Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's not the overpoweredness of AD&D/3e spells people like, it's the variety. If 5e was 4e powers in a Vancian framework, I wouldn't like it because those spells would likely be incredibly boring and same-y and all combat-focused. Give me grease, silent image, reduce person, fly, fire trap, wall of force, delayed blast fireball, telekinetic sphere--and those are just SRD spells--not yet another way to damage someone and push them a bit, or teleport tactically, or create a crowd-control zone. Lots of people played crowd-control wizards in 3e, and that's a fun and effective way to play, but 4e (and now probably 5e) have said "If you want CC or blasting or very limited abjuration, you can contribute in combat, if you want illusions or enchantment or very limited necromancy, you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat and not much out of combat."

Which kind of makes my point. No one cares about the Vancian system. They care that spells aren't written like 4e.

Here's a hypothetical: 5e instead gives you the entire list of 1st level dailies in a vancian fashion for Wizards. Then they add the entire list of Arcana and non-skill based Rituals from level 1 to 4 and make them all 1st level dailies that you can prepare instead of any of your normal dailies. Then they change the casting time of all 10 minute or less rituals to 3 rounds. Then remove the component cost for any ritual that currently costs less than 20gp per level of the ritual(leaving the ones that are supposed to be expensive still have a cost). Then do the same for 5-8th level rituals to become 2nd level spells, 9th-12th become 3rd and so on.

This means you still get the variety of a vancian system, choosing between utility and combat spells, without making utility spells break combat(since 3 rounds is too long to make most of them viable in combat without some planning and protecting the wizard).

If you sort 3e spells by power and cut off the top half of them, you'll still have plenty of fun, creative, flexible, and noncombat-capable spells. You can shape the world, fool people, build wards and traps for later, pick up a few minions, and do lots of other things. If the designers think you can't use illusions in combat, tough noogies for them, they shouldn't give you a few powers that deal psychic damage and call them illusions and then make you spend an arm and a leg to get basic rituals, like Hallucinatory Creature which, at level 12, finally lets you make the moving image of a creature at the cost of 10 minutes and 500gp where a 3e caster could have been doing that several times a day from level 1.

A number of these spells are EXTREMELY combat capable depending on your DM. Which is my real problem with them.

"Hey, Mr DM, I create an image of the typical food of the creature. Every time the creature attempts to hit it, the image jumps out of the way. Since it had virtually no intelligence it doesn't get a chance to disbelieve or think it's an illusion. It doesn't even know what illusions are. Every time we attack, I'll have the illusion leap up and attack the same spot so he'll think it's the illusion attacking. Also, in combat, who do you think it's going to attack, its favorite food or us? Perfect. My spell has negated all damage done by the enemy."

Some DMs will say "No, that's stupid. I'm not letting you use a first level illusion spell to negate more damage than a 9th level actual combat spell." Some will say "Awesome, since you are being so creative with your illusion spells, I will reward you by having it succeed and the monster never attacks you."

Out of combat their power can increase to almost limitless levels. With a couple of low level illusions., some creativity, and a DM who goes along with stuff, you could nearly conquer the entire world.: Invisibility to sneak past guards, illusions to look like important people or charms to make important people do whatever you want them to. Soon entire armies and kingdoms are at your command and it doesn't take much more than 3rd level spells to do it.

Certainly there should be some cost for these extremely powerful abilities that isn't "I need to wait until tomorrow to continue my plot, since I have no more charm spells today". I don't mind some sort of gold cost for these sorts of abilities...though it needs to be lower than 4e. They went overboard.

Back in 1e, all the overpowered 3e spells had drawbacks, and plenty of them. Wish had no "safe" options and aged you, polymorph could kill you, animate dead could be dispelled, fly didn't have the safe descent, and so forth. Yet people liked the 1e system just fine, because it wasn't about options, it was about creativity and breadth of effects.

Most of the drawbacks could be worked around so they were non-existent:

I'm a elf...1 year of my life? Let me know if I cast it over 900 times.

Wish was and still is a stupid spell, because its text basically said "Your DM should make whatever you say hurt you badly. But feel free to wish for anything you want." If you worded it correctly, it could give you the power of a god(and your DM was nice) if you didn't, casting it meant the death of your entire party. Without the safe options, Wishing for lunch would often get you killed. No one in their right mind ever cast it.

Spells being able to be dispelled isn't a drawback, that just makes them spells like anything else. Against non-casters or in low magic worlds it isn't a drawback in the slightest. And in most games, that's 95% of encounters. I understand that some DMs have worked around this issue by making nearly 100% of encounters against casters and given every guard in existence the ability to dispel magic and see invisibility. But in most games, it means "If one of the 3 wizards who lives in this city casts a dispel on you, it'll suck. Luckily only one of them is high enough level to cast it and he works at the brewery making beer."

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Personally, I find a character whose prime focus is magic use being able to produce a set of low-level magical effects at will more compelling than the alternative.

Are cantrips not usable at will? And if not, why not?

The at-will cantrip makes me smile. The at-will magic missile, not so much. Why? Personal taste.

 

[Hussar]

The at-will cantrip makes me smile. The at-will magic missile, not so much. Why? Personal taste.

But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?

Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?

Which is better? You spend several weeks of game play, playing a character that gets to do what his class is supposed to do, once, maybe twice every three hour session, or, playing a character that can do something directly related to his class very frequently, throughout a three hour session.

Which makes a more fun class to play? Not just for you and your personal tastes, but, thinking about the people you know that play casters. Which would they prefer? Which makes for better experiences for that player?

To me, the idea that you get to spend 20-30 hours of play (guestimate for leveling from 1st to 3rd or 4th) at best using the primary purpose of your class 1/hour is very poor class design.

Who cares if the reward is that after 100+ hours of play, you FINALLY get to play the character you created on a regular basis? Why in heck have I just spend a hundred hours being a commoner with a rocket launcher and very, very limited ammunition?

No thanks. Even back in the day, you were expected to pick up wands and the like at very low level. A wand of magic missiles appears in the Basic rules, as does a wand of paralyzation (albeit, these wands only grant 10 charges). You are EXPECTED to find these treasures at these levels. Scrolls are included in the rules as well.

The idea that you're supposed to have your base casting and nothing else isn't really supported by the actual text of the game. So, if you're supposed to have more than your base 1 spell per day anyway, why not build that directly into the class? What do we gain by placing the control over the character in the hands of either the dice (random treasure) or the DM? Does that actually make a better experience?

 

[billd91]

But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?

Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?

How can that latter question be separated from personal taste?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?

Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?

Which is better? You spend several weeks of game play, playing a character that gets to do what his class is supposed to do, once, maybe twice every three hour session, or, playing a character that can do something directly related to his class very frequently, throughout a three hour session.

Which makes a more fun class to play? Not just for you and your personal tastes, but, thinking about the people you know that play casters. Which would they prefer? Which makes for better experiences for that player?

To me, the idea that you get to spend 20-30 hours of play (guestimate for leveling from 1st to 3rd or 4th) at best using the primary purpose of your class 1/hour is very poor class design.

Who cares if the reward is that after 100+ hours of play, you FINALLY get to play the character you created on a regular basis? Why in heck have I just spend a hundred hours being a commoner with a rocket launcher and very, very limited ammunition?

No thanks. Even back in the day, you were expected to pick up wands and the like at very low level. A wand of magic missiles appears in the Basic rules, as does a wand of paralyzation (albeit, these wands only grant 10 charges). You are EXPECTED to find these treasures at these levels. Scrolls are included in the rules as well.

The idea that you're supposed to have your base casting and nothing else isn't really supported by the actual text of the game. So, if you're supposed to have more than your base 1 spell per day anyway, why not build that directly into the class? What do we gain by placing the control over the character in the hands of either the dice (random treasure) or the DM? Does that actually make a better experience?

At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much.

I'm fairly certain that posting the above opinion doesn't elevate it's importance above yours or anyone else's.

Why? Personal taste.

I'm fairly certain that posting the above, in order to preemptively answer the inevitable forthcoming question does not elevate it's importance, either.

There was a style of game I could play in certain editions which could be run without changing or excluding the magic user class. I liked that style. It would appear that the majority of people may not enjoy having that option available, and based on what we've seen, WotC would be amongst that number. So, the next edition, like 4e, will invalidate that style by the core rules.

Also, while not in the majority, I know that I'm not alone in thinking it would (and did) make a more compelling class.

In response to the post I quoted, above, I do like at-will cantrips, but not at-will magic missiles. :shrug:

 

[Hussar]

How can that latter question be separated from personal taste?

By actually trying to maintain some distance and remaining objective. By constantly questioning the existence of something and it's inclusion into the ruleset. By requiring that everything that is included in the ruleset be justifiable in some manner beyond simply, "because it's the way it was done yesterday".

By trying to be intellectually honest enough to admit that just because I happen to like something doesn't make it good and because I happen to dislike something doesn't make it bad.

I realize it's impossible to remove all personal preference, but, it is the goal that should be striven for. All it requires is a recognition of the following

”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering

and a refusal to allow personal taste be the arbiter of quality.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

There was a style of game I could play in certain editions which could be run without changing or excluding the magic user class. I liked that style. It would appear that the majority of people may not enjoy having that option available, and based on what we've seen, WotC would be amongst that number. So, the next edition, like 4e, will invalidate that style by the core rules.

Also, while not in the majority, I know that I'm not alone in thinking it would (and did) make a more compelling class.

In response to the post I quoted, above, I do like at-will cantrips, but not at-will magic missiles. :shrug:

Don't just tell me though, show me. How does having an at-will attack ability on par with a regular weapon attack (such as a crossbow or dagger), invalidate your playstyle? What about your playstyle makes it compelling and interesting? Why is it more compelling to be limited to 1 spell per day than many?

And, what do you mean as well? Is your 1 spell, or limited spells, per day a big spell that effectively ends an entire encounter, like Sleep? Or is it any spell? Is it compelling and interesting play to spend two levels casting Comprehend Languages and Detect Magic once or twice per day?

And, is it possible to achieve your goals in another way? Does the caster absolutely have to be limited to very small numbers of spells or could wizards be more like clerics and start with 3 spells per day (presuming a what, 13 or 14 Wis for the AD&D cleric)? Or perhaps 2 spells per day a la the AD&D druid at 1st level.

Or, could we give the casters some sort of powers like druids and still keep the highly limited Vancian casting. Your wizard could have very limited fire and forget spell casting, but starts with a familiar that is capable of getting into combat without getting instantly squished. Something like that.

Look, I'm not really interested in telling anyone they're wrong. But, if we're going to get anywhere, people need to stop telling each other that X is better or worse than Y and start actually presenting options and ways in which everyone gets what they want.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Don't just tell me though, show me. How does having an at-will attack ability on par with a regular weapon attack (such as a crossbow or dagger), invalidate your playstyle? What about your playstyle makes it compelling and interesting? Why is it more compelling to be limited to 1 spell per day than many?

And, what do you mean as well? Is your 1 spell, or limited spells, per day a big spell that effectively ends an entire encounter, like Sleep? Or is it any spell? Is it compelling and interesting play to spend two levels casting Comprehend Languages and Detect Magic once or twice per day?

And, is it possible to achieve your goals in another way? Does the caster absolutely have to be limited to very small numbers of spells or could wizards be more like clerics and start with 3 spells per day (presuming a what, 13 or 14 Wis for the AD&D cleric)? Or perhaps 2 spells per day a la the AD&D druid at 1st level.

Or, could we give the casters some sort of powers like druids and still keep the highly limited Vancian casting. Your wizard could have very limited fire and forget spell casting, but starts with a familiar that is capable of getting into combat without getting instantly squished. Something like that.

Look, I'm not really interested in telling anyone they're wrong. But, if we're going to get anywhere, people need to stop telling each other that X is better or worse than Y and start actually presenting options and ways in which everyone gets what they want.

I didn't say anything was better or worse. I said, "At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much."

 

[MoonSong]

I didn't say anything was better or worse. I said, "At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much."

I share that opinion.
Personally I wouldn't mind At-will magic being an option, as long as i'm not forced to take it. In fact I wouldn't mind any alternative magic system, as long as I have the option to be a 100% non-combat caster without needing to rely on DM-fiat (Vancian allows me to do so). You don't need to cast the same damaging spell time after time all day to feel magical (to me that actually makes it feel less magical by making it mundane and taken for granted) but I understand some people would think otherwise.

 

[billd91]

By actually trying to maintain some distance and remaining objective. By constantly questioning the existence of something and it's inclusion into the ruleset. By requiring that everything that is included in the ruleset be justifiable in some manner beyond simply, "because it's the way it was done yesterday".

By trying to be intellectually honest enough to admit that just because I happen to like something doesn't make it good and because I happen to dislike something doesn't make it bad.

I realize it's impossible to remove all personal preference, but, it is the goal that should be striven for. All it requires is a recognition of the following

”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering

and a refusal to allow personal taste be the arbiter of quality.

There's a reason it's nearly universal. It's because it's fundamentally true except for narrow definitions of quality. Quality may be defined to measure how suitable something is for a particular purpose. In that case, there may be some objectively better fits than others. But if we're talking about coming up with quality rules for an RPG, we'd have to be a lot more specific about the purposes we're trying to support. Coming up with the best RPG, for example, is far too broad. And when do engage in getting more specific, there's a lot of subjectivity in what those purposes should be.

This is why taste matters a lot. 4e gets lauded for being great design. That design may be high quality in fitting the purposes of the 4e game. But its quality is terrible when fitted to other purposes, like producing a game that feels like AD&D. Whether the former is more important for a game in the D&D line of products than the latter depends on taste, not any objective metric.