Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Lwaxy]

The people that are really gung ho about particular systems seldom have any issues with them, at least not that they are aware of--probably due to a particular playstyle. If you think you have a great solution, throw it out there and defend it.

Don't know how great it is, but it works for us way better than pure Vancian (we have some players using that, too).

I'm just wondering what issues are supposedly going on with it because we haven't encountered anything significant. It would help to know to fix it before it happens.

 

[Mercule]

As much as I dislike playing a true wizard or cleric, I have to admit that Vancian magic really is part of what makes D&D D&D. When I play a caster, I prefer to play a sorcerer (or, even better, beguiler, warmage, etc.), but there's an awful lot of slotting in that, too. The warlock is compelling, too, but the hardwired attack role (Eldritch Blast) actually turns me off, a bit.

I think the ideal mage, IMO would combine the warlock, sorcerer, and wizard. Give the character a small number of innate abilities or at-wills, a double handful of known spells, and a broad reserve of spells that need to be "hung" in advance.

With just a couple minutes thought, I'd start with the 3.5 wizard and give them a reserve feat in place of the bonus item creation feats. Then give them a "level" of sorcerer every time they gained a new spell level. This level of sorcerer would only involve using the "spells known" table so the mage has a small number of spells, chosen from spells in his book at that time, that never again need to be memorized. Thus, a 20th level wizard would have the same number of slots as current, but would also have 5 reserve feats and the known spells of a 9th level sorcerer.

That's a starting point, and I immediately have some tweaks I'd want to test: What happens if the reserve feats are in addition to, rather than in place of the item creation feats? What other reserve feats can I come up with? Should the daily slots table be replaced with sorcerer? How about adding the "spells known" as bonus slots to the "spells per day"? Are two 4th level spells known actually useful at 18th level? Still, that sounds like a much more interesting class.

 

[n00bdragon]

If someone drove up to your house every morning and delivered a giant bag of money with the only stipulation being that you spend it before the next day you'd be pretty attached to that system too.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm just wondering what issues are supposedly going on with it because we haven't encountered anything significant. It would help to know to fix it before it happens.

It very much depends on the particulars of each system. However, one of the most common problems is too much freedom to swap low-powered spells for higher, or vice versa. I think high to low is usually more of a problem than the other way, but both can happen.

Take a naive power point system initiated off of AD&D spell slots. Convert all 1st level slots to 1 point, 2nd level to 2 points, etc. Suddenly, a higher level caster can convert a few lower level spells into an extra 9th level spell. Then someone tries to fix the worst of the low to high conversion by charging 1 point for 1st, 3 points for 2nd, 5 points for 3rd, etc., with each spell slot giving the corresponding amount. Now, suddenly, a single 6th level slot lets a caster do a max magic missile all day long.

But mainly, it takes a system that is already very generous strategically and makes it even more generous and flexible tactically. In a game designed with power points from the ground up, you'll often see some variation on scaling such that the caster can be reasonably flexible with low level, modest effects, but really has to sacrifice and dig for the bigger stuff--and the scaling is usually fairly steep after a point, often with unpredictable risks. This often leaves the caster bereft of magic when they try too much, but even that isn't such a big deal in a skill-based system, where the caster has other things to use.

D&D is already prone to the wizard being balanced on a razor edge between hopeless drag and terribly over-powered. Power points tend to exaggerate such issues anyway. That's also, by the way, why power point house rules for D&D tend to work better for a particular group when they stick to a relatively narrow level range. Even the AD&D naive implementation isn't so bad between 3rd and 9th level, especially in certain playstyles.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In addition to the above points, my main reasons for liking the Vancian system are as follows:

1) No siloing of spells.

2) No enforcement of non-combat-ness.

Both of these, I agree, would be good things. If you took the fighter and the thief and merged them into a single class with the abilities of both. The ability to function at their level both in and out of combat. Because Vancian means that if expecting a fight the wizard can prepare for the combat focus of the fighter - and if not expecting one he can prepare for the non-combat focus of a thief. Call him the "professional" or something. As things stand, this flexibility is a way Spellcasters are Special. As if they need more than the ability to warp reality to make them special.

I don't dislike those aspects of casting. I dislike them paired with the classic D&D class system that doesn't normally allow this sort of flexibility. Now whether this is a problem with Vancian Magic or one of the D&D class system is open to debate. (I'd say it's a flaw in the classic D&D class system, myself).

That isn't a Vancian problem, actually, it's a 3e problem. In AD&D, wizards had many fewer spells (no bonus spells for high attributes, no focused specialist, no widely-available charged items, etc.) and spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare, each, so it took a 20th level wizard about 2.5 days to prepare all of his spells and he only had about 2/3 the spells of a 20th-level counterpart. Bring back AD&D-style Vancian instead of 3e-style Vancian for 5e, problem solved.

This isn't true. 3e definitely made the problem more severe. But the 2e mage, with specialisation is hugely more powerful than the 1e mage who doesn't get these bonus spells. And even in 1e, the commonly thought overpowered variant classes like the Cavalier were made, according to Gygax himself, to try to add some balance. Also the AD&D endgame is much, much lower than the 3e one. In AD&D you got castles and towers round level 11 or so - and that's when much of the adventuring stopped - and when the fighters got armies to make up for the wizard's spells continuing to improve. Talking about 20th level wizards - 20th level wizards could easily make reality beg for mercy in 1e. Fighters were men with sharpened bits of metal no matter what level.

 

[Lwaxy]

That's also, by the way, why power point house rules for D&D tend to work better for a particular group when they stick to a relatively narrow level range.

0 - 50th level here.

But I see what you mean.

Yes, we use spell level = mana points needed, but each time you use a spell on a level above an exhaustion point count (which counts down of course) you pay up to 3 additional mana. There are a few more tweaks like more costs or inability of casting the same spell more than a specific number of times unless it is a 0 or 1st level spell and your highest spell (last learned if tie) usually takes up double the mana. Until they are really in the epic levels, we rarely see overpowered, sometimes we see underpowered in the lower levels. We don't have any power players though.

It is not that the Vancian casters or those using the above suggested "wizard and sorcerer in one" idea (4 PCs with that right now) can't hold up. It is just a different system.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Vancian wizards are cool. Chicks dig them.

 

[Hussar]

I tend to look at Vancian casting in the same way that I view HP and AC. Sure, it's wonky. Sure it's got its warts. But, at the end of the day, it's simple, it's easy to use and, above all, it works.

That's a REALLY hard combo to topple. Spell points are perhaps better, but, they're more complicated and require a lot more work from the player. At the levels that most campaigns play at - say 3-12th, for more of those levels managing a wizard isn't too taxing. Clerics might be a bit more work because of the longer spell list, but, usually not that difficult.

Fast, easy, simple, discrete. That's a pretty nice system right there. The primary problems with it are legacy items - spells that really need to either go away, be much higher level, or changed to be less "versatile" and the presumed length of an adventuring day. Telling the low level caster that he gets to throw darts for most of the adventure because he's just not good enough to actually do the things his character is supposed to do most of the time, is not my idea of fun.

 

[The Shadow]

It's not like spell points are the only alternative to Vancian casting. True20's Fatigue-save system works quite well, for example. There, powerful effects are controlled by high DC's and/or prerequisites. Very different feel from traditional D&D, yes, but I like it.

I think a lot of the problems of Vancian casting can be mitigated by good class design. Why does a generalist wizard have to be best at everything? I say, if you want to be the magical jack of all trades, you have to accept being master of none. Sure, the generalist gets a few illusions; but he's quickly left in the dust by the Illusionist.

2e's reworking of 'specialist wizards' was IMAO a huge step backward from 1e. Though I grant that the 1e conception of specialists takes a lot more work to get right, I also think it's time well spent. Believe me, I don't carry a torch for 1e otherwise, I think 3e was a huge improvement, but in this one area Gygax was seriously onto something - the Illusionist had tons and tons of flavor.

I like what I'm hearing some people propose of spells that work in virtually every level, increasing in power and utility depending on slot, but I really think it's better suited to a sorcerer-type than the wizard. It's always struck me that sorcerers should have 'themed' spells rather than the quirky named-type stuff of wizards.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are two main techniques that I use to address this issue:

1) a sense of urgency (PCs aren't going to stop to rest casually if they're being hunted or if they're on a quest with an urgent objective)
2) DM initiated encounters (particularly in overland and city-based adventures, I'm the one deciding when encounters happen).

And both methods work to an extent. No one is saying they don't. The trouble is that both are extremely limiting. The DM initiated encounters issue is that after a relatively low level, people are going to work out that attacking the PCs is foolish. And with 3.X being balanced round four encounters/day, PTSD and massive depopulation is the probable result.