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: 5780670" data-attributes="member: 5142">It explains that tastes are subjective, which may mean that sometimes people's tastes are different than yours. That is justification enough for people when we are talking about a matter of taste, which is invariably what the Vancian magic discussion amounts. If you think that it answers nothing, it's because you are asking the wrong questions. It would be nice if you could actually address the points of my posts instead of trying to frame me guilty by association. Thanks. As I said, there are people, like myself, who view Vancian magic as something modular that can be replaced by other systems without a loss of integrity to what constitutes D&D. And not because of backwards compatibility or because of what's "True D&D"? But I do agree, it's a solid mechanic for what it does. But it's not the only solid mechanic, nor is it the only solid mechanic that fits people's sense of magical aesthetics. I am puzzled by how 4E suffers from its lack, when you "define 'fire and forget' as having discrete non-interchangable packets of powers which when expanded become inaccessible over some in game time frame," which is precisely how 4E operates with Encounter and Daily powers. You can have Vancian as an option - not that I'm one to be in power to grant such things. I'm not wanting to kick it to the curb - not entirely at least - but I do want non-Vancian magic a modular option for magical classes that's given proper ability to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Vancian magic as "core." That I think would largely still "shut up" people who want Vancian removed, as I do not think at heart they want it removed, but that they want available non-Vancian options that are "just as core." Call it Equal Rights for Non-Vancianite players of D&D. Ah, but you are confusing a dislike of the Vancian mechanics for a dislike of D&D when it's not the same. People's dislike for Vancian magic may be strong enough to have them stop playing D&D, but it's not necessarily because they hate D&D, but because of a particular ingrained magic system. As this thread attests, there are many who love D&D while disliking Vancian magic. I do not mind Arcana Evolved, for example, because it can be used to replicate the idea of mana/spell points and a closer approximation of the aesthetic of "mana" or "magical juice," with flexible magic through weaving spells up and down, diminishing and heightening, templates, etc. When a magister runs out of spells, it can be explained through fatigue and being out of "juice." How are they out of juice? They weave spells up or down until they are simply out of "mana." It's only at higher levels that some lower magic becomes trivial to the point that it becomes at-will. But it operates almost entirely like mana point systems, but "minimum power levels" for certain effects/spells are organized more like traditional D&D spell charts. You could fairly easily convert the AU/AE system to mana points. You are right in that sorcerers are not entirely satisfactory in this regard, but they are closer, which is why non-Vancianites tolerate them more readily than Vancian wizards; it's perceived as a closer step in the right direction for them. You can define "fire and forget" however you please, but that's not the conventional understanding of "fire and forget" Vancian mechanics. The mechanics of "Vancian magic" says nothing about spell levels themselves. The sorcerer is non-Vancian, even thought it shares the same spell list, which is more a matter of comparable power level than any shared Vancian mechanics. Subclasses of archetypes, yes, but I would not go as far to say that they are subclasses of the Vancian system. Thankfully, most non-Vancianites, I would say, are not advocating a replacement, but a modular replacement that can exist alongside Vancian magic and is "just as core."  Perhaps it would help me if you were to provide an example by explaining this matter of taste that drives you to Vancian magic systems, that way I could better shape my answer to your inquiry. But I will say that I'm not entirely drawn to spell point systems, as I also happen to like flexible systems like in True20 and Blue Rose. But these systems view magic much like in Avatar the Last Airbender, to use an example you've mentioned as being inappropriate for Vancian magic. It's a limited form of freeform magic which has its own unique sets of tactical challenges and creative uses. I also like Green Ronin's magic system for Dragon Age, though it's unfortunately designed for 3d6 and not d20. I'm more than happy to tone down the power level of flexible magic systems, as I am one of the most ardent advocates for minimizing the fighter-wizard power parity. I'm more keen on simulating a broad magical aesthetic than any desire, conscious or subconscious, of powergaming. While I doubt repeating myself will do either of any good, I do feel as if I sufficiently explained myself. Loose "logic" of such nature is ultimately a tool that can be used to rationalize just about anything, just as you used "logic" to rationalize the mechanics of Vancian magic. It's a rationalization that follows the game mechanics, but it is not one that proceeds it. I do think that running alternative magic systems within D&D are just as viable to call "D&D" as running games with Vancian classes. Again, would running a psionic campaign in 3e (core in the SRD) not be a D&D campaign? If it can be considered "D&D," then so too should a modified psionic system that was appropriated for the classes with Vancian systems.  I certainly don't expect that you have, but if you read my views about Vancian magic here and elsewhere, you would know that I have advocated for multiple modular options for magic systems that could both be presented as core materials for the Vanciantes and non-Vancianites, such that a player can play both a Vancian and "non-Vancian wizard" with equal validity as "core." This thread is not about what alternate magic systems people prefer to Vancian magic, but "D&D lovers who hate Vancian magic" and why they have stayed with D&D. That's primarily why many people on this thread have not talked about what systems of magic they prefer. Who are you to determine whether or not you have said something offensive? And I'm not the only one in this thread who think you are being dismissive or rude. But if I have made false assertions about your stance or wildly misinterpreted you, it is not intentional, and I am not above being corrected in those regards, though I do not see where you have given me prior indication where I have done so. But again, if I did, I apologize. That's not always true though, and sometimes the first has the right set of conditions that allows them to continue market dominance regardless of "better" alternate products.</blockquote>

Verification