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

[Mort]

While I agree with you that that particular style of play is certainly valid and within the confines of the rules, I just never saw it at my table. For one, it's not the spirit of the rules so I didn't keep 20 copies of all my spells. That could become game unbalancing which I didn't want to do to my friend the DM. Much the same way I didn't want to become the utili-wizard with a solution to every problem. Why didn't I decide to stealth better than the thief? Well I didn't want to encroach on his moment to shine. We are creating a collective narrative and play together for the fun of the game, not to beat the game itself.

Nice of you to dismiss the default option presented in the rules as "a style of play."

It is perfectly within the spirit of the rules (as well as the obvious intent of giving the mage scribe scroll for free) for the mage to be scribing a few scrolls - you don't have to distort to 20, 1 or 2 knock scrolls an invisibility scroll and maybe a tongues or comp lang scroll - and the utility of the rogue is reduced significantly, and that's the easy low level stuff.

When you have to resort to "well doing that would be rude" you're kind of admitting there's an issue.

It's actually not a hard fix - allow sorcerers instead of mages - or make scribing scrolls more old school (special materials rare components etc.)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So what exactly is wrong with that?

What about that exactly bothers you so much?

Wizards haven't stopped being the guy who blows thing up. They still pretty fill the role of artillery in 3.5e.

And some players can be very creative in this approach as well. Is that's what bothering you so much about this approach? That a player has to be creative?

Why be anything but a wizard?

There's a difference between "A player can solve anything with creativity" and "a wizard can solve anything with a spell."

Personally, "I cast a spell" doesn't ring of creativity to me.

 

[Diamond Cross]

What's bothering him is that as you get up in levels in 3.5 a well played wizard can marginalize the other roles - specifically the non-casters.

So?

So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?

Or maybe take away magic at all?

Take away the magic from a caster and all they are is a battering ram.

While a fighter can dish out tons of damage.

You may claim that casters are powerful but what is it that they can do without their magic.

And this is also a pretty classic thing is literature. Even Conan said he needed magic to fight magic.

And that wizard could barely stand in just some of that heavy armor.

Magic is a very powerful thing, but it's just a tool.

 

[Leatherhead]

But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic.

OK this, right here, has been bugging me for the longest time. Can someone explain in a concrete definition:
What is "Vancian Magic?"

Because it looks like 4e did the exact opposite of ditching the daily magic system, it gave daily magic to everyone.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So?

So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?

Or maybe take away magic at all?

Take away the magic from a caster and all they are is a battering ram.

While a fighter can dish out tons of damage.

You may claim that casters are powerful but what is it that they can do without their magic.

And this is also a pretty classic thing is literature. Even Conan said he needed magic to fight magic.

And that wizard could barely stand in just some of that heavy armor.

Magic is a very powerful thing, but it's just a tool.

Because Conan is the PC, not the wizard.

Tools only work in a game setting when they're universal. You say it's classic thing in literature, but what's classic in literature is that the wizard is never the main character. He is the deus ex machina, with magic serving not as a tool, but as an explination for their deus ex machina powers.

Wanna play a game that copies classic literature? That sounds like loads of fun, but there's one caveat - no spellcasters.

 

[broghammerj]

Nice of you to dismiss the default option presented in the rules as "a style of play."

It is perfectly within the spirit of the rules (as well as the obvious intent of giving the mage scribe scroll for free) for the mage to be scribing a few scrolls - you don't have to distort to 20, 1 or 2 knock scrolls an invisibility scroll and maybe a tongues or comp lang scroll - and the utility of the rogue is reduced significantly, and that's the easy low level stuff.

When you have to resort to "well doing that would be rude" you're kind of admitting there's an issue.

It's actually not a hard fix - allow sorcerers instead of mages - or make scribing scrolls more old school (special materials rare components etc.)

As for the style of play....it's whatever you make it at your table. You are right about 20 scrolls. I was using hyperbole to make a point.

It is a fault of 3E DnD in terms of breakdown of gameplay. My point is that I chose not to exploit that. To me its a form of magic min/maxing or power gaming. I didn't want to reduce the rogue's utility because someone chose to play that rogue even though I could do similar things with a mage. The end result is that we both enjoyed playing together.

You and I are basically in agreement with on the issue. I guess what I should have stated more clearly in regards to the topic of the thread is that it is not a fault of Vancian magic but a more a fault of 3E DND scroll writing feat.

Your suggestions for fixing it are great and very valid. My point is no one I knew "broke it" and therefore no one had to "fix it". Call it a gentlemen's agreement if you will amongst my group.

 

[Mort]

So?

So you want to have a fighter be able to cast arcane and divine magic?.

No, I want the fighter to effectively contribute, even at high levels. The Book of 9 Swords, for example, provides some inroads PHB II also has some feats that went in the right direction.

Or maybe take away magic at all?.

That's certainly a solution - but doing this admits magic was the problem, no?

Take away the magic from a caster and all they are is a battering ram.

While a fighter can dish out tons of damage.?.

This is not quite accurate: take away the fighters magic gear (specificaly the magic weapon) without compensating with something like inherant bonuses and you'll find the fighter significantly weak for his level and that "tons of damage" becomes a myth.

You may claim that casters are powerful but what is it that they can do without their magic?

but they have their magic, so this is kind of a silly point. One issue with 3e is mages suffer little to no consequences for using and abusing magic day in day out.

And this is also a pretty classic thing is literature. Even Conan said he needed magic to fight magic.

In Conan's world, magic had costs - you walked a dark path when you went for big magic, slip and your soul was lost - nothing like that for 3e.

Magic is a very powerful thing, but it's just a tool.

Pithy. So it's ok for 1 guy to have a hammer and the other guy to have a hammer AND also a full tool chest?

 

[Leatherhead]

Pithy. So it's ok for 1 guy to have a hammer and the other guy to have a hammer AND also a full tool chest?

No, it's not.

But it's not the fault of the guy who brings a tool chest, it's the fault of the guy who insists on only bringing a hammer. And the game designers who somehow imply that only having a hammer is a good idea for a character in a world that requires a screwdriver sometimes.

That analogy went on way to far, but whatever.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Why be anything but a wizard?

There's a difference between "A player can solve anything with creativity" and "a wizard can solve anything with a spell."

Personally, "I cast a spell" doesn't ring of creativity to me.

This sounds rather much like favoritism to me.

You might as just take out magic period and not use it in any other game.

Magic IS another form of creativity. And it takes a huge amount of intelligence and creativity to be able to cast spells and create entirely new spells and create magic items.

The only thing fighters get to go is swing swing swing swing swing.

There's an incredible versatility to magic.

And without magic fighters can't have magical weapons and armor and rings of regeneration and other nifty things like that. Without magic you can't have potions of healing and rings of invisibility.

Every single class has a role to play. Front line is the fighter. Stealth is the thief. Medic is the Cleric. And artillery is the Mage.

And that's why you form and be part of a team, so you can work together and use your team's strength to beat the bad guy.

Unless you want to do it alone then by all means, make a system that favors a fighter being able to chop off the head of a mage in one hit without using any kind of magic what so ever.

And you might as well be playing the Fighting Fantasy books if you want to play such an rpg alone.

Personally I like playing fighters, that's what I mostly play. But to me it's boring to just swing swing swing swing all the time. I also like playing casters as well, and I also like Psionics.

There are many different spells beside combat spells as well. Especially in 3.5e.

So I really think this is all about love for the fighter and showing off a fighters' muscles. Magic does overshadow that to some extent. But fighters do have their own strengths as well. And that strength is they can dish out a lot of damage, and when mages run out of spells, they have to rest and re memorize/prepare their spells. Even when fighters lose their swords they can still use unarmed combat and dish out a lot of damage. So they do have some advantages over mages that you are overlooking. Magic is a powerful tool, but it has batteries. Fighters do not. They are a battery.

Because Conan is the PC, not the wizard.

So they can't all be PCs? Hogwash. I consider them all PCs. There's no reason why they can't all be PCs. Just because they aren't as prominent as Conan doesn't mean they can't all be PCs.

Tools only work in a game setting when they're universal. You say it's classic thing in literature, but what's classic in literature is that the wizard is never the main character. He is the deus ex machina, with magic serving not as a tool, but as an explination for their deus ex machina powers.

Except for books like the Dresden Files and Harry Potter. This sounds like you want the fighter to be the hero who solves everything and are definitely favoring the fighter.

Wanna play a game that copies classic literature? That sounds like loads of fun, but there's one caveat - no spellcasters.

Harn. Chivalry And Sorcery. They do have a magic system, but it would be right up your alley in that it is an optional system and not a main part of the game and easily left out. Plus they are not very powerful as the Vancian system.

So you might want to check those games out.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Vancian magic is a fine system. Not perfect, but fine. And it works.

Hm, I must spread some XP around before giving Ulrick any more.

Okay, Ulrick, howabout one delverbuck, redeemable for a no-prize of your choice?

'cause, you know, you made with the sensible and all.