|
Monte Cook's class is called The Magister. The big work for Arcana Unearthed was that he had to rewrite basically ALL the basic spells to include that enhanced/weak version. Then he had to go through and assign some spells that were overpowered as 'exotic' and the like, because they didn't fit well with other spells. (why he did this with Magic Missile, I dunno).
Kirth, your electron example is spot on. In my home brew, the different levels of spells are known as Valences! :) Spell memorization slots are called 'engrams', and your spontaneous magic capability is an "Energized Valence."
And I'm a big fan of Heighten being able to increase the power of spells. It adds a lot of versatility without being too overpowered, esp for sorcerors.
==Aelryinth
Completely off topic, but speaking of valence shells, have you guys noticed anything about the cost of magic weapons and a link to valence shell capacity?
In my home brew, the different levels of spells are known as Valences!
I'm totally stealing this terminology -- thanks! It bugs the hell out of me that class level, character level, spell level, encounter level are all "level."
RE: Magister, I saw one played alongside "normal" D&D classes (a fighter, an archer ranger, and a sorcerer) in the first part of Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (4th - 6th level). He was noticeably better than the ranger and sorcerer; the DM handed the fighter a moonblade (like the FR spell, but permanent) just so that she'd feel relevant.
Remember, this is Monte "timmy card" Cook, creator of the Caster Edition, who then went out of his way to make casters even better in his house rules (what AU/AE basically are). This will please all the people on these boards who think that a 10th level caster SHOULD be equal to a 20th level fighter.
Yeah, well he's also the one that introduced a level 3 spell in AU that made all your attacks touch attacks. Ugh.
A Magister is basically a wizard/sorc combined. I don't really have a problem with it. Of course, the magister also had elemental versatility with every spell automatically, and added their int bonus against spell resistance rolls, and could counterspell without any spells! Yeah, Magisters were a bit over the top.
---
Valences for magic weapons, and to a lesser extent, magic armor and anything with +'s, it looks like.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home brew, the different levels of spells are known as Valences!I'm totally stealing this terminology -- thanks! It bugs the hell out of me that class level, character level, spell level, encounter level are all "level."
Sorcery is explained as casting from the Valence, and Engrams are fixed, part of the Valence and very hard to change.
Wizardry is explained as casting from the Engram, and every time you renew your power, you can renew and change the Engram...but you can only use the energy in the Engram, of course.
Metamagic feats and suchlike are attempts by wizards and sorcerors to get the versatility of the other tradition, to a broad extent.
Magos are those people who have practiced both traditions and can combine the benefits of both.
------
Oh, VT, the feats that let you cast a minor spell effect while you have a certain type of spell in memory are the Reserve Feats.
The other poster was referring to SPELLS that allow you to cast minor effects, right up until you actually cast the spell. An example would be having a spell in memory that granted you Resist Fire 5 until you cast it, at which time it counts as Protection from Fire for a reduced period of time.
I forget what they are called.
==Aelryinth
I can't stand the Vancian magic system. The whole concept of using a spell and forgetting it just bothers the hell out of me. It's a necessary and annoying evil to D&D.
In Earthdawm a caster has spells per level. As well as a limit to how many spells he can cast. Say caster xyz has access to magic missle, melfs acid arrow. fireball, ice storm, mage armor, mirror image, jump, fly. XYZ unwisely decides to learn only offensive spells. He has four spells he can learn. he takes the time to study them and until he takes the time to schange them can cast the offensive spells over and over again. Broken. Hardly. He can't learn any other spell until then. If he needs mage armor he can't cast it. Needs a extra leaping ability to jump a cliff well he can't. The caster spells are locked in until he takes time to alter the list. It's a system where a caster can remember his spells yet not have access to all of them. That is a magic system I would like to see in D&D.
Great, since that's not how the PF magic system works. No mention is made of "forgetting". You prepare spell slots, then use them.
I get how some dudes don;t like the fluff associated with the early AD&D Vancian system. But that fluff is gone.
That's mostly how a spontaneous spellcaster works, and is a variant of the Vancian system, sounds a bit like the Shaman class from Complete Divine. Unless you mean he has totally unlimited use?
So... Can I ask what makes Vancian so special? I'm not a big fan of it, and it feels I have to design the adventure with it in mind. Which is a bit of a pain, and it scales so I can't just use one size fits all at all.You can't understand Vance unless you read Vance.
And in particular for relevance to your question, that would be the Dying Earth series of books.
Which btw have been re-printed in an omnibus edition by Orb Books. Just saying.
sounds a bit like the Shaman class from Complete Divine. Unless you mean he has totally unlimited use?Totally unlimited. But he left out a few bits. You're generally more limited as to how many spells you can have prepared at one time. Most spells take more than one round to cast, since you have to first spend a round (or more) "weaving spell threads" to finish preparing the spell. Which also requires a roll. Then you can actually cast it the
round after that.
My general impression was that spells were weaker as well, but I haven't played a lot of Earthdawn, so that could be completely wrong.Importing the unlimited casting of prepared spells directly...
No problem, heck I could do a basis of one now.
Take the Spells Known Chart from Bard or Summoner. Give them a limited list, and spell book or spirit guide or whatever. Whatever spells they know, they can choose to "ready" the number they have on that chart. Any spell they have "readied" they can cast as a Full Round Action. They can never use metamagic . Not by feats, rods, etc. If they take another class that can use those, they can only apply those to the spells from that class. We'd have a list of spells quite a bit like the Summoner, but more blasting. They are incapable of using wands, scrolls, etc.
d6, poor BAB, Good will, CHA affects DC but does not give any more spells.
1. Mage armor, shield, Comp Lang, Burning hands*, Jump, Exped Retreat, Vanish, Flare burst
2. Glitterdust, Blur, Acid Arrow, resist Energy, Darkvision, spider climb, glide
3. Lightning Bolt, Flame arrow, Blink, Tongues, Heroism, Phantom steed
etc.
Also acid hands, cold hands.
|
Totally unlimited. But he left out a few bits. You're generally more limited as to how many spells you can have prepared at one time. Most spells take more than one round to cast, since you have to first spend a round (or more) "weaving spell threads" to finish preparing the spell. Which also requires a roll. Then you can actually cast it the
round after that.
My general impression was that spells were weaker as well, but I haven't played a lot of Earthdawn, so that could be completely wrong.Importing the unlimited casting of prepared spells directly into D&D, without some other serious changes would break the game horribly
Thanks Jeff as I said it's been a long time since I played Earthdawn so with no access to the core was going by memory.
I still disagree that it would break the game. Just limit the amount if prepared spells that can be cast. Since in some situation some prepared spells are a liaility if one does not pick a variety of spells.
I can't stand the Vancian magic system. The whole concept of using a spell and forgetting it just bothers the hell out of me. It's a necessary and annoying evil to D&D.
In Earthdawm a caster has spells per level. As well as a limit to how many spells he can cast. Say caster xyz has access to magic missle, melfs acid arrow. fireball, ice storm, mage armor, mirror image, jump, fly. XYZ unwisely decides to learn only offensive spells. He has four spells he can learn. he takes the time to study them and until he takes the time to schange them can cast the offensive spells over and over again. Broken. Hardly. He can't learn any other spell until then. If he needs mage armor he can't cast it. Needs a extra leaping ability to jump a cliff well he can't. The caster spells are locked in until he takes time to alter the list. It's a system where a caster can remember his spells yet not have access to all of them. That is a magic system I would like to see in D&D.
Great, since that's not how the PF magic system works. No mention is made of "forgetting". You prepare spell slots, then use them.
I get how some dudes don;t like the fluff associated with the early AD&D Vancian system. But that fluff is gone.
That's mostly how a spontaneous spellcaster works, and is a variant of the Vancian system, sounds a bit like the Shaman class from Complete Divine. Unless you mean he has totally unlimited use?
Something amusing I found earlier while browsing Domains for my Inquisitor.
Aura of Forgetfulness (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30- foot aura of forgetfulness for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Creatures you target in this area must make a Will save or have no memory of any time spent inside the area. In addition, spellcasters in the area lose one prepared spell or available spell slot per round spent in the area, starting with 1st-level spells and going up through higher-level spells. Spellcasters are allowed a save each round to negate this loss (this save is separate from the memory loss save). These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
In my home brew, the different levels of spells are known as Valences!I'm totally stealing this terminology -- thanks! It bugs the hell out of me that class level, character level, spell level, encounter level are all "level."
At one point (between 0E and 1E iirc) Gygax said he was considering different terms for the various uses of "level". It was rank = character level, circle = spell level, and level = dungeon or(?) monster level iirc. It's been like 35 years and I hadn't thought of it in an age or two. I think he went with "level" for all because it had become the default terminology and he didn't want to confuse those already familiar with the game. Personally I thought it made things clearer and made sense to differentiate.
*edit* And on topic: As for Vancian casting, I still like it. I prefer a point system for memorization though rather than slots. Gives more flexibility (at the cost of a bit of power) and it makes more sense to me that there be an overall limit on memorization capacity rather than a limit by level. Then you have points for Sorcerers = their innate magical limits, points for Clerics = their limit of ritual purity for a day, etc. Basically a point system that retains the basic concept (for Wizards) of memorizing spells, forgetting them when cast and having to rememorize spells afterwards.
No problem, heck I could do a basis of one now.
Take the Spells Known Chart from Bard or Summoner. Give them a limited list, and spell book or spirit guide or whatever. Whatever spells they know, they can choose to "ready" the number they have on that chart. Any spell they have "readied" they can cast as a Full Round Action. They can never use metamagic . Not by feats, rods, etc. If they take another class that can use those, they can only apply those to the spells from that class. We'd have a list of spells quite a bit like the Summoner, but more blasting. They are incapable of using wands, scrolls, etc.
d6, poor BAB, Good will, CHA affects DC but does not give any more spells.
1. Mage armor, shield, Comp Lang, Burning hands*, Jump, Exped Retreat, Vanish, Flare burst
2. Glitterdust, Blur, Acid Arrow, resist Energy, Darkvision, spider climb, glide
3. Lightning Bolt, Flame arrow, Blink, Tongues, Heroism, Phantom steed
etc.Also acid hands, cold hands.
The blasty stuff probably works OK. The real problems come with healing and buffs. Even from your list: Everyone in the party can always have Mage Armor, Jump, Blur, resist energy, darkvision, Spider Climb, tongues, heroism. The caster always has Shield, Expeditious Retreat, glide, blink.
Or...You make a decent point. Mage armor is no problem, since few can use it and those that can, can likely cast it themselves. I guess the Mink will be your buddy, tho. But again, a wizard just has to "memorize" it twice. Shield isn't much of a problem, since it's self only. Exped Retrat, heroism and what not last rounds per level, so he can't always have them up on everyone.
So, basically he can get some self-buffs, some blasting, and couple of innocuous party buff spells, like Darkvision.
I personally enjoy the vanician casting system. Now, that being said, I'd love some flavorful and viable options besides vanician casting.
I like the idea of word casting but it doesn't quite catch the legendary fiction that I enjoy, I.e. true naming.
Basically I would say keep vanician, it's a solid system and it can also double as something that players could easily wade into with some practice. I would also like to see some other systems as well. Word casting was a good try, but it fell short of vanician's power in multiple regards save for a few select words. Hopefully some day, they'll release another solid newer system.
At one point (between 0E and 1E iirc) Gygax said he was considering different terms for the various uses of "level". It was rank = character level, circle = spell level, and level = dungeon or(?) monster level iirc. It's been like 35 years and I hadn't thought of it in an age or two. I think he went with "level" for all because it had become the default terminology and he didn't want to confuse those already familiar with the game.
Yeah, I remember reading that, too. OK -- Here it is, 1e PH, p. 7:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
At one point (between 0E and 1E iirc) Gygax said he was considering different terms for the various uses of "level". It was rank = character level, circle = spell level, and level = dungeon or(?) monster level iirc. It's been like 35 years and I hadn't thought of it in an age or two. I think he went with "level" for all because it had become the default terminology and he didn't want to confuse those already familiar with the game.Yeah, I remember reading that, too. OK -- Here it is, 1e PH, p. 7:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
That was it. I remember reading it but I couldn't remember where it was. I was thinking maybe The Dragon, but I wasn't sure. Thanks! It was bugging me that I couldn't think where it was. Existing usage or not, I still think in the long run it would have been useful to differentiate the terminology that way.
If I can have
Shield
Mage Armor
Blur
False Life
Up all the time, why play a fighter? Or any armor using class for that matter. Mages become tanks.
See I broke it already.
Wait for it;
TRUE STRIKE!
everytime. No more dice!
On Vancian Magic:
The "Spells as Programs" thing is something I actually get, and I can kinda understand only being able to memorize a certain number of spells at a time.
What I don't like is the idea of having to slot three Fireball spells if I want to cast three fireballs. What if I need four? Given the choice, I will likely choose Sorcerors, Inquisitors, Oracles, and the like for my spellcaster needs every time. I may not get as many spells, but at least I don't have to guess what I'll need that day.
But frankly, so far the RPG system I have seen (and I admit I honestly haven't seen a lot of RPG systems) tend to leave me hanging.
Honestly, I find the Vancian spell slot system is very hard to explain. It took me a good while to warm up to it when I started playing Pathfinder as well. It's a lot of work for new players to learn it, and takes a lot of time from veterans or the GM to explain it to each new player. It's even harder to explain to people new to tabletop RPG's in general.
None of the players we've introduced to Pathfinder have ever found the system easy to learn. Whenever we introduce a new player to the game, we always recommend they skip the casting classes because of it.
My opinion is that these tendencies indicate a flaw in the game design, because the difficulty in playing a vancian caster class and understanding it's abilities should not exceed that of a martial class by this large a margin. I shouldn't feel obligated to recommend to a new player that really wants to play a wizard that they try something easier for their first game, there should be a system that beginners can enjoy.
But I don't think it can be removed, if there ever is a Pathfinder 2.0; it's an iconic part of the game, and taking it away will alienate a lot of players, and a lot of Pathfinders player base was built upon people who didn't want the large changes of 3.5 to 4.0. Also, that's a good argument to not make a Pathfinder 2.0 in the first place.
That said, an alternate system or archetype might be a big help. I didn't find the words of power system in ultimate magic to be any easier; personally, I thought it was actually harder. Official archetypes for wizards seem few and far between, and probably for good reason; the last thing they need is a buff.
Maybe I'll poke around the house rule section and look for 3PP books for a Wizzarding 4 dummies edition...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards and Clerics are hard for newbies because they have a huge spell list.
If you, as the DM curate that list for them, it's as easy as a fighter with 3 feats.
Vancian Magic has little to do with it being complicated, other than permitting a variety of spells.
Honestly, I find the Vancian spell slot system is very hard to explain. It took me a good while to warm up to it when I started playing Pathfinder as well. It's a lot of work for new players to learn it, and takes a lot of time from veterans or the GM to explain it to each new player. It's even harder to explain to people new to tabletop RPG's in general.
None of the players we've introduced to Pathfinder have ever found the system easy to learn. Whenever we introduce a new player to the game, we always recommend they skip the casting classes because of it.
My opinion is that these tendencies indicate a flaw in the game design, because the difficulty in playing a vancian caster class and understanding it's abilities should not exceed that of a martial class by this large a margin. I shouldn't feel obligated to recommend to a new player that really wants to play a wizard that they try something easier for their first game, there should be a system that beginners can enjoy.
Huh? “Here are the spells you know. You may ready so many, you can use each readied one once until readied again.” Aka “Here, Bob, check off each spell when you use it.”
Vs:
“Here are the spells you know. You may modify each spell by these formulae’s. When so modified, each spell takes up so many of your spell points, which are calculated by the formula HP+Con/lvl, mult by moon phase, squared by tidal factors, then modified by this astrological table here. You’ll need this programmable calculator. “
Honestly, once you get beyond the fluff, Vancian casting is as easy as shooting arrows. You can only shoot an arrow once until you relaod the quiver. I can't think of a simpler system, )other than you can use your spell over & over& over without limit.)
And trust me, I have played dozens of systems. T&T, C&S, RQ, etc. Heck the Tunnels & Trolls spell system is harder that Vancian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Vancian Spellcasting. While I would enjoy a more flexible approach in how the effects of the spell themselves are created, the Vancian method of preparing/releasing spells is, in my opinion, integral to the D&D/Pathfinder experience.
I still don't know exactly what makes D&D feel like D&D (or, in this case, Pathfinder feel D&D), but I know that taking Vancian Magic away makes it less so.
|
Honestly, I like Vancian casting; it's not my favorite casting system, but I do like it, and I don't want to do away with it.
However, I don't want it to be the only option (by that I mean the only viable option; words of power was an attempt at a narrative magic system in one of the worst systems for such a thing). I'd like to see stuff like the Warlock or the like that provides other options. The problem with vancian is that I don't always want to play that way; the complexity can grate on me after a while (which is why I'm probably more critical of it now, I'm in the part of the cycle where I'm burnt out on vancian), and sometimes I'd like a less resource-management based system. Spontaneous casting alleviated some of the problems, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
Also, a problem (though overlookable) That I have is that Vancian casting doesn't seem very organic. It seems very constructed, and especially when I have to deal with concept like buying a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, that just makes it really obvious that in the universe of D&D/PF there is a spell "Cure Light Wounds" and it's not just that the gods have granted their vessel magic, or that a Wizard has done arcane research, or that a Sorcerer drew upon an internal power from magic in their blood, it's that the gods granted their vessel a codified set of abilities that are very constant, or a Wizard discovered not just a way to channel mana to create fireballs or draw creatures from other planes, or whatever, but it's that they discovered The exact formula, which is very rigid and very artificial, and makes magic feel like it doesn't function on any sort of science-like principles, but instead just some artificially codified mechanics.
This is one of the main problems I have with the Wheel of Time roleplaying game that was created by WotC. They made it so that instead of being able to decide how a weave was made, and what you could do with the power, you had set weaves that almost every chaneler had, and they all had a very precise name.
|
|
And it prevents the situation where the caster has a great idea of something they could do, but they didn't prepare the right spell in the morning. It encourages clever thinking on the fly rather than resource management and correct foresight.
It also seems to encourage a lot of meta decisions. "I know that this module is going to include threats x, y, and z, but my character has absolutely no way of knowing that, so I had better prepare spells to combat x, y, and z, instead of spells that would fit my character's personality."
Great, since that's not how the PF magic system works. No mention is made of "forgetting". You prepare spell slots, then use them.
I get how some dudes don;t like the fluff associated with the early AD&D Vancian system. But that fluff is gone.
That's mostly how a spontaneous spellcaster works, and is a variant of the Vancian system, sounds a bit like the Shaman class from Complete Divine. Unless you mean he has totally unlimited use?
Something amusing I found earlier while browsing Domains for my Inquisitor.
Aura of Forgetfulness (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30- foot aura of forgetfulness for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Creatures you target in this area must make a Will save or have no memory of any time spent inside the area. In addition, spellcasters in the area lose one prepared spell or available spell slot per round spent in the area, starting with 1st-level spells and going up through higher-level spells. Spellcasters...
I guess the forgetting spells "fluff" is still around. If it weren't, spellcasters would be able to gain immunity to Aura of Forgetfulness just by writing down notes on what spells they had prepared that day.
Sadly as of Sunday evening, Mr Vance is no longer with us...
Sadly as of Sunday evening, Mr Vance is no longer with us...
A real loss in so many fields, Mr Holbrook will be sorely missed.
I still prefer a spell point system. While 'fire and forget' works great with missiles, roleplaying is about the players. I find the more freedom they have to come up with solutions, the more fun I have as GM.
Brief aside: Did Vance write anything under his middle name? I wasn't aware that he had, and would be interested in tracking it down to read if he did.
I'm in the anti-Vancian crowd, and veteran gamers are likely wearing rose-colored glasses to how quickly they picked up game aspects. I play in two groups that both find new rules / interpretations almost every session. Most of the group are 20+ year veterans of AD&D.
As one of the posters above said, new players have frequently had issues picking up how spells are memorized. Almost every time we had a new players, the comment "I'm 5th level, so I can cast 5th level spells right?" comes up.
The SGG spellpoint works brilliantly. I've had absolutely zero problems after using it for close to a year. We do use Eldritch Dissonance, which prevents casters from hammering the same spell over and over, so there are limitations.
Giving players options and flexibility opens up interesting responses on the fly.
Brief aside: Did Vance write anything under his middle name? I wasn't aware that he had, and would be interested in tracking it down to read if he did.
His old mysteries were mostly under "John Holbrook Vance" -- I'm reading Bird Island right now.
Sadly as of Sunday evening, Mr Vance is no longer with us...
We are humbled & saddened at the loss.
As one of the posters above said, new players have frequently had issues picking up how spells are memorized. Almost every time we had a new players, the comment "I'm 5th level, so I can cast 5th level spells right?" comes up.
The SGG spellpoint works brilliantly.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with Vancian spellcasting but is part of the “level” problem of OD&D.
What is “SSG”?
What is “SSG”?
Super Genius Games if I had to guess.
I think the fact everything is called a level might be taken as counter intuitive. At 9th level you cast 5th level spells. At 3rd you cast 2nd. You can see how this might be weird if your new. I did that when I first started playing. Got totally confused on how Caster Level, Character Level, and Spell level worked together.
Brief aside: Did Vance write anything under his middle name? I wasn't aware that he had, and would be interested in tracking it down to read if he did.His old mysteries were mostly under "John Holbrook Vance" -- I'm reading Bird Island right now.
Yup, but nothing as "John Holbrook" or anything like that?
Just confused, wasn't aware he ever used that name in his writing or went by that name at all - was almost hoping there was some more stuff out there by him that I didn't know about...
Just confused, wasn't aware he ever used that name in his writing or went by that name at all - was almost hoping there was some more stuff out there by him that I didn't know about...
Not that I know of. There were three mysteries he wrote for Ellery Queen Magazine that were credited to "Ellery Queen," and maybe a few others for the magazine under pseudonyms. But as far as a gold mine of undiscovered Vance works? Sorry.
BTW, I'm totally bummed that I wasn't working (and hence couldn't handle the buy-in price) when the Vance Integral Edition was published. What a monumental effort of pure awesome!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is “SSG”?Super Genius Games if I had to guess.
I think the fact everything is called a level might be taken as counter intuitive. At 9th level you cast 5th level spells. At 3rd you cast 2nd. You can see how this might be weird if your new. I did that when I first started playing. Got totally confused on how Caster Level, Character Level, and Spell level worked together.
Absolutely, the whole 'level" thing can be confusing. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with Vancian spellcasting . Thinking that Vancian spellcasting is bad because Gygax et al liked to over-use the word “level” is based upon ignorance.
mandatory OotS comic:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html
On the other end, the first time I showed my friend Psionics he thought it was ridiculous until he knew you were limited on how many points you could spend at a time. I prefer Psionics once you have mastery. More fun to augment and it allows you to have less spells that do more and stay relevant longer.
@DRDeth - point to you sir, I am in the wrong on that point. From a flavor perspective, my dislike is more an issue with how Vancian casting does not really match up with how magic is portayed typically. Nowadays a mage is typically very versatile but gets tired/physically impacted from overextending. That is how SGG's system works. Almost every example of Vancian magic people raise are from old to very old books. Frankly, no one in my groups has ever read Vance's books (or even heard of them). I believe that a pool of magic with flexibility is what I see in most books now.
***
Managing spell point/mana is not difficult with 5 minutes of prep time (go down your list and write down the cost). I have 100 points, spell x costs 3. Spell y costs 5. If I hammer the spell repeately, the cost goes up by 1 each time. Save or get exhausted/fatigued.
The benefit of course, is that many of those spells that are virtually never cast can start to get some usage. I saw glitterdust for the first time just two weeks ago. The first time in 20+ years it was ever cast in a group at our table.
***
I will still stand by my opinion that I have never found a magic system anywhere that can even remotely approach Mage the Ascension (sans Paradox). You get to act like a real wizard and do anything within your imagination and magical strength.
***
@Luthorne,
I agree...Vancian works, but it it has had 30 years to get tweaked and shifted. Any game system that invested that timing in a mana system would be very stable and functional as well. S$%t, the Super Genius System is like 1-2 years old and it works flawlessly.
Thinking about it further, I might like Vancian magic more, even without the holdout effects, if there was more separation between the complexity of a spell and the power of a spell. (It really feels like caster level should be one and spell level should be the other.) I think, if you worked out the details properly, you could use that to get rid of leveled spell slots (and just have generic spell slots) without unbalancing things, which would feel more right, to me at least.
Mage the Ascension definitely had a good system, but it was really only balanced in that everyone was a mage. That said, the same basic system can be found in a lot of other games. (I'm not sure where it originated.)
Almost every example of Vancian magic people raise are from old to very old books. Frankly, no one in my groups has ever read Vance's books (or even heard of them).
They're totally missing out.
Since my reading list is kinda full, and I haven't been able to attack the Pathfinder Tales novels as of yet, how is magic portrayed there? Is it Vancian?
I never read the Forgotten Realms novels, or the Dragonlance novels, so I'm likewise curious if magic is portrayed like the game they were based off of. Didn't the Dragonlance animated movie have Raistlin casting in a Vancian style?
I might give it a try...I'm low on reading material now.
As far as Forgotten Realms goes, the books are on a level with toilet paper. Maybe used toilet paper. Tons of crap, with the occasional corn kernel of justice.
Dragonlance, the first two series (Chronicles I think & The Twins saga) are great. After that it rapidly delved into crap as well.
To be honest to the recently-departed, another big influence on Gygax in coming up with the D&D magic-user (AKA wizard) was John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost -- in my opinion the best novel about wizards ever written. The protagonist can do a limited amount of magic without preparation (like at-will cantrips, I suppose), but he totes around spellbooks and studies them at night when he thinks he might need to do some unusual magic the next day. It's not strictly 100% "fire-and-forget" because there's some impromptu magic as well, but there's a lot of hinting at memorization. Also, wizards spent a bunch of effort crafting magic items.
Regardless, it was published in '69, so that probably makes it also "too old" to be worth discussing, for some people.