Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5779994" data-attributes="member: 4937">Or alternately, the fact that most of these alternatives were discarded, were never very successful, and in most cases have been completely discarded should be seen as an indication that Vancian has on the whole been an asset.In practice, none of this has to do with Vancian magic.  What 15 minute adventuring day?  I've rarely seen it happen, but when I have seen it, it's been as common in games without Vancian magic as those with it.  Usually its an encounter design problem, and not a system problem. The lack of balance between non-casters and casters in 3e was due to a number of factors.  Casters in 3e gots lots of love, losing many of the restrictions on them that had kept them in check.  In practice it was far too easy for a spellcaster to avoid being disrupted when casting, to the extent that I rarely saw it happen (unlike 1e, assuming the group used something like the actual rules).  Casters in 3e benefited hugely from the ill-considered decision to add spell level to a spells DC and from the general problem that the difficulty of passing as save in general went up with level rather than down (as in 1e).  Meanwhile, the designers were overly conservative with regards to feats, skills, and the class design of non-spellcasting classes.  In point of fact, in AD&D 1.5 (post Unearthed Arcana) I generally experienced fighters and their sub-classes as the most powerful classes at high levels.  Vancian magic is not the sole or perhaps even primary cause of the disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters at high levels.</blockquote>

Verification