Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Dannyalcatraz]

You mean like the strongly vocal subset who insist that non-Vancian magic has no place in the core of D&D?

Those people are clearly every bit as out of touch with the history of the game as are the Vancian banishers.

I don't want to feel required to resculpt a "point-based psionics" system for a player wanting to play a point-based wizard

I only used point based psionics as an exemplar- its the way psionics has been handled since it was put in the game in AD&D's books.

However, even though there's nothing wrong with using variants of all the past systems's mechanics for other classes- such as a point-based mage instead of psionicist- as a purely practical matter, WotC cannot design a D&D system* with all of those variants for each caster type.

IOW, while there is no mechanical reason why (for example) you can't have full write ups for point-based mages and Vancian psionicists alongside their traditional counterparts, they can only put so much in the books. At some point, they'll have to just give you some guidelines and make the DMs do the conversion work.

They've done this before: there are little sidebars in some products that talk about making analogous versions of classes using different casting systems, like the sidebar in the Spellthief that tells you about the Psithief.

these "other" supernatural systems are never given as much support as the "core" magic system

I hear you!

One of my pipe dreams since 2Ed was announced was that the game designers would fully playtest & support psionics as part of the core, instead of in appendices or supplemental releases.

But realistically, there is only so much you can do in terms of playtest & support. After that comes homebrew, such as the time and effort I put into making Incarnum versions of all the OA classes and some of the other casters, like Rangers and Paladins...

Were I in charge of 5Ed's development, I'd have a list topped with Vancian and followed by 4 blanks. Those 4 blanks would be filled by the other supernatural systems that would be in the game, presumably something like point-based (since its basically as venerable as Vancian casting), fatigue based, and a couple others that survived playtesting. (My guess is that the AEDU mechanic would survive deep into play testing and could even make the final 5.**)

Those 5 systems would be the only ones in official 5Ed products, ever. They would also each be slated for full support, both in terms of additional appropriate powers, feats, and classes being added to the game, and in adventure/campaign writing guidelines.

More than that and it really becomes an unwieldy mess. It's not an accident that M:tG keeps having broken card combinations come up.




* unless you go to a point-buy system like HERO or GURPS.

** that is not an intentional nBSG reference.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Because the word 'Vancian' sounds awesome.

 

[Mircoles]

Vancian is crap! It's always was and will forever be so.

It's fine if you're playing a miniature war-game, where it's just the one battle that you need to worry about, but for a RPG where versatility is important, it's crap.

Keeping crap just because it's always been there is no good reason either.

There was a lot of bad game design in O/AD&D. The excuse is that they were the first ones out and yeah, that works for then, but not now.
There no excuse for bringing bad game design back into the game, nor does it make sense to put a rule in a game when most people are just going to ignore it.

If they bring it back for 5th, then I'm done with D&D. Having to houserule around a crappy magic system is too much of pain to make a game worth bothering.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I disagree. It's precisely the long term resource management that makes Vancian casting fun.

 

[Aldarc]

Vancian is crap! It's always was and will forever be so.

It's fine if you're playing a miniature war-game, where it's just the one battle that you need to worry about, but for a RPG where versatility is important, it's crap.

Keeping crap just because it's always been there is no good reason either.

There was a lot of bad game design in O/AD&D. The excuse is that they were the first ones out and yeah, that works for then, but not now.
There no excuse for bringing bad game design back into the game, nor does it make sense to put a rule in a game when most people are just going to ignore it.

If they bring it back for 5th, then I'm done with D&D. Having to houserule around a crappy magic system is too much of pain to make a game worth bothering.

I'm not really a fan of Vancian magic, but in it's defense, Vancian magic - at least in how it's presented in D&D - is versatile in construction. It's just not as flexible with magic due to its different metaphysical aesthetic towards magic, if that distinction makes sense.

I disagree. It's precisely the long term resource management that makes Vancian casting fun.

You can get long-term resource management in other spell systems (e.g. spell points). Vancian magic, however, presents a particular form of long-term resource management that Vancianites find appealing.

 

[jbear]

Yep.

As noted before, the casters in Vance's work HAD to use non-magical resources, since they had few spells.

Okay, my perhaps my dislike is more with the 'uselessness' of the low level wizard, non-magically or magically. If a wizard is so smart, knowing his resources are limited, why wouldn't they devote time to learn how to defend themselves when they aren't casting one of their two spells for the day. Hence, they'd be fairly good at it.

You may have noticed I only mention the wizard, as opposed to the cleric who also uses the same vancian system. Because they can wear armor and swing a mace. Wizards can wear a dress and get a stick, a knife ... and a crossbow.

I also think my dislike is with the actual image of a wizard with a crossbow in particular, as opposed to using non-magical resources in general. It's like fingernails on a blackboard to me. But lets look at your examples.

Gandalf may use a magic sword, but ultimately, he's using a sword, not casting.

Apart from Gandalf, only Merlin himself is a more 'iconic wizard' for me. I'm glad you edited out the part about Gandalf being a bard. You were going to have a hard time defending that. But honestly, a wizard using a blade conjures an awesome image in my head.

If Gandalf uses a sword, does this lend weight to an argument that wizards should have less spell resources and more weapon proficiencies, so as to not force them to sit in the back praying to hit something with the crossbow they have in their fairly shakey hands?

Many of the casters in the Thieves' World shared setting are as prone to using mundane means to achieving their ends as they are magical...and are skilled in those ways as well.

Sounds cool. Which ways? Crossbows? err ... not so cool. Besides, you say they are skilled in them. D&D Wizards don't have any class features that lend themselves towards being skilled at anything other than casting. Taking "Point Blank Shot" and "Precise Shot" are options I've considered as a wizard just so I could hit something with the xbow when my allies are engaged in melee with the enemy. 2 feats ... ouch. And not very wizardly ones ...

Mages in Niven's "Warlock" series cannot afford to be profligate with magic because it is basically a finite resource, so they rarely cast spells.

In Shanarra, magic can be a corrupting influence on caster and target, so magic is not a tool of first resort.

So they all use crossbows?

In humorous fantasy, the wizards of Discworld rarely cast spells because magic doesn't necessarily make things easier- deciding whether to cast or not is something that requires insight and wisdom...plus a snack, probably.

Here crossbows almost seem to fit. They could magically put their snacks on their enemies head and try and shoot the snacks off them.

 

[jbear]

I agree. They should be using daggers or darts. Think of a wizard as a gunslinger. He has few bullets, and no easy way of resupplying. He has to conserve them and not use them all up on a mangy coyotes in the desert, else he'll be out of ammo when Pat Garret comes calling. I like magic to be a rare, wonderful thing. It should be coveted, treasured. If a wizard can do anything beyond simple parlor tricks - mage hand, dancing lights, etc, without having some resource to manage, magic BECOMES a crossbow. Using mundane means occasionally, and saving magic for when you absolutely need it, makes magic special, spamming it makes it LESS magical, not more.

I see what you are getting at, and to a certain degree, though I perhaps prefer this to manifest in other aspects of the game, I share a part of your sentiment. I also love magic to be special.

But as smart and dedicated as a mage has to be, why wouldn't they be experts at dart or dagger throwing? And why shouldn't that be reflected in the class build? Eg: Wizards can throw 2 darts/round from the outset with a +1 to hit.

 

[Hassassin]

If Gandalf uses a sword, does this lend weight to an argument that wizards should have less spell resources and more weapon proficiencies, so as to not force them to sit in the back praying to hit something with the crossbow they have in their fairly shakey hands?

The iconic D&D wizard in my mind is an elf, and those can use a sword. (Gandalf wasn't human either.)

I think all wizards could get one martial weapon proficiency, although staves are also kind of iconic.

Sounds cool. Which ways? Crossbows? err ... not so cool. Besides, you say they are skilled in them. D&D Wizards don't have any class features that lend themselves towards being skilled at anything other than casting. Taking "Point Blank Shot" and "Precise Shot" are options I've considered as a wizard just so I could hit something with the xbow when my allies are engaged in melee with the enemy. 2 feats ... ouch. And not very wizardly ones ...

Note that those feats are also useful with rays.

 

[jbear]

The iconic D&D wizard in my mind is an elf, and those can use a sword. (Gandalf wasn't human either.)

I think all wizards could get one martial weapon proficiency, although staves are also kind of iconic.



Note that those feats are also useful with rays.

That is true. But if you look at the list of level 1 and 2 spells, how many were ray spells?
At lvl 1 I can think of 1, Ray of Enfeeblement. At level 2 ... Scorching Ray? Maybe there are more. In any case, I'm pretty sure if you took those 2 feats early on it was to hit with your X-bow, not your ray spells. Unless you are trying to pump up Ray of Frost?

In any case, I'm pretty sure the type of combat rules minutiae that lends itself towards having to consider taking such feats as a wizard won't appear in any other form than 'optional' in D&D Next. I just hope that the magic system is slick and fun to play all the time not just once every now and again. And as I have faith it will be, I'm going to put my flag in the sand and say: "I strongly doubt there will be xbow toting wizards in 5e"

Time will tell.

 

[Hassassin]

That is true. But if you look at the list of level 1 and 2 spells, how many were ray spells?
At lvl 1 I can think of 1, Ray of Enfeeblement. At level 2 ... Scorching Ray? Maybe there are more. In any case, I'm pretty sure if you took those 2 feats early on it was to hit with your X-bow, not your ray spells. Unless you are trying to pump up Ray of Frost?

It doesn't have to be either or. Everything a wizard does has at least five reasons, three of which he won't tell you.

In any case, I'm pretty sure the type of combat rules minutiae that lends itself towards having to consider taking such feats as a wizard won't appear in any other form than 'optional' in D&D Next. I just hope that the magic system is slick and fun to play all the time not just once every now and again. And as I have faith it will be, I'm going to put my flag in the sand and say: "I strongly doubt there will be xbow toting wizards in 5e"

Time will tell.

I'd be more surprised if there weren't both crossbox wizards and non-crossbox warlocks/sorcerers/whatever in 5e, but yeah, we'll see.