Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Zustiur]

Holy-late-reply Batman. I've had a busy week.

What other ways? A palidin is a holy warrior in plate. A pursuit avenger is a holy warrior in cloth who runs after that one orc whilst his party gets knocked around. And happens to be dex/wis.

He's a pali in the high cha way? In the lay on hands way?

In the sense that he is a defender despite having 8 intelligence. He doesn't go after one target like an Avenger, he goes after all the targets - trying to draw them all to him. Plus the lay on hands stuff.

That sounds exactly like an Avenger.

Admittedly, I've never seen an Avenger in game, so perhaps they're more paladnic than I think, but from what I've read of them, they sound very different to me.
However, I still maintain that he's nothing like an Avenger. This paladin behaves the way he does because he's a complete nitwit, not because he's overly zealous in combat. His need to be in the fray is driven by his stupidity, not by his holy battle oaths.

 

[Tony Vargas]

n an Avenger in game, so perhaps they're more paladnic than I think, but from what I've read of them, they sound very different to me.

Mechanically, they are, unarmored vs heavy armor is just the tip of the iceberg.

But conceptually they are both violent religious zealots who smite the enemies of their gods. The Avenger smites a little harder, the Paladin issues glowy challenges. They fill different roles in the party, use different mechanics, but they're both weapon-wielding wrath of god types.

Were armor choice not so traditionally hard-coded into class in D&D in general, and role not so hard-coded into class in pre-Essential 4e, the Avenger could easily have been a Paladin build or sub-class instead of a class in its own right. Indeed, there /is/ an 'Avenging Paladin' build in the PH1.

However, I still maintain that he's nothing like an Avenger. This paladin behaves the way he does because he's a complete nitwit, not because he's overly zealous in combat. His need to be in the fray is driven by his stupidity, not by his holy battle oaths.

Well, Avengers can be stupid, if you want, but they shouldn't be foolish (WIS primary).

 

[qstor]

Also, personally anyway, having the ability to learn and release a magical effect feels more like a spell. Having an ability I can use as many times a day as I want feels more like a super-power.

Exactly!!

Mike

 

[Neonchameleon]

Pretty much whenever there was anything that was "realistic" and punitive, it was designed to screw over the martial classes. Magic Users get screwed over, or even get any of the limitations they had in AD&D? Naaah, It's Maaaagick!

I honestly think that the designers of 3rd Edition must have been beaten up by jocks in school.

Never mind that Redgar kept getting killed as part of a writer's revolt against white male fighters.

 

[prosfilaes]

So that'll come under the "Rewards System Mastery" column to some people I guess - I see it more as "assumes or requires system mastery". I don't see that as a good thing - if a new player rocks up to a game and wants to play a Wizard because he thinks they're cool, I don't want to have to say "Probably better not... have you thought about swinging a hammer around? That can be fun too. Yes, those people are playing casters. They've done their time, so they're allowed to have more fun than you"

Why are they having more fun? Because they get choices? I think it's a good thing that there are options for people who want more complex tactical decisions, and options for people who don't want to stress about it. There are days I want to play the wizard, days I want to play the sorcerer, and days I want to play the guy with the big club, and frankly I don't think 3E provides great options for playing an effective guy with the big club.

 

[prosfilaes]

So, Eldritch Lord - the problem with the system comes when other players deliberately point out potential issues, and then continue pointing them out time after time, using meta-game language in the game (use your Swarm of Arrows Technique) in character, in game, to create problems.

That's exactly why D&D 4 is considered board-gamey. If I'm doing a Swarm of Arrows, it should be a swarm of arrows, and plausibly usable when a swarm of arrows would be usable. It shouldn't be some meta-game technique that's governed by out of game rules.

They are running away. It's not worth spending the next five minutes checking my bow for cracks just because you want me to shoot fleeing enemies in the back. I'll stick to my normal rapid fire of Twin Strike.

Whether or not the character should spend the next five minutes checking her bow for cracks is not a character decision. It should be a player decision, and it may be a no-brainer if the enemies are getting away with the Sapphire of Leng that the PCs have been promised forty times the value of the bow for.

I have to wonder; why are some people that have no issue at all with the utterly arbitrary 'Vancian' casting system, which equates to nothing more than narrative control

It's not just narrative control. It's part of the physics of the game world. It's no different then humans needing air or elves not needing sleep; it's the way the world works.

There is literally no actual difference between a Wizard being able to cast Fireball once per day at 5 and a Fighter being able to do something only once a day at 5.

I see a big difference between a fighter only being able to get off only six shots from a six-shooter before reloading and a fighter only being able to get off six kicks to the head before "reloading". You give me a consistent in-world reason why the fighter can only do something once a day, I'll be fine with it. If a character has a ki pool and can only pull so much from it, that works, but you have to give such an explanation that feels right.

Just one of those examples has been around for a bit longer, so people who're afraid of any sort of change flag it as threatening.

I think that shows that you're not listening to the people who object to it.

---

This whole thing sounds a lot like a lot of other arguments. I won't accept these abilities as narrative metagame effects. I understand that many 4E players accept and thrive on that, but as for me, and many other 3E/PF players, it doesn't work for us. Period.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yes. It's like players comparing notes on hit points remaining, or (in a game that has them) remaining Fate Points: "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", which has no ingame analogue ("You look really lucky today!"??).

I don't take hit points as a metagame mechanic; hit point damage is real damage and someone with enough points in the Heal skill can eyeball pretty closely how much more damage someone can take. Yes, the two of us have been around this block before, and I have to acknowledge that that takes some willful denial of how hit points work in D&D, but I've made my peace with that.

Fate points are a different matter. I like giving the player a little more flexibility and safety room, but if people started saying things like "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", it would really rub me the wrong way. If it were imbedded enough into the fabric of D&D, I probably would justify it in game; there's no reason people, especially people charged with fate, in a D&D world couldn't sense other people charged with fate.

It's a general feature of metagame mechanics. Some like this, some don't mind it, some don't like it at all.

Thank you. There certainly is a line here, and it gets a bit tiring for both sides to keep arguing as if the other side is being willfully obstinate or blind.

 

[pemerton]

I like giving the player a little more flexibility and safety room, but if people started saying things like "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", it would really rub me the wrong way.

Whereas if I was playing a Fate Point game, I would find it bizarre for the players to not plan together around their available Fate Points, as a particular instance of the general phenomenon of planning around their available resources.

There certainly is a line here

I think hit points, and 4e limited martial powers, are designed to somewhat straddle that line. (Whether it works or not is a different matter, obviously).

For me, that's a distinctive feature of D&D.