Running out of spells seems to fall mostly in the domain of low-level spellcasting. This is to be expected, however. Wizards fresh out of apprenticeship have no business throwing spells from sun up until sun down.
To the OP: Vancian yes! This is not just because I love Vancian spellcasting, but because this is a style that has permeated D&D from the beginning. I want them to commit to their own brand. Evolve D&D; stop trying to frankenstein it. Opening the development to player input is a fantastic method, but not if it produces a knee-jerk reaction to what's being asked for. D&D is a unique experience, much like many other RPGs out there that fill different niches. I will always prefer the method of growing/evolving to reinventing. There's too much room for failure for my taste.
I feel the same way about a modular approach. It's a great idea, and there are a lot of great systems out there. But would it be D&D? I love Savage Worlds; it is an immensely awesome system that accomplishes the "any shoe fits" mentality quite superbly. But it's not D&D/PF. I don't pick up Savage Worlds and go "alright boys, let's play some Savage Golarion/Forgotten Realms." And despite all the great praises I can lavish on Savage Worlds, there is one in particular where it does not even pretend to compare to Mr. Gygax's legacy: spells. There are no other systems out there (that I have seen) that come close to the tip of D&D's iceberg in spells. It's what ruined me on 4E, and it will absolutely deter me from touching any future edition they put out if mishandled.
I suppose a simpler way to express my views is to offer this advice to D&D: set the example, stop chasing other people's slices of pie.
Also, as a final note: Monte Cook is a hell of a writer. His name being involved in and of itself gives me hope for a better product. I just hope they listen to him.
I disagree with most of what you've said. It's been my experience that the majority of spellcasters in a typical D&D game seldom run completely out of spell usages, even in dungeon situations. But then that's because most spellcasters in games I've played in don't bulk up on combat spells. Combat is best handled by those characters designed for it, like fighters and barbarians.
So, at 1st level using 3E/v3.5, when you have 5 battles and the wizard has 2 1st level spells available and (at most) 3 cantrips what are they to do? They resort to mundane weapons like the dagger, staff, or crossbow OR they don't participate in combat and hide. Both of those latter options are abysmal choices to me. At 1st level, if I'm going into the mines of Duvik's Pass, there's a good chance I'm going to prepare spells that are either supportive (Enlarge Person, Protection from Evil), combative (Magic Missile, Sleep), or utility (Grease, Tenser's Floating Disc, Disguise Self). I'd think my party would expect me to participate in the exploration of the mine and that means helping out with the fighting. The rules of the game are pretty severe in what I can do to participate (aside from casting spells). So as we proceed, I'm left with casting a spell that can help (but I'm limited to 5 total), making attacks with weapons (something I'm not build for), or sitting there twiddling my thumbs being a liability.
I don't accept the notion of the 15-minute adventuring day. That's poor planning on the party's part. Spellcasting isn't intended to replace fighter types. It is intended to provide support. Treating wizards as artillery or expecting the cleric to cast a cure light wounds spell on every hangnail is what depletes spell usages so that casters have to rest 6-8 hours before the next encounter.
Just because you don't accept it or it doesn't happen in your group doesn't mean it wasn't a present factor in the game. Admittitdly, it's a problem with low-level play and groups who have limited spellcasters, but there-in lies the problem. Combat, whether you like it or not, is a good portion of this game. Should the wizard be a primary function to this aspect? No, I would say that his contribution doesn't require LOADS of spells that deal TONS of damage or have crazy destructive effects. But as another party memeber, I'd expect them to participate when we do fight. And when a 3E wizard participates, they often burn through spells. The stronger the encounter, the more spells, and thus shorter amount of combat due to the wizard's (or other spellcasters) restrictive Vancian magic.
A single day in D&D can result in multiple encounters; in AD&D, there were up to six chances per day, and in 3E there's a percentage chance every hour. That should tell you that Vancian spellcasters were meant to be circumspect in what they cast, since their spells were meant to last through multiple encounters.
Granted that certain spells durations might carry through multiple encounters, but at lower levels where their factored by minutes....not really. I've encountered few examples where we faced off against multiple encounters within say...5 minutes of game-time and thats when most low-leveled mages spells expire. At higher levels, the spells carry on further but then they've enought items and spell slots that it's not an issue.
Making a selection of specific spells exceptionally powerful while giving casters at-will uses of less-powerful spells does not help the problem of power creep (IMO, it would make the problem worse). While I admit that the number of spell usages a caster has tends to overwhelm the restrictions of Vancian magic, having to carefully select those spells provides some control.As far as magic items being hard-wired into character advancement, I don't remember whether it was Mearls or Cook who mentioned that wasn't going to be the case in 5E. Apparently, magic items are going back to what they were originally - bonuses, not necessities. (Controlled by the DM, undoubtedly.)
I actually agree with magic items, though I wish they were de-coupled with the (IMO) moronic "+1's, +2, +3" BS that they always were. I wish my sword was just Flaming or my hammer Throwing instead of other stuff in there as well. But the usage of At-Will spells (something they're doing with feats in 5E) keeps them doing stuff in low level games where their Vancian spells run out or are tailored to more exploration effects. And thats where I think they did something right. It helps with Power Creep by allowing only a certain number of Powerful spells to be memorized and cast, spells than can change the tide of any battle (for example). Which also pertains to only memorizing one specific spell at any given time.
I see very little mechanical reasoning behind Vancian magic, and I'm convinced that if D&D were developed today from scratch, such a magic system wouldn't even be on the table. It's there because it's been in previous editions of D&D, and that's basically it.
Vancian magic allows you to package magic into specific spells, which is easier to handle than free form magic.
Vancian magic implies that magical 'energy' is finite and thus echoes hit points as a finite resource (and limits abuse).
Your bone (and I believe this is true with most people) is about the third element of vancian magic, which is spell preparation/memorisation.
Personally, I think vancian magic offers many mechanical advantages. 3rd edition proved that you can have a semi-vancian, spontaneous casting system (a la sorcerer) which can easily be adapted to a fully vancian campaign if need be.
Would there be other ways to make magic? Off course there are, just as we can ave a fantasy RPG without classes, hit points, AC and other "signature" elements of D&D.
'findel
You may disagree with Monte's opinion, but he's right. For 3 full incarnations of the game from Arneson through 2.0 Vancian Magic was the be all and end all of the both arcane and divine spellcasting when there were no such things as sorcerers, favored souls or oracles. When compared to other game systems, it is one of the things that defines Dungeons and Dragons from all other FRPGs out there. You might not like it as a part of D&D, but Cook's statement that it is a defining linchpin of the game since it's start is pretty much incontestable.
I wasn't disagreeing with his opinion about it being iconic in the game, obviously it is. I was disagreeing with the mystical, "feelings" about what it represents and how that's somehow Good in any specific way. But hey, if you want Vancian magic, there's always AD&D and 3E and v3.5 and Pathfinder to scratch that itch for you. I see no reason to re-hash old ideas just for the sake of re-hashing old ideas and appeasement. But whatever, at least I can always keep my 4E books heh.
I wasn't disagreeing with his opinion about it being iconic in the game, obviously it is. I was disagreeing with the mystical, "feelings" about what it represents and how that's somehow Good in any specific way. But hey, if you want Vancian magic, there's always AD&D and 3E and v3.5 and Pathfinder to scratch that itch for you. I see no reason to re-hash old ideas just for the sake of re-hashing old ideas and appeasement. But whatever, at least I can always keep my 4E books heh.
You may disagree with Monte's opinion, but he's right. For 3 full incarnations of the game from Arneson through 2.0 Vancian Magic was the be all and end all of the both arcane and divine spellcasting when there were no such things as sorcerers, favored souls or oracles. When compared to other game systems, it is one of the things that defines Dungeons and Dragons from all other FRPGs out there. You might not like it as a part of D&D, but Cook's statement that it is a defining linchpin of the game since it's start is pretty much incontestable.
That right there is pretty much the point I've been trying to make about it, although turned on its head. These things are what put D&D on the map. They are what continued to give D&D its claim to the throne. What happened when they tried to distance themselves from that trend? They lost the throne to people who picked up that same legacy they had dropped. Where you say, "if you want Vancian magic, there's always AD&D and 3E and v3.5 and Pathfinder..." I say, "if you don't want Vancian magic, there's an entire world of RPGs out there that aren't D&D."
I just don't see the need to turn D&D into something that isn't D&D. There are other companies who do it better that have been doing it longer.
|
First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.
If all their doing is repacking 3.5 into a new package I'm not sure how they expect it to do as well as 3.5 did. Why would I want to buy an rpg that is similar to 3.5/Pathfinder when I already have those. Reeks of revisionist design in the hopes no one will notice. Which would work if we did not already have Pathfinder.
If I were Wotc I would keep the Vancian magic system yet at the same time offer an optional 4E alternative to magic in the PHB. That way if someone dislikes Vancian they can use something else. And no not in some 5E version of Unearthed Arcana either.
Or rather then have two classes of Wizard and Sorcerer merge them into one and allow the player to chose either type of spellcasting. Don't want the annoyance of having to rememeber what to pick for spell slots you can use the Sorcerer version. Don't like the fact that while you cna cast more spells you can cast less spells use the Wizard version.
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
The more I'm reading the more it looks like I will not be buying into 5E. Not because I don't want to or because I don;t have an open mind. More because it feels like its going to be a 3.90 version of D&D. If all your going to do is offer exaclty what the competiiton is offering why would people buy a new version. If it's the "lets bring back as many sacred cows edition" well my response is why Pathfinder does that already. Makes me wonder if the 5E developemt already are set on what they want to do and are using the playtest as an excuse to give the illusion that fans feedback will mean something. So far all I'm seeing in the transcripts is very little new innovation nd more "let's turn the clock back to 3e".
I eonder if they are overestimating the attraction of D&D. What i mean is that imo all the development teams needs to do is release a rehash of 3E slap 5e and it will sell. I'm probably being unfair yet as said all I'm seeing is them bringing back the old and tossing out the new.
First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.
If all their doing is repacking 3.5 into a new package I'm not sure how they expect it to do as well as 3.5 did. Why would I want to buy an rpg that is similar to 3.5/Pathfinder when I already have those. Reeks of revisionist design in the hopes no one will notice. Which would work if we did not already have Pathfinder.
If I were Wotc I would keep the Vancian magic system yet at the same time offer an optional 4E alternative to magic in the PHB. That way if someone dislikes Vancian they can use something else. And no not in some 5E version of Unearthed Arcana either.
Or rather then have two classes of Wizard and Sorcerer merge them into one and allow the player to chose either type of spellcasting. Don't want the annoyance of having to rememeber what to pick for spell slots you can use the Sorcerer version. Don't like the fact that while you cna cast more spells you can cast less spells use the Wizard version.
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
The more I'm reading the more it looks like I will not be buying into 5E. Not because I don't want to or because I don;t have an open mind. More because it feels like its going to be a 3.90 version of D&D. If all your going to do is offer exaclty what the competiiton is offering why would people buy a new version. If it's the "lets bring back as many sacred cows edition" well my response is why...
Evolve, evolve, evolve. There were some redeeming qualities to 4E. Staying true to their roots does not mean creating another 3.variant. 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition were very different, but still connected. Identify the areas where an Edition failed outright, and correct them. Throwing out the kitchen sink will and has alienated too many of the people that made it a success in the first place.
The Count of Monte Cristo :)
THE BEST!
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.For the record, I never said that anyone should play a different class, nor did I ever espouse a "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
What I espouse is the notion that if you're running out of spell usages in a manner that the game's design doesn't intend, you might not be playing your character intelligently.
"You can pound screws into wood with a hammer, but they're designed for use with a screwdriver." - Albert Einstein, 1946
+1
Seriously, a newbie mage, 1st level, isn't going to be slinging spells every single round. That, and 0 and 1st-level scrolls are ridiculously cheap, even cheaper if the wizard scribes them himself. Not like 1st level lasts all that long anyway. I think Pathfinder made a good move making 0-level spells re-usable, and if 5e does something similar this answer most of the "OMG 1st level is weak!" problems.
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.For the record, I never said that anyone should play a different class, nor did I ever espouse a "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
What I espouse is the notion that if you're running out of spell usages in a manner that the game's design doesn't intend, you might not be playing your character intelligently.
"You can pound screws into wood with a hammer, but they're designed for use with a screwdriver." - Albert Einstein, 1946
+1
Seriously, a newbie mage, 1st level, isn't going to be slinging spells every single round. That, and 0 and 1st-level scrolls are ridiculously cheap, even cheaper if the wizard scribes them himself. Not like 1st level lasts all that long anyway. I think Pathfinder made a good move making 0-level spells re-usable, and if 4e does something similar this asnswer most of the "OMG 1st is weak!" problems.
Agreed. Cantrips and Orisons ensure you're never completely out of juice, but the spell effects are mild enough that they are well beyond the realm of being imbalanced. Let's not forget the Specialist School/Bloodline/Domain/Mysteries/Hexes/etc. that were added, giving the casters even more low level options (some of which are inexhaustible). I know a lot of non-Wizards may steer clear of Scribe Scroll in the interest of Feat economy, but it is surprisingly adept at preventing the beginner wizard blues a lot of people are complaining about. There are avenues in-game to avoid these woes (wands and staves not the least of which) that are being regularly left of the equation.
I'm trying to find the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure Monte (or at least one other team member)already made mention of wizards not having to go back to using daggers and crossbows regardless, so the whole argument is moot. I think some people are just bitter. It happens.
...
As far as the rest of your reply is concerned, we obviously have far different ideas on the role of wizards in combat. I believe a wizard should stay back and avoid hand-to-hand combat altogether (a measly d4 for hit points and a prediliction for no armor underlines this). There are many more things that can be accomplished in a combat situation that rushing in with a dagger (retrieving fallen weapons or readying flasks of oil or holy water are examples).I don't agree with at-will uses of magic. Even the cantrip ability in Pathfinder is too powerful, IMHO. Allowing casters to cast cantrips at will - what spellcaster isn't going to have one or more of the 0-level detect spells in constant operation?
...
So your problem with at-will cantrip is with detect spell rather than with the ability... Note that it can all get alleviated by making the detect magic lvl 1 and creating a cantrip that allows item identification upon close examination.
Aside from that the detect spell requires concentration, so you should note that the spell takes standard action to maintain and making a search check is a move action, so walking around and detecting slows the party to crawl.
Aside from that I'm all for inherent bonuses being built in and items providing something special instead.
At 1st through about 4th/5th level, damn right. At 6th level (or about the time you start gaining 4th level spells) and the XP available to burn in making magical wands, rods, and wondrous items less so. Vancian wasn't so much a complain (though I thought it was) because of all the other 'Bigger' problems 3E and PF faced. But hey, might as well start somewhere.
Don't forget, PFRPG did away with XP costs -- now crafting only costs you gold and time. I found my wizard in RotRL pretty effective even at low levels -- scribing scrolls of first-level spells is cheap as dirt, and second-level isn't all that expensive, either, so he generally had the ability to cast almost any of his spells at least once. Scrolls for utility spells used now and then, spell slots for combat spells, and wands (also crafted) for a few things you're going to use all the freakin' time, like Mage Armor, Shield, and, a bit later, Scorching Ray.
I find that a wizard with a few crafting feats can get a lot more bang for his GP than a martial character investing in magic weapons and armor -- in fact, I took Craft Magical Arms and Armor so they could get at least some of their equipment at cost instead of with the standard 100% markup. Now, you do need a decent amount of down time for crafting, and it's not so good in a low-treasure campaign, but for something like most of the PF APs I think crafting feats are far more useful than metamagic. (Actually, I don't bother much with metamagic at all unless the campaign allows one of the spontaneous/"sudden" versions from either Unearthed Arcana or The Complete Arcane.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in my day, a 1st level wizard got one spell a day. None of those fancy-schmancy bonus spells or cantrips, and you didn't get a crossbow!
You got 4 hit points, if you were lucky, and dagger, dart, staff for weapons, and you started out with 1. At higher levels, you could finally use all 3.
Many's the dungeon my 1st level wizards went crawling through, with one lousy spell, a few daggers, and a party of other fools who didn't give a hoot if he lived or died. And we liked it!
*spits*
...
Actually, my problem is not necessarily with even the detect spells, since they're concentration spells and that means you can't use them while you're doing anything else -- including riding a horse.
But I've been gaming long enough to know when things have the potential for abuse. At-will abilities may seem okay on the surface, but if there's a way they can be "utilised in a manner unintended by the designers", they will be. Gamers are an endlessly creative lot.
As a DM, I have the authority to say, "you can't do that" in my game. I just don't like having to.
As far as inherent bonuses are concerned... I was just reading on the EnWorld page (where they've collected all the 5E information) that not only will races grant bonuses to abilities, but classes will, as well, the example being that a half-orc grants a +1 to strength and fighter also grants a +1 to strength.
The fact that they're +1s instead of +2s may or may not mean anything, since they aren't rules quotes.
Everything can be abused to certain extent.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.
Nope. Not going to happen. Again, D&D is a game. Invented by Gygax and Arneson. There are elements that make it distinctive from other games. Vancian style spell casting is one. It's pretty obvious to everybody except hard core 4e fans that WotC realizes they dropped the ball big time, since they're not revising 4e, they're scrapping it after the shortest edition run in the history of D&D. One of the biggest "4e isn't D&D" complaints? Getting rid of the iconic spell casting system.
So, if the market is saying they want something, and the people who don't like that very iconic aspect of the game want something else, the market wins. So, yeah, no offense, but go play something else.
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
For every person who doesn't see a problem, there are nine that have no clue about resource management and need to be spectacularly uber every round of every combat. Most games when I play my wizard, I rarely come close to running out of spells. I'm not wasting my resources on opponents the martial classes are supposed to be handling for me. I save my mojo for when it is really needed. Maybe understanding a D&D party is a team, all specializing in something, and not always needed in every situation to be successful is too unselfish for some people, but it's how the game was designed to be played pretty much from 1974 until 2008.
Stuff about sacred cows
Why, you ask? It may have a lot to do with the fact their big move away from the sacred cows failed, and another company stole their mojo. You may have to resign yourself to understanding you are in the minority when it comes to what people think D&D is. Smart companies don't market to the minority of their fan base.
And the beauty part is, there are tons of games out there that don't use Vancian magic that you can play since it's so inefficient and just pointless pandering. Heck, I hear there's even a version of D&D that doesn't use it. You might really dig it.
That's cool. Are we all about shutting down game mechanics discussions that we don't like, now?
The game isn't all about perfect mathematical ratios and efficiency, it's about role-playing fantasy.
There are plenty of other, flavorful fantasy roleplaying magic systems that are not Vancian.
Even in imagination-land, the numbers aren't always perfect.
My complaint isn't about numbers. My complaint is about false dilemmas, pointless burdens, and the completely avoidable buzzkill of, "Whoops, guess I didn't prepare the right spell eight hours ago."
Vancian spellcasting is viewed by a LOT of players as a very "Sacred Cow,"
Of course it is. My argument is that it isn't anything but a sacred cow. The only reason it will be in 5e is that it's pretty much always been in D&D and some people will throw fits if it isn't. They won't really have reasons for throwing fits, other than the sacred cow thing, but they'll do it anyway.
and should have some place in the new iteration if they are really vying for uniting fans of all editions.
This is one of the reasons 4e was such a great RPG in my mind. It unchained itself from the necessity of pandering to the nostalgia-fueled demands of some of its fans, and decided to make the best RPG they could. It's a better game for it.
But, take another look at the team making 5e; many of them were responsible for alternate systems within other editions. So, even though Vancian is back, I have a very, very strong feeling it's not going to be the only way to use magic. Heck, Monte even says in the seminar that magic is going to be about more than just spells. If Vancian spellcasting is just one kind of spellcasting, I am perfectly ok with that, and I welcome all the other options.
I am, too.
For me, the removal of Vancian spellcasting made about as much sense as removing Lightsabers from Star Wars; who really sword-fights when everyone in the galaxy is carrying firearms? It's part of the package. Not everything in the game has to be efficient and perfect to "fit."
Lightsabers are cool and evocative and an utterly iconic piece of Star Wars, and yet plenty of work has been done in the Star Wars universe without them.
Now, if lightsabers were replaced with something else? That would be weird. But I've played D&D with a variant spell point system. It was still D&D. Vancian casting isn't part of what makes D&D D&D to me. Clearly, WotC thinks that it's important enough to enough people to leave it in.
Vancian spellcasting always just felt (to me, not speaking for a crowd) like a part of the game. By removing it, I might as well just go play something else.
If Vancian casting is the only reason you choose to play D&D, maybe you should be reconsidering whether D&D is really the game for you? I don't know. It sounds like your attachment to D&D is sort of threadbare, if the removal of Vancian casting would divorce you from the game.
I'm wondering why the retention of Vancian magic is called things like "pandering" and "nostalgic", "sacred cow" and other, less attractive things. As if Vancian magic is there only because grognards like it and are clamoring for it.
Frankly, that's pretty much the only reason Vancian magic is there.
Vancian magic, and its accompanying restrictions, is an attempt to curb the power imbalance.
Which would be cool, if it had any effect on power imbalance at all. It doesn't.
Removing those restrictions simply compounds the issue. (It became especially noticeable when the casting times and other restrictions of AD&D were removed in 3E.)
Then perhaps those elements were what was keeping spellcasting in check, and not Vancian memorization.
Since 5E is an edition that's supposed to simulate play in every iteration of the game, if you don't use Vancian magic, what are you going to do about overpowered mages?
Not overpower them. Believe it or not, that's a totally feasible goal, even in the absence of Vancian casting.
And please don't talk about how balanced 4E is. 5E is not going to be 4E.
No, it's not. Of course, it's not going to be 2e either.
Vancian magic allows you to package magic into specific spells, which is easier to handle than free form magic.
Depends on who you talk to. New players who are accustomed to more ubiquitous, flexible magic systems often find it hard to wrap their heads around Vancian memorization.
Vancian magic implies that magical 'energy' is finite and thus echoes hit points as a finite resource (and limits abuse).
Plenty of other systems do this, and better.
Your bone (and I believe this is true with most people) is about the third element of vancian magic, which is spell preparation/memorisation.
That's really the only unique element of Vancian spellcasting - the idea that once you cast a spell, it is gone from your memory and must be rememorized the following day.
Personally, I think vancian magic offers many mechanical advantages.
When held up against the other options available? I don't think so, but I'd love to see that discussion take place.
Vancian casting is only in the game because it's always been in the game. I honestly don't think that if a group of brilliant game designers had their memories of D&D wiped and were told to come up with the best magic system for a fantasy RPG they could, it would not be Vancian casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting is only in the game because it's always been in the game. I honestly don't think that if a group of brilliant game designers had their memories of D&D wiped and were told to come up with the best magic system for a fantasy RPG they could, it would not be Vancian casting.
Care to back up that notion with anything beyond speculation?
It's completely understandable to disagree, and equally understandable to dislike Vancian spellcasting. It's nonsensical to paint with a broad brush everyone who enjoys and supports it as being nostalgia-driven old farts and nothing else. As was mentioned previously, you're in the minority. The fact is, 4E tried making steps towards what you're asking for, and it backfired. Hard. People enjoy it. I enjoy it. Why is my preference null and void? Because you don't like Vancian? I'm all for other options out there for people whose boats don't float 'pon the Vancian sea, but where is the sense in taking it out and away from the players (majority, btw, just reiterating that) whose boats sail said waters with rousing cheers of glee and wassails?
Care to back up that notion with anything beyond speculation?
What kind of a question is that? I just said I think that if we memory-wiped a bunch of designers, they'd come up with something that isn't Vancian. Are you suggesting we memory-wipe designers, now?
It's completely understandable to disagree, and equally understandable to dislike Vancian spellcasting. It's nonsensical to paint with a broad brush everyone who enjoys and supports it as being nostalgia-driven old farts and nothing else.
Look, I'm happy to accept other reasons if I'm given other reasons. But I haven't.
As was mentioned previously, you're in the minority.
Care to back that up with anything beyond speculation?
The fact is, 4E tried making steps towards what you're asking for, and it backfired. Hard.
Oh. Did it.
People enjoy it. I enjoy it. Why is my preference null and void?
Who said that it is? I certainly haven't.
Because you don't like Vancian?
It's not like I hate it. I just think there are better options, and that there aren't really any good reasons for sticking to it.
I'm all for other options out there for people whose boats don't float 'pon the Vancian sea, but where is the sense in taking it out and away from the players (majority, btw, just reiterating that)
Speculation, btw, just reiterating that.
whose boats sail said waters with rousing cheers of glee and wassails?
Many a cheer of glee has been based on little more than nostalgia and tradition.
Come up with good reasons for Vancian casting to stick around. Good, compelling, grounded-in-gameplay reasons. And then show me that, taken together, those reasons beat out all the reasons of all the other potential spellcasting systems that could be.
If we put Vancian casting up against its potential spellcasting competitors, and it's found lacking from a gameplay perspective, what can we then conclude?
I disagree with your opinion about this. I think the designers have better reasons than that for choosing it.
Such as...?
Again, I disagree with your opinion on this. I think that requiring spellcasters to key spells prevents casual use of magic, wihich I believe is the core of the power imbalance.
Again, there are systems in which you can prevent casual use of magic without also enabling the false dilemmas and joykill moments I mentioned earlier. There are systems that do this better than Vancian.
Also, the power imbalance argument is bunk. If Vancian casting were half as good at preventing imbalance as you suggest, 3e spellcasting wouldn't be the earth-shattering joke it is.
I believe those elements were part of it. But I don't share your opinion in regards to Vancian magic.
Oh my gosh! I get it! You're emphasizing the word opinion to make it clear to everyone that I'm not actually speaking from a position of all-knowing authority on this!
Oh, you!
I think more thought needs to go into the idea of "not overpowering" spellcasters.
Yes. Much more thought than "Vancian spellcasting balances spellcasters."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Um, because it's D&D Scott.
D&D w/o Vancean casting is (as someone else put it) Starwars w.o lightsabres. Or Battletech w/o Mechs. Or Mutants and Masterminds w/o superheroes.
You yourself said there are several other game systems out there that don't use Vancean casting. I believe I've read posts that it still existed in some form in 4.x.
You may call it "little more than nostalgia and tradition" but it is part of the game. As much as the funny shaped dice.
Vancian casting is only in the game because it's always been in the game. I honestly don't think that if a group of brilliant game designers had their memories of D&D wiped and were told to come up with the best magic system for a fantasy RPG they could, it would not be Vancian casting.Obviously some people like it. If the designers liked it, then the result would, indeed, be Vancian casting. Because it's an opinion.
Some people liked it nearly forty years ago. Game design was in its relative infancy (which is saying something, since game design is still in its relative infancy today), and they decided to lift a magic system from a fantasy novel series because they liked its flavor. There probably wasn't a lot of thought given to balance, and there almost certainly was very little thought given to the (more modern) concern of how the system would function in various playstyles.
Imagining that some people liked it and therefore it must still be a valid option that can compete with all other options is like saying, "Some people liked THAC0! Therefore, THAC0 is the logical choice going forward!"
Seriously, you want me to accept that good, non-nostalgia-based reasons exist for not replacing Vancian casting with something better? Give me those reasons, and defend them.
It's not a popularity contest and it's more than an opinion. Offering varying aspects in spellcasting says "hey, we Love vancian casting. Our opinion is that Wizards and Clerics should use vancian spellcasting because it's been done that way for 25+ years. Yet here is system X, Y, and Z for people of opposite opinion which work equally well (or better) than Vancian." THAT is what I hope they're trying to accomplish, not that Vancian system is the be-all, end-all way of casting spells. If they do that, we're all good. If they don't, it's telling us that their opinion is more important or better than ours (ie. not cool).
Um, because it's D&D Scott.
D&D w/o Vancean casting is (as someone else put it) Starwars w.o lightsabres. Or Battletech w/o Mechs. Or Mutants and Masterminds w/o superheroes.
You yourself said there are several other game systems out there that don't use Vancean casting. I believe I've read posts that it still existed in some form in 4.x.
You may call it "little more than nostalgia and tradition" but it is part of the game. As much as the funny shaped dice.
And yet......4E didn't have the same style of Vancian system to which your referring to and (well would you look at that!!) there is that Dungeons and Dragons name on the book! Wow, weird isn't it?
Um, because it's D&D Scott.
D&D isn't immutable.
It isn't sacred or holy.
Hell will not break its underworld bounds and consume the earth if D&D is changed.
What is D&D to you is not what is D&D to everyone. As I've already noted, I've played D&D with a variant spell point system (the one presented in 3e's Unearthed Arcana) and it was still D&D.
And, as I've also noted, the Star Wars universe remains valid and compelling even without lightsabers. So you won't get terribly far with that argument.
So yes, a lot of people think Vancian casting is D&D. That's what this is about. It's always been in D&D, and therefore it must always continue to be in D&D. Or the nerd hordes will rage. Why? Because it's always been in D&D. So that's the reality of the situation. Vancian casting can't go anywhere, because the fans won't let it, because it can't go anywhere. There's no actual reasoning behind it. Just attachment that people can't get over preventing the game from making improvements to how it plays.
From my perspective, that's a shame. I want D&D to be the best it can be, and that's never quite going to be true while Vancian casting remains. Rather than putting all its effort into being the best fantasy roleplaying system out there, it will put maybe 75% of its effort into being the best fantasy roleplaying system out there, and 25% of its effort into trying to maintain enough "REAL D&D (tm)" cred to keep the hordes from demanding game designer blood on their pitchforks.
That's life, I guess.
|
This is one of the reasons 4e was such a great RPG in my mind. It unchained itself from the necessity of pandering to the nostalgia-fueled demands of some of its fans, and decided to make the best RPG they could. It's a better game for it.
If 4E was the best RPG they could come up with, they need to quit the game industry and go find something they're good at. I've played, and continue to play, other RPGs besides PF and the long line of D&D/AD&D (and yes, I actually tried playing 4E for about a year-- I gave it a chance. IMO, it sucked).
Seriously-- I'm not going to defend Vancian casting (been playing D&D since the original version-- never particularly liked Vancian casting myself, though it does have its interesting points); but...
the biggest problems with 4E (IMO) are:
1. the only thing that even remotely makes it "Dungeons & Dragons" is the name. Other than that, it's a whole new game. You're playing something closer to D&D (all versions other than 4E), if you play Chivalry and Sorcery, or Bushido, or Palladium Fantasy... might even still be closer if you're playing RuneQuest (the original Chaosium game-- not sure if the new versions are still like that or not). I think I wouldn't be as annoyed by the presence of 4E (although I still wouldn't want to play it), if they'd called it anything else-- instead of making a whole new game but still hanging the classic old name on it.
2. It's a good table-top tactical simulator for 'World of Warcraft' style combat. It's not much of a role-playing game-- in fact, the rules appear to have been written with the direct intent of minimizing actual 'role-playing' in favor of 'roll-playing'.
3. I'm also not a fan of every character essentially being the same as every other character, except for the fluff-text. Unfortunately, that's a pretty good description of how 4E solved the 'balance' problem.
I realize your opinion differs from mine-- but so far, you haven't said anything that gives me any reason to change my opinion of 4E. However, that doesn't mean your critique of Vancian magic is wrong-- I'm going to keep watching this debate with interest.
If 4E was the best RPG they could come up with, they need to quit the game industry and go find something they're good at.
I'd say that I stopped reading here, but I didn't. I kept going, because I wanted to see how much of your post I could predict based on the first sentence alone.
Turns out, most of it.
Look, I'm happy to accept other reasons if I'm given other reasons. But I haven't.
You have been. Designers want it in. Players want it in. It's the only method that accurately captures the studious wizard.
Care to back that up with anything beyond speculation?
Pathfinder sales > 4E sales.
Who said that it is? I certainly haven't.
You have attempted to marginalize and dismiss every proponent of the Vancian system by labeling them as nostalgia-driven.
It's not like I hate it. I just think there are better options, and that there aren't really any good reasons for sticking to it.
Like Players wanting it?
Many a cheer of glee has been based on little more than nostalgia and tradition.
^ more marginalizing and denial.
Come up with good reasons for Vancian casting to stick around. Good, compelling, grounded-in-gameplay reasons. And then show me that, taken together, those reasons beat out all the reasons of all the other potential spellcasting systems that could be.
I'd be willing to after work, assuming you'll agree not to uniformly label everything as being purely nostalgic.
|
|
And yet......4E didn't have the same style of Vancian system to which your referring to and (well would you look at that!!) there is that Dungeons and Dragons name on the book! Wow, weird isn't it?
The problem with 4E for many people (including me), though obviously not for its fans-- is that the ONLY connection it really has to prior editions of D&D IS the name. From the praise you give to that system, I'm pretty sure your opinion differs from mine.
For me, it's not that it's a totally bad game-- though I admit to not liking it much, and particularly, to not considering it much of a 'role-playing' game-- but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.
Um, because it's D&D Scott.
D&D w/o Vancean casting is (as someone else put it) Starwars w.o lightsabres. Or Battletech w/o Mechs. Or Mutants and Masterminds w/o superheroes.
You yourself said there are several other game systems out there that don't use Vancean casting. I believe I've read posts that it still existed in some form in 4.x.
You may call it "little more than nostalgia and tradition" but it is part of the game. As much as the funny shaped dice.
Some of which are platonic solids.
There are several options that came out in the past 7 years that would work as an alternative to Vancian spell casting. All of those can work wonderfully. But Vancian casting is the standard for D&D.
If you want to play a game where you can do anything, or face danger by yourself for much of the time there is Skyrim and World of Warcraft. D&D is about team play, it's built around that. You play as a team in D&D and you do resource management.
The Clerics have spells that help with Adventuring. The Wizards have spells that supplement battles, and the fighter deals with problems with a sword in their hand. While the thief or rogue handle problems like locked doors, chests, and traps.
If you want to play an uberspellcaster in D&D there are options you can overlay. I have a copy of the EverQuest RPG and they use a mana system. Mana not your style? There's advanced d20 magic with it's DC-based spell casting system (and yes, there is math). This too much for you?
* Play Earthdawn, LOTR, Rolemaster, any sort of RPGs out there that would help.
Heck, play World of Warcraft or Skyrim or Star Wars: The Old Republic.
D&D's spellcasting system doesn't make any sense for a novel and so forth, but it works well for what D&D is trying to accomplish. Vancian Casting is a part of what makes Core D&D, D&D.
|
|
If 4E was the best RPG they could come up with, they need to quit the game industry and go find something they're good at.I'd say that I stopped reading here, but I didn't. I kept going, because I wanted to see how much of your post I could predict based on the first sentence alone.
Turns out, most of it.
Problem is, you are equally predictable on any thread that involves 4E. And, equally, you have no response for my complaints about 4E-- probably because the things I don't like are precisely what you do like about the game. So, there isn't much to discuss, because there isn't any common ground left, is there?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's not a popularity contest and it's more than an opinion. Offering varying aspects in spellcasting says "hey, we Love vancian casting. Our opinion is that Wizards and Clerics should use vancian spellcasting because it's been done that way for 25+ years. Yet here is system X, Y, and Z for people of opposite opinion which work equally well (or better) than Vancian." THAT is what I hope they're trying to accomplish, not that Vancian system is the be-all, end-all way of casting spells. If they do that, we're all good. If they don't, it's telling us that their opinion is more important or better than ours (ie. not cool).
Now we're back to Unearthed Arcana, with the spellpoint rules and the 3d6 for those who like bellcurves.
(I keep expecting to see "Hitler laments the return of Vancean magic" Downfall parodies.)
|
|
D&D's spellcasting system doesn't make any sense for a novel and so forth, but it works well for what D&D is trying to accomplish. Vancian Casting is a part of what makes Core D&D, D&D.
You really should go look up and read the 'Dying Earth' series of novels, by someone named Jack Vance. Seems like it worked so well in that series of novels-- that when a couple of guys with last names like Gygax and Arneson read them, they thought the magic system was so cool they integrated it into the brand new game they were creating (first-ever fantasy role-playing game-- little thing called 'Dungeons & Dragons'). :D
Hmm... you might notice a distinct etymological kinship between 'Vancian' (or 'Vancean'), as in the magic system, and the name of that author, 'Vance'-- it's not a coincidence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in my day, rogues didn't fight as well as clerics. They were thieves, goldurn it! And you had to have one, or the traps would kill ya! That way, only the rogue would fall in the acid pit and die, not everybody.
You kids and your "I don't like Vancian casting. WAA WAA WAA!"
We had to wait until 5th level to get a decent fire spell. Fireball! Back then, it meant something. You got respect! That fireball would do more hit points damage than you had, even if you saved. You had to line that sucker up just right, too, not pick some silly spot on a grid. We roasted lots of allies back then. It was just part of the awesomeness of fireball.
Rounds took a minute. We fought for our victories, not like you kids today with your wimpy 6 second rounds. We had endurance! And it wasn't some "feat."
If you cast that fireball, it took 5 segments, and if someone hit you, you lost the spell, period. Probably died, too. None of these silly newfangled concentration checks, like you spoiled brats get today. And we liked it!
*spits*
You have been. Designers want it in. Players want it in.
Yes, I got that. I'm looking for the reasons they want it in.
It's the only method that accurately captures the studious wizard.
The only one, huh?
Pathfinder sales > 4E sales.
And there's no other possible explanation for Pathfinder sales (purportedly) beating 4e sales except for the fact that they (mostly) removed Vancian casting, right?
No other possible explanation?
You have attempted to marginalize and dismiss every proponent of the Vancian system by labeling them as nostalgia-driven.
What other conclusions can I draw? They haven't given me any other reasons for it. In fact, some of them are actually saying that it's because they're driven by nostalgia.
Like Players wanting it?
Let me recreate our conversation.
ME: "Why do players want Vancian casting?"
YOU: "Because players want Vancian casting."
ME: "So players want Vancian casting because players want Vancian casting, and not for any actual reasons?"
YOU: "Stop marginalizing our opinions!"
^ more marginalizing and denial.
If you say so.
I'd be willing to after work, assuming you'll agree not to uniformly label everything as being purely nostalgic.
If you give me reasons that are not based on nostalgia, I won't tell you they're based on nostalgia.
The problem with 4E for many people (including me), though obviously not for its fans-- is that the ONLY connection it really has to prior editions of D&D IS the name. From the praise you give to that system, I'm pretty sure your opinion differs from mine.
Sure, the name is its only connection to D&D.
As long as you ignore the dice, character sheets, hit points, AC, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, charisma, attack rolls, magic missile, fireball, beholders, illithids, dragons, dungeons, traps, monsters, treasure, adventuring, exploration, diseases, curses, fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, paladins, rangers, elves, halflings, orcs, half-orcs, half-elves, dwarves, magic wands, magic staves, magic swords, magic armor, +1 bonuses, holy avengers, saving throws, dungeon masters, Cheetos and Mountain Dew, friends sitting around a table, demons, devils, damsels to rescue, and worlds to save. And probably literally a thousand other connections.
But yeah, really, just the name.
The designers of D&D have talked recently about the stupidity of edition wars and the fact that a lot of people focus on the differences between editions rather than the things that unite them (and their players). I look at posts like the one above, and can't help but think that they're totally right.
For me, it's not that it's a totally bad game-- though I admit to not liking it much, and particularly, to not considering it much of a 'role-playing' game--
You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?
but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.
Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?
Problem is, you are equally predictable on any thread that involves 4E.
I should hope so! I do my best to maintain coherent, consistent positions.
And, equally, you have no response for my complaints about 4E-- probably because the things I don't like are precisely what you do like about the game. So, there isn't much to discuss, because there isn't any common ground left, is there?
There's almost nothing but common ground. But when you set out to hate on something, it's much easier to focus on the differences than the commonalities.
To an outsider, to someone who has never played D&D before, you could set to different groups of D&D players in front of them - one playing 3e, one playing 4e - and they probably would get the impression that both groups are engaged in exactly the same activity. And yet here you are, convinced that common ground doesn't exist.
Mike Mearls and Monte Cook are not living forty years ago. They live in 2012, just like the rest of us. They've chosen Vancian magic for 5E, along with (apparently) a few other choices they haven't really discussed.
Yes, they have. We're discussing their motivations for choosing to include Vancian casting.
I doubt seriously it's purely for nostalgic reasons.
Actually, I'm sure the designers aren't focused on purely nostalgic reasons, especially since some of them were probably big proponents of the non-Vancian system we saw in 4e. But I think that at some point a designer's personal preference is overridden by the screaming hordes that are the D&D fans, and those blood-hungry pitchforks I mentioned earlier.
They want to sell their product. Choices that may seem easy to figure out probably aren't, especially when the marketplace is concerned. (That's a few years in retail talking.)
It's a matter of opinion. Neither one of us can defend it to the other's satisfaction. You can talk about "gameplay" all you want. But that's opinion, too. The only way to know for sure why Vancian magic was chosen is to ask Monte Cook or Mike Mearls or someone else on the design team.
And that might be opinion, too. :)
I'm okay with educated guessing for right now.