Non-Vancian Wizards and Casting Mechanics as a "Hook"

[KidSnide]

In this week's Rule of Three, Rodney Thompson said that major structural changes like how a class casts spells would likely require a different character class. He lists some good reasons: (1) that a new spell casting mechanic is a big enough "hook" for a class's mechanical identity and (2) it's hard to balance a class if it has two or more spell casting mechanics.

In other words, it looks like the wizard class will have Vancian spell casting mechanics, but not another form of mechanic. I appreciate the important historical role that Vancian casting plays in D&D, and I appreciate how it is central to a certain game style, often involving strategic planning and a certain "combat as war" approach. That's all well and good. I've been playing D&D long enough that I want Vancian wizards in the game.

At the same time, Vancian mechanics don't really work for me. Having wizards prepare a subset of the spells they know doesn't really gibe with the in-game fiction of my campaign. (In 2005 or so, I house-ruled all casters to a bard/sorcerer style of spell casting, and it was a tighter fit to the logic of the world.) Just as importantly, my players are older now and I don't want to spend time waiting for spell memorization. Efficient players create standard preparation lists, but that level of organization can be beyond what some players can manage. I have players who ask me to print out a fresh copy of their character sheet at the beginning of at least a third of the sessions.

I could ban wizards from my game (presumably substituting sorcerers), but that is not a satisfying answer. Wizards and sorcerers have different stories, and -- in the fiction -- there are wizards in the world. I'm looking for a wizard story (and all non-Vancian "wizardy" mechanics), but I don't want Vancian magic. I don't care if this is core, but it's a type of optional rule that has high value to my type of game.

Lastly, I think we should question the premise that a new spell casting mechanic is a good "hook" for a class's mechanical identify. You definitely can create a class like this. The 3e sorcerer is a classic example. But I don't think the spell casting mechanic is really the hook. I think the selection of spells is the hook. From BECMI to 2e, casters essentially used the same spellcasting mechanic and nobody thought clerics and wizards were the same. Psionics aren't different because they used a point system. They are different because they concentrate on telepathy and psychokinetic abilities (and whatever other disciplines are part of you edition of choice). All casters could use a point system, and you would still have clerics, druids, wizards and psions. (The game might be easier to learn if every caster used the same system too.)

What do other folks think? Are non-Vancian wizards important to your games? Do you think spell casting mechanics are a good "hook" for a class?

-KS

 

[Ahnehnois]

I like different mechanics for different classes, but I don't think class has to be a straitjacket. To me, the spell point wizard is "the" wizard. There are certainly other casting mechanics that can work with the wizard as well.

It would be a bit harder to do a warlock-style at-will character with a wizard, but possible.

Unearthed Arcana did a decent job presenting alternate casting systems for existing classes; hopefully 5e is using it as a model for this and other things.

 

[Harlock]

Non-Vancian casters are not really important to my game at all. I do agree with you that it was the difference in spells (and therefore role) that made the hook. That's why I still dislike the idea of a shared spell list (or mostly shared, or covertly shared; i.e. different spell names with the same mechanical effect) with only different mechanics. I also hope WOTC avoid the mistake of trying to make a Sorceror who is merely a spell-casting rogue, etc.

I do like specialized casters, though, something like the old illusionist, or a summoner-type, or even the fey-demon-devil-elemental bonded type caster. They just need to be different in feel, scope and play than a Wizard or Cleric (or druid, ranger, bard, etc.).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think either the traditional labels are important as traditional labels, or they are not. If they are important as traditional labels, then most things that go with that tradition--and certainly the core identity of a class, such as wizard casting, is important to retain in that class.

On the other hand, if the labels aren't all that important, then we can have AEDU "wizards" alongside Vancian "wizards" and 3E-sorcerer style casting "wizards" and Arcana Evolved magister-style "wizards" and spell point "wizards".

Pick one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) I really like Vancian Wizards*, and for me, it is one of the defining characteristics of D&D as opposed to other FRPGs. A "D&D" without it would not feel right to me.

2) I also can accept without issue the existence of non-Vancian Wizards coexisting alongside the Vancian casters.** The other styles of Wizards represent different traditions of arcane theory- just like there are many schools of martial arts, or the myriad number of tunings for guitars.









* and by Wizards, I mean the arcane (only) spellcasters who learn their craft exclusively through academic or practical study, not because of innate talents for magic, pacts with otherworldly beings, etc.

** when I run "D&D" campaigns using HERO, all kinds of casters are used.

 

[GhostBear]

I've never been fond of the Vancian style of spell casting. It doesn't capture the fantasy feel (for me), especially at low levels. Cantrips-at-will don't help. The spell memorization mechanic is also odd, though that can often be fixed simply by not using the word memorization and instead using "preparation".

There's also very little mechanical support for "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" style situations. You find a spell book with a high level spell and you can't even try to cast it? Even at the risk of screwing things up?

I've been spending the past few days (and a good chunk of change for the source books) looking into different magic systems for the d20 system.

So far, my favorite system comes from a system used in both the "Thieves' World" and "Sovereign Stone" campaign books. Essentially, any mage can cast any spell at all - even the very powerful ones. To balance this, every spell has a casting threshold.

To cast a spell you roll a d20, add the appropriate skill/ability modifiers, and build up a pool over time. Once your pool of casting points meets or exceeds the amount required for a spell it is considered cast.

This is a pretty interesting system; one of the things that it does is force magic users to choose between "a smaller effect NOW" and "a big effect in a few turns".

Depending on the system you look at, there's also the application of nonlethal damage, or Bad Things happen if you roll a 1 or something. Metamagic modifies the casting threshold. You can prepare a certain small set of spells for quick casting later. Lots of extra stuff one could add in to balance magic one way or the other (want less magic in game, up all casting thresholds by 5, for example).

Haven't tried it in practice yet, but it looks really good on paper.

What about sorcerers?

Monte Cook's World of Darkness (a d20 adaptation of WoD) uses casting thresholds, but also allows you to build spells on the fly using a combination of tables to generate the spell cost. No pre-defined spell list is necessary; if you can build it using the tables you can try to cast it. This mimics the original Mage: The Ascension mechanics where a Mage can bend reality in any way the player desires if he has high enough control over a certain aspect of reality (like time or life).

Not something for the faint of heart, though. You can have your favorites written down of course, but having the flexibility to build stuff on the fly would require a quick and creative mind. There's lots of options.

To balance the flexibility, I plan to adjust the tables so that a sorcerer's spell is more difficult to cast than a similar wizard spell. But in exchange for getting exactly what you want, I think that's a fair tradeoff.

I have used the spell point variant from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, and that works pretty well for something simpler.

But yeah, down with the Vancian style of spell casting. I know that it's a traditional sacred cow of D&D and all, but I find it to be anti-fantasy in its own way.

 

[HeinorNY]

I use and love Vancian magic because it's by far the most realistic magic system!

 

[ComradeGnull]

My hope for the alternate magic systems was that they would be alternative takes to core classes and Vancian magic, and not alongside it- particularly I'd rather not have new classes with their own non-mechanical trappings to incorporate into the game.

My preference is that in-game, the lore for a AEDU wizard or a Vancian wizard or a Ars Magica-style flex casting wizard is not different from one another- they are just three examples of the standard wizard, implemented using different mechanical systems, and with the setting/fluff material provided by the setting. You pick the system that works best with your campaign/setting/playstyle, and that becomes 'The Wizard' in your game.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think I will need to see what other casting mechanisms are on offer before I can judge whether Vancian is unique enough to be a hook.

I can see where Rodney is coming from, though: there is a danger that swapping casting mechanics between classes will lead to homogeneity, which is the enemy of flavor. But this depends on spellcasting mechanisms being diverse/flavorful in the first place.

 

[Yora]

My hope is that you can play without any vancian casters using just the Player's Handbook.