Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

[Blackwarder]

This is easy to accomplish by restricting the ability of PCs to cast multiple daily spells in the same combat.

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

 

[Aenghus]

Vancian spellcasting doesn't per se specify the absolute power level of the spells being learned.

My fear is that "Vancian Spellcasting" is being used as a label to appeal for getting back pre-4e spellcasters in all their broken glory, without actually saying so. The furore over Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter is a reaction to this fear.

The bad old days (IMO) of Casters & Caddies(TM) will return if the new mechanics have the combination of lots of spell choice for spellcasters and individual spells being brokenly powerful. It's natural for players to gravitate to the most broken spells, whatever they turn out to be, if they are able to.

There is a significant section of the fanbase who won't accept spellcasters who are just plain better than everyone else in the average game. This includes spellcasters with theoretical drawbacks that can be mitigated or overcome by system mastery.

IMO the way to keep the caster curve down is to restrict their choices somewhat, and restrict the power of individual spells.

Re spell choice, I like the idea of specialists with good access to a small area of magic, and more limited access magic in general, so casters have strengths and weaknesses, and can't just do anything given time to prepare.
I think generalists should take a power hit in return for a wider choice of powers.

Re spell power, I don't think spells should automatically be more powerful than non-spell abilities just because they are magic. It's possible to have useful and flavourful magic that isn't also the best ability in the setting.

An isssue I see is that the most complex classes with the most optional content tend to be the spellcasters, and this appeals to a disparate group of people with differing goals e.g. powergamers seeking raw power, roleplayers seeking a particular concept, strategists expoiting the long term consequences of spells etc etc.

The spellcasting rules will be stress tested by players and shouldn't break under predictable game conditions, lke players working hard to mitigate every limitation placed on them by the system, and using the most effective abilities available, regardless of how the designers envisaged the system being used.

 

[FireLance]

For me the issue was not identifying the encounter so much as the combat slanted nature of encounter powers. A rockslide could be an encounter and throwing up a wall of stone or force, a good way to shield the party from the rocks.

Well, the 4e versions of wall of stone and wall of force are utility spells which can be cast with a standard action, and there are encounter utility powers that have non-combat uses.

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).

 

[FireLance]

This seems to come up a lot. A leader is not one who leads. A healing surge doesn't necessarily involve actual healing. And an encounter power has nothing to do with the nebulously defined "encounter"; it's just another recharge time. Apparently, just reading these terms and using their common language meanings misrepresents the ideas behind them.

Right. Jargon bad. I get it. My point is: adding to the confusion also bad.

In any case, that isn't the issue. Having two recharge times, with no interaction between the two, and tracking them separately for each ability is a problem in terms of both bookkeeping and explaining to your players why these limitations exist, even more so than the (again, hackneyed but established) Vancian rules.

I think you underestimate the general intelligence of players and the power of color-coding:
"The red ones take less effort and can be regained after a short rest. The black ones take more effort and can only be regained after an extended rest."

 

[dkyle]

This seems to come up a lot. A leader is not one who leads. A healing surge doesn't necessarily involve actual healing. And an encounter power has nothing to do with the nebulously defined "encounter"; it's just another recharge time. Apparently, just reading these terms and using their common language meanings misrepresents the ideas behind them.

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

Leader very well could lead, and tend to have mechanics thematically conducive to that role. They are not obliged to, of course.

Healing Surge involves healing, in the jargon sense of the word of "increasing HP", analogous of the jargon sense of the word damage for "decreasing HP"

Encounter powers are generally usable once per encounter, with the assumption of at least 5 minutes of rest between encounters. The usability of Encounter powers is in fact directly tied to the game definition of "Encounter".

And to show that jargon is nothing new to DnD, let's look at some past jargon:

Armor Class: includes many factors other than armor

Touch Armor Class: in fact, specifically does not include armor

Damage: simply loss of HP; due to the abstract nature of HP, does not necessarily mean actual physical damage.

Hit Points: often are not lost due to "hits"; most spells prior to 4E did not "hit". And really, trying to make sense of the phrase on the basis of pure common language is impossible; it makes no sense.

Hit: means "landing a solid enough blow to get past armor"; the common language definition would include any contact with the person or their armor, and would be better modeled by attacks vs Touch AC, instead of vs. AC. So Plate would not help avoid getting hit.

X per day: doesn't actually mean X times per day. It means X times, until reset by a full rest. Don't rest? Doesn't count as a new day. Oh look, that's almost identical to Encounter abilities in 4E, just with a different rest duration.


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

In any case, that isn't the issue. Having two recharge times, with no interaction between the two, and tracking them separately for each ability is a problem in terms of both bookkeeping and explaining to your players why these limitations exist, even more so than the (again, hackneyed but established) Vancian rules.

Comparing high-level bookkeeping in 4E vs 3.5 is no contest. 4 Encounters/4 Dailies vs dozens of Vancian spells? I find it hard to believe that having two different types of rest is that complicated.

And why are explanations so hard? Since this is a thread about casting, set aside the issues with Martial classes. How is a spell that comes back after a 5 minute rest so much harder to understand than a spell that comes back after a 6 hour rest? Why is it so hard to understand how magic could work that way, and have different spells that require different amounts of rest and preparation? Is that really so different from spells with different casting times?

 

[Mengu]

Some say D&D is vancian magic.
Some say D&D is elves, dwarves and halflings.
Some say D&D is +5 holy avengers and flame tongues.
Some say D&D is magic missiles and fireballs.
Some say D&D is attributes, hit points, and armor class.
Some say D&D is B&W Erol Otus art.

And naturally, some disagree with part or all of the above.

If someone asked me what is D&D, before all this 5e talk, I would say it is a fantasy role playing game system. Today, I know better. D&D is a feeling. It must feel right to its fans, or else, it isn't D&D. With 5e, I am becoming less and less of a D&D fan, because I disagree with most its fans. I want D&D to be the best fantasy role playing game system it can be. But that is no longer the goal of the design team. They are after capturing a feeling, and not interested in improving the game system.

So, why is vancian magic so popular? Because many D&D fans say vancian magic *feels* like D&D.

 

[Janaxstrus]

X per day: doesn't actually mean X times per day. It means X times, until reset by a full rest. Don't rest? Doesn't count as a new day. Oh look, that's almost identical to Encounter abilities in 4E, just with a different rest duration.

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How is it "metagamey"? You are entirely free to cast 4E spells out of combat, and to try to cast rituals during combat. There are no metagame mechanics restricting you. Only the the entirely in-game properties of of the spells/rituals themselves.

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...

Leveling up is "in-game".

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.

Perhaps not terribly imbalanced, but it does have the effect of encouraging more and more sameness, if every character can get every power of their class. It also significantly exacerbates the "analysis paralysis" that some have with 4E.

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. Often the wizard paralyzes, not because he has too many choices, but all choices he has are equally bad. If my wizard knows he is facing lots of fire resistant creatures, his scorching burst is as bad as a single target spell. The necromancer who has a spell that is very well vs undead but only mediocre vs living targets and only an area spell, he needs to decide, which bad option he uses... those are the cases where the game needs unnecessarily long to resolve. If there is a clearuseful spell, you use it.
In ADnD or 3e i never had to think about much which spell is used. Usually only IF using a spell is really needed.

 

[FireLance]

Right. Jargon bad. I get it.

Slightly off-topic, but on further reflection, it has occured to me that jargon may very well be the 4e version of "THAC0 keeps the riff-raff out".

And this, of course, is bad. Very, very bad.

5e should do its utmost to avoid the use of jargon, and should not be released unless every word has no more and no less than its common language meaning. Nothing less than absolute perfection is acceptable.

Oh, and while WotC is working on that, it should, of course, continue to support 4e.