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

[Diamond Cross]

No it is not an apt analogy, because again you ignore how the Coke analogy neuters any criticism or desire for changes in the game. Your analogy's solution is "STFU and drink another Cola" or play another system, as you are flagrantly suggesting here.

Analogies do not neuter discussion, they're meant to help people understand another point of view. And actually what you're describing is a false dichotomy, which artificially sets up an either or position. From the wiki:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.

And the false dilemma is being set up by the original premise of the thread. Which is "I don't like it so it's got to go away and be taken away from others because I can't stand it or it has to change to suit my personal tastes". Which is a pretty offensive thing to say and a disrespectful attitude to take.

I was simply trying to offer an additional option, and trying to help you understand why that attitude is inflammatory and not necessary.

Many people like the system as is. Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like?

And that's the entire crux of the problem, is some people feel that these people who like the system as is shouldn't be allowed to play it because others don't like it.

Common courtesy, and respect works both ways. That means a person shouldn't be bothered if another person likes to play a different game and shouldn't impose like that.

And no, I am not trying to argue the other way around either.

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.

Actually it isn't. It's pretty rude to tell people that they have to stop doing something they like because you don't like it.

Think of it like this. How do you feel if you're doing something you enjoy and somebody comes up and tells you your can't read your favorite book because they don't enjoy it and think nobody else should read it but it's your favorite book.

Are you going to stop reading and rereading your favorite book because they don't like it?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I just skip this readying step - if it's in their book or on their list they can cast it. Simpler.

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).

Interesting ideas, but one of the things I'm trying to avoid is Magic-Users in particular having access to too many 3rd-level spells (i.e. most of the key boomage and utility spells) in a day. If they can blow up their 1st and 2nd (or 4th and 5th, once they get so high) slots to make more 3rds, that defeats the purpose.

Being able to cast diminished 3rds as 2nds also defeats the purpose.

That said, I always allow a caster to intentionally weaken a spell - it still uses the same slot up to cast but an 8th-level caster, say, could intentionally cast a fireball of only 5d6 if she liked. You can never cast a spell below its minimum, though, so no 3-dice fireballs allowed.

Lan-"would a diminished 'fly' spell just let you hop like a grasshopper?"-efan

 

[Ranes]

Except Danny did not say that it would make people unhappy if I did that, but that everyone would be happy if I did.

True. He said that it would make everyone happy if you did that (which may not necessarily be the case).

But look on the bright side: he did not say that it wouldn't make everyone unhappy if you didn't do that.

 

[Aldarc]

Analogies do not neuter discussion, they're meant to help people understand another point of view. And actually what you're describing is a false dichotomy, which artificially sets up an either or position. From the wiki:

And the false dilemma is being set up by the original premise of the thread. Which is "I don't like it so it's got to go away and be taken away from others because I can't stand it or it has to change to suit my personal tastes". Which is a pretty offensive thing to say and a disrespectful attitude to take.

Yet there are also people in this thread who are saying, "My personal preference for this game to have Vancian magic is here to stay, so deal with it or don't bother playing."

Many people like the system as is. Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like?

And that's the entire crux of the problem, is some people feel that these people who like the system as is shouldn't be allowed to play it because others don't like it.

Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes made to that system. And that is the crux of the problem, because I cannot play the game as I like so long as Vancian magic continues to stranglehold the system. But my opposition to Vancian magic has been met with a response that amounts to suggesting that I throw the baby out with the bath.

 

[Ranes]

Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes made to that system.

A perfectly reasonable position to be in.

Here's a thing. Having played one form of this game or another for many years, along with numerous other systems, I like the game the way it is. Except, by 'the game the way it is', I'm talking about a dead version, one that has been surpassed by a newer edition, an edition I don't care for.

We all accept the idea there will be other editions in the future. These editions may change in ways none of us in this discussion care for at all. We all accept that there are other games systems that do things differently from the way we play and we all house-rule some aspects of whatever game we play in ways that would not appeal to entirely reasonable people with different tastes.

We all live with this. By living with it, we accept that whatever game we play, we have to find players who share our preferences. The number of people who do diminishes over time. Even our own tastes are susceptible to change over time.

Given this, why not be happy with a solution that employs house rules and alternate systems? Why instead try to remove a fundamental part of something from one 'official' version of the rules of a game? What is to be gained that cannot be gained some other way, some way that's less disruptive to those people who just want their system of choice to still be the way that system was designed?

 

[Aldarc]

Interesting ideas, but one of the things I'm trying to avoid is Magic-Users in particular having access to too many 3rd-level spells (i.e. most of the key boomage and utility spells) in a day. If they can blow up their 1st and 2nd (or 4th and 5th, once they get so high) slots to make more 3rds, that defeats the purpose.

However, you could potentially address this by adjusting the typical spell levels in which those "key boomage and utility spells" are gained or the number of spell slots per level. I also would recommend going the 4E route and converting some of those spells into magic rituals.

Being able to cast diminished 3rds as 2nds also defeats the purpose.

By diminished and heightened, these spells generally have different effects. For example, the diminished version of AE's fireball spell (sorcerous blast) does not "blast" but only affects the creature struck, while the heightened version damages using 1d8 points per level instead of 1d6 points per level. And this addresses your earlier point. They are able to use a third level spells, but by heightening those spells, they are encouraged to use them as 4th level spell slots for greater "boomage."

Lan-"would a diminished 'fly' spell just let you hop like a grasshopper?"-efan

Ald-"diminished 'Flight' does not confer flight but increases the flying speed of a creature already flying"-arc.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yet there are also people in this thread who are saying, "My personal preference for this game to have Vancian magic is here to stay, so deal with it or don't bother playing."

NO! They are NOT!Many people also do not like the system as is or want to see changes made to that system. And that is the crux of the problem, because I cannot play the game as I like so long as Vancian magic continues to stranglehold the system. But my opposition to Vancian magic has been met with a response that amounts to suggesting that I throw the baby out with the bath.

Stop arguing in opposites and directly answer my question. That is a very rude way to argue. The only purpose to arguing in this fashion is to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that it is unbalance and that everybody has to play the way you want to play. You're also cherry picking which is considered a dishonest way of discussing something.

I am not, nor has anybody else tried to make that claim. That is an outright lie. My entire argument as had been is that it's fine for you to change it for yourself, but let us play the game we like.

 

[Ranes]

I am not...

If I gave out experience, I'd give you some for not using caps lock as well. Seriously, arguments do not benefit from typographical embellishment.

 

[Aldarc]

Stop arguing in opposites and directly answer my question. That is a very rude way to argue. The only purpose to arguing in this fashion is to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim that it is unbalance and that everybody has to play the way you want to play. You're also cherry picking which is considered a dishonest way of discussing something.

As I said, I'm moving away from an extreme position. I would like Vancian magic abolished, as per my preference. But I do not think they shouldn't be allowed to play the game they like, though with the understanding that I too should be allowed to play the game that I like.

I am not, nor has anybody else tried to make that claim. That is an outright lie. My entire argument as had been is that it's fine for you to change it for yourself, but let us play the game we like.

I assume this is your question you want me to answer directly?

Why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game they like?

DC, just because that's not the argument that you have been making does not mean that other people have not suggested that I play something else, which has been said. That is what DA said. Basically, "Leave D&D alone and go play something else to make everyone happy."

If I gave out experience, I'd give you some for not using caps lock as well. Seriously, arguments do not benefit from typographical embellishment.

Then you would be giving me those experience points. Diamond Cross misquoted my post. "NO! They are NOT!" is something I never said, but Diamond Cross's point to the first quote that he accidentally placed at the beginning of my second quote.

 

[Ranes]

Leave D&D alone and go play something else to make everyone happy.

I stand corrected. That line would have benefited from typographical embellishment.