Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[ferratus]

I think though Celebrim that the Sorcerer need not be Vancian. To those that really love Vancian magic the 3e sorcerer was a needless adulteration. To those that hate Vancian magic, the 3e Sorcerer didn't go far enough away from it.

 

[Celebrim]

I think though Celebrim that the Sorcerer need not be Vancian. To those that really love Vancian magic the 3e sorcerer was a needless adulteration. To those that hate Vancian magic, the 3e Sorcerer didn't go far enough away from it.

I'm in neither one of those categories. I like the sorcerer because its a Wizard that carries less flavor baggage. You can easily reclothe the sorcerer as just about any kind of magician.

I don't see a reason to kick the sorcerer to the curb unless we are kicking Vancian along with it. I was pointing out that there is already a non-Vancian spellcaster class in core, which can serve perfectly well as a stock Wizard for those that don't like Vancian spellcasting.

 

[ferratus]

I'm in neither one of those categories. I like the sorcerer because its a Wizard that carries less flavor baggage. You can easily reclothe the sorcerer as just about any kind of magician.

I don't see a reason to kick the sorcerer to the curb unless we are kicking Vancian along with it. I was pointing out that there is already a non-Vancian spellcaster class in core, which can serve perfectly well as a stock Wizard for those that don't like Vancian spellcasting.

There is the 3e Warlock as well, which though underpowered, is an example of how a non-Vancian D&D caster can work.

But Sorcerer is a generic term for magic-user, so it serves as a good name for an alternate wizard. I'm sure the sorcerer has its fans, but are they fans because it is an alternate way to do Vancian magic, or because it is more flexible than traditional D&D Vancian magic? If that is the case, wouldn't they be even happier with an even more flexible spellcasting system?

 

[DonTadow]

Check; it's an extremely simple system. Cast it and it's gone for the day.

Call me what you will, but I wouldn't want to play a game like D&D with anyone who has trouble grasping that concept.



The reason why you can't swap on the fly is known to everyone: wizard spells need to be prepared in advance. Casting a spell is just unleashing it; the real work is in preparing it.



There's nothing stopping you from using 3rd level slots to prepare 2nd level spells. It's just rarely done due to the power lost.

I do prefer 3e's "spell preparation" flavor over previous editions' use of "spell memorization". "Forgetting" spells never made too much sense; luckily it never made an appearance in 3.X. Instead you use up prepared spells. People still make the mistake of calling spell preparation "memorization" though.

I actually agree that you shouldn't always have to wait a full day to prepare new spells, but there has to be some limit on it.

I also agree with those who have suggested that low-level at-will abilities should be added. Perhaps spells of less than half the level of your highest level spell should not be used up when cast. You'd still pick which ones to prepare, as with Pathfinder's cantrips. Spells would have to be balanced for this though. Certain powerful spells could be exceptions and still get used up when cast, such as the cure spells.



High level spellcasters - especially wizards - do get too complicated at times, but that's why the wizard shouldn't be the only option for a magic user.

Another simplification might be to make spells more flexible somehow. Maybe if you prepare a fire spell, you should be allowed to choose on the fly whether to make it single target or area of effect, for example. That way you don't need to worry as much about picking the right spells.

Sorry, let me explain what I mean when i say difficult to teach.

Casting a spell is simple. Tracking which spell you have from adventure to adventure is a hassle. Leveling is an ordeal. Add in the fact that spell level goes to 9 but character level goes to 20 and you get more complicated.

I've never met a dm who recommended to a spanking brand new player to play a magic user. Even the best dm authories recommend, new players should play non casting classes. This really demonstrates the limitations of it and narrows the appeal of dungeons and dragons as a fantasy game with magic users.

From a DM's perspective, you almost have to babysit a player playing magic for the first time to make sure their spell count is right.

"I thought you were out of 1st level spells". etc

 

[mmadsen]

[T]he spells weren't balanced ever with the idea that they would be unlimited resources and are very difficult to balance if you allow them to become so. Even the lowly 'Cure Minor Wounds' is game breaking.

I agree completely that the spells weren't balanced assuming unlimited uses, but I find it odd that you'd say that "even the lowly cure light wounds is game breaking" -- not because it isn't game breaking, but because it's a perfect example of something you'd expect to be game breaking.

Attack spells are limited more by the action economy. They're best measured by damage per turn. Many utility spells are limited by whether you have access to them at all, because you're not going to need them multiple times in one day. But healing between encounters is all about the total number of hit points you can recover.

It wouldn't be too bad to give wizards an at will similar to the Warlocks blast, but frankly, I don't think that they need it. You could just equally let them start with a wand of 50 cantrip type attack spells if you were really worried about they didn't feel wizardly enough...

Reskinning the crossbow -- or dart, for old-schoolers -- as a magic wand certainly seems simple and easy enough.

The big design challenge is making magic feel magical yet "realistically" constrained, while still giving spellcasters something to do every round of every combat.

 

[mmadsen]

And for all her virtues as a writer, Mrs. Rawlings is a terrible gamer. Just look at Quidditch.

Quidditch comes across as a game created by someone baffled by the rules of most real sports.

 

[mmadsen]

'Vancian' is the name used for the limitation on magical power adopted by D&D because of its passing resemblence to magic as practiced in the stories of Jack Vance. It is not a simulationist approach to magic at all, which is where I think the disconnect people have with it comes from.

What do you mean when you say that D&D's Vancian magic system is not simulationist? It certainly is if you're playing in a Dying Earth-style world, right? I don't think the rules have ever suggested that magic works in a non-Vancian manner in the game world, but the rules work fine for game balance -- which is how we have to interpret, say, 4E's not-at-all simulationist daily martial exploits.

While there is no reason to suspect that Tolkien magic is Vancian in nature, we are given so little of how it actually works that it might as well be Vancian.

Tolkien's magic is pretty clearly not Vancian. First, Vancian magic is Vance's own idiosyncratic invention, and, second, Gandalf is pretty explicitly exhausted by holding off the Balrog at the gate, and he has to explain to the party that they'll have to do without his magical light for a while.

The basic structure of D&D magic is that it is extraordinarily powerful and capable of working miracles of every sort, BUT with this great power comes great limitations. You have to prepare it ahead of time. You have to know spells which are generally inflexible and specific in their application. The spells take time to cast and are difficult to cast in combat. The spells can be disrupted and when disrupted they are dangerous to their casters. D&D magic is not anime or video game magic where Wizards go around spamming out blasts of energy like juiced up soldiers with high tech energy weapons. It is arcane.
[...]
If you want flexibility, you have to have either very very weak magic or very very restricted magic. That's the choice.

All true -- but the constraints of Vancian magic are not the only way to constrain magic. My own preferences would lean toward magic as a plot device -- with rules.

 

[hanez]

don't like vancian wizard? theres the sorceror, theres a warlock, hell lets make another class for you even, lets propose a mana mage or something. But the vancian wizard is a sacred cow, it is non negotiable to MANY players. And it just happens to be fun, I like the one out of 3 times I memorized the spell right, its called a challenging game.

 

[SensoryThought]

Magic in D&D is a funny beast. Vancian magic has a lot of history, but a subset of players have been designing, running, and preferring alternate systems pretty much since day 1.

Personally I prefer the 4e system with core infinitely reusable and more powerful encounter/daily magic with utility spells as longer casting time rituals.

(1) It gets rid of the crazy bookkeeping associated with memorized spell lists for high level wizards.
(2) I often saw wizards not memorizing spells useful for a given situation as they feel a need to select only combat spells by default. 4e pushes many of these utilities into rituals.
(3) Vancian magic tends towards a low levels weak/high levels caster supremacy model. While a lot of people like this aspect, personally I prefer the forced balance of 4e.

 

[Glade Riven]

I'm fine with a Vancian Wizard - wizards are the scientists of the magical world of D&D. Maybe for 5e an at-will spell attack and 2/3 encounter powers (chosen daily) with the rest of the spells as standard vancian dailies. Even Pathfinder has embraced 0-level spells as at-will minor castings. Another point I read on this forum was to perhaps make most spells being able to be cast as rituals, with spell slots to cast it immediatly. I may even impliment that as a house-rule for my Pathfinder game.

I think sorcerers being "4e" while Wizards being "3e" would work well. Psions can keep their power points.