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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wouldn't it be better for both the spellcasters and the warriors to have something useful to do in pretty much every encounter?

Different, yes, but not objectively better.

 

[Mort]

They are both very much needed members of the party and both have very much to do. It's a bunch of nonsense that mages outshines the fighter. They're both huge contributors to a party.

But you know what? I've now realized that there is one great balancing factor that people are overlooking.

That is spells run out and casters, especially mages, are at their weakest when they have no spells to cast. When this happens they can only use slings daggers and staff. They can't really wear armor. It also takes them at least a quarter of the day.

A fighter does not have this problem. Hit points be damned, because casters have far less hp than fighters. A Fighter has a d10 in comparison to a d4. Barbarians have a d12. Not including their Constitution bonuses or any other bonuses from things like feats (for 3.5e) or abilities. You can take away a fighter's equipment, but they can still defend themselves and dish out a lot of damage. And, when it came down to it, without the spells a mage would lose to a fighter type every time.

Clerics do have some fighting abilities, but that is not their focus. Their focus is on the spells they get from their deity they serve. And parties will last a lot longer if the Cleric has healing magics. In 1e and 2e their roles were primarily the medic.

Basically, fighters would be infantry and front line soldiers, clerics would be medics, and mages are artillery.

So this entire thing is absolutely nonsense.

Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.

 

[Aldarc]

Reasonable. However is it a subjective statement rather than an objective truth. For example, you could substitute any other magic system for vancian in the above paragraph and it would remain equally reasonable (and subjective).

So, it all comes back to personal preference ... something that you can't easily convince folks to change no matter how superior your preference might seem to be to you.

Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.

Vancian magic is not at all about gradual energy expenditure over time in the way spell points are... it's going for a completely different angle. It still represents your total available mojo, and it's expenditure, however. If your available mojo/energy is represented by nine apples, and you allocate 2 for breakfast, 3 for lunch, and 4 for dinner then eating breakfast doesn't stop you having your four at dinner time.

Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard.

Keep in mind what "encounters" actually are: intense action punctuated by a short rest. A more descriptive name for "Encounter powers" would be "Power that you can use once per short rest". I find keeping that concept in mind really helps with the narrative around encounter powers. Likewise "daily" powers are simply powers you can use once between extended rests.

I understand that, but you can't cast the same encounter power more than once per encounter as opposed to having x amount of "encounter power mojo."

Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.

To be fair to the Vancian system, that's not so much the problem with Vancian magic itself, but the spells that are alloted for those spell slots, which contributes to the exponential change. I could see that, in theory, the Vancian system could provide a more linear progression of power. But to do so would require dumping (or converting into ritual spells like in 4E) some of those upper level spells and stretching out the upper level spells to make for a more linear power progression that matches.

 

[Gryph]

Your entire argument discounts that in 3-3.5e the power level of the fighter progresses in a linear fashion while the power level of the mage progresses exponentially - that is the essense of the problem (As one of my friends put it a 20th level fighter may be the peak of human perfection, but a 20th level mage is a superhuman/superhero -the footing is not equal). Some late 3.5 supplements, as well as many of the efforts by Pathfinder close the gap a bit, but it's a wide gap to close fully.

Honestly, I think this is more a result of changes to other parts of the system than inherent to Vancian magic systems. The difficulty of interrupting spell casting after changes to the initiative system, the introduction of meta-magic feats, the ability to sac cast healing by clerics, a presumption of easily acquired caster only magic items, and prestige classes that stacked class powers on top of caster level progression, for example, all added to the imbalance of caster to non-caster.

 

[innerdude]

In looking over some of my own previous posts, and some of the replies to the thread, I think I've realized that there's a big difference between wanting to do away with Vancian magic altogether, and wanting to change the "bog standard" implementation of it in the standard OGL rules.

If I were to rephrase the original intent of this thread, I think it would lean closer to the latter: I am dissatisfied with the "bog standard" implementation of Vancian magic, and specifically want the 2nd iteration of the Pathfinder RPG to not use it, or to use a revised/tweaked setup for it.

I think overall this discussion has been productive, and I've certainly been exposed to alternative opinions to mine that I respect. I don't know that I necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them, and their intent.

But I'm still largely unclear why so many feel so strongly about the need to preserve Vancian magic in D&D. Is the "soul" and "flavor" of D&D truly so strongly tied to Vancian magic that it's impossible, as asked in the "Of Roads, Rome, and the Soul of D&D" thread, to have a "D&D experience" without it?

Some may disagree, but I think most of us recognize that even if 4e uses a "Vancian" design for its powers, it's a fairly broad departure from "bog standard" Vancian casting in the 1e-3e sense.

Now for many reasons, I do not like the 4e rules system, and would only willingly play it if my entire gaming group agreed to do so. But I think the 4e implementation of magic/powers is a clear indication that there's a flexibility available in gameplay by moving away from Vancian casting--or at least re-examining its core tenets and assumptions. There's a lot of "wiggle room" in the Vancian system to update it, make some minor variations, etc.

I guess I'm just not fully understanding the "Sacred Cow-ness" of Vancian magic. I expected there to be some debate about the system's merits; I didn't expect the level of vehemence in defending it, and certainly didn't expect to be accused of "taking away people's fun."

I think maybe the question is, if Vancian casting really is an intrinsic part of the "soul" of D&D, then if it is ever removed entirely, does D&D really cease to exist? In my opinion it does not, but clearly some would say that it does.

 

[Mon]

Again, "you could substitute any other magic system for vancian" but as I said, I would wager that most non-Vancian magic systems generally have far more in-common with each other than with Vancian magic. So I would ideally want the magic system of D&D to aim for this larger portion of the magic system pie chart, but provide rules that allow for the system to be tweaked for particular tastes.

I get that is how you feel. You want D&D to be a bit more (or a lot more) like GURPS or HERO (which shoot for totally generic everything, magic included).

I, however, don't. The flavour of magic systems across sources varies greatly from my perspective. Is there really a middle ground, or just some common tropes? You could also substitute any magic system for "vancian" in your more recent response quoted above, for example.

(Don't worry I am not going to keep on saying that every time, I'm just sayin' things are diverse and you've yet to move away from your own opinion - an opinion I understand ... really, I do... but opinion none the less, and one that many don't share).

(also, a lot of this is just my opinion which I know many don't share)

Again, this is one of the reasons why if I had to "go Vancian" I would prefer a mixed Vancian system like in Arcana Evolved. It provides a nice compromise between Vancian spell slots and spell points through its spell-weaving system. But it can (mostly) be played as a Vancian system without spell-weaving, though it supports more of a wizard-sorcerer hybrid than a standard wizard.

Me, I would prefer a slightly different approach... vancian wizards, then something completely different for other classes. I think that having different classes that represent different systems/sources of magic is a better approach than trying to come up with a generic universal magic system and then shoehorn everyone into it. To do so would be simply killing one tyrant and instating another.

Of course, it could get silly with all the magic systems after a while. That would need to be kept in check. You would probably keep most folks happy and cover a lot of bases with just three or so, though.

Just my 2c since we're expressing preferences here.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

After 2 years of 4e's design to give everyone something to do in every situation, I vehemently disagree with this. I very much prefer a rotating spotlight approach.

If everyone is special, then no one is special.

...And if only some classes are special, then those that don't play it are not only "not special," but their lack of special is accentuated by how special the others are.



I'll tell you this though - I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide. And I've never seen the problem of "Everyone is special, nobody is." And this includes 4e.


RE: Balance:

D&D has long been balanced under three assumptions. First, balance over levels. Second, balance over day. And lastly, balance over the encounter.

The idea behind the first is that wizards at low levels would be weak, while reigning supreme at high level.

The idea behind the second and third is that wizards are balanced around having so many spells each "day" and that, while they can rock an encounter rather hard, they can't rock the whole day due to limited resources.

The problem with the first is that nobody likes to be useless. People generally don't want a character that just sits on the sidelines and does nothing - nobody plays a game of football and actively wants to be water boy. Balance over levels actively encourages this - as a wizard you have to wait and wait and wait for your time to shine. As a fighter, it's even worse - every fight and every level you grow closer to being utterly obsolete. This is what lead to the idea of the "sweet spot" - the point in the game where all players could enjoy playing. Of course, the existence of the "sweet spot" means the opposite also exists - those levels that are utterly not-fun.

The problem with the second is that "day" is nebulous. If you have one fight in the day, then some classes are going to grow magnificently powerful, as was seen in the fifteen minute workday. Hypothetically, if you have fifty fights in the day, then wizards are back to side-lining, though in practice this turned out to not be true, with a mix of vastly numerous spell slots and fighters being unable to replenish their HP. To help fix this, 3.x set out to create a "standard adventure day." Four encounters of roughly equal CR, where equal CR represents a fight that should take out roughly one fourth of your resources. 3.x was then - again in theory - balanced around this. Now, did they succeed or fail? That is to some measure up to personal belief; however, that both 4e and Pathfinder changed both CE and numerous spells that were "balanced" in this system speaks considerably.

So, balance by encounter.

Balance by encounter is relatively easier then the other two because there is no nebulousness in it's terminology. An encounter starts with conflict and ends when a five minute rest period is available. If 3.x was built around a hybrid of encounter/daily leaning on daily, then 4e is leaning on encounter. There are still marks of the daily balance, such as, well, daily powers, but for the most part the combat part of the game is balanced around the encounter.

The problem with Vancian is that it is inherently built on the first two methods of balance, and on all their inequalities. It is centered around balance by level - it's where the concept of linear fighters vs quadratic wizards originates from. Spells increase in power vastly faster then extraordinary or supernatural abilities. Vancian is also by definition a daily-originated power, which means the number and strength of fights are put to the challenge of being vaguely mapped about to the number and potency of spells.

What makes this so difficult is how much easier it is to capsize the boat with the first two methods of balance. 3.x provides that example perfectly. In theory wizards start very weak but end strong. In practice, even in the PHB, there is a wide variety of spells that even at level end simply end the encounter immidietely. In theory wizards use their spells when they are most needed and not at other times, but with wildly fluxuating numbers of spell slots, wizards can either be starved or, as is far, far more likely, they can have so many spells they're just throwing them around as the stride on. Even worse, the concept of the "day" is broken exceedingly fast by spells that allow you to essentially rest on command, such as Rope Trick, leading to the fifteen minute work day.

Mind you, all of this is just combat balance. It's not even touching balance outside of combat.

 

[TanisFrey]

I am playing two different games using two game systems.

The first is a mid-high level game with the PC a 14th or 15th level. We have One Bard/lyric thaumaturge w/cloistered cleric of Gar Glitergold cohort, One Wizard, One rouge, One fighter, One ranger/deep warden, One Cleric of Mystra, One Cleric/Prestiege Paladin of Sune w/wizard cohort, One Cleric of Sharess w/Brass dragon cohort. the cleric of Sune and Cleric of Sharess are not full level cleric. As you see we accept the Vancian magic system in this game.

The other game is Hackmaster Basic which uses Vancian magic and does not use it at the same time. We have One Fighter, One Thief, One Mage, One Thief/Mage and One cleric of the Eternal Lantern.

In this system Cleric are on a strict Vancian magic system, they get to memorize one spell per spell level each day. They get a new spell level every time they gain a level. They do get some bonus spells for high wisdom but they cannot memorize the same spell twice.

Mages on the other hand memorize one spell per spell level they have but they do not loose them when cast. They get spell points to cast spells and they can pump extra spell points into a spell as it is being cast. they can cast a non-memorized spell anytime they want but it cost twice the normal amount of spell points. So an apprentice level spell cost 30 spell points to cast if memorized or 60 if it is not; a journeyman spell cost 40 or 80; 1st level 50 or 100 spell points; ect.

The thief/mage is in effect a half-level mage. At first level they get 60 spell points and one random apprentice spell. This is my character. He has one spell Springing. It cost him 30 points to cast so he can cast it twice per day or he can pump extra spell points to increase the distance he can jump or how long it lasts. It normally allows him to jump 20 feet forward every second for 2 minutes. I can have him blow all his spell points into one casting to allowing him to jump 50 feet each second for 2 minutes or 20 feet for 5 minutes or some other combatant of the two variables.

So in the Hackmaster Basic game we use both Vancian spell system and spell point system.

There are other systems where it is mixed and it works, go try one.

 

[Ranes]

I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide. And I've never seen the problem of "Everyone is special, nobody is." And this includes 4e.

Really? My experience is almost as near to opposite that as it it could be. When it hasn't been, there have been other flaws in the system at least as significant as the one you purport exists in Vancian D&D. Of course, I could house rule those, if I chose, instead of declaiming to the system's players that they should give up something they might not see as problematic.

RE: Balance:

D&D has long been balanced under three assumptions. First, balance over levels. Second, balance over day. And lastly, balance over the encounter.

The idea behind the first is that wizards at low levels would be weak, while reigning supreme at high level.

The idea behind the second and third is that wizards are balanced around having so many spells each "day" and that, while they can rock an encounter rather hard, they can't rock the whole day due to limited resources.

The problem with the first is that nobody likes to be useless. People generally don't want a character that just sits on the sidelines and does nothing - nobody plays a game of football and actively wants to be water boy. Balance over levels actively encourages this - as a wizard you have to wait and wait and wait for your time to shine.

Well, you probably do have to wait. 'Wait and wait', on the other hand, is vacuous hyperbole. And, when the time does arrive, there's every chance it has nothing to do with the magic at your disposal.

As a fighter, it's even worse - every fight and every level you grow closer to being utterly obsolete. This is what lead to the idea of the "sweet spot" - the point in the game where all players could enjoy playing. Of course, the existence of the "sweet spot" means the opposite also exists - those levels that are utterly not-fun.

Nearly true. The game system is flawed. The idea of a level not being fun is, however, risible, unless your DM is utterly witless. If that is the case, it's nothing that a game system can mechanically fix. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that, at the highest levels of the game, the fighter begins to struggle. DMs can accommodate this but, even if they don't, the fighter's difficulties cannot be ascribed to Vancian magic as a mechanism. The problem is deeper than that.

The problem with the second is that "day" is nebulous. If you have one fight in the day, then some classes are going to grow magnificently powerful, as was seen in the fifteen minute workday.

Er, right. And the fix for that is simple and not system related.

Hypothetically, if you have fifty fights in the day, then wizards are back to side-lining, though in practice this turned out to not be true, with a mix of vastly numerous spell slots and fighters being unable to replenish their HP.

If you expect players to swallow that argument, you really need to think again. It's loaded to the gills with assumptions. 'Vastly' numerous spells? I beg to differ. Fighters unable to renew their HP? What? They're not allowed to spend their money on potions or items now?

You can (and have) put forward better arguments than this guff.

To help fix this, 3.x set out to create a "standard adventure day." Four encounters of roughly equal CR, where equal CR represents a fight that should take out roughly one fourth of your resources. 3.x was then - again in theory - balanced around this. Now, did they succeed or fail? That is to some measure up to personal belief; however, that both 4e and Pathfinder changed both CE and numerous spells that were "balanced" in this system speaks considerably.

It speaks only about the designers' personal taste for a particular style. Anything else is pure speculation.

The problem with Vancian is that it is inherently built on the first two methods of balance, and on all their inequalities.

Loaded. Subjective.

It is centered around balance by level - it's where the concept of linear fighters vs quadratic wizards originates from.

Best line of your post (he argues, subjectively), because it sounds good. Except, it's not true. There is no second, unknown higher power. Nice try through.

Spells increase in power vastly faster then extraordinary or supernatural abilities. Vancian is also by definition a daily-originated power, which means the number and strength of fights are put to the challenge of being vaguely mapped about to the number and potency of spells.

And limited choice. Don't forget that. It's a biggie. As are a bunch of other factors you don't acknowledge but I will at least allude to.

What makes this so difficult is how much easier it is to capsize the boat with the first two methods of balance. 3.x provides that example perfectly. In theory wizards start very weak but end strong. In practice, even in the PHB, there is a wide variety of spells that even at level end simply end the encounter immidietely.

If - and only if - they have that wide a variety in their spell books and magic item inventory, which they shouldn't and usually don't. Their spell books should not be the sum of all the spells in the PHB, SpC or whatever.

In theory wizards use their spells when they are most needed and not at other times, but with wildly fluxuating numbers of spell slots, wizards can either be starved or, as is far, far more likely, they can have so many spells they're just throwing them around as the stride on.

Maybe in your game.

Even worse, the concept of the "day" is broken exceedingly fast by spells that allow you to essentially rest on command, such as Rope Trick, leading to the fifteen minute work day.

Although in every game that I've DMed the party has, at some point, acquired Rope Trick, I have rarely - and I choose the word advisedly - seen a party experience the fifteen minute workday. I have seen parties take entire days out to recover from a rough encounter (or day of encounters) but the fifteen minute workday is the equivalent of a moral panic among unimaginative DMs and players alike. It has nothing in particular to do with Vancian magic. Those same people would be faced with fifteen minute workdays, even if they had a points-based magic system at their disposal.

Mind you, all of this is just combat balance. It's not even touching balance outside of combat.

Absolutely, I'm sure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll tell you this though - I've played plenty of other non-D&D games, and in just about every other tabletop game, there isn't a stupidly large magic/non-magic divide.

Ever play RIFTS?

Ever play HERO where someone builds their PC as a super-normal (IOW, highly trained & skilled, but with no one aspect outside of human boundaries)?