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: 5780644" data-attributes="member: 4937">Cool.  An answer.Err.. don't you mean it forces players to choose specific effects over broad effects?  One of the advantages of a free form magic system is you can apply a general broad power (say 'manipulate fire') to a wide range of specific effects.  Vancian systems don't let you do that, and instead force you to exchange depth (more powerful effects) for breadth (flexibility).  Likewise, pointbuy systems allow you to buy the effect at the level you desire, which is another example of flexibility that Vancian depricates in exchange usually for greater raw power per resource expended of the effects that you can produce.Yeah, but in all fairness, if we had a non-Vancian system something akin to sleep, magic missile, and fireball would still be more iconic expressions of wizardly power than say illusory script.  In fact, in a non-Vancian system I wouldn't be surprised to find no provision for illusory script at all.  Whereas, at least in D&D, if you find you need an Illusory Script for some purpose, you can simply prepare it.  In non-Vancian systems, even if it is possible, chances are you aren't invested into the character building resources that would allow it and would hesitate to waste scarce resources on them in the first place.And interestingly, in non-Vancian systems, these specific effects are often simply not covered in the interest of conserving space.  While having a system with 4000 or 5000 detailed spells makes for a very rules heavy system, it gaurantees that the system has amazing breadth in its potential application while avoiding the difificulties in adjudication that normally come with freeform systems (which is one of the only other ways to provide similar breadth).And Zelazny's 'Amber' series.  And obviously 'Dying Earth'.  And in practice, many fantasy series where the don't explain the basis of magic are as well approximated - or better approximated - by fire and forget as any other system, if only for the very obvious reason that we don't see the magic wielding characters use the same effect over and over again.  Other than his 'light' spell, which seemed attached to his staff in some fashion, I'm not sure we see Gandalf cast the same spell twice nor more than a couple spells in an entire day.No it's not really.  I would argue that D&D created the 'wizard' archetype, and that the historical notion of 'wizard' is more closely related to the D&D cleric than to the fireball slinging wizard that has become archetypal.  The historical 'wizard' is religious, tied to invocation spirits and gods, and produces subtle not easily observable effects.  Yet, are you suggesting that the very notion of Wizard that D&D created ought to be thrown to the curb?  However, that's all probably better left to another thread.As I said, doesn't surprise me.That position is only a valid criticism of D&D for the first few levels, and then only strongest of 1st edition which didn't give bonus spells to wizards nor did it give them usuable cantrips.  After the first few levels, you have enough spells that you can fire off a couple in every encounter and you have wands and other implements that give you additional expendable resources. But even more to the point, this is a criticism of a particular implementation of a Vancian system, and not something intrinsic to Vancian entirely.  Are you suggesting that your major complaint with vancian would be addressed if you didn't have to toss darts and poke people with your quarterstaff from 1st to 4th level? It has nothing to do with importance.  I simply don't understand their tastes and I would honestly like to.  For one thing, I would love to feel like I had enough understanding that I could design a system that would make everyone happy.</blockquote>

Verification