easy to define how and why magic works in any particular way for ANY campaign or game world. I can explain why magic works the Vancian way for a Greyhawk campaign just as easily as I could explain why magic works the mana-point way for a Greyhawk campaign. As someone famous at one point probably said some time in the past: "It's all in the presentation".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Salamandyr]

From a narrativist standpoint it's such an utterly contrived mechanic. I know that most of the time when we're playing in-game we don't think about it, but how much of the entire D&D ecology and its "normative features" are based on the basic features of Vancian casting? I realize its original inclusion in OD&D is due to a preference for it by one E. Gary Gygax, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that other than D&D and the original Jack Vance writings, there really are no other sources that use it.

And the reason for that is that it simply doesn't feel organic to the way most other fictionists have perceived magic to work. I can't think of a single fantasy author, other than those writing for the old TSR-based campaign settings, use anything that even remotely approaches it.

Speaking specifically to this point of yours.

Actually, Merlin (not the Arthurian Merlin) uses Vancian style casting in the second Amber pentology. Of course all Amberites have access to certain magical powers, but to go beyond that, to cast "spells", he sits down and formulates it, impresses the words of power on his mind, so that later in the story he's able to cast quickly. Upon casting, the magical power is gone, expended from his brain. Sounds like Vancian casting to me.

I've always explained it to my players in a similar fashion. Spells are not so much "memorized" as the act of preparing them for the day is when the actual, heavy lifting is done, so that when needed, only the final few syllables of the spell need be said to complete the effect.

Admittedly it was influenced by D&D, but Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series made Vancian casting work narratively quite well.

All that aside, I'm perfectly good with having multiple ways to play a spellcaster.

 

[Ranes]

Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?

Face, meet palm.

"I have no spells left. I can't do anything useful," says MU lurking behind top-heavy bookshelf while separated from comrades by orcs.

Such a response suggests that either the encounter has been deliberately designed to exploit that eventuality (which is not necessarily a bad thing) or - and I suspect this is more likely - the player's imagination simply isn't up to much. (Just because you play D&D, it does not follow that you must have a particularly good imagination.)

It is not indicative of an inherent fault in the system.

Ran - isn't afraid to yoink Lane-hey, I got here first-fan's sign-off device -es

P.S. Even 3.x provides alternatives to gorgeous Vancian quirkiness for those who want to blandificate or generify their games.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.

If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.

Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?

I would think the greater goal would be to ensure everyone in the group has a chance to contribute equally within the roleplaying experience -- not just the warrior/fighter, and not just the spellcaster.

This argument seems to pop up a lot on EN World: the debate between people who never want their spellcasters to be unable to cast spells, and people who think spellcasters should have their moment in the spotlight, and out of it, just like everyone else.

As someone who has played an arcane caster, I have no problems with NOT being the guy who solves every single combat. Limited resources lead to strategic planning of when to use those resources. Unlimited spellcasting is just like pushing a button repeatedly in one of those games where you have infinite bullets, and therefore might as well strafe everything. Fun? Maybe ... but not much thinking required.

I think it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion in campaign flavor: As a player, are you okay with your character not being able to contribute to solving a problem once in a while ... or do you always want to be one of the main protagonists?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

So basically the OP wants to get rid of Vancian spellcasting in Pathfinder because he doesnt like it.

He thinks that Savage Worlds and 4E got it right.

But even though there are many of us who dont mind the Vancian system at all his solution is STILL to get rid of it so that it can play like those other games.

My first supers game was Villains and Vigilantes, for whatever reason ( I was 13 at the time) my friends and I didnt like it. We moved on to Marvel Super Heroes which we liked a better and played that...Until we discovered DC HEROES which was a MUCH better fit for what we wanted to do, so we played THAT for years...Until we discovered HERO system which was AWESOME so we had many a supers campaign using that. I tried and liked Mutants and Masterminds and have played and run games using it but if I had my choice, for supers, I'd be playing and or running HERO SYSTEM for supers.

So for a new group? If I start a supers game it's probably going to be M&M for ease of use. But I can get a group who's game? It'll be HERO SYSTEM for supers.

My point? I'm not so self involved that I'm willing to change/destroy what works for someone else because I think it's better. I simply find something that works for me and use that. That's really what it's all about in the end isnt it? Alternatives? There's a Green Ronin book called True Sorcery that details alternative magic systems for 3x systems. Instead of calling for the end of Vancian magic why dont you take a look at that? Or wait for Ultimate Magic to see what spell casting variants show up there? But calling for an end to Vancian Magic just seems...selfish. As if you know what's best for everyone. Yes people have issues with it. If it bothers them that much those people should try playing other games without it (of which there are many) instead of wanting to take away one of the few games that still uses it.

 

[Janx]

Limited resources lead to strategic planning of when to use those resources. Unlimited spellcasting is just like pushing a button repeatedly in one of those games where you have infinite bullets, and therefore might as well strafe everything. Fun? Maybe ... but not much thinking required.

this is actually a fair reason for limited use of a spell.

Though I ironically enough, in 2e, we saw this problem WITH memorization. Our wizards would always memorize the same spells, almost always with a combat use. Because getting caught without combat spells meant a dead wizard, often enough. Once we turned off the memorization requirement, we saw a lot more variety of spells being cast. Because the player didn't feel locked and thus would be willing to use a wierd spell which would be very helpful now that we're actually in a situation that needs it.

Spell memorization was only one part of the D&D spell mechanic. The other being Number of spells per day per level.

In pre-3e, the number of spells per day at low level was ridiculously low. No sense calling yourself a wizard when you can only use your class ability once per day at 1st level and everybody else can use theirs all the time.

3e solved that with more spells per day. there are other ways to solve it, but it is a solution.

 

[billd91]

I'm wondering where the idea that 4e did away with Vancian casting is coming from. It's just reduced the amount of spells used in that way down to dailies, which means your fireballs are still cast in a Vancian manner.