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

[Dausuul]

I agree with everything you've said... except for the claim that 4E ditched Vancian magic. 4E expanded Vancian magic--to every class, including fighters! It's only with the release of Essentials that it's become possible to get away from it, and that only for the martial classes.

I don't even ask that Vancian magic be got rid of entirely. I just want one 4E arcane caster that isn't Vancian. Is that so freakin' much to ask?

(Oh, and also--the idea that Vancian casting is necessary for balanced spellcasters is ridiculous. I present to you Exhibits A and B: the 3E wizard, also known as Our Lord and Master the Goddamn Batman, and the 3E warlock, also known as I Have Awesome Flavor Because I Sure Don't Have Anything Else Going On. That ought to be enough to put to rest any such notions.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

While I am not a fan of Vancian at least as implemented in 3.x (I prefer 4e implementation) the trouble with nuanced systems is the burden of adjudciating the nuances.

 

[DumbPaladin]

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

Thanks.

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

I agree. The system can be tweaked in so many ways that still prevent spellcasters from being even more game-unbalancing than they have the potential to already be. Throwing the entire system out doesn't seem the best course of action.

 

[airwalkrr]

...
It's a classic problem with that stuff. The players who've invested the time to know that Sleep, for instance, is way way way more useful in play than Rope Trick or Ventriloquism, ...

Whoa now! Rope trick is one my favorite spells of all time. Need a pocket dimension to rest in and regain ALL your spells back? Poof! Maybe not as fancy as Leomund's Secret Shelter or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, but by golly, it gets the job done.
Ventriloquism has its place too. I once used it to convince a group of orcs to break out in a fight and basically kill each other ala Gandalf in the Hobbit.

I always tell players to pick spells that sound interesting, then actively look for ways to make them useful. And if you are terrible at that, play a sorcerer and pick only combat spells and buffs.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yeah, and Mending is actually my favorite all time spells. It's actually a more powerful spell because it doesn't have a limit on the size of an object you want to mend. One time I used it to prevent a ship from sinking by repairing a timber that had rotted and broken.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I've never seen Vancian magic add to a game. It only seems to take away from the enjoyment.

Especially when some classes have it and others don't.

Also quoting Dying Earth doesn't count when wizards in the series could memorize, like, four spells tops. Pretty far cry from how they end up in D&D.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

IMO, the biggest problem is not the "fire-and-forget" aspect. ... The problem is the pre-selection and preparation of spells. Like, a caster has to count on whatever spells he thought would be good for the day, and that's it. All magical power you have has to be used on exactly those. That's just nonsense.

I agree. Pre-memorization is awful.

But along came 3e and gave us the answer: the Sorcerer. Make all casters work this way - which is now exactly what I've done in 1e, so far it's working great - and you're set.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Does everyone always have to be involved in everything? Of course not.

The Thief goes off and scouts - and does a little quiet pilferin' in the process.
The Magic-User blows up what needs blowing up.
The Fighter chops down what needs chopping down.
The Cleric bats cleanup while providing support and cover.

Sometimes things don't need blowing up. Sometimes there's no scouting to do. Sometimes there's nothing to swing a sword at. And sometimes the Cleric is a 5th wheel.

Know what? As long as "sometimes" never becomes "all the time" there is no issue.

Lan-"sometimes you just gotta sit back and enjoy the ride"-efan

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yeah, classes are there to fill roles. I'll never understand this one character has to do everything attitude, or that all classes has to be the same.

 

[The Shaman]

1. There's zero chance of failure pre-casting. You prepare, you cast, and the only time it DOESN'T succeed is if the object/person on the other end makes a save.

Spells can be disrupted by damaging the caster before the spell is cast - this is the primary utility of magic missle and the reason shield is a first level spell. Spells can also fail due to magic resistance.

Some spells take a toll on the caster, such as haste and permanency, by the way.

2. It's situationally inflexible. Barring metamagic feats, there's no way to alter any particular casting of a given spell.

Spell research allows a magic-user to create new spells, including new, 'signature' versions or variants of existing spells.

There's a difference between, "I don't like how this works," and, "This doesn't exist at all."