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

[Wiseblood]

I certainly agree. In 3.5/P this kind of magic is just unbalanced. It reminds me of Magic the Gathering. A lot of dud abilities/spells, some strong, and a few just amazing things.

And of course everyone takes the gems. Human nature. But perhaps the real problems are

1: As above. Magic is too easy. It should cost a lot of crunch options.

2: Balance. (also above) The spells need to be more formula and less sacred cows. Too many spells are good because they have always been good, and need toning down. Like Entangle. It is ridiculously powerful at first level, and is still good at 20th.

I would like to see some kind of formula-based magic, or a strong cap on what easy casting can do.

By your argument (forgive that term please) you don't actually dislike the Vancian system but the spells some too strong some too weak. To discard the system based on your arguments would in fact be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Aldarc]

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

I'm sure that it would if I meant it. As it is a paraphrase of something aimed at me, I certainly would not want to mean it. Perhaps I should go back in put that in quotes to make it more clear that my statement is not an imperative directed at Diamond Cross, but a paraphase of a statement directed at me?

 

[Ranes]

Or I could edit my post and add the words 'just kidding'.

Wait. What am I thinking?

 

[TanisFrey]

Just write the rules set you want to play, and run with it. You could even publish it as an alternate rule system, like the Arcana Unearthed book did.

 

[Aldarc]

Or I could edit my post and add the words 'just kidding'.

Wait. What am I thinking?

I thought you may have been kidding, but when I looked back at my post, I saw how it could be misread and so I edited it to make it more clear.

 

[innerdude]

I'll admit, I'm still a little surprised at the strong positions in favor of Vancian casting in D&D, but having looked over some of the replies, it's clear that this is a hot-button issue, and I'll try to be respectful.

So far, the arguments for it seem to be:

1. It's "balanced," such as it is, in conjunction with the rest of the OGL mechanic.
2. It creates unique flavor for the D&D milieu.
3. It's the traditional, long standing system for D&D, which is an aid for creating for lack of a better term "a true D&D experience."

I'm certainly willing to admit that none of those are bad.

My arguments against it are:

1. It creates a relatively static economy of action system that is based much more on the choice of spell than on other in-game player choices and actions. Consequently, many casters in D&D seem to feel as if they're being played as a mechanical trope, rather than an actual character.
2. The supposed benefit of "flavor" is largely lost because all casters have the same basic action mechanic/resolution. The effect, once again, is to largely reduce playing a casting class to "Spell Picking 101," instead of producing more robust, dynamic in-game action options.
3. Narratively it feels less organic than other systems.
4. In spite of attempts at balance, it has been, and continues to be, the largest point of game balance contention of any portion of the 3.x / OGL rules. As a result, a complete re-imagining, or at least serious re-evaluation of Vancian casting's place in the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game might not be out of line.

However, having seen that many people are apparently very attached to Vancian casting per se, I think my position going forward is not to do away with it entirely, but as has been suggested by others, to give each casting class a unique mechanic. This would allow for more diversity in gameplay styles, serves the current needs of tradition and flavor, while giving a GM more flexibility in houseruling if he/she chooses to stick with one of the mechanical options.

To me, some foundational principles for the mechanical divisions would be:

1. Mechanical trade-offs between upper-level power limits (in terms of spells) vs. the flexibility in using those spells. Meaning, a character that gets to pick-and-choose their spells every day has a spell level cap lower than that of someone who can cast more powerful spells, but doesn't get to change them. The player choice becomes more dynamic--do I sacrifice upper-end power for flexibility, or do I choose more raw power at the expense of versatility?
2. I don't dislike the concepts of domains and spell schools, but they're largely irrelevant as anything other than a mechanical construct, at least in terms of my gameplay. If they're going to be used, the concepts of domains and spell schools should be one of the primary, central features of the mechanical system, and not just a "side note." D&D sets up these highly detailed spell schools, domains, opposing schools, etc., but the vast majority of players ignore it, or simply treat it as a mechanic for getting more/better spells. If such features are going to be included in the system at all, they need to be meaningful, and have a real mechanical and in-game impact on how the mechanic works. Otherwise, it's largely unnecessary fluff. Interesting fluff, perhaps, but unnecessary, and as both a GM and player, I don't think I can think of a single instance where the school of the spell had any real, relevant impact on in-game play.
3. The economy of action scale for Vancian needs to be reviewed, both in terms of character choice, action costs, and economic costs. The idea of limiting spell usage for balance purposes by imposing an economic and/or XP cost is in theory good, but in actual gameplay it's more of a hassle than useful. In my experience, players want to be able to cast the stuff they have access to. They don't want to have to go on quests to find harpy dung and a roc feather just to be able to cast a spell. Again, I realize this is largely for balance purposes, but such restrictions are largely "unfun" for the player, a hassle for the GM to track, and in my experience almost totally ignored.

 

[Diamond Cross]

1. It creates a relatively static economy of action system that is based much more on the choice of spell than on other in-game player choices and actions. Consequently, many casters in D&D seem to feel as if they're being played as a mechanical trope, rather than an actual character.
2. The supposed benefit of "flavor" is largely lost because all casters have the same basic action mechanic/resolution. The effect, once again, is to largely reduce playing a casting class to "Spell Picking 101," instead of producing more robust, dynamic in-game action options.
3. Narratively it feels less organic than other systems.
4. In spite of attempts at balance, it has been, and continues to be, the largest point of game balance contention of any portion of the 3.x / OGL rules. As a result, a complete re-imagining, or at least serious re-evaluation of Vancian casting's place in the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game might not be out of line.

So what system does not do all of this? Have you ever found a system that does not have any of these so-called flaws?

And you know what, I don't think you can actually design a system that some people wouldn't find these same flaws in and would try to change it to fit their preferences. Or if you could it would probably be very complicated and possibly even a book onto itself.

Instead of trying to change the system, why not try other systems first? This is not an insult nor is it meant to be insulting. It is a serious question. You might actually find a system you really like that fits your needs, which is why this is a valid question.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's what Dannyalcatraz actually said:

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.

IOW, make a homebrew game with the D&D mechanics you like in place, substituting your preferred magic system. Get others to play it. If it's any good, you may even be able to self-publish it and make money at it.

Those who like D&D as is are happy, since their game keeps it's Vancian casting. You have a version of D&D that has no Vancian magic, so you are happy.

 

[Ranes]

Here's what Dannyalcatraz actually said:

Blimey. You wait ages for a time when typographical embellishment is actually called for and suddenly...

 

[Mon]

I misunderstood. I did not reframe it to suit myself.

Apologies. Edited it out of my previous post.

I am reading your entire post, so stop insulting my intelligence by framing it as you keep doing it.

No insult to your intelligence is intended. I am merely expressing frustration that you seem to be skimming my posts (because your responses occasionally seem to disregard certain things I said in them).

My question is in regards to how most fantasy and fiction treats magic.

Yes, and my answer regards the same thing (see below). No dodging, as you accused.

Here is what I 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."

So, to paraphrase... readers would likely assume magic works however it is described in what they're reading because each is different. Not vanican (except in vance), or spell points, or true20-style, anything else as a universal (or even predominant) choice.

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.

I think you're agreeing with me here.

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.

Except when you've used you 5th level daily (for example).