Vancian Magic - Yes or No?

[Oni]

Well, whether you like the system or not, this statement is definitely not true. As others already noted, the necessity to prepare spells in advance is part of the game balance. Wizards have the possibility to choose from lots of cool spells. If they were able to use them whenever they wanted, they'd be vastly overpowered . Look at the sorcerer if you want to know what happens when the system is opened up. I don't see many players choosing that class. An open system, if balanced, tends to be much more boring most of the time

I think your assessment of the sorcerer is off. While it would nice if they had put some more distance between wizards and sorcerers to do away with such oddities as sorcerers casting spells identical to wizards to the extend if you were to put them side by side you couldn't tell who was who, it is a good start and frankly a step in the right direction, they just need to go further. A sorcerer is plenty of fun to play, or that has at least been my experience, certainly not boring.

 

[johnsemlak]

Wow, an pretty much even split so far.

 

[TiQuinn]

Hmmm, I don't think the system would be missed as long as many of the spells stay the same. In other words, I don't care WHAT system you give me....I want Fireball. I want Haste. I want Magic Missile. I want Wish.

 

[johnsemlak]

In reading all the threads on Vancian magic as of late I was thinking about its adoption into dnd. I know that gygax enjoyed the writing of Vance which was a large part of its acceptance, but I assume that it was also taken into the system because it was unique. Many authors had represented magic in various ways, but vance's was more or less unique. I find it relatively ironic that one of the draws towards the vancian system (its unique flavor) in the early days of dnd is now the major hindrance (its inability to replicate most magic users in literature).

Besides being unique, another reason Gygax may have used Vance as a model is that he presents a reasonably developed system, with limits on what casters can do, and so forth.

I think it would be much more difficult to take another author, Tolkien for example, and construct an RPG magic system totally based on JRRT's works. There's so little to base it on.

 

[Psion]

Having fiddled with various "spell point" and "mana" and "roll" systems over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the vancian system of D&D has some fundamental strengths. It's easy to manage (less tedious accounting), tactically interesting, and is a good compromise between allowing a wizard few powerful spells per day and lots of weaker spells.

 

[Mercule]

Vancian magic is very easy to balance and works excellently from a purely mechanical stance. Beyond that, it has no redeeming qualities.

If you're part of the "3.X ruined D&D by focusing on balance" crowd, then half the reason to like it is gone. On the other hand, if you're someone who doesn't like game mechanics showing through the seems like the frame of a battered old sofa, the other half is gone.

I'm definitely in the latter camp and anything that works at "X times/day" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, whether it's Vancian magic, Barbarian rage, or those horrid spontaneous metamagic feats (which take the worst feature of D&D magic -- x/day slots --and amplify it). They just strain my suspension of disbelief. And I don't find the AU system to be a significant improvement.

I like the d20 system, overall, though. The magic system is the last "big rock" that I'd change. If it could be adjusted to fit the Wheel of Time semi-slot mold, I'd consider it good enough.

 

[WizarDru]

Besides being unique, another reason Gygax may have used Vance as a model is that he presents a reasonably developed system, with limits on what casters can do, and so forth.

I think it would be much more difficult to take another author, Tolkien for example, and construct an RPG magic system totally based on JRRT's works. There's so little to base it on.

I voted to keep Vancian magic, though alternate systems are welcome and encouraged.

I think that most folks undervalue the point that john makes here. Gandalf is a powerful wizard, as is Merlin, Pug, Faust, Belgarath and other such characters. But how do you quantify them in a game, particularly with other characters? You can go the GURPS route, and make them relatively weak conjurers with spells that are really just wonky arrows and minor bonuses; you can go the Castle Falkenstein route, and make spells take forever to cast, but have very wide reaching effects; you can use an alternate system that will be different (but not necessarily better); or you can accept that most wizards of fiction don't lend themselves to the RPG environment directly, and what limitations are given to them are usually plot devices, not an actual codified system that can be used in an RPG.

Let's face facts, as has been oft-noted in Dragon and elsewhere, Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and the Witchking cast precious few spells in Tolkien's works, Merlin makes potions more than spells, Belgarath just does whatever the author wants him to do at that point, and so on. I like some of the alternate spell-casting systems that are available, but I don't think any system can truly replicate most of literary fiction...and certainly not most of it at the same time.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, whether you like the system or not, this statement is definitely not true. As others already noted, the necessity to prepare spells in advance is part of the game balance. Wizards have the possibility to choose from lots of cool spells. If they were able to use them whenever they wanted, they'd be vastly overpowered . Look at the sorcerer if you want to know what happens when the system is opened up. I don't see many players choosing that class. An open system, if balanced, tends to be much more boring most of the time

Oddly enough, I see a lot more sorcerers than wizards. The sorcerer is not more boring than the wizard, he's actually playable whereas the wizard is too much hassle for me.

Then again, I despise the magic system for D&D and always have. I almost never play any spellcasting class, because I hate the way they work.

That said, though, I still can't imagine that D&D would ever change something so integral to the D&D experience as the "Vancian" magic. As long as the OGL exists, though, I'm fine. Campaigns I run often feature magic swiped from other settings; I like something similar to Call of Cthulhu, Midnight, Sovereign Stone or even Wheel of Time.

 

[diaglo]

when i play D&D, i prefer D&D style magic.

when i play other RPGs, whatever the system is for those games, i'm willing to play.

 

[JoeBlank]

Count me as a Yes vote.

Like others, I do not think "fire and forget" is the perfect system, and I dislike it in fiction. But it is easy to learn and understand, and works well within the game system.

One of my favorite things about 3.0 was the addition of the sorcerer. Also a "less-than-perfect" system, but it showed a willingness to change, and demonstrated that differing systems can exist in the same setting.

Keep Vancian core, but keep the door open to options.