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

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually my friend who has read the 4e books claims 4e is not any longer a table top RPG but rather a MMORGP in disguise, which he personally believes that's why they changed the system so drastically.

I however, have not read the 4e books so I really couldn't say anything about them.

Good news - your friend is wrong!

I'm sorry that poor DMs and GMs have sullied your experience in this regard.

Rest assured that some of us play in really fun campaigns where all characters have their moments to shine, run by DMs who manage the game well enough to keep Magic Users from being swiss army knives.

For one thing, you can't memorize the perfect spells in the morning if you have no idea what you're going to face in the afternoon.

Anyway, enjoy your game your way, but know that the alternative is a blast (pun intended) as well.

Yes, those poor DMs and GMs that played the game by the rules.

Wizards don't need the one perfect spell. They need the "good enough for this situation" spell, which is most of them.

I could be wrong as I am no 4E expert but what is magical about 4E magic? From the little I see they have taken away massive spellbooks and your ability to pick and choose. Now a wizard is no different than a fighter beyond the flavor text that says the wizard casts a spell and the fighter shoots an arrow.

And what's magical about 3e magic? Having a big spell book makes it "magical?" Is that it? Being better then everyone else? Is that what does it? Because at the end of the day, the only difference is that the 3e wizard has unlimited options and the fighter has one or two. That's not being "magical." The spells are still all strict formula that someone else designed that you pick though.

If your players have it, it is no longer mysterous - it is now a tool. The only magic system that's felt actually mysterious and magical was WoD's Mage's. And 4e's ritual system comes damn closer then 3e's Vancian ever did.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Sigh, being right is serious business.

And what many people are forgetting is that whenever anybody talks about needing to change the system, any system, there will always be opposition to change. And those same people will balk at other people who want to change the system they like.

All this does is create a moebius strip.

And nothing ever just stops.

But who cares because being right serious business.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All this does is create a moebius strip.

I once went to a show by a Möbius stripper. Quite frustrating- she was nearly naked and after she did a quick spin around the pole, she was suddenly and mysteriously fully dressed again!

 

[Diamond Cross]

Well, better than nothing!

 

[Celtavian]

re

As pointed out in many threads, "what you see in fiction" is as vague as it gets.

First if all, Vancian magic arises from a work of fiction, so it actually satisfies your plea.

Second, there are nearly as many different "magic systems" as writers. A writer doesn't necessarily have a coherent concept of magic when they sit down to write a work of fiction. Some do, but for others, it's just a deus ex machina.

And some of those mythological/literary magic systems REALLY wouldn't work well for RPGs. A true mana system- as depicted in Niven's "The Magic Goes Away" cycle of stories (based on RW faith traditions & legends of "mana") would be quite unsatisfying for most gamers because mana to power spells is not a personal resource in any great amount- it must be gathered to the caster from his surroundings. And when it is depleted, it is does not replenish for generations. (Amazingly, some of that feel was well captured in the original Dark Sun setting's mechanic for Defiler magic.)

So, when you talk about literary magic, 1) don't dismiss Vancian, because it IS literary in origin, and 2) be specific about whose literary magic you prefer.

Now that I think more about it, D&D magic doesn't need to change. There are truly so many options at the moment that simulate different types of fictional magic and abilities that pinpointing one is kind of pointless.

All magic systems are artificial. D&D magic is probably the best magic system ever made to be honest when you look at how well it works for just about any concept.

Now that I've tried, I honestly can't think of a better system. D&D is truly the most robust and interesting magic system I've ever come across. It's breadth is amazing. I can spend hours and hours buildings caster concepts utilizing the D&D magic rules in a way I can't in other game systems.

I have a Life Oracle right now that can heal people while paralyzed within 30 feet of her.

I created a blaster evoker wizard built around Chain Lightning and Admixture specialization.

I have an Orc Blooded sorcerer that will be able to boost his strength to around 34 when he decides to go into transformation combat mode.

I have an Inquisitor that can look into the hearts of men and know when they are lying as well lay the smack down strong with the power of his god.

I have to say that the D&D magic system doesn't need any change. Never did. It is the most versatile and interesting magic system out there in my opinion. And allows you to build any type of caster you want. Look at the magnitude of imaginative ways the Pathfinder game designers used the D&D magic to fashion different types of casters to cater to many different archetypes.

I think that is the sign of a great magic system when it is so versatile you can do anything with it.

I have to say I was wrong. Vancian magic fits in fine with the overall D&D magic system and provides a unique flavor for the classes that use it in D&D like the wizard, cleric, and witch. And the overall D&D magic system incorporated spontaneous magic in 3rd edition to fit a different type of fictional caster and that has expanded the D&D magic system in new and creative ways.

D&D magic doesn't need to change. It would in fact be a disservice to the game to change a magic system that has so many imaginative ways that it can be used. I guess I'm back on the side that wants to keep the D&D magic system as it is. Don't need anything else. Don't want anything else. The D&D magic system fuels my imagination and has me thinking of new spell strategies all the time. Keep it as is.

 

[Celtavian]

Good news - your friend is wrong!

Opinions differ. So no, his friend isn't wrong.

Yes, those poor DMs and GMs that played the game by the rules.

Wizards don't need the one perfect spell. They need the "good enough for this situation" spell, which is most of them.

I guess all those creatures with spell resistance or wizards with counter spells never got much us in your campaigns like they did in mine. If you design your enemies according to the players they are facing, you can challenge even the mighty wizard.

And Pathfinder cleaned up a lot of spells that made everything an instant win.

And what's magical about 3e magic? Having a big spell book makes it "magical?" Is that it? Being better then everyone else? Is that what does it? Because at the end of the day, the only difference is that the 3e wizard has unlimited options and the fighter has one or two. That's not being "magical." The spells are still all strict formula that someone else designed that you pick though.

What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.

I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.

Where Raistlin is indeed better than everyone else.

Where Gandalf is the only one that can go against the Balrog or battle the Witch King of Angmar on equal ground.

Where Merlin is the powerful person in the Arthurian legends and could take out any of the knights if they were to go head to head.

If your players have it, it is no longer mysterous - it is now a tool. The only magic system that's felt actually mysterious and magical was WoD's Mage's. And 4e's ritual system comes damn closer then 3e's Vancian ever did.

I thought the ritual system was cool until I thought about it and the ritual system is nothing more than casting time in 3rd or earlier edition.

If you really want to work in certain spells as castable by any class, you can do with that special abilities or feats in 3rd edition. Problem solved. If Pathfinder ever wants to let fighters cast some "ritual" type spells that is what they'll do. Easily meets the criteria.

But 4E has put themselves in a corner when it comes to combat teleports that can get your whole group out of battle and somewhere safe. Now it's a ritual and will take too long to cast while in battle. Mind control that lasts longer than a round is non-existent. It's all do a little damage and some secondary effect the creature saves for every round.

Sure, that's real magical. Roll my 3d10 and hope the creature doesn't save on its turn. Loads of versatility in that system isn't there?

I imagine you don't want versatility. You must have played with players that made you feel small and worthless if you weren't playing a wizard. That min-maxed with a DM that couldn't create challenges to counter the mighty wizard.

I guess there's no way Pathfinder[/] game designers could reign in some of the damage done with the Spell Compendium. Which was the main culprit behind the power creep of wizards. By core wizards and arcane casters were balanced, especially once they got rid of the extra spell from haste.

What messed up arcane casters in 3rd edition was the power creep from certain spells in the Spell Compendium and the Archmage prestige class (the first iteration). Don't act as though the wizard has been inherently more powerful for all iterations of D&D. They certainly haven't.

They've had their moments to shine. But every other class has as well.

And in Pathfinder every class in the game save for the rogue is powerful in their own right and stands up fine compared to the wizard. In fact, at this point in time the player playing the wizard in our group is rather underwhelmed with the class because the Invulnerable Raging barbarian and the Two-hander fighter are beasting through about everything we face while he is often engaged in a support role because it's more effective for him to help them kill the enemy rather than do it himself.

Quit acting like it's still 3rd edition and no one bothered to reign in the magic system. So far Pathfinder arcane casters are pretty reigned in as far as being able to end major combats by themselves. I'm having more trouble dealing with the melee classes than the arcane casters. And the most annoying arcane caster at the moment is the friggin bard.

The bard is incredible versatile and does such an incredible job of boosting the group he's making it a pain in the behind to stop the melee characters from stomping everything in their path.

Games can change. Pathfinder's changes eliminated a lot of the no brainer arcane combos that became problematic in 3rd edition. It wasn't the system that was bad, it was certain spells and certain prestige classes that messed up 3E.

 

[Bluenose]

What fiction you reading? The wizard is generally better than everyone else. I want my games modeled on fiction, not on game balance where I'm worried about "being better than everyone else" as you put it.

I watched movies like Conan where Thulsa Doom was indeed better than everyone else until Conan caught him alone and cut his head off.

Where Raistlin is indeed better than everyone else.

Where Gandalf is the only one that can go against the Balrog or battle the Witch King of Angmar on equal ground.

Where Merlin is the powerful person in the Arthurian legends and could take out any of the knights if they were to go head to head.

Are the wizards the same level as the non-wizards in this fiction? If they aren't, there's your imbalance straight out of the gate.

Conan iirc gets knocked unconscious three times. Once by magic, twice by slingstones. Clearly slingstones are as powerful as magic, and the game shold reflect it.

Dragonlance isn't exactly a source for wizards in D&D, being derived from it. And I'd argue Raistlin is higher level than most, when he's the most powerful wizard on Krynn.

Who was it killed the Witch-King? Eowyn and Merry, wasn't it? No wizards needed.

If you want to include Arthurian legend, then you might want to remember the time Lancelot beseiged the City of Enchanters. On his own. And they had to persuade him to leave, rather than use magic to drive him off.

A lesson: Fictional examples don't exclusively go in favour of wizards being more powerful.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yeah, it's sheer utter nonsense that the wizard is better than everybody else. The wizard does have a lot of power, but it's meant to be that way for the wizard is meant to be artillery. The wizard's greatest weakness is that they are not close combat people. Especially in 1e and 2e. In 3e they could multiclass far more easily and actually take a level or two in fighter, but that also means sacrificing some levels which could be used to increase his magic.

In fact. I'd bet that if you took three low or first level fighters against one mage without his spells, the fighters would win. The mage must be a minimum of tenth level. There must be no magic items either, for both sides. other than that, there is no limit to other equipment.

I'd bet that the fighters would win. Or do tons of damage.

Probably even without armor.

The point to this is to illustrate the great weakness of the mage. A Cleric also has this problem, but not to the extent mages do. Because Mages can't use armor. And fighters have tons of hit points. In 3.5e a tenth level Wizard is not likely to have more than 86 hit points, assuming a Constitution score of 18 (which gives a +4 bonus to hp per level) and mages are not likely to have that high of a Constitution score. This doesn't count the toughness feats though.

In contrast, a low level fighter, let's go ahead with first level, could start out with a maximum of 14 hit points, not counting feats. Three fighters have a potential damage of with a longsword of d8 damage of dishing 24 points of damage per round, with a probable average of 8 per round, without any Strength bonuses to damage. With a Strength of 18, that's a further potential of an additional 12 points per round.

A 1st level fighters' BAB is +1. A wizard's BAB is +0. A Strength of 18 gives a +4 to hit for a total of +5 to hit. A wizard is not likely to have this high of a strength.

Since a Wizard can not wear armor, they would have an AC of 10 without Dex or magic item bonuses. That means a first level fighter would need to roll a five or higher to hit a tenth level Wizard. How long can a wizard last against that?

Give the fighters chainmail, and that means they'd have a minimum AC of 15. With a shield that would increase to 17. If a wizard didn't have any bonuses, that means a wizard would have to roll a fifteen or seventeen or higher to hit. Plus a wizard's more than likely to have a a d4 dagger, or a d6 staff. Without any bonuses, that would be two or three rounds before defeating just one of them.

Do the math. The fighters would win.The fighter really overshadows the wizard.

Of course, single lightning bolt would take the fighters out. Maybe. Even if the Wizard did have his spells, he could still lose them because of these rules that many are overlooking:

Injury

If while trying to cast a spell you take damage, you must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting). If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between when you start and when you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

So, facing three first level fighters, that's a potential of three times of losing the spell. However, of course, a single lightning bolt would take them all out which is why you would need one of them to be an archer. And this is a tenth level wizard we're talking about. Or the wizard could cast a magic missile which would be 5d4 + 5 points of damage, for a range of 10 to 25 points of damage. Still, that's against one opponent. And the magic missile can still be dispelled depending on initiative. A smart fighter would delay the attack until the caster started casting so they could dispel the spell.

Even if the Wizard would be given magic items to increase AC, the fighters still have that huge bonus of plus 5 to hit for every melee roll. That means if the Wizard had an equal AC they would still need to roll a 10 or a 12 on a d20.

Higher level fighters would of course have more attacks. A tenth level fighter has two attacks and a BAB of +10/5 which means +10 for the first attack and +5 for the second one.

And that's why they turn to magic.

Another way to test this out is that you can play DDO (Dungeons And Dragons Online) and play a Wizard or a Sorcerer and see how far you actually get on your own. It's free to play. or even other games such as Neverwinter Nights.

There you can see the strengths and the weaknesses of a mage.

I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.

I hope this little example dispels the nonsense of a wizard is so superior to the fighter that the fighters are absolutely useless.

If anything a fighter is superior to a wizard. But neither class can do everything, which is why they form teams so they can compliment each others abilities.

However, the example uses 3.5e rules.

And the big difference between literature and RPGs is that a writer has full control of the characters and situations they write about.

in short....

FIGHTERS KICK ASS! They are not a useless class to play.

 

[Haltherrion]

I wonder if these anti-Vancian magic people have actually played a wizard or just read about the class and never played it.

I have played a lot of wizards in my day in every flavor of D&D and until 4E they have always felt to me like a favored class (especially so for the earlier editions where wizard XP progression took off about level 6). By 3.5 they could be tempered, especially with a focus on foes with SR but overall, yes, their damage output and utility magic was potent once you hit level 8ish (depending on the system) and in our groups they often stood above the rest of the party, certainly warriors.

It might have been different for your group but other experiences on the balance between the two seem quite legit to me. Interestingly, 4E has taken all that away and, also interestingly, I no longer see the rush to play the arcane caster that there used to be. Pre-4E there were always enough players interested in a wizard or wizard-like character that my group had to rotate who got the spot campaign to campaign. I played them so much earlier in my gaming career I swore off them last four campaigns or so. Let someone else have the chance for glory.

As for fighter versus mage, give a mage full range on his utility and mobility spells and I don't see how the fighter survives. Improved invisibility, fly, 500 yard range damage dealing spells. It's a bit much for a warrior to deal with. They have their place but I wouldn't bet on the fighter unless they were in a confined space or the warrior had surprise. But yes, fighters can certainly be fun to play. In any given campaign, many classes are fun and across the gamut of games, all classes can be fun.

And as for using SR to balance mages, I used it as I had little option but that was always an awkward thing to do: non-SR foes, the casters rocked, SR foes, the casters sat around very frustrated. If you had a whole session of SR foes, not much fun at all for the casters even though the situation often demanded it (if you were tooling around the Abyss for instance).

(Full disclosure: While I wouldn't consider myself anti-Vancian, it has never been a favored feature of the game for me.)

 

[Diamond Cross]

As for fighter versus mage, give a mage full range on his utility and mobility spells and I don't see how the fighter survives. Improved invisibility, fly, 500 yard range damage dealing spells. It's a bit much for a warrior to deal with. They have their place but I wouldn't bet on the fighter unless they were in a confined space or the warrior had surprise. But yes, fighters can certainly be fun to play. In any given campaign, many classes are fun and across the gamut of games, all classes can be fun.

You overlooked the main points I was making which are.

Magic can be disrupted.

Mages are not up close combat.

And spells run out.

Those are the three greatest balancing features to the system that everybody are overlooking in order to change the class. They are huge weaknesses to the wizard.

And it works. Regardless of the stupid arguments of the power of magic is exponential. So what? There are balances built in to the system, and they are big ones.

I'm very frustrated that people are overlooking these things.

Sure, magic is difficult to fight against, but not impossible. If it were impossible then all literature would be about wizard fights and there'd be no characters like Conan who kicks wizard butt, regardless of the differences between literature and rpgs.

And if things were easy it wouldn't be fun or even worthwhile to play the game now, would it? If it were completely impossible to play against a wizard you wouldn't need anything else to play. That's the meat and drink of telling a good story and what makes characters heroes, is that they do overcome incredible odds and incredibly powerful foes. Not being able to do this makes any story useless and doesn't inspire anyone.

Nothing worthwhile is easy.