Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5883730" data-attributes="member: 151">I have tried point-based systems, skill-based systems, mana-point systems, keyword/rune-based systems and fixed-power-based systems.  They have all had their advantages and disadvantages.  At one point I felt the Vancian system was archaic and stupid.  That was approximately 25 years ago.  My feelings have changed quite a bit since then.Preference for the survival of the Vancian system, to me, is far from nostalgia.  Many of previous e-mails have hit on the ideas that make it appealing.1) Player Agency - Excepting 4E, under all previous editions, the vancian was the most flexible and customizable.  More than one party would tailor the plans around waiting another day for the caster to prepare a particular spell.  The caster was not just a combat machine, he was complicated tool that the player could tailor to the role he wanted, within certain limits.  Was a pure wizard, an illusionist, a self-buffing warrior-priest, an undead-destroying machine, a protector, a savior, a transportation system?  He could be.  2) Definitive sense of advancement: every time a caster advances to a new spell level, it's like a kid in the candy store.  Our experience in 4E is simply not the same; we didn't see people anticipating getting a spell like Fireball or Raise Dead the way you did under the AEDU system.  A new slot was a tactical improvement, a new spell level was like a class expansion.3) Spells no longer as treasure: under every edition prior to 4E, the spellbook was LEWT.  I thought eliminating this would actually be a positive move, but I found we didn't enjoy that aspect.  Now, every enemy caster was just some guy...it didn't matter what his power source was, since you couldn't benefit from it.  4) Tactical choices: Following on #1: when a player 'didn't prepare that spell today', she knew it was her choice; it made those choices valuable and meaningful in a way that 'I didn't ready that daily today' doesn't....not on the same scale.  Under the Vancian system, the caster made distinct choices:  we're traveling today, so I'll memorize these three spells that I normally wouldn't.  We're going into the frozen lands, I'll memorize these defensive spells and rope trick, etc.  The caster felt like he was making important choices, even if they ended up not being important in the course of play...they still felt like they COULD be important.5) Linear Progression: Following on #2: You felt a significant improvement in power that the acquisition of new powers under the AEDU system doesn't evoke with us.  A 10th-level wizard FEELS much more powerful than a 1st level wizard in a way he doesn't under a non-vancian system, IMHO...and how free he is with his spells was one obvious difference to non-casters.There are other reasons, but in terms of D&D, Vancian evokes a particular feel that is the game for us.I do find it funny that someone listed Gandalf as an example of how D&D does a bad job with casters.  Given that the first D&D article about Gandalf (back in, what, Dragon #4) described Gandalf as a 4th-level druid based on the actual spells he cast in AD&D.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification