Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[hanez]

Why?

Well, its a further level of complication often with spells that have their own mechanics. And it sort of a mundane way of handling it. I guess there is no other way to handle rays. Personally I specialize in Area of effects that dont need it, and curse type spells that have save. I meant I dislike it as a mage and dont pick those spells generally, but I am not averse to the mechanic in the game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the biggest problem of the Crossbow wielding Wizard out of power was that the Crossbow was really sucky when he used it. MAybe a Fighter or Rogue could be good with it (_maybe_), but in 3E, you had 1/2 BAB and not as much Dex as a focused guy.

I could totally see a Wizard that uses his sword or staff and wields it with the prowess similar to that of a Fighter - but where the Fighter can execute special maneuvers, the Wizard relies mostly on magical spells. But both hit and inflict damage equally well.

Tenser's Transformation was kinda like "Be Gandalf 1/day for a minute" spell.

I could see a 4E Wizard variant that uses "martial" powers as At-Wills, a mix of Encounter ARcane and Martial abilities, and Daily spells, fighting alongside the Fighter. This may actually be a cool class to play, and more a matter of preference whether you throw magic missiles or swing your sword - but under no circumstance want I see my Wizard fight as worse as a mere Commoner. Call him "bookish" and all - he is still an adventure. He isn't totally out of shape, and he's seen and been in swordfights before!

 

[WheresMyD20]

I'd like to see the default for 5e be Vancian casting, with wizards proficient with daggers, staves, and slings. A 1st level wizard is an apprentice who can cast a couple of spells per day, then can use a sling to attack with so that they're not totally useless in combat when not spellcasting. I could live with "at-will" cantrips, especially if they are an optional rule.

I really dislike the idea of any non-Vancian magic system being the core magic system, but I'd like to see a few alternate systems presented as optional rules.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It seems to have been covered pretty well, but I'm going to sum up. Wizards are adventurers, and as such will have spent some time learning how to defend themselves. This can take two forms.

1. They learn to use mundane weapons. They don't have to be great at it, but they would study long enough to become competent. If nothing else, they'd go up to the party's fighter and ask, "Hey, can you help train me?" Getting some good exercise is good for studying anyway.

2. They learn magical means of defense. In 3e, this could be a wand of Magic Missle. In 4e, at will spells. I'm leaning toward particular prepared spells that take a slot but aren't consumed when used.

The first form is an older tradition of wizard. The second better fits a more modern tradition. I favor the latter, but both could be cool.

 

[Gort]

1. They learn to use mundane weapons. They don't have to be great at it, but they would study long enough to become competent. If nothing else, they'd go up to the party's fighter and ask, "Hey, can you help train me?" Getting some good exercise is good for studying anyway.

This stopped working as your level increased - +2 to attack is alright at level 1 when enemies have 14 AC, but by level 10 the enemies now have 23 AC and you're only on +7 to attack.

Of course, by then the party's fighter has left and the player's made a cleric, druid or wizard, so I suppose he couldn't help you anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've sometimes wondered if some lower-powered forms of the various Tenser Transformation effects might be the way to go? The wizard doesn't use a crossbow (necessary) all that great. And he doesn't use his magic missile over an over again. What he does is cast a low-level, maybe even "at will" spell that lets him function somewhere between a 1E thief and 1E cleric. Perhaps gain 1 hit point per level, and a modest bonus to hit and damage over his normally lousy chances.

If it were at-will, I'd make it something it definitely tenative in application. Maybe the wizard has to make a save every round to keep it going or it is ablative with hits (or instead misses).

Jorge the Jaunty was not out of spells, but he preferred to reserve his magic for the trials sure to be ahead. As Sir Smacks a Lot held the center of the line, Jorge summoned the minor imp that he had bound to his short sword. The blade glowed a sickly evil red, and the goblins recoiled slightly as Jorge advanced and struck one down. But then the goblin chieftan saw the blade flicker with the hit, and grinned.

 

[jbear]

Really? If a wizard's so smart, why isn't he also a skilled warrior?

That's a good question... oh wait your being sarcastic. Awesome. Sarcasm is a great addition to any discusion. Very constructive of you. Oh wait ... now I'm being sarcastic.

Gandalf is not a minstrel with a lute, certainly, but what does he do? First and foremost, he knows stuff -- legends & lore. Second, he persuades people -- he gets Bilbo and Frodo to go on adventures, he inspires Theoden, etc. Third, he fights, with a magic sword.

Way down the list, he throws a few D&D-style evocations: some burning pine cones against the wolves, lighting the way through Moria, briefly holding a portal against the Balrog, shooting some sun beams at the Nazgul.

Gandalf throws out D&D style evocations? Or D&D throws out gandalf-style evocations? I'm going to go with the latter.

In any case, I'm not going to get into a discussion about Gandalf's bardlyness. If you asked 10,000 people who had read or seen Lord of the Rings, what is Gandalf, how many of them do you think would respond: "He's a bard?" Besides, taking this any further would be pointless and it would be irrelevant to this discussion. DannyAlcatraz removed the comment for a reason.

By the way, are you going to bring anything to the conversation or do you prefer to just drop some fly by sarcasm with a sprinkle 'eat humble pie'?

 

[Celebrim]

I've sometimes wondered if some lower-powered forms of the various Tenser Transformation effects might be the way to go?

Tenser's Transformation is a problimatic spell to begin with, because its part of the general problem of "A wizard is not only a better wizard than a fighter, he's also if he wants to be a better fighter than a fighter."

I'd support something similar to the reserve spell feats to allow low level magical attacks at will before I'd support generalizing the wizard's self-buffing powers further.

 

[Aldarc]

May I remind you, this thread is entitled, "Vancian? Why can't we let it go?" I dare say that the 'strongly vocal subset' that insist that Vancian magic has no place in the core of D&D is more vocal?

Regardless of whether Vancian magic is realistically expunged from D&D, it's nevertheless a perfectly valid question to ask. Why can't we let it go? What are the reasons that lie at the root of its continual possession. I'm now moving towards the opinion that it's basically been maintained due to "committee think" in which nothing gets resolved or agreed upon one way or another, and so the status quo - for better or worse - remains.

Personally I detest psionics, or at least, what psionics has evolved into. I'm fully supporting all efforts to make arcane the default dress of the Psion class, and making the class an alternative wizard for those that don't like the standard rules.

Excellent, and ideally even the alternate wizard will be supported.

Because there is never as much demand for them. One of the finest modules written for 3e, 'Of Sound Mind' (by our own Kevin Kulp), was virtually ignored; IMO, this was largely because it featured Psionic themes that turned people off to the adventure without a second glance (I know it initially did that for me). It should have been well known as one of the best introductory adventures of the era. Instead, its a relatively obscure module. I rewrote it in arcane dress because it's a largely excellent design (with one or two near fatal but cureable flaws), but most people didn't give it a second look.

Psionics tend to turn some people off from things, and that cannot be denied. There should probably simply be different modular magic systems for the classes instead of having particular systems associated with particular sources. There should be wizards who use point buy and psions who use Vancian. Interestingly enough, I can conceptualize a psion using Vancian magic - especially with its memorization and "fire and forget" mechanics - much easier than I can with wizards.

From the literary antecedents of the wizard, and the root of the name itself, you'd think that. I can only guess that trying to portray that in a game has run into the same kind of problems that "Mr. McFace" with the +37 diplomacy caused in 3E, and other similar such skill issues. Keep that nipped in the bud, and it is easy for the skills to fade too far in importance. It's a tight rope to walk.

I'm not sure if skill caps are the problem. In literary precedents, wizards were essentially scholars who occasionally used magic. You could basically strip down a rogue (d6 HD, 8 skill points, Med BAB) and then replace their rogue abilities with arcane magic, and you would get the archetypical wizard. Of course, this basically turns them into a bard, but is that entirely surprising? Obviously this precedent has obviously changed in recent fiction (e.g. Harry Potter, Malazan, etc.).

 

[Hassassin]

1. They learn to use mundane weapons. They don't have to be great at it, but they would study long enough to become competent. If nothing else, they'd go up to the party's fighter and ask, "Hey, can you help train me?" Getting some good exercise is good for studying anyway.

Your 2nd level wizard can be as good at hitting with a weapon as a typical soldier (War 1). That's competent.

If you don't make the choices when creating and advancing the character to do that, then you won't be. That's the price for a narrow focus on magic.