Vancian Spellcasting's Real Problem - CoDzilla

[Yora]

The biggest problem with vancian spellcasting is that it breaks imersion. Being able to cast a spell only once per day, but still being able to cast other more powerful spells doesn't make any sense.

 

[Alzrius]

The biggest problem with vancian spellcasting is that it breaks imersion. Being able to cast a spell only once per day, but still being able to cast other more powerful spells doesn't make any sense.

I disagree, though I can see why a lot of people feel this way. The works of Jack Vance aside, there's really no precedent in most fantasy media for spellcasting working this way, so it's often hard to swallow conceptually.

That said, if you look at Vancian spellcasting as its own thing, and try to extract an in-game explanation from the game rules for how it works - and for what it's worth, the game has traditionally done a very bad job providing an in-game view of why its magic works the way it does - you can come up with an explanation.

 

[Buugipopuu]

The biggest problem with vancian spellcasting is that it breaks imersion. Being able to cast a spell only once per day, but still being able to cast other more powerful spells doesn't make any sense.

What? Vancian spellcasting is very well-justified within the setting. In earlier editions (although page 34 of Complete Mage suggests that this was implied even as late as 3.5th Edition), when you prepare spells, you're memorising them, and when you cast them, it's actually erased from your memory. A prepared spell is a magical structure held within the mind of its caster. Casting it destroys this structure. Since each spell is an independent structure, casting one has no effect on any of the others. It's certainly a lot easier than justifying why a Fighter can use every one of his Encounter powers every encounter all day, no matter how many encounter powers he has, but can't use Spinning Sweep twice in the same encounter, even if it's the only thing he does all day.

 

[Hassassin]

The biggest problem with vancian spellcasting is that it breaks imersion. Being able to cast a spell only once per day, but still being able to cast other more powerful spells doesn't make any sense.

It has an in-game explanation: you spend one hour in the morning preparing your spells (i.e. casting the time consuming, concentration requiring part) and can then cast (complete) any of those later in the day.

This explanation changed somewhat in 3e. Before that it was called memorization instead of preparation, but the logic was mostly the same.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Vancian magic has no natural enemy except itself. In another game (Rune Quest?), iron is the natural enemy of magic. You can't cast spells if you are in contact with iron. You can't cast magic on iron (so magical swords are made of mithril). You couldn't knock open a lock if it is made from iron parts. Vancian magic needs a nullifier like vampires are repelled by garlic. Not even divine and arcane magic are mutually exclusive. It's perfectly fine to be buffed up with arcane magic and still be healed by divine magic. It could be quite interesting if healing magic washed away arcane magic. Or if arcane magic could be used to unhallow a temple.

Another idea I've had is there can only be one caster in any given area at any one time. If there are multiple casters they must first battle it out in the ether until only one caster/side remains. That caster will have "ether supremacy" and will be able to spell doom over the opposition. Magic will thus be like airpower in modern wars. It won't win the battle, troops are needed to take and hold, but it will be a significant advantage that is worth fighting over.

 

[Mattachine]

What? Vancian spellcasting is very well-justified within the setting. In earlier editions (although page 34 of Complete Mage suggests that this was implied even as late as 3.5th Edition), when you prepare spells, you're memorising them, and when you cast them, it's actually erased from your memory. A prepared spell is a magical structure held within the mind of its caster. Casting it destroys this structure. Since each spell is an independent structure, casting one has no effect on any of the others. It's certainly a lot easier than justifying why a Fighter can use every one of his Encounter powers every encounter all day, no matter how many encounter powers he has, but can't use Spinning Sweep twice in the same encounter, even if it's the only thing he does all day.

The problem for many of us is that the in-game reasoning breaks immersion--it clashes with most other fantasy wizard tropes I hold, for instance.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Characters in a role-playing game need to depend on each other. It's at the very heart of the activity. I have a strong urge to create self-sufficient characters but I mustn't be allowed. In a way the players must share what a single fictional hero can do. If this creates characters that are one dimensional so be it.

I think the broad classes need to find a niche or be left out. Broad classed characters are often suggested to be the fifth character in a party, but that strikes me as an afterthought.

It need not be all or nothing to navigate the issues. What it does need is to have the niches identified clearly enough for the mechanics to make sense, and then build each class with strength and weaknesses geared towards those niches. Let's look at the historical problem classes and why they had those problems:

• Fighter - smacks things, and that's it.
• Wizards - vast power until the spells run out.
• Bard - not excellent at anything.
• Thief - early skills didn't quite make up for frailness.
• Cleric - pretty well-rounded, but spells focused on party.
• Druid - lots of picky restrictions because of power, later power got unhinged.
• Paladin - special abilities a bit weak sauce.
• Ranger - overpowered, later spread to thin and thus weak.

The problems in all the classes start with the definitions of the fighter and wizard, and get worse as we jump through hoops trying to not face up to how narrow those are.

IMHO, ideally classes should be good at A, decent at B, poor but supportive at C, and lousy at everything else--where everything else is defined as no more than two or three niches. (If more niches, spread out "good" to "lousy" fairly evenly.) In the worst cases of this problem, you get something like WoW, where there aren't enough applicable niches to spread out amongst the classes.

Of course, the nasty details of making that work are determining exactly what the niches are--and then following through with mechanical heft to make those niches matter. If you want to make the wizard good at arcane power, decent at obscure lore--better make "obscure lore" something more than a fluff-only sop.

Make the party members need each other by having rules that require backup in most of the niches, to really perform well, but not absolutely critical to perform at all. That is, two decent healer are about equal to one good healer, and a good healer, decent healer combo is about optimum. (Assuming "healer" is a niche, which it might not be.) Then the possible combinations of classes in the party to get there is much more flexible.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't feel any great hostility towards Vancian casting really. It isn't a bad concept, but in fact the D&D version of it has always had issues. In the original source material the casting was a lot more like what WotC has made noises about for 5e. Each caster had a 'mental capacity' which he could fill up pretty much however he wanted to, many lesser spells, or a few greater ones, or some mix. There was also no such thing as memorizing the same spell several times (it was certainly never mentioned anywhere by Vance). In addition to this expanding your spell book was HARD. Most wizards had a very limited repertoire, being able to cast maybe a dozen spells when they were really experts, often far less. In a given day memorizing FIVE spells was a pretty good trick for a powerful wizard.

Now, maybe five spells is a bit too limiting. OTOH you have ritual magic, crafting, scrolls, etc which could be a lot of the wizard's shtick. If he only needs to cast once in a while in a fight, and has some sort of 'at-will' and the rest of his resources normally go to pre-fight/adventure buffing and cooking up the right potion or whatever to meet anticipated needs, then it could be perfectly cool.

I think the other side of that is casters really should be 'niche'. You don't get to be an "I'm a wizard, I can learn any old spell", instead you get to be "I'm an invoker, I can blast things good. Hold Portal? What's that...".

Clerics in AD&D at least WERE reasonably tame at lower levels, much like wizards generally were. You couldn't craft healing items, had a decent number of spell slots but used 90% of them for healing, and couldn't swap out another spell for healing. Buffs WERE limited to a few rounds and were pretty mild. Bless was nice, but it was only a +1, etc. I think it would be fine though to keep the priest in this sort of power level generally, and again just restrict them to a few niches via domains. You get some leader functionality, including a serviceable amount of healing, some kind of at-will attack/buff, and some utility spells dictated by the domain(s) of your god. If your god is 'healing' well, you can heal pretty darn good, sort of like the 4e pacifist cleric.

I think its perfectly OK to have 'encounter' spells too for all types of casters. Just rule that low enough level spell slots can be regained in a 5 minute rest. Maybe you get N spell levels you can get back in 5 minutes, the actual spells don't need to be classified as encounter or daily. Make the number you get per 5 min go down each time you rest, and then at the end of the day you have to sleep to get yourself back in shape. I'm sure something good can be worked out.

It isn't exactly perfectly traditional D&D Vancian casting, but it isn't any less like Vance's version that the AD&D version was, and if done right it can keep a decent lid on the casters outstripping the rest of the group, yet give them a decent low level experience as well.

As for the druid's other stuff... I think 4e pretty well solved that. WildShape is thematically interesting, but doesn't blow the game up. You get an 'animal' form you can use whenever, and it unlocks your more melee-centered capabilities. Some druids may largely ignore it and mostly cast. Others may specialize in shifting and be pretty darn good melee combatants. Animal companion can be a decent option as well, and again 4e has a decent concept there in terms of having attacks that use the animal, the PC, or both together. It doesn't really matter much if you can have both wildshape AND a companion, there are only so many things you can do in a round and you'll have to split up your options between them if you go that way.

 

[Buugipopuu]

The problem for many of us is that the in-game reasoning breaks immersion--it clashes with most other fantasy wizard tropes I hold, for instance.

So you're saying D&D, one of the most generic fantasy systems out there, needs to make its wizards more generic?

 

[Janaxstrus]

The problem for many of us is that the in-game reasoning breaks immersion--it clashes with most other fantasy wizard tropes I hold, for instance.

Considering it's been this way, barring the very short 4e break, since Basic...

40 years is quite a history for something like that to "break your immersion".