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

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Not directed at me) Nobody is saying that SP systems can't provide interesting tactical decisions. They don't provide the same tactical decisions, though...at least, not until the SP well is running low.
Yet a mixed Vancian magic system can provide similar tactical decisions, can it not?

With all of the games out there without Vancian magic, why do you feel the need to remove it from its home system?
My original stance was too extreme. I dislike Vancian magic as it exists in D&D, and I do stand by my preference for it going the way of the dodo, but my biggest opposition to Vancian magic is the strangehold that it holds on D&D magic in lieu of a greater breadth of options. Despite what you may insist, it does not actively support other options. The cleric uses Vancian magic. The wizard uses Vancian magic. Just about everyone and their demon dogs use Vancian magic. It's the natural in-game assumption. Other options are not actively supported. It's the default. I like the car that I drive, both its model and brand, but I do not want to feel obligated to buy a new brand or model just for a single feature that I want replaced.

[
Here's something you could do to make everyone happy. Leave D&D alone and make your own clone of D&D with a non-Vancian magic system. There is no copyright in rules mechanics, so you'd be perfectly free to do so.
Danny, this sort of dickish behavior is completely uncalled for.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And on what basis are you making the argument that spell point systems do not provide similar interesting tactical decisions?

On the basis they they don't? ;) i.e. plan ahead for the day when choosing spells, and then having their use structured in a certain way (spell slots) throughout the day. It is a fun part of the game for some people.

I never said they don't provide an interesting tactical decision. I said they don't provide the same one. Please be certain to read what I actually say in future.

I happen to have multiple magical preferences. Vancian just happens to not be included in any of them.

Me too, except vancian is included. However I'm not barging into a game and demanding everything change at the official level just to suit my personal preferences.

That behaviour might be about the only thing that separates you and I on this topic... since my opinion (as stated several times already) isn't so far off yours with regard to non-wizard classes.

Stop dodging the question.

Whose dodging questions? Here is what I said on the matter in exactly the same post, immediately underneath...

Mon said:
I would say most fantasy I have read doesn't go very far into "how/why" much at all. From those that do, a great many sources refer to conjuring spirits/demons/things to do the magic for you, or praying to gods to do it for you, or just speaking certain words, or only ever using long rituals. None of which imply spell points (or vancian). Each is different.

Please read my entire post in future, so I don't need to keep repeating myself :erm:.

But spell slots are statically tied to specific spell levels unless you have a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved that allows for a fluid degree of spell-weaving of spell slots. In D&D's Vancian system, if you run out of level 5 spells, but have level 4 and level 6 spells you are not out of mojo, but you are somehow unable to cast further level 5 spells? Huh?

Because your spells are pre-assigned to take up their amount of available mojo... as you say it is static. Still reflects how much juice's you've got, though. Just in a different way... a way many people who aren't Aldarc find interesting.
 
Last edited:

I never said they don't provide an interesting tactical decision. I said they don't provide the same one. Please be certain to read what I actually say in future, and not try to re-frame it to suit yourself.
I misunderstood. I did not reframe it to suit myself.

Me too, except vancian is included. However I'm not barging into a game and demanding everything change at the official level just to suit my personal preferences.
And I am moving away from that position as well towards advocating for a flexible enough magic system that would allows players or DMs to modify the spell system as they see fit. As we agree upon, the Vancian system has a near stranglehold on the entirety of the system. I want a magic system that would allow me to play either a non-wizard or a wizard with or without Vancian magic.

Whose dodging questions? Here is what I said on the matter in exactly the same post, immediately underneath...

Please read my entire post in future, so I don't need to keep repeating myself.
I am reading your entire post, so stop insulting my intelligence by framing it as you keep doing it. My question is in regards to how most fantasy and fiction treats magic. They may not get into the quirks of the system to explain the details, but that does not mean that magic generally 'operates' along non-Vancian lines or assumptions.

Em, because your spells are pre-assigned to take up their amount of mojo... as you say it is static. Still reflects how much juice's you've got, though. Just in a different way... a way many people who aren't Aldarc find interesting.
But why is mojo on such a bizarre spell level basis such that you do not so much run out of mojo as much as you run out of level 5 mojo? As other people have suggested, 4E operates on Vancian lines, yet it does not follow the assumption that you run out of X spell level of mojo. Instead you run out of per encounter or per day mojo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mon

Here's a interpretation of D&D magic from someone who actually read the literature that inspired it (works listed in Appendix N of Gygax's AD&D DMG):

First, know that the DCC RPG is impossible to power-game, for various reasons, most of them related to the heavy influence of randomization...on everything. I won't say much more than that, but there's no way to min/max this system. What makes it still fun is that the randomization is "bracketed" within certain limits of effect.

For example: there is a critical hit system, which Harley and I have been spending a lot of time working on, which is a ton of fun. Every class has a crit die and crit table for each level. For example, a level 1 warrior has a 1d12 crit die on crit table III, while a level 1 wizard has a 1d6 crit die on level I. As someone advances in level, their crit die gets higher and they may jump to different crit tables. (One crit table, used by thieves and elves, represents finesse. Another, used by 0-level characters, wizards, and halflings, represents lucky but not necessarily lethal blows. Another set, used by warriors in a steadily advancing progression, represents power and strength. And so on.) The combination of crit die and crit tables allows for lots of exciting random results in combat...and emulates pretty well the kind of combat you read about with John Carter and Conan and Elric...but the randomization runs in brackets. Level 4 randomization typically results in "better randomness" than level 1 randomization.

We're still playing a lot with the crit rules, so no more on them now. But that's a roundabout way of leading up to spells, which work in a similar manner. Imagine magic missile cast by a novice, and then the same spell cast by the world's most powerful magician. Clearly the latter caster should achieve a more powerful result. That's the role of the spell table. Either way you get a magic missile...but the apprentice with a +1 spell check rolls 1d20+1, and the arch-mage rolls 1d20+12. They roll on the same table, but the apprentice can't get higher than a 21 while the archmage might be rolling a 32. Specific to magic missile, the lowest result on the table is this:


Quote:
You can throw 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. You must have line of sight to the target. The missile flows unerringly and never misses, though it may be blocked by certain magic (e.g., magic shield).


...while the highest result is this...


Quote:
You throw 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d10 + caster level. The caster may direct these missiles individually as a single action, or may direct them all at a single target who is not present or visible, provided he has specific knowledge of that target. In this case, the caster must have a physical memento of the target (hair, fingernail, vial of blood, etc.) and spend 1 turn concentrating to cast the spell, then continue concentrating as the missiles seek their target. The missiles will aim for this target even if it is concealed or invisible, though they have a maximum range of 100 miles. The missiles will turn, curve, re-trace their route, and make every effort to reach the target, although they cannot cross planes. The missiles can travel up to 10 miles per second provided no obstacles are present, but speed is much lower if, for example, they must navigate underground caverns. Provided a direct route exists, the missiles will strike the target unerringly.



And of course there are many other results in between those two. Magic scales with the caster even on the same spell -- a level 1 spell steadily becomes better and better as the caster advances in level, and a level 1 spell cast by a level 10 wizard can do more damage than a level 4 spell cast by a lower-level wizard. The tables go quite high such that a more powerful caster can achieve more powerful results -- for magic missile, the highest result noted above requires a spell check of at least +12, which, in general, would require a wizard of level 9 or higher. In other words, there's randomization, but it's "bracketed" -- you always get a magic missile, but maybe it's better today than the one you cast yesterday, or yours is more powerful than mine...

Beyond that, there are several subsystems. D&D magic is pretty straightforward: you memorize a spell, and lose it when you cast it. This is Vance at his most literal interpretation; his wizards can memorize two, three, maybe four spells, fewer if they're more complex. Gygax took this straight from the source. DCC RPG adds randomization and amplification of results by casters of different levels, both of which are also present in Vance (and other Appendix N authors). DCC RPG also adds elements to capture some of Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, which were very strong influences on D&D but whose magic systems aren't reflected, as well as Moorcock to a lesser extent. Almost all the magic in Robert E. Howard's Conan series revolves around demonic aid -- there's always a demonic power in the background, aiding the sorcerer, and the sorcerer (always a nemesis of Conan) typically loses his power when that demon's aid is no longer present. This is also evident in Moorcock ("Aid me Arioch! Blood for Arioch!") and of course it's a key theme of Lovecraft. How to reflect that? Well, it's still magic, but with a source, and a source that usually wants something in return. Thus is born the spellburn system, which allows a spellcaster to seek aid from an otherworldly patron -- at a price. A spellcaster can sacrifice physical ability scores (Strength, Agility, or Stamina) in a 1:1 ratio to enhance his spell check. Sacrifice 4 points of strength and add +4 to your next spell check. The ability score loss heals -- slowly -- and there is a table to provide inspiration of exactly what act is committed to cause the loss of that Strength. So your low-level wizard...or, let's say, elf...who appeals to the aid of an otherworldly power...say, Arioch...may get that aid -- but only if he drains his own physical stamina and contributes three souls in the next hour. And of course, at the DM's discretion, that otherworldly power should be role-played, and may come back at a later date asking for something in return! Add it all together, and your low-level wizard may be able to achieve a very powerful magic missile to save the entire party from certain death -- then he collapses to the ground, exhausted and drained of strength, and has to pay off a favor to a demon someday in the future.

Now mix into all of this what I call "mercurial magic." To quote the manuscript:


Quote:
The firstborn son of a witch hanged at trial wields black magic adroitly. An orphan raised by satyrs is a precocious student of druidry. Cosmic caprice determines skill in magic: birth order, family lineage, horoscope, and matters even more abstruse have as much influence on a wizard’s spellcasting as his hard work and native intelligence.



And this is where it gets even more fun. Every wizard, for every spell, has a randomly determined "side effect," so to speak. Luck scores come into play here...a wizard with a higher Luck typically has more beneficial side effects. Side effects can vary from random toadstools sprouting nearby whenever the spell is cast, to loud noises or energy bursts. So that same magic missile in the hands of two different wizards will not only vary based on their casting power, and not only vary based on whether one of them calls to a greater power for aid, and not only vary based on the inherent variability in the table...but will also vary because they each get a slightly different effect when casting it.

I actually had a really fun playtest at one con where a player had a spell that was useless in combat (I forget the exact spell, but it was something like comprehend languages) but it had the mercurial side effect of causing freezing, damaging cold whenever he cast it. So he would up casting that spell frequently, solely for the side effect, while in combat. It was fun. That is a little more extreme than I originally intended the results to be, but you get the idea...spellcasting varies from caster to caster.

And, finally, we have corruption. Any time a wizard rolls a natural 1 on a spell check, bad things happen. Bad. Luck scores again come into play here. Lucky wizards may just have a spell misfire of some kind...but unlucky wizards may find themselves covered in boils, strange growths, or painful lesions. Not overnight, of course, but a lifetime of exposure to demons, extraplanar radiation, elemental energies, and the servants of Chaos isn't particularly good for one's health. Casting by an unlucky wizard makes it clear that there are consequences to dabbling with greater powers. Don't roll a 1 on the spell check!

So there you have the general summary. There are several levels of randomization, generally "bracketed" or "contained" by level and other factors, such that spells are never fully predictable. Magic in the DCC RPG really feels quite magical. When you cast a spell, you get a result associated with that spell, but the edges are "fuzzy" so to speak...

_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
Goodman Games
 

Danny, this sort of dickish behavior is completely uncalled for.

Since when has making an entirely reasonable suggestion been 'dickish behaviour'?

Please, for all our differences, the tone has generally been polite. Let's keep it that way.

Otherwise we're all dicks. And, while I am a dick, I quite enjoy getting by, for the most part, without being called one. And people starting to point the finger and labelling others 'dicks' makes me nervous. Please don't make me nervous. You wouldn't like me when I'm nervous.
 

Since when has making an entirely reasonable suggestion been 'dickish behaviour'?
How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make everyone happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.
 

Allow me, please, to lob in some experiences we've had in messing with the pure-Vancian system in 1e.

A long time ago, i.e. about 1983, both DMs and players were getting frustrated with the as-written 1e casting system, for two main reasons: 1) pre-memorization was both too fiddly and too limiting, and 2) casters of all types were just too weak at very low level.

The solution was a spell-point system. The specific details were then hammered out over about 5 years of discussion and playtesting and ended up as (coloured numbers lead to footnotes below):

- spells at ascending levels cost 1-2-3-5-8-12*-17*-23*-30* s.p. to cast1
- spell points rolled at each level like hit points except what you roll varies by level; high Int or Wis as appropriate can give a bonus
- Clerics became fully "wild-card" in everything; if they have the points left and a spell's on their list they can cast it regardless of level (in other words, they could use every spell point on 1st-level spells if they liked)2
- Wizard types still have to pre-memorize their highest two spell levels but can assign as many s.p. as they like to such, thus someone with 30 s.p. can pre-memorize all 30 as high-level spells if desired; whatever is left over goes into a wild-card pool for casting lower-level spells
- prayer and study take about the same amount of time as before

1 - lots of variance over time on the numbers marked with '*', what I list here is one sequence I remember.
2 - we quickly found that making Clerics fully wild-card wasn't that big a deal; most of their spell power was probably going to be tied up in curing anyway (usually by party demand), and wild-carding gave them more variety.

In one form or another this served us well enough for 25 years, even getting ported over to a long-running 3e game where we found the same results. At low levels, it's excellent. At mid levels, it's not bad.

At high levels - beyond about 8th - it shatters.

Clerical curing becomes overpowered, and wizards become able to do too much.

So, how to fix this?

The 3e guy has gone or is going back to pure Vancian, I think.

What I've done - as what amounts to a big-time experiment - is to make all casters in my current campaign work like 3e Sorcerers. They're back to being restricted to how many spells of each level they can cast in a day, but within those levels if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it.

At low level the results were excellent. Wizards in particular were casting spells that had never before seen the light of day.

At mid-level, the jury is still out - my parties are generally just reaching the 5th level point - but so far it looks encouraging.

Once they get to the 8th-10th range (a long time off, at this rate) then I'll know whether this really works or not. The one real advantage I've found so far is it's easier for me to stat out high-level caster opponents.

Lan-"when in doubt, cast another fireball"-efan
 

How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make everyone happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.
I think it's more like this: if you want to strip D+D's spellcasting system down to the ground and rebuild it, more power to you. Maybe you'll come up with a system that blows Vancian out of the water (and if you do, please share).

But don't expect everyone else who plays D+D - nor the designers - to chuck Vancian out just because you don't like it.

For better or worse D+D is what it is; and if you want to kitbash it that's great, but it falls to you to do the heavy lifting. See my previous post this thread - we've been flailing at casting systems for almost 30 years.

Lan-"master of the toolbox"-efan
 

How was Danny's comment either reasonable or polite? It amounted to, "It would make everyone happy if you played something else and left D&D alone," which is both unreasonable and rude.

Well, first, it wouldn't make anyone unhappy if that's what you did. Secondly, it is - by extension - reasonable. Thirdly, I don't see the rudeness in making such a suggestion. Fourth, look at Lanefan's most recent contribution. How does his experiment detract from anyone else's enjoyment?
 

What I've done - as what amounts to a big-time experiment - is to make all casters in my current campaign work like 3e Sorcerers. They're back to being restricted to how many spells of each level they can cast in a day, but within those levels if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it.

At low level the results were excellent. Wizards in particular were casting spells that had never before seen the light of day.

At mid-level, the jury is still out - my parties are generally just reaching the 5th level point - but so far it looks encouraging.

Once they get to the 8th-10th range (a long time off, at this rate) then I'll know whether this really works or not. The one real advantage I've found so far is it's easier for me to stat out high-level caster opponents.

Lan-"when in doubt, cast another fireball"-efan
You should check out Arcana Evolved, which has a similar spell system as you detail here. All spellcaters have certain spell slots per level. They can 'ready' a certain number of spells per day, from which they can spontaneously cast. But spellcasters can also weave their spells, which means they can also sacrifice a spell slot of a level for two spell slots of a lower level or spellweave three spell slots of a level for a single spell of a higher level spell slot. Furthermore, a given spell can be both heightened (uses up a higher spell slot) or diminished (uses a lower spell slot instead).

Well, first, it wouldn't make anyone unhappy if that's what you did. Secondly, it is - by extension - reasonable. Thirdly, I don't see the rudeness in making such a suggestion. Fourth, look at Lanefan's most recent contribution. How does his experiment detract from anyone else's enjoyment?
Except Danny did not say that it would make people unhappy if I did that, but that everyone would be happy if I did.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top