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

[Mishihari Lord]

Vancian magic has one thing going for it besides sentimentality. It's dead simple to use. I personally like systems that better reflect mythology or fiction, but most of the ones I've seen take a lot of time in-game to use. That's not great unless your game is specifically about casting spells, e.g. Ars Magica.

That said, I don't care for Vancian magic myself. The only system I've come across that I like less is 4E's.

I have come across at least one major piece of fiction using Vancian magic, Zelazny's second Amber series, and I like its take enough to make me feel a little better about D&D magic. I do admit, though, that it looks like it was derived from D&D rather than the other way around.

 

[Wepwawet]

First I want to say that I've always hated the Vancian system. That's actually the one reason that made me jump to 4E without looking back.

IMO, the biggest problem is not the "fire-and-forget" aspect. In other systems the same happens when one is depleted of mana.
The problem is the pre-selection and preparation of spells. Like, a caster has to count on whatever spells he thought would be good for the day, and that's it. All magical power you have has to be used on exactly those. That's just nonsense.

 

[Aldarc]

At one point on these boards, that would have gotten you the response, "If you don't like it, play something else." That, of course, was before 4Ed largely ditched the Vancian system.

I disagree. There were plenty of non-core D&D d20 supplements that threw out Vancian magic.

It is unique to D&D, and helps give the game it's unique flavor. It changes how one manages resources. It presents challenges unlike point based or at-will power systems.

Without it, D&D starts to feel like a generic FRPG.

Vancian magic being unique to D&D is not a viable explanation for keeping it in D&D. Many other magic systems also present challenges and unique resource management. You appealing to vague sense of how D&D would "feel like a generic FRPG" without Vancian magic is an irrational sentimental attachment to the mechanic.

 

[MarkB]

And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems. This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...

Seriously? Wow. I'd always considered this to be the Vancian system's biggest bug, not a feature.

If the spellcasters are dealing with all the threats in the early encounters, and the warriors are dealing with all the threats in the later encounters, that means you've got people sitting around feeling they can't contribute much in every encounter.

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

 

[bouncyhead]

likely out of sentimentality and a conservative emotional attachment

That's certainly why I'm a fan. My ingrained, blinkered resistance to change prevents me from regarding a game system with the appropriate hatred and scorn.

 

[Nagol]

When I reach for D&D, one of the main draws is Vancian magic. My game shelf has a whole lot of really good fantasy games without Vancian magic and only a couple with it.

If that distinguishing feature goes then that edition will have to compete for my attention against games that are familiar, well-loved, and already occupying niches in my game play favourites.

4e failed to dislodge any game from that shelf. I expect removing Vancian magic would result in another non-adoption for me.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I disagree. There were plenty of non-core D&D d20 supplements that threw out Vancian magic.

Yes, but the vast majority were from third party publishers, in other words a source (well, many sources) most gamers wouldn't have trusted - and still wouldn't trust - enough to bother with. A niche market within a niche market, and all that. There is a HUGE difference between core D&D featuring pseudo-Vancian magic, and core D&D featuring, for example, 4e's Daily/Encounter/At Will powers system in its place.

Vancian magic being unique to D&D is not a viable explanation for keeping it in D&D.

Perhaps you mean "justification"...?

Many other magic systems also present challenges and unique resource management.

Yes, but in different ways. If two given sets of game mechanics do more or less the same thing, it doesn't mean they will feel the same in actual play, or indeed, that they will do exactly the same thing. Hell, they probably even look rather different on paper! Different mechanics are... different.

Some might be of the opinion that mechanics don't matter a great deal*, and don't all things considered contribute that much to the feel of a session or campaign, gamers' personal experiences of it, and so on. Well. I'm not one of those, let's just say.

You appealing to vague sense of how D&D would "feel like a generic FRPG" without Vancian magic is an irrational sentimental attachment to the mechanic.

Or, alternatively, D&D feels like D&D not only because of its unique and unusual setting / implied setting features, but also because of its unique and unusual game mechanics features. Like, say, pseudo-Vancian magic.

It does appear that you are getting defensive over poor old 4e, and if so, I must ask, why? It isn't being attacked, you see. And, hey, if not, my bad. It is sometimes hard to tell exactly what people are meaning, even offline!


* Some, such as yourself, it would seem.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I wouldn't.

"Formula-based" sounds like a synonym for "bland", for one thing.

For another, a spell that is good at 1st level *and* 20th level is by definition a well-designed spell. If only your high level spells are "good" in high level play, you're wasting all your low level slots every day.

I was talking spells of the wrong power level, you are talking about something totally different.

And Vancian casting (or any fire-and-forget system for that matter), for all its failings, has one wonderful feature that I'm not sure any other system can decently match: casters can be run out of spells before the day runs out of problems. This comes down to the DM - sure the caster can effectively deal with the first few decent opponents of the day, but the next ten waves and the wandering monsters after that are going to be completely up to the warrior types to deal with...

Do you really want to run through 10 waves of monsters and then wandering encounters in 3.5?

I did not think so.


It is virtually impossible to run wizards, Clerics or druids out of spells in non-houseruled 3.5. I know, I have played a lot of it. Maybe you can run them out of the top spell levels, but even that is tricky. 3.5 casters have a LOT of spell slots.

 

[bouncyhead]

Do you really want to run through 10 waves of monsters and then wandering encounters in 3.5?

Who said anything about 3.5?

 

[Crothian]

It has gone away. There are dozens of games out there that don't use it. There are options within D&D to use something different.