D&D 5E Confession: I Sometimes Miss Vancian Casting

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Need to go fishing? Just head to the local fishing hole and shocking grasp.
Why use flint and steel, or matches, or firestarter? You have a Fire Bolt. Do that.
Hunt with Eldritch Blast.
Why bargain for goods with that merchant? Just cast Friends.
You're an actor who no longer uses makeup. Just Disguise Self.
Lanterns are useless. Cast Light.

The list goes on and on.

I dunno... since cantrips are the result of particular life choices and a dedication to those choices, not just something every fisherman, camper, hunter, actor, being lacking good night vision, or what have you can just "pick up", is there actually any harm?

It's not typical for a wizard to need to go fishing, and if he does and decides to get in the water and grab the fish with his electric hand instead of using a pole... so? Doesn't sound any different than getting in the river and grabbing a fish by hand in real life; there are people that do it, but not everyone does.

And if you are a wizard and you can't even start a fire with a snap of your fingers, you are failing to live up to the expectations generated by most sources of fiction regarding wizards.

I won't harp on the rest except by saying this: You are effectively saying that you expect a significant presence of what is the equivalent of doctoral graduates choosing to work in food service, but being pretty good at it, and that you find that expectation unpleasant.

Just like doctors are heading up and down city streets making sure everyone they see is healthy, D&D spellcasters are providing the world free benefit of their magical abilities. Maybe they too have insurmountable student loans to pay off?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And considering that back in 2e (and presumably 1e) all that was needed was an intelligence of 9 to become wizard, I'd say that they probably wouldn't be that rare at all.

Other than save DCs and spell attack bonuses, are there any restrictions on studying magic in 5e?

Nope. A half-orc wizard with an Int of 3 could still Stoneskin his allies, summon Phantom Steeds, make them Fly, and Teleport them places. He could even Fireball other orcs with a moderate degree of success (DC 10), which I find frankly hilarious.

Just don't expect him to get any useful info out of Contact Other Plane.

 

[bedir than]

I dunno... since cantrips are the result of particular life choices and a dedication to those choices, not just something every fisherman, camper, hunter, actor, being lacking good night vision, or what have you can just "pick up", is there actually any harm?

Remember, learning two unlimited cantrips and a one a day spell is as hard for a human as learning to punch with great effect like a Tavern Brawler, or a couple languages, or a variety of skills.

Meaning, it isn't hard. It's a single feat that a Common Human can have.

Making cantrips unlimited and easy for humans to learn means that it isn't like they are rare spells. There's no reason for a human to not learn them. They have them infinite times.

That's BAD world building if it is accidental.

Under a Vancian system let's say it was three cantrips a day (that's what I remember from the 1st UA I owned), then the person has to make choices. It isn't something that they do as simply as walking, or punching. It requires care and consideration to be a magic user. That's not true any longer.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Remember, learning two unlimited cantrips and a one a day spell is as hard for a human as learning to punch with great effect like a Tavern Brawler, or a couple languages, or a variety of skills.

Meaning, it isn't hard. It's a single feat that a Common Human can have.

Making cantrips unlimited and easy for humans to learn means that it isn't like they are rare spells. There's no reason for a human to not learn them. They have them infinite times.

That's BAD world building if it is accidental.

Under a Vancian system let's say it was three cantrips a day (that's what I remember from the 1st UA I owned), then the person has to make choices. It isn't something that they do as simply as walking, or punching. It requires care and consideration to be a magic user. That's not true any longer.

Yeah, that's not a problem with cantrips. That's a problem with the Variant Human race and the impedance mismatch between (dissociated) chargen decisions and (associated) roleplaying decisions. You can get around it by making the feats racial in nature; e.g. Cimmerians are Tough, Ermorians are Lucky, and Thayans are Magic Initiates. It doesn't restrict PCs but it restricts the world; and people might recognize your PC and know something about him based on his visuals. ("That guy is obviously a Machakan--expect him to be very mobile!")

It isn't a given that choosing a feat is an in-character choice that just anyone can decide to do. It happens outside of roleplaying, and the DM is within his rights to design a world where it happens rarely.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Remember, learning two unlimited cantrips and a one a day spell is as hard for a human as learning to punch with great effect like a Tavern Brawler, or a couple languages, or a variety of skills.

Meaning, it isn't hard. It's a single feat that a Common Human can have.

Making cantrips unlimited and easy for humans to learn means that it isn't like they are rare spells. There's no reason for a human to not learn them. They have them infinite times.

That's BAD world building if it is accidental.

Under a Vancian system let's say it was three cantrips a day (that's what I remember from the 1st UA I owned), then the person has to make choices. It isn't something that they do as simply as walking, or punching. It requires care and consideration to be a magic user. That's not true any longer.

By treating the rules for making adventurous heroes and villains as the rules for commonplace folk, you are inventing a problem where one need not exist - because I don't have to let every "common human" be 4th level or higher or get the free feat that the variant human option for player characters (which is actually how the game works - if you are an NPC, you don't get feats, and you don't generally have a level either).

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't miss vancian casting. . . at all.


That said, I'm not inclined to knock it. It served many people well for a long time, even if I wasn't one of them.

 

[bedir than]

By treating the rules for making adventurous heroes and villains as the rules for commonplace folk, you are inventing a problem where one need not exist - because I don't have to let every "common human" be 4th level or higher or get the free feat that the variant human option for player characters (which is actually how the game works - if you are an NPC, you don't get feats, and you don't generally have a level either).

does every elf get dark vision? Why wouldn't humans get their abilities?

 

[aramis erak]

I've never seen any flaw in Vancian casting. Just taste differences.

Newbies are sometimes surprised to find they can't cast the same spell over and over...then they get used to the idea after 10 minutes and have a lot of fun.

Desperation is the mother of invention and invention is the best part of the game.

Vancian casting is one of the strongest holdovers from minis gaming... and it's not even terribly reflective of Vance's novels...

I'm glad it's (mostly) gone, tho'. It's not as easy as a spell points mechanic, but 5E is close enough... and the #1 complaint I've heard from newbs playing spellcasters over the last (goodness, is it really?) 35 years is the vancian magic. At least, until I started explaining it the way Bill Willingham does in Ironwood.

The terminology Gygcax chose is kind of mismatched for what the mechanics are; Willingham's are much better.

Oh, and I really would love to see Willingham's Ironwood setting (sans all the overt sexual acts done as a worldbook for D&D 5E).

Oh, and I really don't object to Vancian casting - it was a fun resource management exercise. 5E is less of a resource management game than AD&D tended to be.

 

[wedgeski]

DMs can sometimes have a skewed perspective on what is boring. Would your players find it less boring to be limited this way, or would it just make the game more interesting for you to run?

This is one of the truest things. It's important for the DM to be enjoying himself, of course, but I've been surprised by how much fun my players tell they had in sessions that I thought were utter cluster-thingummies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I can appreciate the feeling, [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION], I think the matter is less "nostalgia" per se, and more a matter of having your memories blend together, if that makes sense.

You remember all the good times you've had gaming. All the cool stuff you did, all the times that the limitations of Vancian casting forced you to do something unexpectedly awesome (like, as noted, the offensive use of knock). The totally legitimate halo of joy surrounding your memories rubs off on all of its component parts. That's not nostalgia--pining for what once was--so much as "I remember good things, and this is a thing that happened with those good things, so I remember it fondly."

But, at least for me, the Vancian side of earlier editions is pretty clearly not the cause of the good memories I've got. It's entirely possible that your good memories go back further than mine (I actually played only a couple of 3.5e campaigns, and none at all of 2e or earlier), which would more deeply cement their association...but IMO it's purely correlation, not causation. Your positive D&D memories are correlated with memories of Vancian casting, and over such a long period that it is very tempting to argue that there is, to some degree, a causative relationship. I just think that--particularly if you aren't actually willing to "go back"--it's pretty clearly just two things which happened to occur together, during times when you were doing something you loved.