"Best system" and "improvement" are subjective terms, as stated here. Best at doing what? Improved in what sense? You cannot "make a game better" - you can only make a game better at providing some specific play experience.
Why is the Vancian system still so popular?
- Thread starter Surmos
- Start date
"Best system" and "improvement" are subjective terms, as stated here. Best at doing what? Improved in what sense? You cannot "make a game better" - you can only make a game better at providing some specific play experience.
That is very true. I should clarify... For me, I look for a diverse experience, a system that can deliver to the needs of a variety of campaign worlds that a DM can create, and a variety of character concepts a player can come up with. Again for me, D&D is first and foremost a fantasy role playing game system, and not a fantasy campaign template.
And what's wrong with using a term that emphasizes the totality of the class, instead of a single feature? There's no simple, non-jargon word that quite means what Leader means in 4E. Ergo, take a word, that doesn't already have baggage from previous editions, and give it a jargon definition. Clerics were not meant to simply be "Healers", from day one. Calling them "Healers" would have been an abandonment of the spirit of Gygax's DnD.
I guess, overall, all this concern over jargon and terminology is hard for me to understand. It's just on a whole completely different wavelength than how I view games. It's all just labels for mechanics; the more clearly defined those labels are, the better (which tends to differentiate further from common language, since that is rarely clearly defined). I dislike 3.X because I dislike the mechanics, not because of terminology weirdness like Touch "Armor" Class.
A clear separation between what you can do with skills and what you can do with magic is common. Special rules are less so.
Not arguing about that. Vancian magic is iconic to D&D.
Funny how this thing that breaks the laws of physics and common sense is so damn reliable in D&D. And as far as I can tell, magic in skill based systems can break the laws of physics and common sense without function mechanically in a different way to other abilities. Again, it's about what magic does - not the game mechanic involved.
filthgrinder
First Post
I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of the two. I think At-will spells/powers are a good thing. Having the option to take some basic attacking spell and being able to spam it works. Having a number of spell "slots" and being able to prepare some from a list, also "feels" right.
Here is how I'd like to see a wizard.
First, he uses a feat/spell choice/skill option, whatever character creation/building resource you want to call it, and spends it on magic missile (or another at-will). Now, this is a choice, he could have spent that resource on some other option. So people who HATE at-wills, can build their character without it.
Now, for spells, you have a number of spell slots. You can fill certain slots with certain level spells.
Now, and here the fun part. Not all spells of the same level have the same prep time. So, let's say I have 2 fourth level spell slots. My spell book has four fourth level spells in it.
Spell 1: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.
Spell 2: Requires five minutes to prepare
Spell 3: Requires a short rest and 1 minute to prepare
Spell 4: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.
Now, I have the flexibility to prepare out my day. I can spend those two slots and prep spell 2 and 3. These will be "encounter" type spells where I will probably reprep throughout the day after a fight. Spell 1 and 4 would be "daily" spells. I wouldn't be able to prep them again throughout the day, but I might want one just in case. Also, I might want to prep one of those dailies, and then when I use it, maybe I can prep my encounters then as well. Or maybe that spell burns out that spell slot until I can extended rest again.
Something to think about.
Here is how I'd like to see a wizard.
First, he uses a feat/spell choice/skill option, whatever character creation/building resource you want to call it, and spends it on magic missile (or another at-will). Now, this is a choice, he could have spent that resource on some other option. So people who HATE at-wills, can build their character without it.
Now, for spells, you have a number of spell slots. You can fill certain slots with certain level spells.
Now, and here the fun part. Not all spells of the same level have the same prep time. So, let's say I have 2 fourth level spell slots. My spell book has four fourth level spells in it.
Spell 1: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.
Spell 2: Requires five minutes to prepare
Spell 3: Requires a short rest and 1 minute to prepare
Spell 4: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.
Now, I have the flexibility to prepare out my day. I can spend those two slots and prep spell 2 and 3. These will be "encounter" type spells where I will probably reprep throughout the day after a fight. Spell 1 and 4 would be "daily" spells. I wouldn't be able to prep them again throughout the day, but I might want one just in case. Also, I might want to prep one of those dailies, and then when I use it, maybe I can prep my encounters then as well. Or maybe that spell burns out that spell slot until I can extended rest again.
Something to think about.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Could also have "spells" that take a "daily" slot, but last all day, and provide more limited actions, as a way to handle "at-wills" or other such spells.
For example, if you have the right feat investment, you can maybe turn a traditional 3rd level slot (i.e. appropriate for a 5th level wizard) into a spell that, once cast, gives you around seven, 1d6+mod magic missile spells, as a resource you can use anytime during the day.
This is similar to the old magic missile that gave multiple missiles per casting at higher levels, except you get more of them to make up for the fact that you can't use them all at once. So the traditional Vancian "spell economy" is used to set your major limits by "slot," but what the "spells" in those slots do is widened considerably in scope and mechanics.
I'm sure people could come up with other interesting structures besides turning said daily into a quasi-at-will, too. Once there is a layer of indirection between the mechanics of the "spell slot" and the in-game "spell" that ultimately comes out of it, the relationship doesn't need to be as strict as the traditional model made it.
You could also then reuse the mechanical framework but not the in-game output for some different things for non-magical stuff. For example, instead of "exploits," a fighter has "practices" that govern where he is currently honing his techniques. He slots these "practices" similar to 4E, but what they enable are some "encounter", "at-wills," 3E barbarian rage-style bits, or even some straight, reusable abilities, almost like feats that can be retrained within certain limits between each adventure.
For example, if you have the right feat investment, you can maybe turn a traditional 3rd level slot (i.e. appropriate for a 5th level wizard) into a spell that, once cast, gives you around seven, 1d6+mod magic missile spells, as a resource you can use anytime during the day.
This is similar to the old magic missile that gave multiple missiles per casting at higher levels, except you get more of them to make up for the fact that you can't use them all at once. So the traditional Vancian "spell economy" is used to set your major limits by "slot," but what the "spells" in those slots do is widened considerably in scope and mechanics.
I'm sure people could come up with other interesting structures besides turning said daily into a quasi-at-will, too. Once there is a layer of indirection between the mechanics of the "spell slot" and the in-game "spell" that ultimately comes out of it, the relationship doesn't need to be as strict as the traditional model made it.
You could also then reuse the mechanical framework but not the in-game output for some different things for non-magical stuff. For example, instead of "exploits," a fighter has "practices" that govern where he is currently honing his techniques. He slots these "practices" similar to 4E, but what they enable are some "encounter", "at-wills," 3E barbarian rage-style bits, or even some straight, reusable abilities, almost like feats that can be retrained within certain limits between each adventure.
Andor
First Post
In AD&D we had Vancian casters. And Psionics. As far as I can recall that was about it. Plus a few use per day like druid shape changing.
In 2ed we had vancian casters, psionics and sha'irs, plus a lot of awesome variant sha'irs in the handbook. When you broke open the big book of brokenness aka "Skills and Powers" you had some more options.
In 3e we had Vancian wizards and clerics, sorcerers and favored souls, psionics, recharge based casters, at-will based casters, skill based casters, use-per-day based abilites that fed multiple options, power pool abilities, token based abilites (if you count iron heroes,) and artificers.
4e had AEDU + rituals.
Speaking for myself I'd like to see more of the flexibility, openness and outright wackiness that 3e afforded.
In 2ed we had vancian casters, psionics and sha'irs, plus a lot of awesome variant sha'irs in the handbook. When you broke open the big book of brokenness aka "Skills and Powers" you had some more options.
In 3e we had Vancian wizards and clerics, sorcerers and favored souls, psionics, recharge based casters, at-will based casters, skill based casters, use-per-day based abilites that fed multiple options, power pool abilities, token based abilites (if you count iron heroes,) and artificers.
4e had AEDU + rituals.
Speaking for myself I'd like to see more of the flexibility, openness and outright wackiness that 3e afforded.
Lwaxy
Cute but dangerous
Like? We haven't encountered any issues save people sometimes getting confused about how many points they have left.
Incenjucar
Legend
Don't forget the 4E psionics system. Honestly, if you get rid of the scaling issues with it, I'd love to see that applied to classes of all types as a fatigue system.
One thing about Vancian magic and wizards that I never got that wizards "understood" magic but could not copy other forms of magic. The idea of Vancian magic locked designers and into the thought that spell slot are completely separate from every other system.
A wizard can learn to inject a spell into a potion but no one thought of a way to turn their hand into a reloadable magic wand? It would be interesting if there was some way to cast Vancian spells to gain access to another spell system. Fingerwand turns your finger into a 10 charge wand of a 0th level spell. Eyebeam allows the caster to fire off a 2d6 energy beam out their eyes once every enc.... 10-(wizard level) minutes.
A wizard can learn to inject a spell into a potion but no one thought of a way to turn their hand into a reloadable magic wand? It would be interesting if there was some way to cast Vancian spells to gain access to another spell system. Fingerwand turns your finger into a 10 charge wand of a 0th level spell. Eyebeam allows the caster to fire off a 2d6 energy beam out their eyes once every enc.... 10-(wizard level) minutes.
Similar Threads
