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."

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I wonder if there might be some appeal in balancing AW/E/D around increased flexibility. Something like, every spell has 3 versions, one for each level of frequency. You have x spell slots, but you can choose to memorize any combination of spells. You could memorize x at-wills, x encounters, x dailies, or some combination thereof. 3 options might be overkill, but even if you dropped it to just at-wills and dailies I could still see it working.

For example, Invisibility. The at-will version might only last until your next turn (1 round), while the daily version might last for an entire encounter (5 minutes). If there's an encounter version, it would be somewhere between those options. That's just an example of course; the standard could instead be that at wills last for rounds, encounters last for minutes, and dailies last for hours. Either way, those are just fiddly details.

So, if you had 5 spell slots, you could memorize at-will Invisibility and 4 other spells, or Daily Invisibility five times, or some combination thereof. It might be a reasonable compromise between the various editions, and it would allow players to play their casters as they prefer. Like the 3e warlock, memorize at will versions of spells. Like the 3e wizard, memorize dailies exclusively. Like 4e casters, take your preferred combination of frequencies.

 

[Stormonu]

I wonder if there might be some appeal in balancing AW/E/D around increased flexibility. Something like, every spell has 3 versions, one for each level of frequency. You have x spell slots, but you can choose to memorize any combination of spells. You could memorize x at-wills, x encounters, x dailies, or some combination thereof. 3 options might be overkill, but even if you dropped it to just at-wills and dailies I could still see it working.

For example, Invisibility. The at-will version might only last until your next turn (1 round), while the daily version might last for an entire encounter (5 minutes). If there's an encounter version, it would be somewhere between those options. That's just an example of course; the standard could instead be that at wills last for rounds, encounters last for minutes, and dailies last for hours. Either way, those are just fiddly details.

So, if you had 5 spell slots, you could memorize at-will Invisibility and 4 other spells, or Daily Invisibility five times, or some combination thereof. It might be a reasonable compromise between the various editions, and it would allow players to play their casters as they prefer. Like the 3e warlock, memorize at will versions of spells. Like the 3e wizard, memorize dailies exclusively. Like 4e casters, take your preferred combination of frequencies.

I like this idea a lot. The wizard has his slots, and he can choose both which spell he wants in each slot and how "repeatable" it will be. With 5 slots, picking 5 dailies might get you some powerful stuff, but that's only 5 uses throughout the whole adventure; more likely the player will pick a mix of at-will, encounter and daily abilities. (though it kinda does have the mana point problem - blow everything on the biggest guns).

This also allows you to fit your character to the D&D version you want to emulate; if you want to emulate 1E & 2E, dailies versions of a spell are the only available option. For 3E, it would be dailies unless you wanted to emulate something akin to the Warlock. For a Pathfinder-like game, certain low-level spells might be at-wills or encounters and everything else dailies. 4E emulation would be a mix of all three.

<Edit> An additional option would the "open" slot, that the wizard can keep free to fill with any spell from his repitoire. This needs some sort of regulation however, so the wizard doesn't turn into the Universal Tool For Every Problem. I would suggest something like moving the spell in that slot to the next longer recharge - At-Will would become Encounter, Encounter would become Daily, couldn't put a Daily into the slot (or the reverse, could only put an Encounter or Daily into the slot and a short "wait" time to build up to its use).

 

[HeinorNY]

I

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

A wise mage always carry a set of scrolls for every occasion.

------
Vancian yes!
ALl editions had Vancian Magic, it isn't D&D without it.

 

[Li Shenron]

So back to the initial question: To Vance or not to Vance.

My answer is that Vancian magic is a D&D sacred cow, and all sacred cows should belong to 5ed as the default.

Every sacred cow you kill is a chunk of D&D gamers that won't play that edition.

Of course every sacred cow you kill is also a chunk of non-D&D gamers who didn't play D&D because of that sacred cow and may now join the D&D wagon. But who should you give precedence, D&D gamers or non-D&D gamers?

Non-Vancian magic can always be an option. The 3ed Sorcerer was already a step further away because of spontaneous casting, and books like Unearthed Arcana and others had a bunch of non-Vancian spellcasting systems.

If they want to cater more to gamers who hate Vancian magic, the best they can do is anticipate a non-Vancian system into the DMG, or even the PHB but with a clear "optional" tag on it. I think DMs deserve more power into their hands when allowing material.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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

I don't like Vancian, but it should still be an option. Big thing is that Vancian casters should have a goodly supply of at-will options that they don't have to prepare-- everyone should have something they can contribute to the majority of situations.

 

[MoxieFu]

My answer is that Vancian magic is a D&D sacred cow, and all sacred cows should belong to 5ed as the default.

Every sacred cow you kill is a chunk of D&D gamers that won't play that edition.

Of course every sacred cow you kill is also a chunk of non-D&D gamers who didn't play D&D because of that sacred cow and may now join the D&D wagon. But who should you give precedence, D&D gamers or non-D&D gamers?

Non-Vancian magic can always be an option. The 3ed Sorcerer was already a step further away because of spontaneous casting, and books like Unearthed Arcana and others had a bunch of non-Vancian spellcasting systems.

If they want to cater more to gamers who hate Vancian magic, the best they can do is anticipate a non-Vancian system into the DMG, or even the PHB but with a clear "optional" tag on it. I think DMs deserve more power into their hands when allowing material.

The beef is back!

 

[Nebulous]

Yes, Vancian magic should exist. This could be the magic-user class. For others, playing a Sorcerer will utilize a different subset of rules, maybe more similar to 4e's aw/e/d powers. Maybe a third subset will utilize spell points. Regardless, the core rules need to be simple enough so that future supplements can add on complexity as desired by gamers.

 

[Pilgrim]

Should 5E include Vancian “fire-and-forget” magic or something else?

Since Vancian magic has generally been so deeply rooted in the game since the beginning, I would like to see it in the Core rules, but I'm all for other optional/modular takes on casting for players who really don't like it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A wise mage always carry a set of scrolls for every occasion.

------
Vancian yes!
ALl editions had Vancian Magic, it isn't D&D without it.

While I have no problems with Vancian magic per se, provided they offer alternatives, I desperately hope they don't bring back the scroll for every occasion bit.

What's the point of placing daily limits on mages if you're just going to circumvent that limit through easy accessibility to scrolls and wands?

No quick fixes, like those, should be allowed to circumvent fundamental limits.

 

[varden]

two things, one point

1.

i've played the same fighter/druid on and off since 1985. [my screen name and avatar]

i think the only reason i've played him so long was a house rule that divine spells were really 'prayers,' so they didn't have to be memorized at the beginning of the day, just chosen as needed.

whenever i played with dms that didn't have that house rule, it was frustrating and that's when i raised his fighter levels

2.

one of our coolest game stunts was in 'halls of the high king,' where we had to rescue the king from a huge battle inside his own castle.

the room was packed with an orc horde between us and the king. we had no way of reaching him before they kidnapped him. very desperate.

then i thought of st:tng's 'best of both worlds' where data and worf snatch picard from the borg cube.

our two magic-users would teleport past the orc army to the other end of the hall, right next to the king. then one of the m-us would grab him and teleport away to safety.

the problem with the plan was only one of them had memorized one teleport spell that day.

the dm loved the idea, so he used a house rule of his: a mage could read a spell directly out of his spellbook, but it would disappear forever. kinda like using their spellbook as a scroll.

it worked, and we cheered so loud we attracted an audience in the student union

my point:

we had fun in spite of the vancian system, not because of it