Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Aldarc]

While mages are known for their magic, I'm a bit surprised that their knowledge of arcane lore - which was more often then not what their primary utility in legends and stories - is not emphasized more in the class, even if it came at a cut to their magical überness.

 

[Ranes]

What that tells me is that people want a viable way to play D&D without Vancian magic, and this certainly does not require expunging Vancian magic from D&D.

That's an entirely reasonable point. How dare you?

With thanks to Dannyalcatraz for expanding on my point up-thread, I would like to add that I was not suggesting that D&D players should not have other magic systems at their disposal or that, if they did, this would somehow require the removal of the Vancian system. Again, DA covered that concern nicely.

My post simply directly addressed the question that forms the title of this thread. T'is all.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

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

I'm glad you edited out the part about Gandalf being a bard. You were going to have a hard time defending that.

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.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

While mages are known for their magic, I'm a bit surprised that their knowledge of arcane lore - which was more often then not what their primary utility in legends and stories - is not emphasized more in the class, even if it came at a cut to their magical überness.

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.

 

[mmadsen]

From the literary antecedents of the wizard, and the root of the name itself, you'd think that.

While it's hard to do in a published game, like D&D, I love the idea of a wizard who's the only character who knows anything about how magic really works -- and everyone else has to trust him.

This can end up rather benign, as with Gandalf, or not so benign, as in most Dying Earth stories.

 

[DonTadow]

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 agree, i believe some players are better at some things, so yeah skills are ok, but dangit if they need to just cap bonuses of all type. AC, skills, etc. Preferabbly at level cap.

 

[Celebrim]

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

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?

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

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.

In 1e, the 'psionics' systems unique flavor wasn't really 'point buy'. The real point of the system was that it was a (largely) level independent magic system. First level characters could possess large amounts of magical power. The point buy was a logical extension of this fact, as it was a way to quantify magical prowess aside from level. From 2e on, 'psionics' have lost this unique nature and become merely an alternative magic system. It should be treated as an alternative magic system and supported as one.

The problem, which already see right at once, is that these "other" supernatural systems are never given as much support as the "core" magic system.

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.

 

[hanez]

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 am of two minds. I hate the idea of wizards having "to hit" with spells. Make up some other non combat mechanic, use a percentile or something. But I also want magic to be so powerful, that the wizard does not have unlimited uses. So, when hes burnt out, pull out the xbow and and wait

Thats why one of my favorite builds is the archer/mage

 

[mmadsen]

I hate the idea of wizards having "to hit" with spells.

Why?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

You may as well ask why aren't more astrophysicists also black belt martial artists with their own dojo?

Because the study of each takes time and effort. Taking the time to fully master one takes time away from mastery of the other.

(Which, BTW, is why I have zero problem with what happens to multiclassed casters in D&D.)

I had my own personal version of this. In college, I was a bit of a gym rat. At 5'7", I could bench 300lbs, do 3 sets of 10 reps of leg presses at 700lbs, and could jump high enough to touch the iron rim of a standard basketball goal. After getting 2 graduate degrees, I can't do any of that- I spent too much time playing "Books & Buffets" as opposed to getting any serious exercise.

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.

1) Wizards study the game universe and figure out how to manipulate it. They do this without help.

Clerics, OTOH, pray to beings who already manipulate the universe like we breathe air, and ask them to help out. IOW, they cheat.

2) IMHO, the cleric of most iterations of D&D is a pastiche of a bunch of ideas hammered into one class, so kind of got the pick of the litter, as it were. It could stand some toning down, as I've pointed out many times on this website.