Aldarc
Legend
To a subset of gamers, Vance is probably exceptionally well-known, but to an increasing subset of gamers, he simply does not appear on their radar.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic
- Thread starter Dannyalcatraz
- Start date
Ditto a number of Sci-fi & Fantasy giants, but that does not then relegate them to being "obscure."
I love football, but there are Hall of Famers I've never heard of. Those guys I don't know I would argue are obscure.
OTOH, for personal and professional reasons, I have a 5000+ CD collection and can rattle off bands & musicians my mother- a music teacher- has never heard of...and she can do the same to me. If there is a discussion of a musician neither of us heard of, that musician is probably off the radar of all but a very few people.
IMHO, the true measure of someone's obscurity within a genre of artistic expression- writing, painting, music, etc.- is not sales or whether you or I have heard of them, but whether they are relatively well known/important to the history & growth of the genre by those who are fellow practitioners, teachers & students of the genre.
jmucchiello
Hero
I skipped a bit of this thread and since it now seems bogged down in "what is Vancian magic?" I thought I'd lend a different view.
I like the magic system to D&D because it is unique to D&D. Somehow it got perverted in 3e, I suspect from the sorcerer. Wizards prior to 3e were not used as artillery primarily. They had few spells, far fewer than 3e wizards and thus they had to make them count. In any system where magic is "at will" it becomes possible and perhaps necessary to compare the wizard to fighter in terms of damage/round. That's why wizards started becoming artillery and what led to the 5 minute adventuring day.
Prior to 3e, no one had any issues with the 5-minute adventuring day because the wizard wasn't blasting everything in sight with his plethora of combat spells. Wizards had knock and dispel magic and all those utility effects to get past obstacles that existed inside AND outside of combat. Someone above pointed out that the wizard picks spells based on how broadly they can be applied to the most number of situations. This is what makes the magic system fun.
It's also what makes some people dislike the system. They don't like playing the cat and mouse game of predict what spell I need 6 hours from now when my rat bastard DM springs some kind of surprise on us. Perhaps they don't like this because they are the only players that are supposed to prepare for the unexpected. The fighter has his sword and the thief has his lock picks. And anything that can't be solved by them, they turn to the wizard and ask "You gotta spell for this?"
And this is where 4e fell down. The focus on in combat only use of spells and powers took away a lot of the outside of the box thinking that was main reason to play a wizard. "If the thief climbs onto the floating disk, can he...."
I like the magic system to D&D because it is unique to D&D. Somehow it got perverted in 3e, I suspect from the sorcerer. Wizards prior to 3e were not used as artillery primarily. They had few spells, far fewer than 3e wizards and thus they had to make them count. In any system where magic is "at will" it becomes possible and perhaps necessary to compare the wizard to fighter in terms of damage/round. That's why wizards started becoming artillery and what led to the 5 minute adventuring day.
Prior to 3e, no one had any issues with the 5-minute adventuring day because the wizard wasn't blasting everything in sight with his plethora of combat spells. Wizards had knock and dispel magic and all those utility effects to get past obstacles that existed inside AND outside of combat. Someone above pointed out that the wizard picks spells based on how broadly they can be applied to the most number of situations. This is what makes the magic system fun.
It's also what makes some people dislike the system. They don't like playing the cat and mouse game of predict what spell I need 6 hours from now when my rat bastard DM springs some kind of surprise on us. Perhaps they don't like this because they are the only players that are supposed to prepare for the unexpected. The fighter has his sword and the thief has his lock picks. And anything that can't be solved by them, they turn to the wizard and ask "You gotta spell for this?"
And this is where 4e fell down. The focus on in combat only use of spells and powers took away a lot of the outside of the box thinking that was main reason to play a wizard. "If the thief climbs onto the floating disk, can he...."
innerdude
Legend
Here's my take on the Vancian/Non-Vancian rift:
Personally, I have come to greatly dislike D&D's iteration of "Vancian" casting, particularly for Wizards and Clerics. When I GM 3.x/Pathfinder games, if a player wants a "Wizard" or "Cleric," I'll often houserule that they can play a Sorc, Psion, Ardent, Runethain from Arcana Evolved, etc. instead, but not the base Wiz/Cleric. Conceptually, "memorize/forget" just doesn't jive with the way I envision magic working in most of my campaigns.
I've tried the Unearthed Arcana spellpoint system, bought the Lycean magic PDF from En Publishing, the Spellweaver variant caster, tried the "Truenaming" variant from the late 3.5 splatbook . . . basically, if there's a way to replace Vancian magic in D&D, I've looked at it.
That said, D&D is very specifically tied to its version of Vancian casting, and I think it's probably going to stay that way . . . and I'm actually okay with it, whereas in the past that would have frustrated me. It kind of is a "core trope" of D&D (even though it's easily my least favorite magic mechanic), but if I don't want Vancian casting, I'll either keep houseruling, or simply play something else.
Personally, I have come to greatly dislike D&D's iteration of "Vancian" casting, particularly for Wizards and Clerics. When I GM 3.x/Pathfinder games, if a player wants a "Wizard" or "Cleric," I'll often houserule that they can play a Sorc, Psion, Ardent, Runethain from Arcana Evolved, etc. instead, but not the base Wiz/Cleric. Conceptually, "memorize/forget" just doesn't jive with the way I envision magic working in most of my campaigns.
I've tried the Unearthed Arcana spellpoint system, bought the Lycean magic PDF from En Publishing, the Spellweaver variant caster, tried the "Truenaming" variant from the late 3.5 splatbook . . . basically, if there's a way to replace Vancian magic in D&D, I've looked at it.
That said, D&D is very specifically tied to its version of Vancian casting, and I think it's probably going to stay that way . . . and I'm actually okay with it, whereas in the past that would have frustrated me. It kind of is a "core trope" of D&D (even though it's easily my least favorite magic mechanic), but if I don't want Vancian casting, I'll either keep houseruling, or simply play something else.
Last edited:
I'm not super keen on the idea of Vancian Magic. I *like* the spell system of 2E and 3E, and dislike that of 4E. But I could do without "fire and forget".
A spell point or spell build system would be cool....but I don't think we'll get it in 5E. It would likely be judged too difficult.
But something that mixes the existing spell system with something more flexible, like the Magister from Arcana Unearthed (by Monte Cook) would be nice. I really like that model. You still have to have your caster memorize spells....but instead of spells being used up when cast, you just have spell slots that you then pick from your memorized spells at the moment of casting.
So, I might have 3 1st lvl spells per day....and I memorize Magic Missile, Sleep, Colour Spray and Charm Person (for instance). I could then cast 3 magic missiles, 2 magic missiles and a charm person, 2 charms, a sleep and a colour spray, etc. It's all decided at the moment of casting.
I guess that would eliminate the need for a sorcerer.....or the sorcerer would change into something else.
Banshee
A spell point or spell build system would be cool....but I don't think we'll get it in 5E. It would likely be judged too difficult.
But something that mixes the existing spell system with something more flexible, like the Magister from Arcana Unearthed (by Monte Cook) would be nice. I really like that model. You still have to have your caster memorize spells....but instead of spells being used up when cast, you just have spell slots that you then pick from your memorized spells at the moment of casting.
So, I might have 3 1st lvl spells per day....and I memorize Magic Missile, Sleep, Colour Spray and Charm Person (for instance). I could then cast 3 magic missiles, 2 magic missiles and a charm person, 2 charms, a sleep and a colour spray, etc. It's all decided at the moment of casting.
I guess that would eliminate the need for a sorcerer.....or the sorcerer would change into something else.
Banshee
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Vancian magic wasn't chosen because it was well known; it wasn't chosen because Gary expected players were eager to emulate the works of Vance. It was chosen because it was, in Gary's opinion, the best, most workable system for a game. That is the real issue: it is time to cut Vancian magic when a better system is conceived, regardless of "source material" back-up. I have yet to see one that works for D&D.
Hussar
Legend
However, GG, I would point out that Fire and Forget magic has already undergone a pretty serious shift going into 3e. Both clerics and druids got spontaneous casting, which, at least for clerics, was a HUGE change in how they played.
IME, your 1st level cleric spells in AD&D were almost all (if not all) cure light wounds. It didn't really matter how long the spell list available was. 1st level, you took as many CLW spells as you could and that number likely never went down. 3e, OTOH, meant that you could take any number of different spells and still perform a standard function - healing.
Also, some time into 3.5, we got Reserve Feats, which also make a big change in how casters function. Being able to fire away with an effect every round until you ran out of slots of whatever level the Reserve Feat was tied to made a really big difference in how casters were played.
I think where Celebrim makes a mistake is in the idea that we have to go all or nothing. Either it's 100% F&F magic, or it's freeform. That's wrong. I think you can modify the F&F system to the point where you have some F&F magic, some effects that are stripped out of the standard casting set entirely (Ritual Magic) and some effects that should be done (mostly) all day long.
I don't think too many people are terribly interested in casters where you spend the first three levels with at most, three spells per day and the rest of the time, you throw darts. Or in casters where the system is largely telling you (or at least strongly pushing) what you should be taking.
IME, your 1st level cleric spells in AD&D were almost all (if not all) cure light wounds. It didn't really matter how long the spell list available was. 1st level, you took as many CLW spells as you could and that number likely never went down. 3e, OTOH, meant that you could take any number of different spells and still perform a standard function - healing.
Also, some time into 3.5, we got Reserve Feats, which also make a big change in how casters function. Being able to fire away with an effect every round until you ran out of slots of whatever level the Reserve Feat was tied to made a really big difference in how casters were played.
I think where Celebrim makes a mistake is in the idea that we have to go all or nothing. Either it's 100% F&F magic, or it's freeform. That's wrong. I think you can modify the F&F system to the point where you have some F&F magic, some effects that are stripped out of the standard casting set entirely (Ritual Magic) and some effects that should be done (mostly) all day long.
I don't think too many people are terribly interested in casters where you spend the first three levels with at most, three spells per day and the rest of the time, you throw darts. Or in casters where the system is largely telling you (or at least strongly pushing) what you should be taking.
For D&D? IMHO, never: its part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG.
Hussar
Legend
For you maybe. To be honest, it's been so long since F&F magic had anything to do with any of my D&D games that I really don't miss it. I'd have to go back to very early 3e for the last time I saw any significant use of Vancian style magic. After that it was either things like Reserve Feats, spontaneous casters or other variants.
See, and that's the thing. It's not like non-Vancian casters are something that D&D never had. I had non-Vancian clerics in 2e - spontaneous casters that were limited/day - and it worked fine. The players that I've played with over the past ten years or so have had pretty much zero interest in standard Vancian casters.
Thinking about it, about the only one who did play a Vancian caster was me. And that's probably because I'm used to it. I started playing D&D considerably before most of my players (although that's no longer true in my current group).
But, are you saying that if I had a group that didn't have any Vancian casters, but did include psionics and Tome of Magic casters, I'm not actually playing D&D anymore?
Similar Threads
