Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Libramarian]

I can already see it:
Player: I cast fire ball!
DM: you can't you already cast lightning bolt this encounter.
Player: huh??? woot? Why?
DM: errrr, I donu that's the rule...
Player: we'll that rule sucks!
DM: live with it...

I think that that is the worst idea ever.

Warder

It doesn't have to be restricted like that. Your ability to cast multiple spells in one battle is already by default restricted, because you can only cast one per round, so you can't cast more than the number of rounds the battle lasts.

I am simply saying, play with this restriction if need be to control the "going nova" effect. Maybe subsequent spells in the same battle take longer and longer to cast.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

D&D "Vancian" is short-hand for some variation of having discrete spells in slots. Far as I'm concerned, that includes the 3E sorcerer and the 4E ADEU system--though obviously those are somewhat off the center of what D&D "Vancian" has meant. If you want to get more particular than that about what "Vancian" means, then go to the source material, where spells are very much the big guns--"I win" buttons so powerful that even in a story, with no chance of the character power gaming, the casters only have 4-6 of them.

The reason that D&D "Vancian" has been popular so long in some form is that "spell points" and other options aren't nearly as universally "all that" as their individual proponents would like to believe. Those other systems have their own issues.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Vancian is popular because it's a good resource management system. You have access to a lot of potential options, but on a given day you have to choose which ones to have and how much of each. People like stuff that rewards smart resource management.

My favorite system I've seen is probably the one in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, a 3E variant system by Monte Cook. Casters had certain lists that they could draw spells from (there were simple, complex, and exotic spells, and every spell had a descriptor like fire or positive energy, and the list was shared by all magic users). Mostly it was "all simple spells plus complex (and maybe exotic) spells of X, Y, and/or Z descriptors that fit your class theme."
Anyway, you choose from your spell lists the spells you wish to know prepare, and can then spont. cast them like a sorcerer... except, you get to choose each day which ones to prepare, so you're not forever locked into your choices like a sorcerer would be.

I like the flexibility and decision making that system gives you. I also like that the spells were generally weakened from 3E, at least the more powerful options. Save or die was largely absent completely (might've been some that relied knowing the target's truename, I forget, but the whole truename mechanic was a part of that system I didn't like so much anyway).

I also have ideas on a new type of magic system to try that no one else seems to like.

That said, the E in AEDU more precisely stands for encounter attack power, and the "siloing" of spell slots into attack and utility spells is an issue I do recognize (point 5 of my first post in the thread).

Thank you! I read through this whole thread just trying to find out what the hell this weird aronym everyone keeps throwing around stands for other than "4E powers system."

At-will Encounter Daily Utility. Here I thought it was some sort of phrase like "Attack E....? as Directed by User."

 

[jsaving]

Grognard nostalgia.

Our gaming group split in two primarily over the issue of Vancian casting versus the 4e power system. Each side felt it fairly evaluated the pros and cons of the two systems, and I think for the most part they did. While some in the 4e group accuse the other of "grognard nostalgia" and really believe 4e is so objectively superior to what came before that nothing else can explain why anyone would like Vancian magic, I think it's important to give both sides the benefit of the doubt here.

A key difference comes down to which system is more flexible. A lot of people in my 3e/Pathfinder group like to spend time away from the gaming table optimizing their characters for the next session. Reacting to what they've seen on the adventure so far and what threats they believe are around the corner, they like being able to dramatically change their memorized spells to solve the "puzzle" with which their characters are currently confronted. There may not be a great deal of flexibility within a battle, but with proper preparation that kind of flexibility isn't needed anyway(they would say).

On the other hand, a fair number of people in my 4e group just want to dive in and start playing. To them, pre-commiting your spell slots the way Vancian magic compels you to makes little sense. What's important is to be able to cycle between, say, fireball and cone of cold as you see fit during the battle rather than having to spend time outside the gaming table guessing which one you might need. There may not be a great deal of flexibility regarding the powers you bring to the table on any given day, but with proper battlefield tactics that kind of flexibility isn't especially important anyway (they would say).

I think there's something to be learned from both groups, personally. And I hope the 5e team will feel the same way.

 

[dkyle]

Snipped to the points I am responding to.

Incorrect about the rest. Clerics are not required to rest to regain spells. They get them back at whatever time they pray each day, regardless of rest. So they really do mean X times per day. Same with Turn/Rebuke undead.
Same with many items, which recharge at dawn or at midnight.

Interesting on the Cleric; my group must have ignored that part.

Looking at the SRD, I'm having trouble finding the actual rules for other per Day abilities, though, even Turn Undead. We always played them as being Rest based.

The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?
You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...

That's not meta-game. That's just how the world works, entirely in-game. It's not "meta-game" for every possible combination of effects to not be available.

Is it "meta-game" to not be able to Raise Dead as a Standard Action in 3.5 (at least in the core rules; don't know about splatbooks)?

usually not. You do it between sessions. Building a character is often making choices between sessions. And you are stuck with them if they fit the actual session or not.

It's an in-character decision, is what I mean. I'm not sure why characters being "stuck" with the decisions they make is a bad thing. Shouldn't decisions have consequences?

If the wizard knows 10 at-wills, but can prepare only two, you still have only two choices. And if you knew what you would face, you could prepare 2 good choices.

But what about the Fighter. Is he "preparing" only two of his ten at-wills?

Often the wizard paralyzes, not because he has too many choices, but all choices he has are equally bad.

That sounds rather bizarre, and not at all similar to my experiences with 4E. It's rare that a Wizard would run into a situation where all his choices are equally bad, simply because spell choices are rarely bad.

And I'm not sure why decision paralysis only occurs with equally bad choices, and not equally good choices.

In ADnD or 3e i never had to think about much which spell is used. Usually only IF using a spell is really needed.

Huh... and that's a good thing? That choice of spell to use was always obvious?

I often wonder if 4e had given wizards 2 daily for every daily and encounter sell and no limit on spell books if that would work better

Well, I'd have banned Wizards from my campaign, so... I'd say "no". And signs point to me doing exactly that with DnD:Next, if I end up running it.

But it's interesting to think about, because I doubt it would've changed the complaints much. Because the bulk of complaints don't really seem to be about Vancian vs AEDU, but rather Wizard spells not being "I win" buttons any more, which would not be changed with an all-Daily 4E Wizard.

Just like how most complaints about Healing Surges really seem to be more about Second Wind, and Warlords, and not really about what the Surges themselves are: simply a limit on how much healing a character can get each day (although I know that some do take issue with that).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like the Arcana Evolved system too, for flavor, but its flexibility causes a lot of analysis paralysis once a caster hits about 10th level or so. And it suffers the same overpowered casters issue as its 3E root system, though it puts off the reckoning until higher levels, thanks to some weeding out of the worst offending spells.

I wouldn't mind seeing a AE/4E mixed system, where it took something very much like a ritual to swap "readied spells"--perhaps much easier, cheaper, and safe when not on an adventure. Then the caster could cast non-readied spells, slowly and at risk and expense, via ritual, and use the AE system for the readied spells. That puts the planning between adventures, where the analysis paralysis does the least harm, while leaving the option to swap out a spell or two in a pinch, if the party suddenly needs water breathing or the like, but didn't have it.

Then set up a handful of optional at-will and encounter spells, available via feat and/or class/theme features that take up one or more of those "readied" slots, also via ritual. (By "optional" here, I mean the group decides to allow these or not--and you've got something else to do with that feat or feature if the group decides not.)

Combine all of that with AE's features to keep the spell list more under control--especially the more powerful spells--and you have a system where "specialist caster" or "generalist wizard" is not some hard-coded dichotomy, but a spectrum that can be tweaked as the players want.

 

[RHGreen]

I don't like vancian, but I could live with it if they do something like the following:

1. Have at least 2 or 3 low powered at-wills so I never have to use a pointless crossbow that I can never hit with.

2. Have separate silos (in a similar philosophy to 4E) where I have to choose some utility type spells as part of the system. It is always too tempting and possibly too 'right choice' to choose damage spells or save or dies and leave some of the other spells sitting around unused.

For example, if you had separate spell slots for combat spells and utility spells like Level 1: 1 (1) where #(#) is combat spells (utility spells).

3. The ability to ad hoc casting a spell at a disadvantage.

4. Ritual casting, perhaps with the ability to cast utility spells in a ritual fashion.

Something along those lines.

Oh, and on a couple of spell side notes.

a) Ditch meta-magic. Didn't like it, not in the 3E presentation. Not sure exactly why. Just didn't.

b) Save-Or-Die. How about if we spells that have a low chance of success per round, but you can keep casting it until i) you give up, ii) you are interrupted, iii) you succeed.

For example:

Charm Person.

You really really want to charm the target rather than just kill it. The target can help you in the adventure. It can give information, help you through a door (either pass guards, knowing the magic word, or perhaps disarm the trap etc) and maybe even fight along side you.

Charm Person has only about a 1 in 3 (or perhaps 4 - I don't know - it would need play-testing to figure out) chance of succeeding.

Possible Outcomes:

1) You cast it on the 1st round, it fails, you keep casting on the 2nd round, you fail again, you continue casting it yet another round and bang it succeeds. You defeat the target. It took 3 rounds of attacking to take it out in much the same way attacking with damage spells would have done. The difference is you now have a "friend".

2) You cast Charm Person on the 1st round and fail. You try to keep casting on the second round, but take an arrow to the leg disrupting the spell. You lose the spell and now have to try something else.

3) You cast Charm Person on the 1st round. You succeed. You have excelled yourself this time. Cheers and celebrations all round. Like the old days of Save-Or-Die, but it doesn't happen very often so it isn't a constant encounter fun destroyer.

Hopefully this would get rid of the 2 normal outcomes of Save-Or-Dies. "Well that encounter was over quick, magic-users are too powerful, my fighter didn't get to do anything" or "That was my only spell and it didn't work. Now all I can do is watch you lot play. Magic-users are rubbish."

 

[Neonchameleon]

The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?
You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...

You could. Just give them a casting time measured in minutes and a cost and few are going to bother. And that makes your spellbook the spells you know well enough to cast reflexively. (For that matter I have the house rule that a wizard can cast any wizard at will attack power in 3 rounds as long as they don't move - it doesn't happen IME).

D&D "Vancian" is short-hand for some variation of having discrete spells in slots. Far as I'm concerned, that includes the 3E sorcerer and the 4E ADEU system--though obviously those are somewhat off the center of what D&D "Vancian" has meant. If you want to get more particular than that about what "Vancian" means, then go to the source material, where spells are very much the big guns--"I win" buttons so powerful that even in a story, with no chance of the character power gaming, the casters only have 4-6 of them.

Ultimately I don't mind Vancian casting. What I mind is the classic Wizard (and Cleric) class. Spell points are trying to fix the symptom not the cause.

What's wrong with the wizard can be shown easily by looking at Lord of the Rings. In the whole of Lord of the Rings, Gandalf casts about six spells. A third level 3.X specialist wizard can cast seven significant spells (plus cantrips). Per day. And then even if they've spent a night sleeping on a bed of nails (and a night's sleep is something everyone needs so it's not a specific inconvenience), they can cast seven spells the next day. It's absurd by the standards of Lord of The Rings - or just about any protagonist from Appendix N. For that matter I'm not sure Harry Potter normally casts seven spells in a day.

The problems with Vancian magic to me boil down to the same two things.

1: The Wizard has too much magic. A fifth level wizard makes Gandalf look like an amateur. If you cut the wizard (and other primary casting classes) out of the game, the top tier class that remains in the PHB is the Bard. Cut all the primary casters out and the best caster is still right at the top of the power tree.

2: The recharge times are wrong. Resetting your spells should be something much more significant. It works in classic dungeoncrawling where you make far to many wandering monster checks to make an 8 hour rest healthy. And the penalty for recharging isn't a night's rest but schlepping back to town. But for a less focussed game this does not work. It means that for any situation that takes time to unfold the wizard can reprepare quite happily. Make it at least a full day and much more of the problem vanishes.

(3: In 3.X the crafting rules were broken. But that's not inherent).

Most of the spellpoint systems or the like don't fix either of these problems - if anything they make them worse as they mean with a very few versatile spells the wizard always has a good one to hand. "True Vancian" casting with only a handful of prepared spells and needing time in a lab to prepare would be fascinating. But that's not what we have.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

In addition to the above points, my main reasons for liking the Vancian system are as follows:

1) No siloing of spells. You can prepare all combat spells, or no combat spells, or any permutation. Which means you can spend one day fireballing everything in sight, and another day divining all of your enemies, and another day setting up long-term wards, giving you maximum strategic flexibility. As mentioned before, it basically comes down to being a superior system strategically where AEDU is often superior tactically, and I much prefer a system with both good strategic and good tactical capability to one with mediocre strategic and excellent tactical capability.

2) No enforcement of non-combat-ness. This is similar to the above, but in speed rather than number. Wall of stone, silent image, and teleport are in theory non-combat spells, and some people lament being able to cast them so quickly (mostly the people who think that you should require the preparation of some utility spells because combat spells are better, protip, they're not), but when it comes right down to it every single spell is a combat spell if you're creative enough. If the designers say "This is a non-combat spell, so we should make it not castable in combat," what they're actually saying is either "It's too powerful to be able to cast in combat" or "We're not creative enough to think of combat uses for this." Most of the time when they say it's too powerful for combat they're wrong--seriously, guys, you didn't need to make the 4e Silent Image ritual take forever to cast and cost gold--and the latter case is self-explanatory.


Also: All the time, I see people who dislike Vancian casting but like the ritual system, saying that magic should be long and involved and so forth. Guess what? Vancian casting is a ritual system! You spend a long time casting a ritual...and then at the end, instead of having it take effect immediately, you stick it in stasis in your mind to be released later. All of the heavy lifting gets done in advance, which is why there are no super-long casting times in combat or skill checks--they were all done in relative safety over a few hours.

1: The Wizard has too much magic. A fifth level wizard makes Gandalf look like an amateur. If you cut the wizard (and other primary casting classes) out of the game, the top tier class that remains in the PHB is the Bard. Cut all the primary casters out and the best caster is still right at the top of the power tree.

2: The recharge times are wrong. Resetting your spells should be something much more significant. It works in classic dungeoncrawling where you make far to many wandering monster checks to make an 8 hour rest healthy. And the penalty for recharging isn't a night's rest but schlepping back to town. But for a less focussed game this does not work. It means that for any situation that takes time to unfold the wizard can reprepare quite happily. Make it at least a full day and much more of the problem vanishes.

That isn't a Vancian problem, actually, it's a 3e problem. In AD&D, wizards had many fewer spells (no bonus spells for high attributes, no focused specialist, no widely-available charged items, etc.) and spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare, each, so it took a 20th level wizard about 2.5 days to prepare all of his spells and he only had about 2/3 the spells of a 20th-level counterpart. Bring back AD&D-style Vancian instead of 3e-style Vancian for 5e, problem solved.

 

[billd91]

It's jargon. Every game has it. And jargon works by redefining the "common language" meaning.

<snip>

So, in short, the only difference with 4E's jargon? It's new.

In a word, no.

Games have jargon. That's true. But when the meaning of words used as jargon contrast with common, non-jargon uses of the word you risk being down the rabbit hole, so to speak (or technically, chatting with Humpty Dumpty on an adventure through the looking glass). Too much dissonance between the use of the word as jargon and as everyday speech and people object, as we've seen. The jargon begins to look like spin. Nobody wants to play the healer? Call him a leader instead. That sounds active, not reactive.