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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 5780510" data-attributes="member: 5142">It explains quite a bit, but the question is whether or not it an explanation that meets your satisfaction. Their lack of success of gaining traction is not necessarily indicative of the value or lack thereof of non-Vancian magic. Would you not also agree that there people who are attached to Vancian magic for sentimental reasons, such as "Vancian magic is D&D"? Or how that Vancian magic is "how things have always been done"? Would you also not agree that Vancian magic may have been retained due to issues such as backwards compatibility? Or that anything that isn't Vancian is not D&D? Or that people who dislike Vancian magic must somehow dislike D&D? Or how about people who insinuate that detractors of Vancian magic should just play something other than D&D? Vancian magic is "fire and forget." Spontaneous casting used by sorcerers, magisters, and greenbonds is not Vancian. Being variants of Vancian magic does not make them Vancian. A sorcerer does not prepare a certain number of spells per day (e.g. two fireballs), but instead simply knows fireball and can cast that known spell a potential amount of times per day that is not dependent on their preparation of those spells. Magisters in AU prepare a set number of spells per day, but they do not forget them once cast, but can spontaneously cast any prepared spell. Furthermore, they can weave spells up or down slots. If you think that the Sorcerer and Arcana Unearthed spell systems are Vancian, then you have a far more liberal understanding of Vancian magic than most <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/316200-d-d-lovers-who-hate-vancian-magic-10.html#post5776080" target="_blank">ardent Vancianites</a>. Psionics have never managed to make it into core, largely because of how "psionic labelling tends to be a turn off." Nevertheless, psionics are core in 3e (SRD approved). What matters, however, is that the non-Vancian system of the Psion can be used alongside of Vancian casters while still being considered "D&D." And it should be just as easy to modify and reflavor the psionic caster system and spell list to an arcane/divine magic system.  There are benefits to both systems. I think that there are some aspects of Vancian book-keeping that certain people find tedious, but Vancianites don't, and vice versa. I think it's just a matter of recognizing that the Vancian magic system is incapable of satisfying everyone who otherwise enjoys D&D. These things can be explained in ways that are logical, but it's not really a matter of logic - as logical explanations can be used to justify any fictional metaphysical system - but what certain people find intuitive. And for some people, other magic systems are more intuitive than others. This intuitive sense is partially a matter of taste, preference, and background with other magic systems, whether in other games (video and tabletop) or fiction. This does not make Vancian magic bad, but it can be restrictive against those preferences. Which may works for you and your settings, but not necessarily for others and their settings. I hope you can at least sympathize with that reality. For me, it is a useful distinction, because people are not necessarily seeking to simulate a particular setting or genera, but want a system that flexibly allows them to simulate the most number of settings or genera. Which is largely my point. The mechanics of any particular system inherently would, and that's why Vancian is not going to necessarily work for everyone and what leads to detractors of the system, because it feels like a yoke on the necks of their creativity and flexibility. I'm not an advocate of forcing square pegs down round holes, and if you are keenly aware that there are potential settings, both adapted and homebrew, in which Vancian is not appropriate, then you should be equally keen to allow for the existence of alternate magic systems within D&D. Yet you are not. But I did address your point. You skipped over it: I get the feeling that you will be dismissive of anything anyone could possibly provide, as you do not seem keen on listening but simply in preserving the status quo with Vancian magic. This bit is filled with a number of unsubstantiated assumptions that are unfairly frame those D&D players wanting alternatives to Vancian magic, and I would love if you could actually back up your claims here. When I get the time, I will. But replacing the Vancian system wizard with a reworked wizard (i.e. psion) worked well. It mostly involved either reflavoring the effects to be more like wizard spells, or converting wizard spells - particularly utility spells - into the psionic system.</blockquote>I am not telling you that your insinuations are insulting to serve as explanations to your inquiries. I'm telling you because your "accounting of reality" is rude, dismissive, insulting, and unproductive to civil discussions, and that you could be aware of how your posts are coming across and that you should cut it out. Brand recognition goes a long way, don't you agree?[/QUOTE]

Verification