Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[SSquirrel]

I just finished page 1, so some of this may already be pointed out.

Heck, even in games like 4e, where wizards had lots of abilities to use an array of effects every round, the Sleep spell started to feel a bit too powerful, because the wizard wasn't paying an opportunity cost for it.

You do remember that Sleep was a Daily spell right? That's the opportunity cost right there. Plus, you could miss. Sleep is an extremely nice spell in 4th Ed, but you also skip a lot of other very nice spells to use it. I do appreciate that the old level limitations on who it can be cast on aren't there to make it useless after X level tho.

Part of the problem is players over-doing it. They start flinging spells during the first encounter of the day and mid-way through the second encounter have nothing but Read Magic and a Light spell. It's their responsibility to marshal their resources. If not, sit back and crank out crossbow bolts as the parties ranged attacker.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where a) most Wizards had stats that made them great at ranged attacks or b) that when you sign up to be a mystical controller of the elements and such that you want to cast 2 spells and then sit back and throw daggers or crossbows. That was the worst part of every earlier edition IMO. I know, I've played Wizards for 24 years from Basic onward. Low level 3rd Ed especially felt awful. Yeah I had a crossbow now instead of daggers or darts, but it didn't feel very magical to me.

And yes 20 years ago, final fantasy used the Vancien system.

You had a certain number of spell slots for each level, like Vancian magic, but you didn't have the extra limitation of having to pick which ones you could cast that day. I could cast FIR2 instead of ICE2 until I was out of spell slots for that level w/no problems. 3E Sorcerors were almost what I wanted, b/c they had more spells per day (ie less sitting in the back w/a crossbow action), but the limited number of choices usually meant I still had to pile up different attack spells or we would be hurting, losing the flexibility of the Wizard.

Because Gary loved it, and it was his heartfelt salute to his favorite author. The favorite author of the guy who invented RPGs ... and you guys want to rip it out?

Yeah, if I'm weary of the dead horse rational argument I go for the emotional throat

Yep, doesn't concern me at all. I'm glad Gary liked the books and enjoyed the magic system. Vancian has always felt wrong to me and even tho I think the Arcana Evolved version of it is probably the best version out there, I still want better for my game of choice. Kill that sacred cow, make tasty burger

4E has less immediate flexibility, but also has at will cantrips and basic attacks and rituals to cover the flexibility angle. Its limits on specific powers and the different encounter types to limit them are a different form of Vancian really, but they are different enough from the old to still let me never have to fall back on my crossbow and for that I am eternally grateful. If I want to be using a bow all day, I'll play a Ranger

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So let me get this straight:

a) You want to make all of a D&D spellcasters spells encounter powers.
b) To balance that, you want to increase the complexity of the time bookkeeping in D&D.
c) Because, you want to mechanically punish players for pressing on in the adventure and reward them for finding reasons to stop.

Is that what I'm understanding your goals to be?

Not exactly. In 3.5 Vancian magic, preparation was a simple hour long period. When used, you have to wait until the next day to prepare again. This has encouraged the 15 minute work day. When the wizard blows through his or her spells, the party stops for the day.

What I suggest complicates the preparation time a little, but not in an arduous manor. Most of the time, it won't even be paid attention to. In exchange, it allows allows the Wizard to recover some spells during a short rest, instead of waiting for the whole day.

But in no way does it punish the players for pressing on in comparison to the 3.5 system, since the result for pressing on is identical in both systems: spells have been spent and not recovered.

 

[Celebrim]

Not exactly. In 3.5 Vancian magic, preparation was a simple hour long period. When used, you have to wait until the next day to prepare again. This has encouraged the 15 minute work day. When the wizard blows through his or her spells, the party stops for the day.

The 15 minute work day is a product of encounter design; not a product of system. It happens when the DM begins to feel that in order to challenge his players, he needs to increase the CR of the encounter to party level +4 or higher. Or the DM feels that big splashy battles are more dramatic. Often these occur in urban adventure settings with large set peice battles with opposing NPC organization, or perhaps in fortresses as dungeons where encounters tend to snowball as reinforcements arrive. This creates a situation where the party must expend a large percentage of their resources in order to survive, which forces them to rest... which is a good thing because the next battle is usually designed to be of the same sort.

The 15 minute work day occurs regardless of system whenever there are any expendable resources at all, whether spell points or hit points or even a damage track. It's a logical strategic response to a situation in which the party is not under direct time pressure and is facing a foe which cannot or will not take the initiative. If on the other hand you design encounters where the party is under time pressure and the foe will take the initiative, then the 15 minute adventuring day DOES NOT occur regardless of system because it ceases to be a valid strategic response.

You can't fix problems in encounter design with changes to the system. One of the things that reduced my initially high optimism about 4e prior to it coming out was the designers repeatedly asserted that they were going to fix encounter design issues with changes to the system, which told me they didn't really know what they were doing or what the system that they were making was ultimately going to play like.

What I suggest complicates the preparation time a little, but not in an arduous manor. Most of the time, it won't even be paid attention to.

What you mean is that it will complicate preparation a little except when you pay attention to it. It will end up working like spell components, which people generally hand wave.

In exchange, it allows allows the Wizard to recover some spells during a short rest, instead of waiting for the whole day.

You realize don't you that in the absence of an encounter structure (that is, if a series of encounters isn't related), that the only difference between 'a short rest' and 'a whole day' is flavor? What you are essentially gauranteeing is that after every encounter there is a full rest, only that by flavor that full rest isn't a 'whole day' but some other shorter period of time. And yes, it does punish the players for pushing on more than in 3.5, because while the result of resting or not resting is the same, the cost of resting (and the benefit of not resting) has been reduced in cases where there is an encounter structure. In other words, in order for there to be a cost to resting, minutes and seconds must now matter in the encounter design, whereas before it was merely enough to be 'on the clock' if you had a deadline in days. Granted, that's itself only flavor but it is restrictive on the events of your campaign. Only the structure of taunt high speed chase now interrupts the decision to rest, and this only to change the flavor of resting from 'all day' to a few minutes or hours. So the decision to rest is going to be more trivial than before, and pressing on therefore relatively more punished.

 

[HeinorNY]

Let's let the Wizards be Vancian, the Sorcerors have something more like the 4e powers system, or something like that.

But the 4E power system is kinda Vancian, except you not only have per day spells, but per encounter and per round.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The 15 minute work day is a product of encounter design; not a product of system. It happens when the DM begins to feel that in order to challenge his players, he needs to increase the CR of the encounter to party level +4 or higher. Or the DM feels that big splashy battles are more dramatic. Often these occur in urban adventure settings with large set peice battles with opposing NPC organization, or perhaps in fortresses as dungeons where encounters tend to snowball as reinforcements arrive. This creates a situation where the party must expend a large percentage of their resources in order to survive, which forces them to rest... which is a good thing because the next battle is usually designed to be of the same sort.

The 15 minute work day occurs regardless of system whenever there are any expendable resources at all, whether spell points or hit points or even a damage track. It's a logical strategic response to a situation in which the party is not under direct time pressure and is facing a foe which cannot or will not take the initiative. If on the other hand you design encounters where the party is under time pressure and the foe will take the initiative, then the 15 minute adventuring day DOES NOT occur regardless of system because it ceases to be a valid strategic response.

You can't fix problems in encounter design with changes to the system. One of the things that reduced my initially high optimism about 4e prior to it coming out was the designers repeatedly asserted that they were going to fix encounter design issues with changes to the system, which told me they didn't really know what they were doing or what the system that they were making was ultimately going to play like.

If there are no resources to be recovered, the 15 minute adventuring day doesn't exist. Because you're always at 100 % capacity.
If there are less resources, and they are less decisive, it is also easier to see going on without making an extended rest after each encounter.
It can be a matter of degrees how likely the 15 minute day will manifest - even absent of encounter and adventure design.

I think one "trick" to deal with these things could be to allow spell preperation without "extended rest". But like with D&D 4 rituals - it costs some time (maybe not exactly as much time as in D&D 4) and money. So you can "reprepare" after a hard encounter without needing to pull out the tent and bedroll. It would be cheaper to do this, but if you tell the party "you've got 24 hours to fix this or the portal opens and thousands of demons appear" you have a way to deal with it even if you want, for some reason, several hard encounters.

 

[pemerton]

The 15 minute work day is a product of encounter design; not a product of system.

<snip>

The 15 minute work day occurs regardless of system whenever there are any expendable resources at all, whether spell points or hit points or even a damage track.

Even as a generalisation of tendency only, I'm not sure that this is true. It depends fairly heavily on what the expendable resources are, doesn't it? I can't ever remember the group breaking off in order to replenish their supply of iron spikes.

Another factor is that the 15 min day is a matter of degree. I found it to be ubiquitous in my RM game. It does not come up in my 4e game. The scenario design in each game is similar. The systems are different - namely, (i) use of dailies is not crucial in 4e in the same way as PP expenditure is crucial in RM, and (ii) action points in 4e make a big difference (for my group at least).

It happens when the DM begins to feel that in order to challenge his players, he needs to increase the CR of the encounter to party level +4 or higher. Or the DM feels that big splashy battles are more dramatic.

<snip>

You can't fix problems in encounter design with changes to the system.

I'm sure it's true that you can't fix all problems in encounter design with changes to the system. But I know that it is possible to change a system such that encounters which are, from the point of view of variables that are salient to me as GM (variety of foes, story significance, likely challenge posed to the players and to their PCs, etc), the same, do or do not produce a 15 min problem.

I know because I've experienced it.

One key element is encounter powers which are designed in such a way as to make the decision to use them non-trivial. This non-triviality can result from a range of reasons, but one common reason is the need to set up a situation that makes the use of the encounter power effective. Which also has the virtue of making the players have to coordinate their PCs' actions - a further dimension of non-triviality. Rolemaster also has a species of encounter power for martial PCs - the Adrenal Move - and when it was announced that 4e would have encounter powers I hoped that they would do the same sort of work that Adrenal Moves do in RM. And happily for me, they do.

 

[jbear]

I don't like the Vancian System of magic per se, but I could live with something that resembled it as long as several issues were included in the magic system design:

1) When wizards aren't using their "Vancian" spells they aren't shooting crossbows.
Does anyone who enjoys the vancian system of spells also think that a wizard with a crossbow is a good look, or something any self respecting wizard would honestly do? I'm curious to know, though if you say yes, I'm going to go with House on this one. All people lie.

So, if this issue was to be addressed, I think it needs to go beyond cantrips. Pathfinders specialist school powers approach this with 7/day use of Flame Jet or whatever. At Will Powers: Why not? Depending on your school of magic you get a low level "Signature Spell". Eg Evocation: Magic Missile etc.

Really, how its done, I dont care. The slicker and more elegant the better. Just NO XBOWS!

2) Option Overload: The quanity of spells is just too much.
It doesn't make for a "Alright guys, let's whip up some characters" type situation. I really believe they are going to be aiming for that in the game design, so I think they will naturally look at this.

I don't think their is a need for a detect _________ fill in the gap with anything you can thin of type situation where each is a seperate spell. Why not just have the spell: Detect? You choose what it is you are looking for. Why have Protection from _____ as a seperate spell? Just choose what you want protection from when you cast it. etc etc.

I advocate less options but good options.

3) No outwaiting the suck to be reborn as a god:
I don't want to start crap and wait out four levels to suddenly become the most powerful member of the group. I don't want my fellow players to do that either. I love wizards, but I still want the classes to be balanced. Make them differnt, flavorsome, varied as you like. That won't bother me. But why shouldn't a monk, a bard or a fighter be equally as good, just in different ways?

They were right to address this issue in 4e, in my opinion. And it should be taken into consideration when they design 5e.

4) Spells that break the game and make it impossible to DM
As a DM I don't want spells to be a constant ruling nightmare. 4e went a long way to making a DMs job easier, which in my experience, was more enjoyable. So however it is done, this issue needs to be taken into account when magic is designed, Vancian or not.
I don't want to get a headache everytime my wizard says the words "I cast..." And I don't want the campaign to collapse under the weight of his god-like arcane might.

*minor issue: Memorising spells twice: that makes no sense whatsoever. How do you do that? Memorise something twice. Use the memorised spell, which is wiped from your memory but still remember it because you have another identical copy memorised ...? What??? I don't think you should be able to memorise the same spell twice.

I'll be interested to see what the playtest looks like. If they are going for modernised old school, I have a hunch the system will resemble vancian magic, but will take into account the lessons learnt thorughout the 4 editions and most if not all the above issues will be addressed from the outset (in a far better way than I could come up with).

 

[DonTadow]

I don't like the Vancian System of magic per se, but I could live with something that resembled it as long as several issues were included in the magic system design:

1) When wizards aren't using their "Vancian" spells they aren't shooting crossbows.
Does anyone who enjoys the vancian system of spells also think that a wizard with a crossbow is a good look, or something any self respecting wizard would honestly do? I'm curious to know, though if you say yes, I'm going to go with House on this one. All people lie.

So, if this issue was to be addressed, I think it needs to go beyond cantrips. Pathfinders specialist school powers approach this with 7/day use of Flame Jet or whatever. At Will Powers: Why not? Depending on your school of magic you get a low level "Signature Spell". Eg Evocation: Magic Missile etc.

Really, how its done, I dont care. The slicker and more elegant the better. Just NO XBOWS!

2) Option Overload: The quanity of spells is just too much.
It doesn't make for a "Alright guys, let's whip up some characters" type situation. I really believe they are going to be aiming for that in the game design, so I think they will naturally look at this.

I don't think their is a need for a detect _________ fill in the gap with anything you can thin of type situation where each is a seperate spell. Why not just have the spell: Detect? You choose what it is you are looking for. Why have Protection from _____ as a seperate spell? Just choose what you want protection from when you cast it. etc etc.

I advocate less options but good options.

3) No outwaiting the suck to be reborn as a god:
I don't want to start crap and wait out four levels to suddenly become the most powerful member of the group. I don't want my fellow players to do that either. I love wizards, but I still want the classes to be balanced. Make them differnt, flavorsome, varied as you like. That won't bother me. But why shouldn't a monk, a bard or a fighter be equally as good, just in different ways?

They were right to address this issue in 4e, in my opinion. And it should be taken into consideration when they design 5e.

4) Spells that break the game and make it impossible to DM
As a DM I don't want spells to be a constant ruling nightmare. 4e went a long way to making a DMs job easier, which in my experience, was more enjoyable. So however it is done, this issue needs to be taken into account when magic is designed, Vancian or not.
I don't want to get a headache everytime my wizard says the words "I cast..." And I don't want the campaign to collapse under the weight of his god-like arcane might.

*minor issue: Memorising spells twice: that makes no sense whatsoever. How do you do that? Memorise something twice. Use the memorised spell, which is wiped from your memory but still remember it because you have another identical copy memorised ...? What??? I don't think you should be able to memorise the same spell twice.

I'll be interested to see what the playtest looks like. If they are going for modernised old school, I have a hunch the system will resemble vancian magic, but will take into account the lessons learnt thorughout the 4 editions and most if not all the above issues will be addressed from the outset (in a far better way than I could come up with).

You know, I can could deal with a Vance system that was actually a vance system, whereas you only had a few spells, maybe no more than 3 to 7 all the time. And each of these spells had
a. progressions (every few levels they get more powerful)
b. an every round power (every round you can do something effective, again, no crossbow wizards and sorcerers. This power should be derived from the spell. IF you use the spell for what it is suppose to be, you no longer gain access to that spell or the every turn spell. We can even get away from varying degrees of spell based on level, and just have a version of that spell for that level. Acts teh same way, a little more powerful and uses a different name.

Having multiple systems for multiple casters makes it difficult for new players or players in general to jump to other classes. I want all classes t owork the same. A sorcerer should work (not play like) a wizard and so on.

Still i'd like dnd to finally move on. 60 years of work. Time to retire

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You know, I can could deal with a Vance system that was actually a vance system, whereas you only had a few spells, maybe no more than 3 to 7 all the time. And each of these spells had
a. progressions (every few levels they get more powerful)
b. an every round power (every round you can do something effective, again, no crossbow wizards and sorcerers. This power should be derived from the spell. IF you use the spell for what it is suppose to be, you no longer gain access to that spell or the every turn spell. We can even get away from varying degrees of spell based on level, and just have a version of that spell for that level. Acts teh same way, a little more powerful and uses a different name.

Just pointing out your additions make for a magic system no more "actual" than what D&D had up to 4Ed.

 

[mmadsen]

Does anyone who enjoys the vancian system of spells also think that a wizard with a crossbow is a good look, or something any self respecting wizard would honestly do?

If we look at, say, Gandalf, he rarely casts D&D-style artillery evocations, but he certainly doesn't sit back with a crossbow, either. He fights with a magic sword, he inspires the troops, and he makes important leadership decisions.

He's more like a 3E Bard or 4E Warlord with a few Wizard spells.

If we look at the evil priests and sorcerers in the Conan tales, they're more like Rogues with a few spells, or a magic item or two. One of their greatest strengths is that no one else understands their power. Not very D&D.