There has been some debate over the value of Vancian Magic. O.k., maybe ‘debate’ is not the appropriate word. Holy War? Does that sound better? Why such animosity on both sides of the fence? I can only speak for myself and take responsibility for the cleansing flames that will follow.
The basic concept is fairly straight forward. You memorize X number of spells. Once a spell is cast, you may not cast it again until you memorize it again. You may memorize a particular spell more than once if you want to cast it multiple times before memorizing it again.
Why is Vancian Magic needed? Well some sort of limitation is needed on magic or else you have a Supers game. To maintain some semblance of a Fantasy game, magic must be powerful and wondrous yet limited.
For me, the concept that you ‘forget’ a spell immediately after it is cast clashes with my immersion. The fact you can ‘memorize’ it twice further pushes my suspension of disbelief. Obviously, this is a matter of taste and therefore impossible to argue as right or wrong.
Yes, there is the Sorcerer option, but Vancian Magic is so entrenched in the game as to make it very difficult to remove it without a major re-work. Even the Sorcerer is limited to X spells per a given period. X is very arbitrary, and again breaks my immersion.
I prefer some kind of pool of mana/points/spell levels/whatever, although, I accept this adds complexity to the system. You could also argue that a pool of points is just as arbitrary as X spells per time period.
I have heard some claim D&D is a toolkit for Fantasy role playing. In my opinion, a ‘toolkit’ would have more options for a magic system in the ‘core’ rules. It should also allow different systems to seamlessly work within it without having to create completely new rules.
Somewhat related, I really liked Questers of the Middle Realm’s concept of Favor for ‘clerics’. A cleric has a certain amount of favor with their chosen god. They can earn favor by appeasing their god, doing good works in the god’s name, spreading the word and such like that. When a cleric wishes to perform a miracle, they must make a roll. If they fail the roll, they have lost favor for interrupting the god to request this particular miracle. Once the cleric is out of Favor, no more spells.
So in summary, I do not like Vancian Magic because it ruins my immersion. I believe there are more immersive systems out there. And I think D&D is not a toolkit because it relies too heavily on a single magic system and then breaks its own rules with each additional source book.
|
For me, the concept that you ‘forget’ a spell immediately after it is cast clashes with my immersion. The fact you can ‘memorize’ it twice further pushes my suspension of disbelief. Obviously, this is a matter of taste and therefore impossible to argue as right or wrong.
Have you ever used a wand?
Do not use the "forget" explaination. Use a spell trigger explaination instead.
When a wizard prepares a spell, he basically creates an immense reality-bending stress that is released when he "completes" the spell later.
He didn't forget anything. He is simply too metaphysically tired to hold back these forces again until he rests.
Preparing two spells doesn't conflict with this paradigm.
Just an idea...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't have anything of value to add to the conversation (assuming there is anything of value to be added), but I wanted to see if you had ever picked up Earthdawn, CourtFool? It is funny in that it is a very D&D-esque system, but with a greater unifying explanation for how everything works. They also have a variation on fire and forget spellcasting, IIRC. The basic concept is that you would prepare a spell matrix in the astral plane. Creating the matrix took some non-combat friendly amount of time, but once it was created, you could basically connect an astral thread to it and power it up. Powering it up produced a copy of the spell containing the matrix. I think it used a fatigue mechanic instead of a spells per day mechanic, but it provided some flavor for a prepared spell that did not rely on memorization (which, to be fair, has also been discarded under 3e).
The above is all based on decade's old memory of having read Earthdawn 1e. I defer to those who have played or read the game within the past decade in any corrections they may wish to make.
With that being said, I'll be over here with the marshmellows, graham crackers, and chocolate. I figure the heat of this thread should be sufficient for s'mores.
|
Contributor
|
I personally don't have a problem with Vancian magic as one system of magic, but my problem with it is that it does not model other systems well. Back in the olden days, Dragon used to have a fairly regular article called "Giants in the Earth" wherein they would convert various legendary heroes to D&D. There were similar articles for converting fictional characters (heck reasonably recently there was an article about Bas-Lag). Point is, I remember reading an article on converting the "Elfquest" characters to D&D. The hoops they had to jump through to make it work were astounding, and they totally failed to capture the essence of Elfquest magic. And Elfquest magic is straightforward. Elves had magic talents that they could improve with training, and use pretty much at will, but it took concentration and could be tiring.
Now, D&D doesn't need to model every crazy idea of magic out there. but it should do more than model one single radically obscure system. 3E did a lot to improve that.
I don't feel a need to get rid of Vancian magic as an option. I just want more options.
After I get finished with RotRL, I plan on trying to run a campaign where sorcerers use spell points and wizards work off the recharge magic system, both found in Unearthed Arcana or d20srd.org. It's not that I don't like the Vancian system, I just want to try something different. As of now, I have nothing to compare the VCS (Vancian Casting System) to.
The triggered special effect ignores certain implications for me. Why is a Wizard limited to x number of spells? Why not just bring hundreds of Fire Balls online? Where is all this immense energy stored? On the Wizard? He would be more easily detected. If it is stored in another plane, is there a limited amount of energy that can be stored in that plane? Do stored spells collide with one another in that plane? Can others detect your stored spells if they can somehow see into that plane?
I do prefer the triggered effect over memorization but it still clashes with ‘The Way I See Things’.
I never did check out Earthdawn. I will have to give it a peek.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The triggered special effect ignores certain implications for me. Why is a Wizard limited to x number of spells? Why not just bring hundreds of Fire Balls online? Where is all this immense energy stored? On the Wizard? He would be more easily detected. If it is stored in another plane, is there a limited amount of energy that can be stored in that plane? Do stored spells collide with one another in that plane? Can others detect your stored spells if they can somehow see into that plane?
I do prefer the triggered effect over memorization but it still clashes with ‘The Way I See Things’.
I never did check out Earthdawn. I will have to give it a peek.
The Earthdawn model did allow detection and interference with spellcaster matrixes. I don't recall where the energy for the spell came from, but in that system you couldn't bring 100s of fireballs online at once because each time you used the matrix, you had to power it up, which took a combat action. I think I also remember that the matrix itself would eventually be worn out by using it, which would also answer the question of why it can't be used infinitely.
My other comment on vancian magic is that I found it easy to accept in D&D because before I actually got to play D&D, I read the Warriors of the Flame books. Their basic premise was that college students playing a D&D-ish game are transported into the fantasy world. Because it is a fantasy world based on D&D, it used vancian magic. That author had the luxury of describing magic in terms of a gun with the spells being the bullets.
Again, this is all from decayed and ancient brain cells and may not be accurate. And, even if I can find support for it, I've never been a fan of Vancian magic. I love magic systems like Mage and Ars Magica, but those are really only appropriate if the focus of the game is wizards. If wizards are only one option among many, I don't think such a robust mechanic is necessary or desireable. Vancian is one approach, but it is too war-gamey for my taste.
I think DitheringFool said exactly how I tend to think of it. The metaphysical energy is drained.
Having not played Earthdawn, I can recommend taking a look at Shadowrun's magic system, where once one knows a spell, one can literally cast it every action all day, so long as you resist drain. One could kill oneself by casting a high-power spell and failing to resist drain (though more likely one would knock oneself out or take stun damage). I find the system very cool and intuitive, and it accounts for "metaphysical" drain without being Vancian.
All that said, I like both systems. They are two very different methods, and sometimes I am in the mood for DnD and sometimes for ShadowRun. :)
Geez, we need some accelerant here. These flames just ain't igniting. ;P
|
My other comment on vancian magic is that I found it easy to accept in D&D because before I actually got to play D&D, I read the Warriors of the Flame books. Their basic premise was that college students playing a D&D-ish game are transported into the fantasy world. Because it is a fantasy world based on D&D, it used vancian magic. That author had the luxury of describing magic in terms of a gun with the spells being the bullets.
Again, this is all from decayed and ancient brain cells and may not be accurate.
Actually, that's a pretty accurate desrciption of the book's magic system. They also decsribed, IIRC, the memorized spells as a tension like "thing" which the caster desparately wanted to "release." An anology that springs to mind is holding a muscle in place and once its let go its impossible to contract it again until you rest. I think I remeber the "PC" spell caster getting a feeling of pleasure when he let tthe wall of fire go.
Honestly, Vancian magic has never really bothered me. I was introduced to it via 2E D&D and have always appreciated the tactical/strategy aspects of it. Make powerful "effects" a limited number of times per day (caster) or be able to fight at "full strength" all day long ingoring fatgiue (warriors). Deciding which spells to prepare and when to cast was all part of the thrill/challenge.
Why was it originally used? Maybe jack Vance, maybe an issue of class balance. I can understand how it differs from other people's perception of magic in fantasy, and I respect that their opinions differ from mine.
The triggered special effect ignores certain implications for me. Why is a Wizard limited to x number of spells? Why not just bring hundreds of Fire Balls online? Where is all this immense energy stored? On the Wizard? He would be more easily detected. If it is stored in another plane, is there a limited amount of energy that can be stored in that plane? Do stored spells collide with one another in that plane? Can others detect your stored spells if they can somehow see into that plane?
I do prefer the triggered effect over memorization but it still clashes with ‘The Way I See Things’.
I never did check out Earthdawn. I will have to give it a peek.
For ShadowRun, you can actually see those spells being formed on teh "astral" plane, and if you are present on teh plane, even attack the spells as they are being cast, or are in transit.
The plane from which magic may be finite, but so far seems infinite. There are oddities and anomalies, and occasional bizarre things that show up deep from the planes, but there are also areas far far away where totems live and where spirits come from.
As for not being able to bring so many spells "online" that is a measure of the capability and stamina of the caster. I also figure the metgame has to play in there as well, since having a mage cast 100 spells would be like a fighter type wielding a 100 swords simultaneously or shooting 100 guns. However, in SR, there is cooperative magic and groups of mages can cast powerful ritual magic having greater effects than a lone individual could achieve.
There has been a host of different options presented for spellcasting, including some presented in Unearthed Arcana that is Open Game Content. In fact, the entire section on Variant Magic is fascinating and worth a perusal.
The way both sides twist themselves into a frenzy over this continues to stun and amaze me. Either you like the Vancian system, or you don't. The other person may disagree with you. Shake hands (or tentacles, or whatever), and agree to disagree, and realize that not everybody has the same play style as you.
Sebastian, how're them s'mores?
Geez, we need some accelerant here. These flames just ain't igniting.
I will try to be more confrontational.
Part of my own prejudice may be due to never reading Jack Vance.
Ah, Vancian magic.
When I first started playing D&D I said "Huh? What the heck is this?".
It was then explained to me that it is a magic system where wizards tapped into the fundamental energy of the universe. It was hidden behind the normal level of reality. Clerics in turn tapped the same magical weave as wizards but through their gods. As such their magic was flavoured in a different manner then wizards.
I was told that a spell being memorized for the day isn't really forgotten when cast. Instead I was told that a spell was a complex mathematical, geometric and alchemical formula that allowed an (some what) ordinary being to tap into the hidden magic of the world. The words, gestures, formulas and materials had no magic themselves. Instead they allowed a person who truly understood to access magic (thus the need for high intelligence).
A spell being memorized is more like charging that spell for the day. The charge would then be released when cast.
Why someone has a "cap" on their spells per day?
It is simply that to alter the fabric of reality at will was beyond the capabilities of ordinary beings (they called those creatures "gods").
It still makes sense to me and doesn't hurt my immersion. Hope that helps. Or at least adds something to the discussion.
Geez, we need some accelerant here. These flames just ain't igniting.I will try to be more confrontational.
Part of my own prejudice may be due to never reading Jack Vance.
I have never read Jack Vance's books either.
Try looking at it this way.
To cast a spell it requires the reciting of many passages of words, many complex gestures, meditating upon phrases or pictures in your head for long stretches of time, drwing complex designs in the dirt ect.
At the very end of this process you leave off the last peice of the complete ritual and "save it for later".
When the time comes for you to cast the spell you do that last somatic gesture while uttering that last word or two and throwing the final material component. Then the spell goes off.
You cannot cast it again until you spend the time going through that long ritual again. And to do such a long complex ritual you need your spellbook. To try without the book would be like reciting a chapter of a physics book word-for-word and number-by-number without making a single mistake. Its way to hard to try to do.
Thats always been the way I handled vancian magic since I played 3rd edition.
I dont even think I made this up. Doesnt the 3rd Edition PHB describe preparing a spell in this way anyway? I though casting then forgetting was a concept that died when 3rd edition came out.
The ‘feel’ of arcane vs. divine magic should be more than just lip service. Charging a mystical container full of ether and storing that container on the mana plane should be different than appealing to a god to grant a miracle.
I have always liked the concept that arcane magic requires some kind of personal energy. That should explain my preference to mana or point pools. Divine magic does not require personal energy because the gods exert their will over reality.
If spell memorization is simply charging a spell, why not charge multiple spells? If the cap on spells is due to not being able to alter reality, why can they alter reality with the spells they have?
|
Contributor
|
Geez, we need some accelerant here. These flames just ain't igniting.I will try to be more confrontational.
Part of my own prejudice may be due to never reading Jack Vance.
I have never read Jack Vance either.
Interestingly, my brother (who may chime in at any second) and I were talking about this the other day, becasue he HAS read the Dying Earth books. He actually hates it when people call the D&D spell system "Vancian" because (if I understand correctly) the magic system in the books is not really fleshed out very fully. Gygax created his magic system as a possible model of the underlying magic system of the books. I gather that the magic system is not integral to the plot or anything like that. Regardless, he likes the current magic system more than I do. In my home game, I use a modified spell points system. It makes sorcerers useless, but I don't realy see a need for wizards and sorcerers once you go to spell points anyways.
I though casting then forgetting was a concept that died when 3rd edition came out.
You are probably right about that.
If you can do all the preparations beforehand, why do some spells take longer than a word and gesture? Why is there a limit to the number of spells that can be queued up (besides game balance)?
The term 'memorize' is a relic of older editions of the game. 3E has used the term 'prepare', which makes much more sense to me. It has less to do with the losing magical power issue from Vance's writings (as I understand them, through hearsay) than the complexity of spells. Spells, cast straight through, take time. In order to cast a spell in combat, 90% of the spellcasting is done during the preparation period. All that's left is a trigger or release. Robert Zelazny used this model in the latter half of the Amber series, as well as in short stories he wrote in Niven's Warlock's universe.
Consider that a Wizard is allowed to leave spell slots open for later in the day. A wizard who doesn't want to prepare spells once a day can essentially spontaneously cast any spell from their spellbook, in 15 minutes + 1 round. That's how raw magic works! It's just that, since you want spells available quickly, you do some of the work ahead of time. (Just like packing a lunch in the morning to save cooking time later. Why bring a cookbook to work?)
If you can do all the preparations beforehand, why do some spells take longer than a word and gesture? Why is there a limit to the number of spells that can be queued up (besides game balance)?
More run-time decisions. Consider summoning. You can prepare the magic necessary to punch a hole in reality, but at the time of casting, you have to find a particular creature, in a particular place (which probably isn't where it was this morning when you prepped spells), and summon it. That's more work than, say, fireball, where you merely release pent up energy.
|
|
I did read some Jack Vance books, way back before D&D even came out, and I didn't see what the big fuss was. Obviously it struck a chord with Gygax and Arneson, but it didn't really impress me. Even back then, there were a half-dozen or more fantasy authors with far more compelling magical traditions. (Moorcock, Howard, Leiber, Norton, Bushyager, etc.) Basing the entire kettle of fish on Jack Vance's writings seemed as short-sighted as trying to make a gaming franchise based on the magic system of A Spell for Chameleon.
After 20+ years of Vancian D&D games, I'm capable of using it, and have played dozens of Magic-Users and Wizards over that time, but gimme a Warlock anyday.
That being said, I'd *much* rather the game include a Vancian casting arcanist, for those familiar with and comfortable with that style of play. There's a lot to say for the strategic nature of picking your spells for the day, and the tactical nature of choosing when to use them, which, IMO, is probably a large portion of the appeal to the wargaming crowd that first got pulled into Dungeons & Dragons a few decades back.
Just because it isn't *my* cup of tea doesn't mean that I want it taken away from the people who do like it.
After all, I don't like Rogues, Dwarves or Halflings either, and that doesn't mean they need to remove them all from the game!
If spell memorization is simply charging a spell, why not charge multiple spells? If the cap on spells is due to not being able to alter reality, why can they alter reality with the spells they have?
Because the mortal body can only channel so much magic per day, and more skilled spellcasters can handle more power, more often, but I've always imagined Wizards who are out of spells (especially high level ones) to be tired and exhausted, because they have mentally run a marathon.
The biggest plus for the Vancian/Zelazny system, though, is that it is relatively low-bookkeeping compared to cooldown or mana based systems when done on paper. On a computer, where math and time can be hidden and updated more effectively, it is reversed. Everything is else deciding how flavor meshes with mechanics.
More run-time decisions.
That just does not hold water for me. In your example, it seems it would take longer than just the release time to relocate a particular creature for summoning. Surely run-time decisions would be interwoven throughout the entire process.
There are plenty of ways of making magic require tactical planning. In combat, the Wizard is essentially the artillery piece. Mobility and vulnerability are a huge aspect of tactical planning.
I am not arguing whether 4e should keep the system or not. I am just offering my own bias on the Vancian Magic system.
Everything is else deciding how flavor meshes with mechanics.
Oooo! That hits on my own personal theory. Way back when, when the designers decided to include magic they agreed there needed to be a limit so they came up with these mechanics and then tried to wrap flavor around it. At least that is how it feels to me.
I would have preferred they put the flavor down first and build mechanics to suit.
This is of course just my own theory based on my own feelings. I am sure Sebastian will ask that this post should be stricken from the thread.
Sketch for an idealized Zelazny-style (since I don't know Vance as well/at all) magic system. Note this is for mages, not divine casters.
- Spell points per day
- Real-time counterspelling (not this readied action junk)
- 'Vancian' preparation (X points become a prepared spell of a given level)
- Things to do with 'unused' spell points[list]
- Sacrifice of points for energy blast, less effective than prepared spell
- Sacrifice of points for counterspell, less efficient than prepared spell
- Existing 'later in day' preparation mechanic
[/list]
These changes would allow most of the bookkeeping simplicity of Vancian magic, but keeps caster's options open by making it likely that they only prepare spells one fight or so in advance. If they run out, they can resort to blasting with raw power. And just like the current system, out of combat, a spell could effectively be cast out of the spellbook over the course of a few minutes.
I would have preferred they put the flavor down first and build mechanics to suit.
That would be ideal. However, they have limitations on their mechanics in that:
1) Spellcasters have to be runnable using pen and paper.
2) Spellcasters can't be 'just better' than warriors. (All day, every round fireballs are broken.)
3) Spellcasters must have things to do every turn. (Spells with casting times more than 1 Full Round rarely, if ever, get cast in combat.)
Flavorwise, however, they still wanted spellcasters to have a variety of abilities, and since magic doesn't exist in the real world, it's definition in the game is more flexible.
Flavor and mechanics are a two-way street.
I am not arguing with your opinion. I understand. However, since I was able to rationalize the flavor meaning, I thought that I would share. I don't think D&D magic is perfect either. The magic system makes create sense for arcanists. For divine casters, not so much.
|
I can recommend taking a look at Shadowrun's magic system, where once one knows a spell, one can literally cast it every action all day, so long as you resist drain. One could kill oneself by casting a high-power spell and failing to resist drain (though more likely one would knock oneself out or take stun damage). I find the system very cool and intuitive, and it accounts for "metaphysical" drain without being Vancian.
I liked the idea, but was never convinced of the execution.
I never played a mage in Shadowrun, but the players who did just never seemed to succumb to drain, or if they did, it was never enough to discourage them. They might take a few points of damage that could easily be ignored or cured with medipacks or stimulants.Of course, this assumes the players and DM were using the rules correctly; it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they weren't.
As an aside, I found the problem with Shadowrun in general that PCs were created to already be at the top of their game (as a beginning decker, I was able to purchase the best deck in the book, and never used my full complement of dice pools). I generally prefer games where PCs have to work their way up from the bottom.
That just does not hold water for me. In your example, it seems it would take longer than just the release time to relocate a particular creature for summoning. Surely run-time decisions would be interwoven throughout the entire process.
That's why you need a really high Int score! You help you solve problems like that at casting-time. Or perhaps part of a Summoning spell is a 'subroutine', a spell-within the spell, that seeks out the creature on its own. However, you can't use the second half of the spell until the first part finishes. Thus, delay.
Or perhaps part of a Summoning spell is a 'subroutine', a spell-within the spell, that seeks out the creature on its own.
Now I want to design a modern spell system where magic is like code.
2) Spellcasters can't be 'just better' than warriors. (All day, every
In most games I have played in, all systems fail terribly at this.
Gauntlet for the win!
Question: Can anyone show me anywhere in the d20srd that you "FORGET" the spell when you're done casting it? I just looked and couldn't find it.
Now that we have a stack of wood lets add fire. ;P
Courtfool most of your questions could be asked about spell point/mana systems.
Why do they run out of mana? Why are their spells not all instantaneous? Why does mana recharge at the rate it does?
Internal logic I think is the main qualifier for any system. Other then that, go with what you enjoy.
Courtfool most of your questions could be asked about spell point/mana systems.
I agree. How can I argue that B just makes more sense to me than A?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Now I want to design a modern spell system where magic is like code.
"The Realm of Aysle" and "Pixaud's Practical Grimoire", both for TORG, are ingenious in this regard. It's a free-design spell system. If you know the beginning, middle, and end nodes to your spell, you can whip up just about anything. It feels very much like compiling code. But the more powerful the spell, the more ridiculously difficult the skill rolls to pull it together, empower it, and cast it. and backlash is a bi-- well, a headache, let us say.
EDIT: Now I want to think about object-oriented Aysle spell-building. The spellcaster creates little spells that prepare themselves to link together in some open-ended way to run big spells.
Courtfool most of your questions could be asked about spell point/mana systems.I agree. How can I argue that B just makes more sense to me than A?
Because A is open on the botton and hurts to step on more then the less pointy and enclosed B?
But tell me some of the things you like about mana systems. Do you prefer points or spells that burn you out? Do you like players to be able to spend health to enchance their magic (or simple to push beyond their normal limits)?
I have heard some claim D&D is a toolkit for Fantasy role playing. In my opinion, a ‘toolkit’ would have more options for a magic system in the ‘core’ rules. It should also allow different systems to seamlessly work within it without having to create completely new rules.
Do you mean like Binders? Incarnum? Truenaming? Psionics?
Because A is open on the botton and hurts to step on more then the less pointy and enclosed B?
Yes, but A always goes first and is also a vowel.
I like pools as a player because they allow more flexibility at run time, if you will. How do I know if I will need to fill all my slots with Mystic Missile? With a pool, I do not have to make that decision. As a general player, I like the concept of a mystic energy pool that I can draw on to alter reality and create the effects I need. More powerful effects require more energy. I also prefer the pool to regenerate energy at a steady rate rather than one lump sum.
There are some interesting variations on the recharge rate that I am not totally against. I really like the idea of Killer Shrike’s Thanomancy where the caster must drain life energy from someone to replenish his magic reserve.
I prefer a limited number of pool points. These may be linked to the particular spell caster as something like mana potential or spirit. Or they may be linked to the surrounding level of mana.
I am not opposed to the idea that a miscasting or pushing the boundaries of your pool burning you out.
I liked the idea, but was never convinced of the execution.
I never played a mage in Shadowrun, but the players who did just never seemed to succumb to drain, or if they did, it was never enough to discourage them. They might take a few points of damage that could easily be ignored or cured with medipacks or stimulants.Of course, this assumes the players and DM were using the rules correctly; it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they weren't.
It sounds like they weren't. Especially in older versions of Shadowrun, it can be easy to do drain wrong. I knew plenty of spellcasters that fell to drain, even physical drain (which was bad news).
Also, I can tell you for sure that they were using stimulants and med packs wrong on the mages. Under most editions of Shadowrun, using most stim or med patches on your mage was a really bad thing to do, as it ran the risk of permanently messing them up.
|
I like pools as a player because they allow more flexibility at run time, if you will. How do I know if I will need to fill all my slots with Mystic Missile? With a pool, I do not have to make that decision. As a general player, I like the concept of a mystic energy pool that I can draw on to alter reality and create the effects I need. More powerful effects require more energy. I also prefer the pool to regenerate energy at a steady rate rather than one lump sum.
I prefer a limited number of pool points. These may be linked to the particular spell caster as something like mana potential or spirit. Or they may be linked to the surrounding level of mana.
I am not opposed to the idea that a miscasting or pushing the boundaries of your pool burning you out.
Then you should have a look at the SRD here for this sort of system. This is the Spell Point Variant with variant Vitialization. I think it meets all of your needs. If it does not, where specifically does it fail?
2) Spellcasters can't be 'just better' than warriors. (All day, every round fireballs are broken.)As is 'all-day, every-round' eldritch blast.
(Couldn't resist!) ;)
I still haven't decided if Eldritch Blast is actually broken or just boring. I personally like it if my spellcasters have more than one spell, myself.
I still haven't decided if Eldritch Blast is actually broken or just boring. I personally like it if my spellcasters have more than one spell, myself.
IMO, boring. A warlock that relies to heavily on Eldritch Blast is a one trick pony.
Yes, there is the Sorcerer option, but Vancian Magic is so entrenched in the game as to make it very difficult to remove it without a major re-work. Even the Sorcerer is limited to X spells per a given period. X is very arbitrary, and again breaks my immersion.I prefer some kind of pool of mana/points/spell levels/whatever, although, I accept this adds complexity to the system. You could also argue that a pool of points is just as arbitrary as X spells per time period.
The Troll has read this several times but still does not see a great difference between a pool of 'spell levels' and what a Sorcerer does. This maybe no surprise as the Troll only has an Intelligence of 6 (refer page 247 of the Monster Manuel). However the Troll would like it if you explain this difference and why a pool is somehow better.
I have heard some claim D&D is a toolkit for Fantasy role playing. In my opinion, a ‘toolkit’ would have more options for a magic system in the ‘core’ rules. It should also allow different systems to seamlessly work within it without having to create completely new rules.
D&D is not a toolkit for Fanstasy role playing, GURPS is and possibly the d20 system but D&D is not generic. D&D is its own genre awkwardly straddling Swords & Sorcery and High Fantasy. As an aside the Troll is of the opinion that part of the outcry over 4e is the undermining of the 'D&D genre' that we all know and love.
For the record the Troll likes to see spells prepared (The Troll would prepare is own but see above re the Troll's intelligence). Wizards cast more spells in D&D, under a spell point system magic-users tend to cast just two spells a day, their most powerful one followed by the most powerful spell they can afford with their remaining points.
Troll
|
|
I still haven't decided if Eldritch Blast is actually broken or just boring. I personally like it if my spellcasters have more than one spell, myself.IMO, boring. A warlock that relies to heavily on Eldritch Blast is a one trick pony.
The thing with magic is that it *feels* more 'magical' if it evokes a sense of wonder, of 'OMG! He did *what!*' Eldritch Blast, or the per round abilities of a Reserve Feat, feel mechanical. It stops feeling like a magical class and more like a dude with a crossbow and some sneak attack dice.
The 'few times a day' big impressive displays feel more 'magical' to me than a wizard who can throw endless zaps, keeping up with the scout / ranger manyshotting archer, who is doing the same amount of (or more!) damage using arrows anyway. It's not magical, it's just a a ranged DPS using an alternate power source, which is about as 'magical' as having your teeth cleaned.
It stops feeling like a magical class and more like a dude with a crossbow and some sneak attack dice.
The 'few times a day' big impressive displays feel more 'magical' to me than a wizard who can throw endless zaps, keeping up with the scout / ranger manyshotting archer, who is doing the same amount of (or more!) damage using arrows anyway. It's not magical, it's just a a ranged DPS using an alternate power source, which is about as 'magical' as having your teeth cleaned.
QFT. The more "common" magic is, the more "at will" something is, the less "magical" it feels. It just feels as magical as an npc warrior swinging a sword.
I don't have anything of value to add to the conversation (assuming there is anything of value to be added), but I wanted to see if you had ever picked up Earthdawn, CourtFool? It is funny in that it is a very D&D-esque system, but with a greater unifying explanation for how everything works. They also have a variation on fire and forget spellcasting, IIRC. The basic concept is that you would prepare a spell matrix in the astral plane. Creating the matrix took some non-combat friendly amount of time, but once it was created, you could basically connect an astral thread to it and power it up. Powering it up produced a copy of the spell containing the matrix. I think it used a fatigue mechanic instead of a spells per day mechanic, but it provided some flavor for a prepared spell that did not rely on memorization (which, to be fair, has also been discarded under 3e).
The above is all based on decade's old memory of having read Earthdawn 1e. I defer to those who have played or read the game within the past decade in any corrections they may wish to make.
With that being said, I'll be over here with the marshmellows, graham crackers, and chocolate. I figure the heat of this thread should be sufficient for s'mores.
Earthdawn's spell matrix is a good analogy. In earthdawn a spell caster used the spell matrix to protect himself from damaging and corrupting magical energy. Casting without the matrix ran the risk of dealing physical damage and attarcting the attention of so really nasty astral creatures.
The big difference in systems is that in Earthdawn a prepared spell could be cast multiple times, but require a threadweaving roll to tie astral threads to the matrix. Each thread took a round of combat. Once the threads were woven, you could cast the spell. You could attempt multiple threads, but the difficulty was much higher. I seem to remember a really bad roll could wipe out every spell matrix a caster, leaving them with no spellcasting ability until they could reset them.
1) Read Jack Vance's Dying Earth.
2) For a well done version of 'Vancian magic' I recommend the "Charmed" TV series. The witches had powers and potions, but if they wanted to cast a spell they either read it out of the book or had to memorize the spell before they went out. Its as simple as that - if you explain it (a la D&D the Movie 2) it's no longer magic (and it inevitably kills the suspension of disbelief).