The biggest problem with vancian magic as the primary system is that it doesn't make literary wizards.
Outside Jack Vance's writings -- and not even all of them -- and D&D tie in books, literary wizards cast the spell they need when they need it. Even many of the D&D tie in books the casters just happen to have appropriate spells prepared to advance the plot.
The wizards in literature have a good mix of attack and utility spells prepared, that is all.
Vancian system could even co-exist with skill based system or mana IMO, if they allowed to precast the spells in advance and thus assure that you make the check in critical situation or decreased the casting time (mana = full round, precasted = standard) for example.
The biggest problem with vancian magic as the primary system is that it doesn't make literary wizards.
Outside Jack Vance's writings -- and not even all of them -- and D&D tie in books, literary wizards cast the spell they need when they need it. Even many of the D&D tie in books the casters just happen to have appropriate spells prepared to advance the plot.
Well, do you really want literary wizards in your tabletop RPG games? I mean, while it depends on the kind of books you read, literary wizard are often viewed as gods in their own fantasy worlds. The wizards in The Complete Chronicles of Conan can destroy entire armies with the help of mighty spells, Gandalf killed a balor all by himself, Harry Potter can... well let's forget about him. ;)
What I'm trying to say is that tabletop RPG are game systems, and not everything can translate well into game rules while remaining balanced, no matter how flavorful it is.
Harry Potter can... well let's forget about him. ;)No, he's the perfect example. An entire civilization of wizards can't handle goblins. They wind up having to surrender a financial monopoly in a negotiated peace. How many level 10 D&D/PF wizards would it take to exterminate the goblins? How pathetic must they be? And yet Rowling's student wizards can do something even level 20 D&D/PF wizards can't; something even D&D/PF sorcerors can't: sit in an empty classroom and practice casting a spell more powerful than a cantrip repeatedly for half an hour.
In an all-wizards campaing that would be allright, but do you see a lot of fighters and rogues and other non-caster classes in Harry Potter that are not "useless" secondary characters? I didn't read the books, so the anwser could be yes, but not from what I saw in the movies. :P
Harry Potter can... well let's forget about him. ;)No, he's the perfect example. An entire civilization of wizards can't handle goblins. They wind up having to surrender a financial monopoly in a negotiated peace. How many level 10 D&D/PF wizards would it take to exterminate the goblins? How pathetic must they be? And yet Rowling's student wizards can do something even level 20 D&D/PF wizards can't; something even D&D/PF sorcerors can't: sit in an empty classroom and practice casting a spell more powerful than a cantrip repeatedly for half an hour.
Provided that they enter the classroom with empty slots because they don't know which spell they'll need they spend 15 minutes memorizing and then cast ;)
And why would the wizards want to exterminate the goblins? Do you know any wizard who'd rather do the book-keeping and accounting by himself or to throw the very same job on his apprentice if he has some research going on and wants his apprentice's training completed on time?
+ Did anyone say that goblins in Harry Potter's world are the same weak critters? Could't they be more like gnomes with a lot of magicians among themselves?
|
In an all-wizards campaing that would be allright, but do you see a lot of fighters and rogues and other non-caster classes in Harry Potter that are not "useless" secondary characters? I didn't read the books, so the anwser could be yes, but not from what I saw in the movies. :P
That's pretty easy. You stop giving spells that let a wizard (or cleric, druid, etc) completely and 100% fill the niche of other classes. When they do get such spells, then they should be far inferior to what a PC of the same level as the caster could manage. I'd say maybe 1/4 as effective....if a 20th level wizard casts "Knock" then it should be no more effective than a 5th level rogue picking that same lock.
|
|
Wholesale slaughter of some of the more ridiculous sacred cows that have far outlived their usefulness. Vancian magic and alignment would be the big two that come to mind at the moment.
Like I said in the previous post, stop letting spellcaster trample over what should be the niches of the other classes by cutting back the number of spells that turn the spellcaster into (for example) Rogue, only better!!!
People calling for the dissolution of Vancian magic should consider the fact that when we talk about inherited traditions of fantasy roleplay, we're talking about Vancian magic.
I was a hater for years. Decades even. I hate hate hated Vancian magic.
These days I just laugh out loud when someone calls for a "more realistic magic system". Why does skill-based magic seem more "realistic"? Magic is not realistic.
In our shared fantasy world, spell-casters construct specific intangible objects and carry them around on their souls like loaded weapons ready for discharge. Thematically, this process is poorly explained in the books, but it is not any less "realistic" than a skill-driven magic system. In fact, quirky though it is, somehow the Vancian system seems more magical to me for its quirkiness.
If you ditch Vancian casting, you destroy compatibility with all of the previous modules and APs, and you renounce the claim to a clear progression from the earliest editions of the game. No thanks.
If I want a more skill-driven system (and I often do, actually) I will do what I always do when something about PF bugs me... I'll go play a different game. And eventually, I'll find myself wanting to play a game where a player has to pore over tomes to play a wizard PC. Pathfinder will be waiting for me then.
These days I just laugh out loud when someone calls for a "more realistic magic system". Why does skill-based magic seem more "realistic"? Magic is not realistic.
Been waiting for someone to call me out on my poor choice of wording ever since I posted that.
These days I just laugh out loud when someone calls for a "more realistic magic system". Why does skill-based magic seem more "realistic"? Magic is not realistic.Been waiting for someone to call me out on my poor choice of wording ever since I posted that.
Yeah, but I'm not really going for a "gotcha" on that one. It's really central to my point.
Vancian magic is awesome and flavorful, the problem is that the books never bother to address the in-world themes. All of the books, even the setting-specific ones, totally gloss over how magic works in favor of a very mechanical, gamist presentation. This pisses me off to no end.
I hope Magic of Golarion rectifies this to some extent, but I have my own interpretation that keeps me happy, even despite my years of loathing the Vancian system.
It's all in the presentation.
Vancian magic is awesome and flavorful, the problem is that the books never bother to address the in-world themes. All of the books, even the setting-specific ones, totally gloss over how magic works in favor of a very mechanical, gamist presentation. This pisses me off to no end.
I agree. I always tell new players you cast all your spell when you ready them, as they are to long to cast on the fly. However you have them "on Pause" ready to be finished and unleashed with a few simple words.
Its this act of holding spells in ready which limits how many of each level you can cast, as you can only hold a set number.
People calling for the dissolution of Vancian magic should consider the fact that when we talk about inherited traditions of fantasy roleplay, we're talking about Vancian magic.
I was a hater for years. Decades even. I hate hate hated Vancian magic.
These days I just laugh out loud when someone calls for a "more realistic magic system". Why does skill-based magic seem more "realistic"? Magic is not realistic.
In our shared fantasy world, spell-casters construct specific intangible objects and carry them around on their souls like loaded weapons ready for discharge. Thematically, this process is poorly explained in the books, but it is not any less "realistic" than a skill-driven magic system. In fact, quirky though it is, somehow the Vancian system seems more magical to me for its quirkiness.
If you ditch Vancian casting, you destroy compatibility with all of the previous modules and APs, and you renounce the claim to a clear progression from the earliest editions of the game. No thanks.
If I want a more skill-driven system (and I often do, actually) I will do what I always do when something about PF bugs me... I'll go play a different game. And eventually, I'll find myself wanting to play a game where a player has to pore over tomes to play a wizard PC. Pathfinder will be waiting for me then.
+5 :)
These days I just laugh out loud when someone calls for a "more realistic magic system". Why does skill-based magic seem more "realistic"? Magic is not realistic.Been waiting for someone to call me out on my poor choice of wording ever since I posted that.Yeah, but I'm not really going for a "gotcha" on that one. It's really central to my point.
Vancian magic is awesome and flavorful, the problem is that the books never bother to address the in-world themes. All of the books, even the setting-specific ones, totally gloss over how magic works in favor of a very mechanical, gamist presentation. This pisses me off to no end.
I hope Magic of Golarion rectifies this to some extent, but I have my own interpretation that keeps me happy, even despite my years of loathing the Vancian system.
It's all in the presentation.
Truth to tell, despite my suggestions about giving the Vancian system a hefty helping of axe, this is probably my biggest gripe with the way the system is presented, as well.
Currently, the system we refer to as "Vancian" is just a way to game the system and limit the abilities of the magician. It's a mechanical tool to balance (hinder, hamper, equivocate, whatever you want to call it) the spellcasting classes. It's a mathematics-based installation of a "fairness gauge" that prevents the spell caster from completely overshadowing the martial character. Does it lead to some intense metagaming, with people going "Guys, I'm out of fourth level spells, we need to rest up for the night NOW!" after only a few encounters a day? Yes. Absolutely.
Is it actually the Dying Earth style of magic? Not really. My recollection of the spells from the Dying Earth is of things that were limited in number, insidious, and could drive their user crazy if he or she wasn't careful. Wizards were fought and defeated, assassinated, even, just so someone could gain control of a new spell, and once they had it, it was THEIRS - no one else could have it. Spells were nearly living things, made up of energy and words and unimaginable power.
Magic in D&D/Pathfinder is not like that. If it was, I would have no problem playing a character that had only a certain number of spells per day - because suddenly my motives for only having a few of them on me at any one time would be very, very clear.
The reason I suggest moving to a more encounter-based set of options, rather a lot like the way The Force was handled in Star Wars Saga, is to (a) get rid of the meta-game reliant "three encounters, out of spells, time to rest up for 8 hours" method of "adventuring" that so many groups fall prey to, and (b) make Magic a lot more flavorful and fun. If you suddenly had only a few dozen Force Po... er, Spells that you could choose from, and then only had access to those Spells you had training in...?
I think it would lend itself to a lot more flavorful and rich gaming experience. World-specific Spells could be more easily inserted, for instance. Maybe I'm crazy, in fact I'm pretty sure I am, but the biggest issue I've had with the Vancian system is that it's not really anything more than a mechanic - when it could be a lot more. I'm not sure my suggestion is the best way to solve it, but I'm willing to give it a try and find out.
How is "sorry guys I used my powers for this encounter already, kill it without me" any more flavorful or fun?
How is "sorry guys I used my powers for this encounter already, kill it without me" any more flavorful or fun?
Because it doesn't lend itself to "Welp, that's three encounters, time for an eight-hour break" metagaming?
Because not every power is going to be immediately expended - To use the SW:Saga example, a good many Talents lasted the duration of the entire encounter. Others were automatically triggered upon a set of conditions. Still others were always in effect (The Soldier and his ability to punch through armor or knock targets down the Damage Track, is a good example).
What's more, unlike the 4E comparison that's been made previously, not every Feat, Skill, or maneuver needs to be codified out into a Talent or Power. For example, as Lilith mentioned previously, in 4E you can only reliably use many abilities that (in 3E) used to be integral to your class, what, once per encounter?
No, I'm not advocating that at all. I'm advocating finding a way to make the system lend itself more to vast and gallant adventures, instead of mechanics-based system-gaming.
I think it would lend itself to a lot more flavorful and rich gaming experience. World-specific Spells could be more easily inserted, for instance. Maybe I'm crazy, in fact I'm pretty sure I am, but the biggest issue I've had with the Vancian system is that it's not really anything more than a mechanic - when it could be a lot more. I'm not sure my suggestion is the best way to solve it, but I'm willing to give it a try and find out.
For me, the cure was pretty much just thinking about it. No need to change the rules, just explain how the rules would be perceived in-world. For years, I thought that a caster ought not know the specific number of spells per level that they could cast, nor the levels of given spells. Now I think of those as observable phenomena in the game world, and I try to imagine how the characters interact with and explain those rules...
It's a very interesting road if you choose to explore it.
I wouldn't say I'm looking to replace Vancian magic with something more realistic, rather something more intuitive. Mana is intuitive--it's a resource you can channel to do stuff. A spell slot is what (besides 100% dissociated)?
I wouldn't like casters to know all their spells either. I would use mana instead of spell slots and keep the learning the same.
Backwards compatibility would be solved as easily as a conversion table. You can't currently use any pre PF material without doing some conversions, so this would be nothing new or unusual to ask of people.
Hogwarts students can cast spells repeatedly because they all have a much coveted chargeless wand. Their wands amplify their natural ability so that they are drained at about the same rate as if they were doing comparable physical activity.
I think Pathfinder kind of dropped the ball by getting rid of Constitution-based skills. Endurance could have been a Constitution based skill instead of a feat, as could stuff like Athletics (throwing, catching, running, blocking, etc.), Laborer (ditch-digging, farming, porter, etc.), Marching/Hiking (checks made to reduce non-lethal damage, hustle quicker and longer, etc.), Regenerate (basically self-Heal checks through sheer toughness) etc. etc.
And I think Arcane Spell Failure should be a d20 roll instead of a % roll. Maybe based on a Concentration check (which should be made Con-based again, so it can also be used for non-spellcasting activities, like avoiding AoO while Disabling Devices and using the Heal skill, etc. etc.).
Maybe even convert concealment miss chances to a d20 roll? Like, miss on 1-10, chance to hit on 11-20 for full concealment (miss on 1-4, chance to hit on 5-20 for regular concealment).
I'd like the system to evolve into a more unique form eventually, while keeping it's purpose. I want the system to 'feel' like Pathfinder and not lose the charm. At the same time, I think classes should be more customizable, with classes having several abilities to choose from. Kinda like archetypes do now.
And perhaps a bit more variation in combat maneuvers. Things like called shots really improve gameplay for non-spellcasters. Focus should be given to dodges, trips, and other tactical decisions to make being a fighter even more fun.
And, while I love Golarion, I think it would be interesting if Paizo started endorsing alternative campaign settings.
Most of all, the typical D&D stuff shouldn't be changed, and it should still feel more like 3.x than 4e. Nothing intrinsic to the game should be removed or changed so drastically that it barely resembles it's original form.
