D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Celtavian]

I would prefer they eliminate Vancian magic and make every caster a specialized sorcerer. That limits the wizard from becoming the character that can solve every problem given time. Then you can have stories where you have to go to a specialized individual for certain things such as seers or oracles for divination. Magic item makers for items. Leave the frontline adventuring for the blasters, manipulators. and the like. No more jack of all trade wizards, but rather specialized users of magic.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure what your point is, here. Without Vancian casting as the default, the game would be more like other FRPGs; mechanical assumptions would be changed; the fiction would change.

So what? I think that's a fairly self evident truth.

But that is an issue of identity, not integrity. The game is perfectly playable using spell points, fatigue magic and any other magic system you'd care to name.

You keep saying that, but that's not true. Vancian magic exists in other systems as well, so it's already like other systems even with it. The problem seems to lie with you having an identity crisis of a D&D without Vancian magic. eek:!) But it's like keeping around the English monarchy just because it's been there for so long that people (oddly enough, mostly Americans) would hate to see it go despite how much of a drain it is. It's all so "quaint" that you would hate to see it go, despite the fact that you prefer another system.

 

[OnlineDM]

I love D&D and dislike Vancian magic. Of course, I play 4e, which doesn't really have Vancian magic.

I had a small amount of familiarity with 3e from years ago, and when I read the 4e books and saw at-will spells for the wizard, I thought, "Wow, this is fantastic!"

I still feel that way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Its like nothing else in fantasy literature except D&D literature or Jack Vance's works. And its not even like his really.

1-3.xE spell casting is a synthesis of Vance's mnemonic "Dying Earth" magic (almost a type of psionics) and Camp and Pratt's sympathetic "Harold Shea" magic (which is 'historically accurate').

 

[Nagol]

This sound dangerously close to the mentality of "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system." People disagree with Vancian magic precisely because people disagree with what magic should be in a game. People can still love the overall D&D system (whatever the iteration) without liking Vancian magic. There are other systems with arguably better magic systems, but they have their own problems unique to their system. It's certainly not an all or nothing when it comes to Vancian magic, as getting rid of it is not tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I keep playing D&D because Vancian magic is not the entirety of D&D. Let's rephrase your proposition: Is Vancian magic the only reason to play D&D?

And that's exactly what I do. If I want Vancian-style magic, I reach for D&D. If I want glamourie I reach for Pendragon. IF I want rote and spontaneous magic I reach for Ars Magica. If I want rote and slow reload fire-and-forget, i reach for Runequest. If I want substantially weaker magic, I reach for Harn. If I want a very specific feel for magic or want a player free-for-all grab bag of styles I reach for Hero.

Replacement of the magic system in pre-4e D&D does have a bunch of follow-on effects.

 

[Nagol]

You keep saying that, but that's not true. Vancian magic exists in other systems as well, so it's already like other systems even with it. The problem seems to lie with you having an identity crisis of a D&D without Vancian magic. eek:!) But it's like keeping around the English monarchy just because it's been there for so long that people (oddly enough, mostly Americans) would hate to see it go despite how much of a drain it is. It's all so "quaint" that you would hate to see it go, despite the fact that you prefer another system.

The fact that some newer systems use something does not mean it is no longer part of D&D's identity.

It does mean I'll have alternatives should I want to use Vancian-style magic and an evolving system should D&D next iteration not support it well enough.

Hardly a unifying thought though.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a fan of Vancian magic, though "despise" would be taking it way too far.

I like "You can be a Hero in a world of Monsters and Magic". I like Swords against Sorcery. I like the dungeon exploration, the killing things and taking their stuff. I like D&D as a toolkit for building worlds, that are then resculpted/twisted/trashed at the hands of powerful PCs. The whole Power Fantasy thing that the Level system enables. I also like the strong archetypes and character hooks of the Class system, classless RPGs* always feel a bit 'meh' to me in comparison.

*Or overly generic classes like 'Fast Hero'.

 

[Rechan]

I would prefer they eliminate Vancian magic and make every caster a specialized sorcerer.

Hmm.

The beguiler was one of my favorite classes of 3e, along with the Archivist (who was sort of a Clerical wizard, but he had to work hard for his game breaking spells). I thought those focused casters were really cool, and was disappointed that a Transmuter never came out.

I'd dig it if casting classes ended up in some thematic fashion like that.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I dislike(d) it, especially for clerics.

When I started playing, it was because my friends were playing D&D and invited me to the game...so I said sure. I've always been interested in magic, so caster it was.

Never thought clerics made sense: "Oh most holy of holies, please heal this wounded soldier." *BOOMING VOICE OF THEIR GOD* "I'm sorry, but you memorized create water today."



BUT Vancian Magic is a defining component of every edition of D&D (except 4th), and aren't some of the essentials classes somewhat vancian?

I wrote this message in this thread, which doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of traction: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons/316169-suggestions-5e-they-5e-great-roleplaying-game.html

I just thought I'd share something I'm keeping in the back of my mind when I make suggestions about 5e...the mantra of "ok, that might be good, but is it D&D?"

In this case, with vancian magic, I see NO REASON to call for an absence of it.

As we saw with 3e, there were warlocks, sorcerors, binders, favored souls, etc that didn't use it.

It's a part of D&D, a part I don't necessarily care for, but certainly a defining part.

 

[Leatherhead]

I find when I sit down and talk to people who "hate*" Vancian magic, the specific things they hate about it are a few spells from the wizard spell list (yes, the wizard list list is the first one to fly off the tongue, with the other casters thrown in after a bit of reminding). So it's not so much the fire and forget mechanics, as it is "wizards can do what?!"

Which, in my mind, translates into nobody actually hating Vancian magic.

I find the underlying system better than spell points or the equivalent, if simply due to less math in game from recalculating variables on the fly. My favorite systems involve non-expendable resources, like in Mage. However, I honestly don't see anything like that being involved in a group-based game that hinges on the idea of limited resources.

My personal hatred for magic is to regulate it into being elemental flavored arrows and swords.

*: meaning the emotion that makes people froth at the mouth with rage and vitriol, not simply dislike