I know the beta is over, and I'm sure they've already chosen which spell system they are using. I doubt they'd fall from the vancian system anyhow.
Regardless, I wanted to see what other people think and what you guys use normally, or mainly.
I love spell points, as they resemble the closest thing to "mana" that I could find without re-tweaking the entire balance of spells. I blame psionics: my favorite system.
My roommate has issues with Psionics, though. I suppose this is a two parter thread. The second question is how does psionics compares to regular magic in power? He says Psionics are overpowered, but I disagree.
What do you think?
Psionics can be overpowering, but so can spells. Personally I'm fine with the Vancian system. Spell Points eh they aren't my thing, I just haven't seen them used well in a game system to date.
However "skill based" possibly fatiguing magic that always available (if slow to use, or again fatiguing, or something like that) have been used in several at least decent systems I've seen.
I, also, like the Shadowrun-type system.
edit: this board is weird. It posts to the last thread you were looking at (even if you were doing so in another tab).
Vancian all the way. This is PF, which is really D&D. D&D is Vancian. That part was never open for debate.
I don't mind other systems, like spell points, or AE's hybrid system, and I like psions.
The psionics rules need a couple of tweaks, that's true, but 3.5e psionics is probably the best one yet.
We always use Vancian.
I really like the Psionics rules. I would, however, argue that they are ultimately less powerful, not more powerful, than Vancian magic. In the Vancian system spells scale for free with caster level, in the Psionics system the Psion has to pay for every power addition that they want meaning that they have to pay the cost of a 9th level power to get a 2nd level power up to the point where it can be useful in high level play while most Arcane spells are simply good all the way through.
Psions are better at going nova, so if the DM is only throwing one encounter per day at the players the Psion will outshine everyone. However, if the DM follows the encounter guidelines an Arcane caster will have far more staying power as they effectively have far more "spell points" to spend than the Psion.
vancian system, psionics are not my cup of tea, the same goes for everything that is a alternate system to vancian/spontanious, one magic system is simply enough for me
I fought Vancian for a long time, then succumbed.
More than any other system, it requires obsessively poring over tomes in order to wield effectively. That is both irritating and very atmospheric.
Magic points and skill based magic could be interesting, but it always feels sort of grafted on to me. I much prefer Vancian under a GM who can creatively and logically interpret its quirks, rather than over-relying on the rules-as-written.
Nowadays, it is possible to automate the spell preparation process in Maptool, which is where I do all my gaming these days. For me, that was the final and most influential reason to simply settle for Vancian magic. My players and NPCs are very, very easy to manage, just pick the spells off a menu and cast with the push of a button.
|
Argothe stated the differences between the two systems nicely. This is what makes spell points/psionics system inherently flawed imho since it greatly enhances two flaws in Vancian spellcasting with (1) less staying power. without spending points miserly, than vancian magic and (2) the ability to trivialize difficult encounters with more powerful spell effects, again shortening the casters adventuring day even more.
Both can be undesirable effects for vancian casters in normal game play. Spell points/psionics only make these worse for the game and DM. There was a reason haste was nerfed after 3.0e since it allowed vancian casters to "nova" in a similar manner by casting 2 (or 3 with a quickened spell) spells per round. Having haste was a bad idea then and still is now.
I've toyed with the idea of making divine casters work like in AE (this is a best-of-both-worlds scenerio, where you prepare spells like a cleric then cast them with the flexability of a sorcerer).
I also think it would kick ass if spontainous casters used spell points. Really, what "spontainous casting" boils down to is a very clunky, clumsy spellpoint system.
However, wizards cast ala Vance, and that's where I'm not going to budge. The amount of planning, scheming, research and calculation which that system entails is such a perfect fit thematically for the wizard; I never understood why anyone would want to change it.
Argothe stated the differences between the two systems nicely. This is what makes spell points/psionics system inherently flawed imho since it greatly enhances two flaws in Vancian spellcasting with (1) less staying power. without spending points miserly, than vancian magic and (2) the ability to trivialize difficult encounters with more powerful spell effects, again shortening the casters adventuring day even more.
This does make psionics more challenging to DM for.
On the other hand, "going nova" is really, really fun. ^_^
I think this is why the Pathfinder barbarian is going to be popular. If the party suddenly bumps into their nemisis on the road to the dungeon, he can go completely a*#%~#%, dumping out all his rage points at once. And that's awesome.
(I think we might be overblowing the psion's explosiveness a little here: remember that by default he can't spend more points than he has levels, which only puts him on par with a spellcaster (who effectively auto-augments). They do have some options that let them go all-out, however, if I recal.)
This does make psionics more challenging to DM for.
On the other hand, "going nova" is really, really fun. ^_^
I think this is why the Pathfinder barbarian is going to be popular. If the party suddenly bumps into their nemisis on the road to the dungeon, he can go completely a+!!~&!, dumping out all his rage points at once. And that's awesome.(I think we might be overblowing the psion's explosiveness a little here: remember that by default he can't spend more points than he has levels, which only puts him on par with a spellcaster (who effectively auto-augments). They do have some options that let them go all-out, however, if I recal.)
Hydro is correct.
The Psion isn't putting out spells any faster than a caster of equivalent level, they are only blowing through their power reserve faster as they can throw all of their powers at their highest level of effectiveness; meaning a level 17 Psion can use all of their power points to kick out 14 level 9 powers whereas a 17th level Wizard only has access to 1 level 9 spell, so this really isn't analogous to 3.0 Haste or casting 2-3 spells per round.
Moreover, this really isn't unbalancing as the Psion has to spend extra points to make their powers effective at this level while the Wizard gets free scaling with their caster level. Using Fireball as an example, a Wizard can cast this 3rd level spell, always using a 3rd level slot, and its effectiveness will scale with the Wizard's caster level so that it starts as 5d6 damage but scales to 10d6 damage. Conversely, a similar power for the Psion would start out costing 5 power points and would deal 5d6 damage, in order to get the damage to equal a Fireball of a 10th level Wizard the Psion will have to spend 10 power points or the equivalent resources of a 5th level and a 1st level spell slot.
So going back to our 17th level example; unless the Psion plays conservatively and under powers some of their powers they will only get to use 14-15 powers that day no matter what the actual level the power, while the Wizard has 30 spell slots that day 14 of which are of 5th level and above. Psionics isn't overpowered, if anything it is underpowered, but it is a well balanced and fun to play system.
As for the problem of going nova, it really isn't a class problem, it is a DM problem. The game assumes that you are going to participate in 4 encounters per day and the classes are balanced so that they will have to manage their resources across those 4 encounters. If the DM is throwing fewer than 4 encounters per rest cycle at their players then they are encouraging all casters, not just Psions, to go nova and they are unbalancing the game. If, however, you follow the encounter guidelines, the Psion balances nicely against all of the other classes.
I hate vancian system. It's simply horrible, it breaks my suspension of disbelief, ia hasn't a single mechanic advantage over other better systems. ars magica? Star wars saga? skill based? everything is better imho.
I created a magic point system on my own and I always use it in my campaigns, with great satisfaction of players.
For me vancian system ISN'T D&D. No mechanic in the world screams "Dungeons & Dragons" for me.
D&D is defined by its flavour, its typical adventures, its clichés... NOT by mechanics of any sort.
I hate also d20 by the way. I'd prefer 2d10. A much better statistical system.
I strongly hope that PF 2.0 will contain substantial differences with the past.
The amount of planning, scheming, research and calculation which that system entails is such a perfect fit thematically for the wizard; I never understood why anyone would want to change it.Possibly because their use of the word "wizard" is different from your use.
If I were to use my idea of what "wizard" means the D&D system of spells that go off without any chance of failure — barring situation that require a Concentration check — would be too simple. And the fact that spells aren't innately modifiable — rather than requiring a feat — would be another issue.
For other people "wizard" might mean what D&D terms a "sorcerer": anyone who has innate magical power. They just get confused by the name being on a class that doesn't work like they expect it to.
This has not been an attempt to debate you in an effort to change your mind about your definition of "wizard". This has been an attempt to allow you to see why other people may argue strongly for another system.
Well yes, okay, you're right. Saying I don't see how anyone would want to do things differently was definitely over-reaching on my part.
However, I do feel that those mechanics dovetail beautifully with the archetype that D&D ties to the (ever-ambiguous) word "wizard".
... vancian system ... breaks my suspension of disbelief ...
Wait, what?
Wait, what?... vancian system ... breaks my suspension of disbelief ...
I see what he means.
He wants magic that doesn't beg questions such as : "Why does one 'forget' a spell once it has been cast?"
Suspension of disbelief is a sort of clumsy term when comparing magic systems, but I can totally support the statement that Vancian casting feels like a game rule and not like an ability of the character.
That is if you've got a GM who isn't attending to details. I try very hard to describe Vancian magic during the game so it doesn't feel contrived at all. My main tools are components, and what I call "the split ritual" — the idea that most of a spell is cast during preparation, and the components simply "complete" the spell.
Any system, sufficiently explained, is realistic. I wish the books went the extra mile with explain how spells work, however... tapping all those great metaphysics about the planes and whatnot. Because I start with the metaphysics, I sometimes have to shift spells around to different schools than are printed, but it is totally worth it.
|
I've never had an issue with Vancian magic. Wizards spells are an incredibly complex mix of gestures, substances and a language that was not meant to come from the mouths of men.
It's not neccissarily that the entire spell is forgotten I mean obviously a wizard know what spell is what or how would he know if he was memorizing Fireball or See Invisibility? No, he just doesn't remember enough of the details to successfully cast it again.
Meh, decent question. My best answer, because then he would be a Sorcerer. ;-)
I've never had an issue with Vancian magic. Wizards spells are an incredibly complex mix of gestures, substances and a language that was not meant to come from the mouths of men.
It's not neccissarily that the entire spell is forgotten I mean obviously a wizard know what spell is what or how would he know if he was memorizing Fireball or See Invisibility? No, he just doesn't remember enough of the details to successfully cast it again.
Meh, decent question. My best answer, because then he would be a Sorcerer. ;-)
Well, there's no longer any reference to memory in the core rules. Preparation makes more sense to me.
I've always hated Vancian casting, but the first RPG I ever took part in was Dragon Warrior - for the NES. (famicom) So perhaps I'm biased. I can still remember the sound effects for a critical hit in that little game... =B
I wouldn't try to change it for a couple of reasons that are really the same reason: It's tradition. When we sit down to play a white wolf game, we're gonna spend way too much from a limited pool to get anything done. When we play shadowrun, it's going to be a drain check that we've carefully plotted to make sure that we have little or no chance of failure. When we play D&D, it's going to be ticked off our spells per day.
The second reason is that it's a headache to remember that we've changed a fundamental game rule, which like I said, ties in with the first.
Meanwhile! I love what I'm seeing from people saying that psionics is underpowered. I don't believe it, but I'm going to use their logic every time someone claims it's overpowered. Delight!
I actually played in a game once where magic was a physical thing. It accreted in natural spots and animals (similar to materia in FF7). Mages only got spell points back if they were wearing objects made of this stuff as clothing (if you had a 30 spell pt amulet, you got 30 pts back sleeping overnight).
The stuff was malleable to willpower, and anyone with a magical creation feat (not just mages, even fighters could take the craft magical arms/armor feat) could use craft (based off wisdom instead of int) to 'make' magical items and armor from this stuff.
Different colors were 'better' for certain things than others. Red mana-crystal was fire aligned, white was ice, etc.
If you had crafted the stuff into a magical item, it wouldn't recharge your magical ability. If it was set up for recharging magical ability, it couldn't be used as magical items or armor or weapons.
This set up a rather interesting dynamic between the spellcasters (who needed it to cast their spells) and non-casters (who needed it for magical arms/armor). On top of that, if a mage had used up all his magic points for the day, he could directly burn this physical mana for spells. So a mage could use his own magical armor or weapon to fuel his spells, but he literally 'burned up' his mana to power his spells. And of course, he could also grab the fighter's armor and use it to cast spells (assuming the fighter wasn't resisting).
Made things very very interesting and complex.
Well, there's no longer any reference to memory in the core rules. Preparation makes more sense to me.True. I've actually played very few casters in 3.5, so I forget that. However, that actually fits my explanation even better. ;-)
Indeed it does. It also fits the "split ritual" model, which I believe is quasi-official. Thematically, the Vancian system really isn't so bad when you have metaphysics to back it up.
The only novel concept in the above description is that the rituals are completed in two parts. I even allow my players to detect how many spells remain prepared on a caster, and to cast unprepared spells by completing the entire lengthy preparation ritual. Why not?
I like the classic Vancian method for D&D... and by extension with PFRPG. The Sorc and Bard are nice options for those that want more flexibility in the game. I like to think that it is not just "Memorizing" the words but imprinting the power of those words in whatever organ or part of your brain that lets you cast magic. Once you cast the spell and release that power it is gone. You may remember the words, but they lack the force needed to function. If it were simple memorization, then what is to keep the fighter from picking up your book for an hour or so then casting the spell himself?
There are other methods out there that are fun, but for me a wizard memorizing his spells is key to the game flavor. I really liked the old FASA Shadowrun system of magic as an example, but it was not D&D to me.
Back in AD&D Vancian was great, and had a reason to exist... but since 3E, spontaneous casters have become an eternal conceptual loophole in the Vancian system... if a bard or sorcerer don't need to memorize spells, then what's the excuse for "okay I ran out of lvl 2 spells... but all my lvl 1 slots are intact"? It feels wonky.
Spell Points is not only an elegant solution, also being part of the SRD, it's -canon-, perhaps not the "default canon", but canon still. If OGL d20 has a blessing, that is -options-.
I once had the idea that spells are attending little spirits, and when you cast a spell they tire out and you have to let them rest (which sort of explains why creatures that don't sleep still need to spend 8 hours doing almost nothing). So prepared slots are just spirits you can retrain each time, while fixed slots are spirits that you don't have to.
Interesting reimagining. Overly shamanistic, but might work for the druid and ranger. :)
A few things,
The Vancian system has never bothered me but I prefer Rifts PEE or in other systems manna pool, but I prefer it slightly differnt. In Pathfinder terms it would work something like a SC except some spells DC would be so high that 20+level characters might have a hard time rolling it. However with manna points one could reduce the DC, so a first level Wizard might pool off a major spell, but he'd be tapped out right after. No I never tested it, as I said I don't have a problem with the Vancian system.
Number two, I know this is a dumb question so don't go off on my lack of knowledge, but from where does the Vancian System gets its name. It's always bothered me, but I guess I just never looked it up before.
Oh well, TTFN DRE
Spell Points are easier to cheat or fudge since any given level of spell can cost different amounts. At least, it seems like it would be. I've never DMed while a PC played a Psionic caster but it seems like it'd be easier to mentally keep track of how many spells of different levels someone has cast.
I know, this doesn't mean anything since you're not supposed to cheat but I thought that I'd throw it out there anyway.
Fun Fact: The original Final Fantasy (and possibly II and III which were only released in Japan and built off the same or similar engine) used a Vancian spell system as opposed to Magic Points.
What does that have to do with anything? Well, I definitely understand where some are coming from when they say Vancian is DND. It is. It's the way D&D has always run standard magic AFAIK. I understand the opposition as well. Fact is, Vancian was most likely chosen as standard because it was the easiest to manage with a pencil and paper game. When computer RPGs started coming out, some of them drew from that original D&D base but almost all of them, including Final Fantasy, made the shift to Magic Point mainly because it was a much easier mechanic not only to program but also for the player to keep track of.
If I had to choose one thing that I love about 3.x, it's the breadth of options, customization and different magic and combat systems that has kept the game interesting for so long. I tried to play 4E but it just seems like every character is the same. It doesn't matter if you're a fighter or a wizard, the mechanic for every single class is exactly the same. Sure you have slightly different options, strengths and weaknesses but there just aren't enough differences between them. From what I hear about the new 4E Psionics, it sounds like a horrible joke.
Anyway, everyone has their preference to which system they like best but it doesn't really matter in the end. Chances are, if you want to create a Wizard that uses the Spell Point system instead of the Vancian system, unless your DM is way too inflexible, you can easily do it. Power to the people...who aren't playing 4E at least. Kind of feel sorry for those poor souls. :)
P.S. Sorry about the babbling. Not sure if I ever really made any kind of point in all of this. :)
Back in AD&D Vancian was great, and had a reason to exist... but since 3E, spontaneous casters have become an eternal conceptual loophole in the Vancian system... if a bard or sorcerer don't need to memorize spells, then what's the excuse for "okay I ran out of lvl 2 spells... but all my lvl 1 slots are intact"? It feels wonky.
Spell Points is not only an elegant solution, also being part of the SRD, it's -canon-, perhaps not the "default canon", but canon still. If OGL d20 has a blessing, that is -options-.
Consider the following as an explaination of the Vancian system especially for spontaneous casters:
As spells go up in "level" they use up exponentially larger amounts of energy (like on a 10 to 1 scale just between 1st level and 2nd level spells). Even if you wanted to 'use up' lower level spells to cast a higher level spell it eats up so much more energy as to be impossible. So while you can use the energy in your "aura" or "blood" (whatever) to cast lower level spells, you can't use it to 'charge up' to a higher level spell.
Gaining more practice and levels means that you have more energy in your aura this energy fills the "lower limits" first then spreads into the more unstable "higher orbits" of spell levels (kind of like electrons in an atom as they receive energy). When you cast a spell you drop one of these "energy packets" out of the 'higher orbit' all the way back to the lowest orbit (no spell). These 'energy packets' are really unstable, using them is an all or nothing thing, hench why you can't just "use some of it" and drop it into a lower orbit.
Jack Vance author wrote books using that system. I am not 100% sure how it came to be called vatican but I know thats where it came from. But I have never read his books so maybe thats what he calls it in the books.
The Dying Earth series of novels. It is never called "vancian" but if you read his books it is VERY AD&Desque and is obviously a source of Gygax's system. Curiously enough Ioun stones, prismatic sphere, and imprisonment also are found in his stories. ( Imprisonment was called " The Spell of Forlorn Encysment " )
There was a rogue in two of the books ( Cugel the Clever and Eyes of the Overlord ) that tried to learn to cast magic... he just couldn't keep all those symbols and phonetics memorized in the proper order. It lead to some interesting debacles. I adore Vance. But he is one of those authors I never recomend. Vance is an acquired taste..but his fans love runs deep.
I think the Dying Earth series is
The Dying Earth
Rhialto the Marvolous
Cugel the Clever
Eyes of the Overlord
I am sure Kirth Gerson would know if this list is accurate.
wasgreg
PS I like the Vancian magic system. Even moreso since reading the books. :)
|
|
I like the classic Vancian method for D&D... and by extension with PFRPG. The Sorc and Bard are nice options for those that want more flexibility in the game. I like to think that it is not just "Memorizing" the words but imprinting the power of those words in whatever organ or part of your brain that lets you cast magic. Once you cast the spell and release that power it is gone. You may remember the words, but they lack the force needed to function. If it were simple memorization, then what is to keep the fighter from picking up your book for an hour or so then casting the spell himself?
The same thing that keeps a wizard from donning the fighters arms & armor and hacking through the enemy's ranks. He has not been trained to do so. One not trained to do so cannot pronounce the words correctly, cannot make the precise hand/finger gestures and cannot judge the correct amount of material components to use. Much less get all three ingredients correct in the precise order needed.
In other words, it isn't 'simple memorization' it is very complex memorization with more than a little comprehension to top it off.
words
I don't get concerns over fudging. You can't trust your players? Sucks.
FF didn't use Vancian. They actually used more or less the 3.0 sorcerer casting system. A given number of slots of each level, but cast any spell known for that level as long as you have a slot. Also, it sucked. Which is why no one was sad when they went to MP. (Which they did by III, I believe)
I hear you on 4E, it looks terrible. I said the same thing about Saga Edition Star Wars, but I've been outvoted. I just try to steer us towards playing something else entirely.
*sigh*
I'm supposed to run Call of Cthulhu when I get home, but I've been under the weather for like a month and don't have any zing in my ideas. I thought about straight up zombie survival horror, thought about doing a classic "investigate the spooky location". Nothing feels right. :(
Sorry for my rambling too...
You write a spell on a scroll. You infuse the writing with magic. You cast the spell once, the scroll is consumed, and you pull out a new one.
I've never heard anyone ask "why can't you just read it again?" It seems to be understood that the words or symbols are merely a vessel in which energy is contained. The writing left behind after has all the value of an empty beer can.
This is how I first thought of vancian spellcasting (from reading Greenwood's Elminster books in middleschool; long before taking a real interest in D&D, and WAY before I was familiar with the term "vancian"). To memorize a spell is to construct a mental vessel, which (if you're a wizard) you can fill with power. Casting it opens and destroys the vessel. You can't just "do it again"; you can go through the motions again, sure, but the energy is gone.
When I read the "Magic" chapter in the PHB for the first time I of course embraced the "nearly-complete ritual" explanation, but I still use the term "memorize" occasionally. I think that's how the common folk would view it.
"Why don'tcha do that one again? What's that? Didjyeh ferget how?"
I am sure Kirth Gerson would know if this list is accurate.
I'm sure he would:
The Dying Earth
The Eyes of the Overworld
Cugel's Saga
Rhialto the Marvellous
And the spell that inspired Imprisonment was "The Spell of Forlorn Encystment" which sounds infinitely worse than the temporal stasis you get with the 3.5e spell.
"The Excellent Prismatic Spray" is the name of a magazine devoted to the Dying Earth RPG.
I have always hated the Vancian System too. An explanation can be made, whatever the system, but the reason I hate it is because I wanted to play one of those powerful mages in the books I read. None used a magic system like that.
The best system I have seen is the Ars Magica one. Not only you can cast any spell any number of times. Its that you can cast spells you don't know at all: magic spheres are adquired as skills, and depending on your skill you could cast spountaneously an effect as you described it (the DM decided the DC for the spell).
When a spell was being casted, you needed to roll to see if you could cast it, or you become fatigued, etc.
Of course, the Ars MAgica system was biased as the mages were supposed to be much more powerful than other characters.
Myself Im slowly designing a new spell system. Its going to be a point system. The main problems is going nova, as someone else has shown. But this is discouraged this way:
1. You have relatively few magic points.
2. Magic Points have a high regeneration rate. After a fight, you can regain all of them in minutes. You can regen in the combat, too.
3. Trying to cast high level spells means you have less chances to succeed. Increasing the casting time increases those chances.
4. Having spells already working makes your regeneration rate to decrease. This way you could have a limited number of buffs at a given time.
You could cast your most powerful spells 1, or maybe 2 times per combat.
I hope that the system also fix the '15 minute adventure day' problem.
2. Magic Points have a high regeneration rate. After a fight, you can regain all of them in minutes. You can regen in the combat, too.
I've been working on an Iron Heroes magic system for ages; I find that assuming IH's per-encounter (rather than per-day) balance paradigm makes point-based magic a lot easier to deal with.
It also lets you throw some fun variance into how people get spellpoints. You can have a necromancer who gets MP by killing people, a blade-mage who gets it by attacking with his sword, a staff-mage who stockpiles it in his staff before the fight and a sorcerer who's spirit generates a constant influx of MP per turn.
2. Magic Points have a high regeneration rate. After a fight, you can regain all of them in minutes. You can regen in the combat, too.I've been working on an Iron Heroes magic system for ages; I find that assuming IH's per-encounter (rather than per-day) balance paradigm makes point-based magic a lot easier to deal with.
It also lets you throw some fun variance into how people get spellpoints. You can have a necromancer who gets MP by killing people, a blade-mage who gets it by attacking with his sword, a staff-mage who stockpiles it in his staff before the fight and a sorcerer who's spirit generates a constant influx of MP per turn.
This is the main problem with the Iron Heroes Arcanist, there is no way to regain mana points except for taking a nap. The Arcanist is one of my favorite classes except I spend most of my time in combat using the energy bolts instead of spells. Spells I use for buffing the warriors or healing.
Doug
Been working on a hybrid system, myself... point-based, but trying to bring in some of the balance advantages of Vancian casting. No proper augments, the effects are divided into discrete levels with a fixed point cost at each level (five instead of nine, which has the advantage of making "cost = level" work out). However, every power ("talent") scales to all five levels; this mechanic takes the place of augmentation. The variants differ in more than scale; for instance, an evocation-type talent might be a ray at level 1, a cone at level 2, etc. (Setting these chains up has been the biggest time-sink in the whole design process...)
Here's where it steals some Vancian concepts: One can only have so many talents active at once, and not all can be at the maximum level. Furthermore, if you have a talent active at 3rd level, you can use the 1st and 2nd level versions at will simply by paying their point costs, but using the 3rd level version expends the talent completely.
You can reactivate it with a full-round action which provokes, so it's not quite as cumbersome as renewing memorization but going nova is still generally foiled. Active talents also provide a passive benefit or minor at-will power, which is (hopefully) good enough that discharging them isn't always the best option.
I posted on in another thread not too long ago. The thread died right after though.
LINK.
I posted on in another thread not too long ago. The thread died right after though.
LINK.
That one's pretty cool, I must say. :)
That one's pretty cool, I must say. :)I posted on in another thread not too long ago. The thread died right after though.
LINK.
Hey, thanks! I appreciate that.
I don't mind the vancian system at all. But I love the ShadowRun magic system. It allows for spells to be cast multiple times, and with a good roll, a reduced or negated spell cost to boot. And if you over extend, you can cast against your health.
MAGE: the ascension come in a close second for magic systems. Everything there is based on what you know. Themore you understand about th eforces you're working with, the more you can do with them.
That said, neither would work in DnD without a major reworking of the rules. I was never a fan of points systems in DnD. I disliked how it scaled. Just a preference of mine I guess.
The vancian seems to be one of the easiest ways to teach to new players. With spell points the player has to know how many spells at each level the character can learn, then has to deal with calculating spell points each round (in particular for spells that have variable points based on how much damage the caster wants to do). With the vancian system you cross off a spell and it's done... just easier.
I agree that it's not a perfect model but very little in D&D is a reasonably accurate model of anything. HP? talk about suspension of disbelief, HP are a joke, HP are a compromise system because building a system of parrying and damage reduction from armor is much more complex for the player. I see the vancian system as comparable to that. A simplification for the sake of the players.
Ultimately the suspension of disbelief is up to the viewer.
I'm not trashing any of the other systems out there, I personally like them. Ross has a variant of the Power Point system in our pbp campaign and it works just fine and it's fun. I just recognize that vancian has it's place, and think that it's just fine as the default system for a role playing game.
I've toyed with the idea of making divine casters work like in AE (this is a best-of-both-worlds scenerio, where you prepare spells like a cleric then cast them with the flexability of a sorcerer).
I like both psionics and AE-style spell slots (and, to a lesser extent, the feat Versatile Spellcaster from Races of the Dragon) better than pure Vancian casting.
Right now I'm DMing a game using the Unearthed Arcana spell recharge option (which I again like better than straight Vancian casting).