D&D 5E [5E] To Vance or not to Vance - That is the Question

[foolish_mortals]

they have to Vance or there not going to get people back. We had Vancian for over 30+ years. Going to something else was just another break with the past. If they wanted to make a game with a completely different spell system why didn't they make a new game and not call it dnd?

foolish_mortals

 

[Dausuul]

So my hope would be that 5E gives both options.

I'm with you here. Vancian magic has such a long and storied history in D&D that WotC obviously can't just dump it. All I ask is that I, as a guy who loves arcane casters and hates Vancian casting, have something like a witch or a warlock or a sorceror class available, giving me arcane-style magic without having "use it and lose it" spells.

So far, unless you count psionics or the sha'ir from Al-Qadim, 3E is the only edition to grant this wish. It makes me sad.

 

[CleanCutRogue]

wow this thread got big when I wasn't looking. Meant to read it all before posting, but it's a lot of stuff to read. As I skim, I see a lot of folks have my same opinion.

Being an old-schooler, I've always liked the "Vancian" system. It might just be that I was raised on it, or might be because it offers a certain "feel" that other games don't possess. Call it one of my "sacred cows" if you must, but if it's not Vancian then it doesn't feel like D&D to me. This is one of my biggest issues with 4e. But wait...

One thing I always hated was having to waste spell slots on stupid things like detect magic, read magic, write magic, scribe, etc. Some things are just things a learned magic-user should be able to "do," no matter what. And as a magic-user gains in ability/level, the amount and type of things he should be able to just "do" should increase. So I offer a compromise.

I think DnDNext can benefit greatly from both systems. A combination of the two, really. Allow a small series of at-will, hourly (I wouldn't call them "encounter" powers... that seems an artificial measurement of time that lends itself to a board-game feel rather than an immersive roleplaying experience), or daily "powers" that a magic-user has access to. Allow the player to choose these powers at start. Otherwise, spells are memorized/prepared and studied for and are Vancian in nature. As a magic-user gains access to a new Vancian-type spell level, allow another "power" selection. This way, you have a character able to do the small stuff basically whenever he wishes ("powers") and able to cast the potent magical spells with study/preparation/dedication ("spells").

This could also be one major distinction between divine magic (which would be mostly granted "powers" and fewer Vancian "spells") and arcane magic (which is fewer granted "powers" and mostly "spells"). Of course, the two would have to have completely separate power and spell lists, as is always the case.

I, an admitted old-schooler, would not only accept but fully embrace this compromise of concepts.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I vote for optional. I think 5e should be all about ala carte.

Yes.

I personally could happily live w/o Vancian magic, but I realize people like it. So it should be an option, but not *mandatory*.

Brad

 

[Wormwood]

So it should be an option, but not *mandatory*.

Which should be the answer to just about everything in the new edition, AFAIAC.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not fond of Vancian casting, but honestly, I haven't seen a magic system that I felt was really better.

Spell point/mana systems have the same problem as psionics did - blowing all your points on big spells or getting abilities that let you "overpower" your abilities.

The At-Will/Encounter/Daily of 4E suffered from the fact you couldn't throw 2 fireballs in the same combat if you wanted, and it was the game designers who got to choose what was an encounter ability and what was daily - and thus adjudicate it's power.

I'd like to see 5E return to a form of Vancian casting, but have some options for recovering low-level spells more rapidly. I'm not fond of Pathfinder's "cast cantrips forever" spamablity, but a wizard casting (a single) magic missile every other round wouldn't bother me.

Another interesting option might be a build-up mechanic - a wizard could blast away continuously with a minor spell, but each round he uses no (or a minor fraction) of magic perhaps he could build up to a more powerful spell.

Of course, I'm probably also unusual in that I want to see the wizard using mundane weapons on occasion - whether a dagger, crossbow or quarterstaff.

 

[FireLance]

Spells absolutely have to remain fire-and-forget. Even if it means they run out of spells now and then; it's not the end of the world if a caster has to use a melee weapon for a change. Fire-and-forget serves to rein them in, at least a bit.

Yup. Wizards + Crossbows = fun (for me, at least).*

A Wizard who actually runs out of spells is kinda like Green Lantern after 24 hours and 2 minutes, or Supeman in a kryptonite tanning bed- it's a point of dramatic tension.

I had actually asked this in another thread, but I thought I'd ask it here again to get more diverse views: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

Alternatively, the ability to use at-will attacks could be a property of magic implements, and if a DM wanted a low-level wizard to be able to use at-will magic attacks, he could allow him to start with an implement that could be used to make magical attacks, but no other properties.

Balance-wise, it's really no different from using a crossbow, so I guess the real question is whether the flavor itself turns you off.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not fond of Vancian casting, but honestly, I haven't seen a magic system that I felt was really better.

Spell point/mana systems have the same problem as psionics did - blowing all your points on big spells or getting abilities that let you "overpower" your abilities.

I don't see that as problematic as it's a tactical choice the character made.

 

[Stormonu]

I had actually asked this in another thread, but I thought I'd ask it here again to get more diverse views: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

Alternatively, the ability to use at-will attacks could be a property of magic implements, and if a DM wanted a low-level wizard to be able to use at-will magic attacks, he could allow him to start with an implement that could be used to make magical attacks, but no other properties.

Balance-wise, it's really no different from using a crossbow, so I guess the real question is whether the flavor itself turns you off.

I could go for that. Taking away an implement seems like it should cripple the spellcaster just like taking away a weapon or armor from a fighter would make things difficult for them.

 

[varden]

they have to Vance or there not going to get people back. We had Vancian for over 30+ years. Going to something else was just another break with the past. If they wanted to make a game with a completely different spell system why didn't they make a new game and not call it dnd?

foolish_mortals

They wouldn't get me back. We suffered for years with "Sorry, I can't do that. I didn't memorize that spell today."