Has the Vancian Magic Thread Burned Down the Forest Yet? (My Bad, People)

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian magic spells?

I mean, I've seen threads that talk in generalities, but I can't recall seeing any specifics tossed around.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian magic spells?

Not I. Personally I think they're meant to be troll threads. Because let's face it, a title like "Vancian Magic Needs To Go Away" is actually pretty inflammatory and a more constructive and diplomatic way to put it is something like this:

I would appreciate constructive criticism on changing the Vancian system. I'm dissatisfied with it and my group feels it is not very balanced. This is for my group only.

Because, in making it go away it's being taken away from other players who do enjoy using the system. And usually it's about making other classes go away because they don't like them. That's why it can be considered inflammatory by some.

Another suggestion to is to try other kinds of systems before trying to change it to suit your preference, but the first thought is to make it go away so that nobody else can enjoy it?

D&D and rpgs in general seem to be the only places where this happens.

Take for example sports. Do you see something like "The scoring in basketball is too unbalanced and needs to go away. You should have the baskets worth four points each and there should be extra points for longer shots. A half way shot must be worth five points and a shot made from all the way across the court must be worth ten points. Why? Because just making a basket worth two points is unbalancing to the more skillful players. Basketball is a game of skill and strategy, and that's where the focus should be."

Most people would be outraged and resentful at this kind of thing. That's essentially what makes something like "Vancian magic must go away" is inflammatory.

Misery loves company and will always try to ruin other people's fun. That's what's wrong with this kind of thread. Let people have their fun and stop trying to change things in order to stop people from having their fun. And usually what happens to that person who wants to change things? They get told to go away.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Just a thought- has anyone here ever done or come across a thread in which people simply brainstorm about "fixes" to problematic Vancian magic spells?

I'd love a thread. Maybe good enough ideas could get picked up for the hypothetical Trailblazer magic project.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then I guess I'll start a new thread in Legacy.

See it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/301605-brainstorming-spell-fixes.html#post5469945

 

[Dausuul]

OK this, right here, has been bugging me for the longest time. Can someone explain in a concrete definition:
What is "Vancian Magic?"

Because it looks like 4e did the exact opposite of ditching the daily magic system, it gave daily magic to everyone.

I suppose it depends on which details of the classic Vancian system you feel are required for magic to be Vancian.

The classic Vancian system, in its entirety, has the following traits:

1. Wizards prepare an array of one-shot spells; you cast them once and they're gone.
2. All of a wizard's spells are of the one-shot type. A wizard can run out of spells and be reduced to reliance on mundane weapons.
3. Wizards have an array of spells to choose from during preparation, such that they can swap out their prepared options.
4. Preparation can only take place after a specified amount of rest.

To me, and evidently to you, #1 is the defining trait of Vancian magic. Any system with #1 qualifies as a Vancian system to me. And by this definition, every non-Essentials class in 4E is Vancian.

If #2 (or rather, #1 and #2, since #2 is dependent on #1) is seen as the defining trait, then 4E did in fact eliminate Vancian magic.

If #3 is the defining trait, then wizards remain Vancian and no one else is.

 

[NN]

Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.

Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.

Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.

Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.

Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.

I'll respond to other bits later, but let me hit this now:

Because wizards fall under two catagories in fantasy literature and mythology.

1) Side character. They are the deus ex machina. How they do magic is never explained because the narrative purpose of the character is not based in their magic. The magic is really merely the excuse given to showcase the deus ex machina.

2) They do far, far more then cast spells. The D&D wizard who only casts spells doesn't exist as a protagonist in fantasy literature and mythology. Instead, the "spellcaster" resembles the bard more then anything else; someone with a lot of knowledge and a good bit of trickery and wit. The actual Vance wizards fall under this catagory, utilizing swashbuckling and strange arcane devices far more then they do actual spells. Harry Potter can cast spells, but he saves the day with friendship and intelligence. Harry Dresden (What is with wizards and Harry) can cast spells, but he saves the day with wit and quick thinking. The spells exist to help their primary attributes, not the other way around - Dresden doesn't finish the book with just "I cast a spell," he out-thinks the enemy and tricks them, sometimes without using any magic in the finale.

 

[Dausuul]

Im suprised that "Vancian magic" is not more common in fantasy literature.

Its an elegant way of showing you the reader the approximate parameters of the wizards power, so you have that nice balance of anticipation and suspense.

Its like the Q-gives-Bond-the gadgets scene.

On the contrary, it tells you exactly nothing about the parameters of the wizard's power. It's just a peculiar restriction on how the wizard's spells work. The parameters of a wizard's power are defined by what her spells can do, and knowing that a wizard is a Vancian caster provides no information about that.

Also, it's not particularly elegant. In fact it's rather weird and unintuitive.

 

[Ranes]

The D&D wizard who only casts spells doesn't exist as a protagonist in fantasy literature and mythology.

The D&D wizard doesn't only cast spells. Ask any decent wizard player.

But if you haven't found a protagonist who is primarily a spell caster, who uses his cleverness to save the day by casting the right spell, you haven't read The Magic Goes Away. Niven's Warlock is exactly that protagonist.

 

[billd91]

The fighter is a blight on game design.
Even if you removed wizards, the fighter would still be bad, simply do to the "I hit it with a sword" problem.

Why is this a problem? When I settle in a the table and feel like playing a fighter, this is often exactly what I want to do. You don't need to make lots of fiddly choices or look up powers or all that. You get to lay in to the enemies. Having character types that play differently is a plus for the game.