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

[Aldarc]

Why can't you play a game that doesn't use Vancian magic instead of insisting we change a game that does?

Because I want to play D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then HR your game to do without Vancian magic. Don't harangue us for liking the game as-is.

 

[Aldarc]

Then HR your game to do without Vancian magic. Don't harangue us for liking the game as-is.

Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.

 

[Dausuul]

What astounds me is the idea that we can only have one magic system in D&D. What really astounds me is the extent to which the designers have bought into this idea over the years.

To date, 3E is the only edition to have included a non-Vancian caster class "out of the box," and even then, out of four full caster classes (wizard, cleric, druid, sorceror) and three partial caster classes (bard, ranger, paladin), five were Vancian and only two non-Vancian. In every other edition, it's been Vance or go home. Two and a half years into 4E, we still don't have a single non-Vancian caster, although psions were a step in the right direction.

Why not keep wizards as the specifically Vancian caster class, and implement other magic systems for other classes? I mean, there's really no reason why clerics and druids ought to follow the Vancian paradigm. And warlocks and sorcerors got their start as specifically non-Vancian casters; cramming them into the same mechanical box as the wizard was a major fail for 4E, at least in my opinion.

Then those who love Vancian wizards can have them, and those of us who hate Vancian wizards can play something else (and ban wizards from our campaigns when we're in the DM's chair, if they bother us enough). Win all around.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.

 

[Aldarc]

When you're arguing to change the status quo of any system- a company's hiring practices, the rules of a game, - the burden of proof that the system needs change, that burden of convincing others, is upon the person seeking the change.

Would you mind if I use one of your favorite hard arguments and lines of reasoning? Thanks. It doesn't feel like magic. It doesn't even feel like a science. It's not the spells I dislike about the system. It's not a magic system. It's a mechanic system. (I agree that both the spells themselves and the number are something of red herrings when debating about the merits of Vancian magic.) I dislike Vancian magic because of how it disrupts the flow of combat and adventuring. When the magic is gone, the party stops. That is why I prefer magic systems in which magic is more fluid and suitable for running multiple independent encounters. I dislike how the magic of Vancian systems does not allow for the shaping of magic. A fireball spell acts in the same way at 5th level as it does at 25th level. The only difference is the number of d6 dice used. Also while the Vancian system may make sense for wizards, which is the class that most Vancian supporters have come to its defense in this thread, it makes little sense for clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and other non-wizards. So it feels as if the wizard is holding the other magic classes on the Vancian leash.

But it would not take much tinkering to make it feel more magical. For example, the mixed-Vancian system of Arcana Evolved allows for magic and spell slots to be far more organically flexible in its implementation. There are minor and major effects. The spell slot system is an artificial construct, but it's also one that mimics a mana pool and allows for organizing the weaving and spell grouping of powers.

I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When the magic is gone, the party stops.

Maybe your party, but not mine. Not any party in 30+ years. That is not a fault of the system, that is a playstyle location.

What happens in your game when (non-Vancian) Psionic PCs run out of PP?

I would also appreciate it if you were able to articulate a defense of Vancian magic that consists of something other than an appeal to tradition.

Its effective.

Its fun.

It is flavorful.

It is flexible

Its challenging.

It models a particular kind of magic- one that is from an established work of fiction- reasonably well.

It is virtually unique, thus helps distinguish the games that use it from those that don't.

Its not inherently worse than any other system.

 

[Mon]

Yet you insist on harangue those of us who do not like the game as-is? Lovely double-standards.

There is no double-standard here. The pro-vance crowd is not haranguing anybody (in this thread, anyway)... just defending a much loved game component that has come under attack.

 

[Aldarc]

Maybe your party, but not mine. Not any party in 30+ years. That is not a fault of the system, that is a playstyle location.

I believe you and Bryon have talked about how the mechanics of a system encourages certain behaviors from a mechanic? IMO, this is one of such occasions. It's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained.

What happens in your game when (non-Vancian) Psionic PCs run out of PP?

Game play generally continues as parties are generally far less reliant on psionic powers as they are on those in the wizard/sorcerer or cleric spell list.

Its effective.

Its fun.

It is flavorful.

It is flexible

Its challenging.

It models a particular kind of magic- one that is from an established work of fiction- reasonably well.

It is virtually unique, thus helps distinguish the games that use it from those that don't.

Its not inherently worse than any other system.

And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I believe you and Bryon have talked about how the mechanics of a system encourages certain behaviors from a mechanic? IMO, this is one of such occasions. It's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained.

...if your DM lets you. If the DM doesn't, you keep going.

And in 30+ years, the universal response to the party crying "we've run out of magic, lets stop" has been, "well, you can't stop HERE."

Game play generally continues as parties are generally far less reliant on psionic powers as they are on those in the wizard/sorcerer or cleric spell list.

What do you think would happen if your party didn't have casters other than psionicists and the PP ran out? I think you'd say something like "When the PP is gone, the party stops- it's what generally happens when you are all out of band-aids and your artillery/utility is drained." if true, then the problem lies not in the Vancian system, but rather shows this is a result of your group's playstyle.

Its effective.

Its fun.

It is flavorful.

It is flexible

Its challenging.

It models a particular kind of magic- one that is from an established work of fiction- reasonably well.

It is virtually unique, thus helps distinguish the games that use it from those that don't.

Its not inherently worse than any other system.

And do you think that a non-Vancian magic system would be incapable at fulfulling these things as well?

Well, except for the last 2, I know for a fact that they can. But to change the status quo, you need to provide a reason to make the change.

No system out there is objectively better. Different, yes. Better, no.

Since no system is better, why change?