D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic

[Incenjucar]

I feel that Vancian magic should absolutely exist in D&D. As an option for a particular kind of wizard, balanced with other sorts of spellcasters who lack the flexibility and limitation. For balance, you would have to limit how much of a type of spell they could cast per encounter, but you could give them a larger number of options, and even the ability to spam the same spell over and over and over again, if they felt like it.

Just don't make it the default for the rest of the game. Don't make it the default for magic.

 

[Aldarc]

That is the point you were trying to make, but to support it, you listed a bunch of sources that gamers have seen that are non-Vancian.

But the gateway RPG known as D&D has always existed in a world with a myriad of non-Vancian influences gamers have seen before trying the game. Contrary to your opening sentence, nothing has materially changed except the list has gotten longer.

Hence my "So what?" response.

The fact that the material list has grown substantially longer is a sign that the environment has materially changed. Vancian magic's scope is increasingly becoming more narrow as the list grows longer. Despite video games, which borrowed heavily from D&D, Vancian magic's place in the fantasy landscape has not grown, but diminished in the market. People are more familiar with those sorts of mages and magic. And it becomes far more frustrating for players wanting to simulate the more common and accessible forms of magic due to the default Vancian assumptions of the gateway RPG system. I'm guessing your reaction amounts to "Screw them! That's not my D&D!" But I would at least hope that you would be sympathetic to why people would want something other than Vancian magic as the default for D&D.

 

[Plissken]

I love Vancian magic.

I came from games like Diablo where you had mana to cast spells. When I first played Baldur's Gate as a Mage, I was like...where did all my spells go? I slowly grew to really like the system and I think it just fits the D&D system well. It wouldn't work in a game like Diablo...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fact that the material list has grown substantially longer is a sign that the environment has materially changed.

I respectfully disagree.

Vancian magic's place in the fantasy landscape has not grown, but diminished in the market. People are more familiar with those sorts of mages and magic.

You could say the same of nearly any TTRPG's magic system. Stormbringer used a pure ritual & summoning model for its magic (accurately reflecting its source material)- a true rarity. How many games have a system like MERP (which didn't reflect its source material)? Or like WoD's?

Even if several games make use of a spell point system, each will have unique details that may make doing identical tasks very different.

For example, I tried converting a particular HERO PC concept into a GURPS game, and one minor power on the HERO PC took nearly a third of the GURPS PC's build points.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Not a fan of Vancian but don't hate it as such. It simply does not feel magical to me. The 4e ritual system emulates rare and difficult magic better than Vancian.
I think the adding of at will casting either in the 4e manner or via reserve feats imporved it a lot.

I think that my absolute favourite casting system is ENWorld's Elements of magic but systems like that are tough on the DM, both in the adjudication and in creating encounters that the system will not break.

I would not mourn its passing but it is part of the D&D identity so it should remain in some form.

As for what is the essence of D&D to me; Gonzo. Impossible heros doing 10 impossible things to impossible monsters before breakfast.

 

[Aldarc]

I respectfully disagree.

At least you are doing it respectfully I suppose. I obviously do see the environment as materially changing as the views towards fictional magic found in written, visual, and interactive media are increasingly moving away from particular and not towards Vancian magic, despite its prominence in something as influential for most contemporaneous fantasy writers and video game designers as D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fact of the matter is that nearly every non-game source you can point to uses its own unique magic system, ranging from actual systems with delineated rules to magic as writer's fiat (IOW, not a real "system" at all).

Expecting a non-generic system - HERO, GURPS, M&M, etc.- to be able to model even a fraction of those is simply unrealistic.

I suspect that D&D's designers (all of them, over time) realized this early on, picked/designed a system as its default, then added other stuff incrementally. But even though D&D is the gateway to the hobby, no D&D design team has adopted a generic system (see above) in order to model all those influences. Not even close.

And I don't expect that to change.

 

[Aldarc]

The fact of the matter is that nearly every non-game source you can point to uses its own unique magic system, ranging from actual systems with delineated rules to magic as writer's fiat (IOW, not a real "system" at all).

That is the fact of the matter, and I am not arguing otherwise. I'm certainly not under the delusion that non-Vancian magic looks entirely a certain way. But I would personally hope in D&D for creating a system that acts as a "line of best fit" that allows for a broader range of magical simulation in by players and DM campaign settings.

I suspect that D&D's designers (all of them, over time) realized this early on, picked/designed a system as its default, then added other stuff incrementally. But even though D&D is the gateway to the hobby, no D&D design team has adopted a generic system (see above) in order to model all those influences. Not even close.

I suspect it's more an issue of backwards compatibility that gradually changed into an identity and nostalgia issue.

And I don't expect that to change.

I am personally not a fan of the attitude in this post, which I probably dislike more than the Vancian magic system itself. This is where I perceived the underlying "If you don't like Vancian magic, play another system" subtext. It's a sort of "It's not going to change, so just deal with it. It's the Vancian magic way or the highway. Your voices and opinions about D&D's direction don't matter. It can't be your D&D. It's only my D&D." You mean not be intending it, but that's what it feels like to me.

 

[jbear]

I love D&D but I'm not a fun (edit: I mean fan. A curious error to have made and revealing as to my beef with Vancian magic) of vancian magic. I wouldn't go so far as to say I loathe it but i do dislike it.

The why is trickier to explain for me.

One of the reasons I can put my finger on has to do with what a wizard is doing for the first 4 levels of his career. I began playing AD&D and it was the same issue in 3.5. My basic experience was that it was just a matter of survival until they gained access to level 3 spells, particularly fireball which would then just about end any fight.

Secondly, I really don't think a wizard carrying a crossbow fits AT ALL. Can anyone imagine Gandalf using a crossbow. Me neither. Merlin? Fizban? Raistlin? Well, they are the icons of wizardlyness for me. I think Vancian magic pushes the wizard to use a weapon that no wizard with any self respect would just to remain useful for the first levels of their career.

I know these comments are only based on my memories and so only true/relevant in a very limited degree, but I guess its the feeling of having such a limited amount of things to do for such a long time (we never took characters any further than lvl 7) was what taints my memory of Vancian Magic.

Thirdly, I think as some people have criticised 4e and the magical nature of martial characters encounter and daily powers, questioning why they couldn't pull off those maneuvres ad infinitum; I guess I would question the same thing about wizards. Why does their brain get wiped when they let loose a tiny bolt of magic? Why can't they pull that off til ... I don't know ... their brain gets tired? And how do you memorise the same thing twice anyhow? Again, I just can't imagine Gandalf suddenly going: "How did that light spell go again!!?? Drats, just slipped my mind. Need to hit the books again."

The cleric never suffered this as much because they could wear armour and swing a mace. They were useful even when they ran out of spells. Perhaps that is why I always favoured playing a cleric. I wanted to be able to do awesome supernatural stuff. But I didn't want to always have to be hiding in the back accumulating xp til I was tough enough to survive a hit and clever enough to remember a decent handful of spells.

Anyway, those are my reasons. I can't really defend them as they come from a feeling which is directly stemming from my personal experience. I certainly don't consider Vancian magic a defining feature of D&D. I'd be sorely disappointed to see a return to it without seeing the addition of the casters at will signature spell to the wizard's base capability. Wizards with Crossbows ... honestly ...

 

[Thanael]

Without Vancian casting as the default, the game would be more like other FRPGs; mechanical assumptions would be changed; the fiction would change.

I'm not sure the fiction would change. Most D&D related fiction I've read (and that's a lot) skirts around the distinct prepared casting slots and memorization parts. The wizards have just the right spells prepared mostly. If the Spellpoint system would be default but the spells and accessible spell levels stay the same I think you'd still recognize it as D&D.

From reading Dragonlance for example you get the notion that there should be Casting Fatigue rules. Even in Forgotten Realms fiction I can't remember that i ever came across: "Oh i have the wrong spells prepared. Let me sleep 8 hours and then prepare it"

Sepulchrave's SH is one of the few examples of fully embracing the Vancian system and even using it in the IC language (Valences) and i think it shows how cool that can be.

The spells and spell levels are more idiosyncratic to D&D than the prepared fire and forget Vancian casting imo.