I am a huge fan of the vancian magic system. It is the number one reason that I do not play 4E.
I don't like Spell-points from a math standpoint. I already have to keep track of HP loss and gain, so I do not need a second bar of numbers to keep track of for casting spells. Vancian is easier for me to keep track of. It's as simple as just a tally mark. Personally, I prefer spontaneous Vancian casters like Sorcerers and Oracles, but I'm alright with prepared spellcasters. It's probably my reason for not really being into psionics or systems that use similar concepts (HERO's Endurance).
OTOH, there's something to be said for magic working consistently. There aren't a lot of genres settings that have multiple magic systems.Actually, I do disagree somewhat with this, conceptually. One of the things that bugs me (not enough to put the effort into house ruling or anything, though) is that Divine magic functions identically in many ways to arcane magic. Something doesn't sit right with me about that, that someone who combs through ancient tomes and researches the fundamental arcane principles of the universe has magic that functions roughly identically to one who channels the power of the gods. (Personally, I'd split druid and ranger from divine to something else, like spirit or primal magic[in name; not the existing mechanic], or something like that, and have three systems of magic which feel distinct mechanically.)
I always looked at the spell slots for clerics as favors from his deity. In that way they kind of fit.
Yep, no one thinks of Jack Vance or Glen Cook or Terry Pratchett. Oh, wait.....(pTerry is 3rd or 4th best selling fantasy author, behind JRRT , Rowling, & Lewis- GRRM might be closing fast however, no one knows what Magic "system" GRRM uses if any)I prefer Vancian, including it’s sibling version Spontaneous.
Mind you, there’s room in PF for a few variants. We already have the Witch and her hexes, I see nothing wrong with a sorta warlock that can cast from a VERY small list “at will”. Make them “Spell-like abilities”. Give them special abilities & curses ala oracles, then one or two “spells’ per level that can be cast at will, maybe at a caster level -2 or something. And of course psionics for those that want it.
Spell/Mana points? Tried it. Too much Nova then rest or endless calculations. The most realistic magic system was Chivalry and Sorcery, and hardly anyone actually played it.
I keep getting the impression that folks tie the success/failure/popularity of D&D very tightly with the use of Vancian systems. Correlation != Causation.
And the only way that a nova can be accomplished is with no upper bound on power point expenditure for boosting, but most reasonable point based systems apply some sort of a cap, typically based on level or level plus stat mod to reflect increasing power capability.
No need for throwing the baby out with the Vancian bathwater.Hey look, there's dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there. Try one. Mind you, pretty much all are failures or niches, but still...
If they work so well, why don't the games sell?
I have tried a lot of systems, and the only "spell points" system I tried that was playable (and even sold some games)' was Runequest.
Still, the magic system was what many complained about, and the game-sadly- died.
I like the Vancian system a lot. I haven't seen other systems in play, but some of them seem like they would slow down play significantly. I could be wrong though.
I don't think I would like a system where you create new spells out of "building blocks" because that seems like it would lead to option paralysis. I'm not saying that people shouldn't play with these types of systems, but I don't think I'd like them personally.
What paizo eventually decides to do should be a mix of player feedback and their own personal preferences. They need to make a game that they like so they can continue to support it with the enthusiasm they have for it today.
I like the Vancian system a lot. I haven't seen other systems in play, but some of them seem like they would slow down play significantly. I could be wrong though.
Well, maneuvers were pretty easy and could be kept as a deck of cards. Games where you have a sort of unlimisted ammo you just don't keep track, and games with points of some sort are easy to dock and keep track of. easier than keeping track of how many and what spells I had to prepare that day. That's my opinion anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zelazny described it well. Spells take a long time to cast. But instead of completing them, you can "hang" them in your mind with only needing the last few words and or actions for them to trigger.
This makes sense to me. With that in mind I would like to see spells take much longer to prepare, perhaps based on level of spell or level of spell and caster level. Then Perhaps set a limit on total spell level that one can hang at any time. So you still have specific spells prepared, but have more leeway with levels.
I however want only my prepared casters to cast this way. I would prefer my spontaneous casters utilize an entirely different system, with more control during actual casting, an entirely different spell list or effects, and with a completely different feel.
The two systems in one world would be much cooler than two casters coming to a spell from two opposite directions and yet the spell, for each, does the exact same thing.
I like the Vancian system a lot. I haven't seen other systems in play, but some of them seem like they would slow down play significantly. I could be wrong though.
I don't think I would like a system where you create new spells out of "building blocks" because that seems like it would lead to option paralysis. I'm not saying that people shouldn't play with these types of systems, but I don't think I'd like them personally.
What paizo eventually decides to do should be a mix of player feedback and their own personal preferences. They need to make a game that they like so they can continue to support it with the enthusiasm they have for it today.
Bear in mind most power point systems still involve discrete known spells, they just require points as fuel and more points to enhance. This is different from systems like Words of Power, an optional rule within PF, where spells are built up from building blocks.
|
Zelazny described it well. Spells take a long time to cast. But instead of completing them, you can "hang" them in your mind with only needing the last few words and or actions for them to trigger.
This makes sense to me. With that in mind I would like to see spells take much longer to prepare, perhaps based on level of spell or level of spell and caster level. Then Perhaps set a limit on total spell level that one can hang at any time. So you still have specific spells prepared, but have more leeway with levels.
I however want only my prepared casters to cast this way. I would prefer my spontaneous casters utilize an entirely different system, with more control during actual casting, an entirely different spell list or effects, and with a completely different feel.
The two systems in one world would be much cooler than two casters coming to a spell from two opposite directions and yet the spell, for each, does the exact same thing.
I think this is an excellent description of the system as is, and it does make a lot of sense.
However, I wish the missing component were here in the game. Why can't I cast a spell by using the full time to cast it? Why is the only way I can cast a spell be because I have prepared it?
... Yep, no one thinks of Jack Vance or Glen Cook or Terry Pratchett. Oh, wait.....(pTerry is 3rd or 4th best selling fantasy author, behind JRRT , Rowling, & Lewis- GRRM might be closing fast however, no one knows what Magic "system" GRRM uses if any) ...
I haven't read much Vance that I remember. I have read alot of Glen Cooke and Terry Prachett. I don't remember anything in Glen Cooke's books that sounded like the PF spell system. As far as the couple of references to something about memorizing a spell in Terry Prachet's work, I believe Terry said it was a throwback to that old RPG just cause it seemed ammusing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually a huge fan of the way D&DN is (currently) doing it in the playtest.
Cantrips are not part of the spell level system. You either know a cantrip or you don't, there is no limit to it's use, and many of them scale with your level (to a certain degree anyway).
The rest of the spells are prepared, but instead of losing the spell when you cast it, you keep it, and only lose the slot. This way you prepare as a Wizard, but cast as a Sorcerer. You no longer feel like you have to sit on your one prepared spell until *just* the right moment, but you also can't just cast whatever spells you know willy-nilly.
And, in addition, they brought back Rituals from 4E, but limited them to casters. So most casters have the option of casting spells that have Ritual options as a ritual without losing the slot (and some, not all, wizards can cast rituals straight out of their books, without having them prepared).
Any system that loses Vancian casting entirely loses me as a player.
That being said, I really want Clerics to use a differnt system. Vancian just seems really "arcane" which great for wizards, but nonsensical for clerics. I'd like something like a divine 3.5 warlock crossed with bard (the idea would be to reflavour bardic music as "prayer" or the like).
I think it makes MORE sense for Clerics.
At least for Clerics it's DEITIES deciding you can't remember how to pick your nose today, and not just the extreme senility the supposedly hyper intelligent Wizards all have.
And, in addition, they brought back Rituals from 4E, but limited them to casters. So most casters have the option of casting spells that have Ritual options as a ritual without losing the slot (and some, not all, wizards can cast rituals straight out of their books, without having them prepared).
This makes a lot more sense based on the (in my opinion) only believable explanation of Vancian casting, that preparation is most of the casting of a spell, and casting a spell is just completing the casting of the spell (also makes scrolls and wands make more sense, since it's basically preparing spells, but instead of keeping them in your head, you keep them in a wand or scroll). But the way Vancian has worked up until now, there's no way to cast a spell without preparation, which you'd reasonably be able to do, under this explanation, just taking a lot more time to do so.
Bah, prepare, memorize, same difference.
It's not like they DO anything to prepare besides, hey, reading the spellbook or praying, as far as we know anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually a huge fan of the way D&DN is (currently) doing it in the playtest.
Cantrips are not part of the spell level system. You either know a cantrip or you don't, there is no limit to it's use, and many of them scale with your level (to a certain degree anyway).
The rest of the spells are prepared, but instead of losing the spell when you cast it, you keep it, and only lose the slot. This way you prepare as a Wizard, but cast as a Sorcerer. You no longer feel like you have to sit on your one prepared spell until *just* the right moment, but you also can't just cast whatever spells you know willy-nilly.
And, in addition, they brought back Rituals from 4E, but limited them to casters. So most casters have the option of casting spells that have Ritual options as a ritual without losing the slot (and some, not all, wizards can cast rituals straight out of their books, without having them prepared).
Things like this frighten me into thinking I'd actually really like the Next system. I've invested so much in Pathfinder (books, time, digital content) that I'd dread to switch to a new system, but that sounds really well designed, and addresses many of the small problems I have with the current system, and some of the problems I had with 4E.
I'm actually a huge fan of the way D&DN is (currently) doing it in the playtest.
Cantrips are not part of the spell level system. You either know a cantrip or you don't, there is no limit to it's use, and many of them scale with your level (to a certain degree anyway).
The rest of the spells are prepared, but instead of losing the spell when you cast it, you keep it, and only lose the slot. This way you prepare as a Wizard, but cast as a Sorcerer. You no longer feel like you have to sit on your one prepared spell until *just* the right moment, but you also can't just cast whatever spells you know willy-nilly.
And, in addition, they brought back Rituals from 4E, but limited them to casters. So most casters have the option of casting spells that have Ritual options as a ritual without losing the slot (and some, not all, wizards can cast rituals straight out of their books, without having them prepared).
This is actually a system that makes sense. Wizards prepare spells, but don't have any of that "oh no, I've forgotten the spell I just cast" silliness. Well, good for them, but it will take a lot more to get me to buy a new system ;)
Zelazny described it well. Spells take a long time to cast. But instead of completing them, you can "hang" them in your mind with only needing the last few words and or actions for them to trigger.
This makes sense to me. With that in mind I would like to see spells take much longer to prepare, perhaps based on level of spell or level of spell and caster level. Then Perhaps set a limit on total spell level that one can hang at any time. So you still have specific spells prepared, but have more leeway with levels.
I however want only my prepared casters to cast this way. I would prefer my spontaneous casters utilize an entirely different system, with more control during actual casting, an entirely different spell list or effects, and with a completely different feel.
The two systems in one world would be much cooler than two casters coming to a spell from two opposite directions and yet the spell, for each, does the exact same thing.
I think this is an excellent description of the system as is, and it does make a lot of sense.
However, I wish the missing component were here in the game. Why can't I cast a spell by using the full time to cast it? Why is the only way I can cast a spell be because I have prepared it?
You can cast using the full time:
1) Open your spellbook.
2) Prepare your spell (read as: enact the great part of the ritual you are going to complete the moment you cast the spell) for 15 minutes.
3) Cast spell.
And there you go.
This is actually a system that makes sense. Wizards prepare spells, but don't have any of that "oh no, I've forgotten the spell I just cast" silliness. Well, good for them, but it will take a lot more to get me to buy a new system ;)
You don't go "oh no, I've forgotten the spell I just cast", you go "oh, no, i already completed the ritual for the spell i just cast, now i need to start a new ritual (provided i can prepare other rituals for today) before i can cast again that spell". This makes sense too.
You don't go "oh no, I've forgotten the spell I just cast", you go "oh, no, i already completed the ritual for the spell i just cast, now i need to start a new ritual (provided i can prepare other rituals for today)...
Yea, people claim that this is what is really happening when you use a spell slot, but it never seemed to be written that way in any of the D&D stories that I've read. For example, I specifically remember one scene involving wizards walking into an anti-magic zone and crying out "I've forgotten my spells!" as if it was the memory of them that mattered and not any lingering magical ritual.
Then again, this was a Salvador book, so maybe that doesn't count for much.
... prepared casting makes a lot more sense if you stop thinking about it as "forgetting", which hasn't been part of the rules in 20+ years]
It hasn't been part of the rules, but it seems to be the way ~99% of the players think of it. Even the non-grognards who have just learned make comments like, "It just seems stupid that you forget your magic just because you have used it."
Not if you cast it as a ritual. That's the whole point of rituals actually...
But you still use up one of your slots for the day, right?
I think this is an excellent description of the system as is, and it does make a lot of sense.However, I wish the missing component were here in the game. Why can't I cast a spell by using the full time to cast it? Why is the only way I can cast a spell be because I have prepared it?
You can cast using the full time:
1) Open your spellbook.
2) Prepare your spell (read as: enact the great part of the ritual you are going to complete the moment you cast the spell) for 15 minutes.
3) Cast spell.And there you go.
Of course. Your ability as a wizard is determined by how many rituals your mind can hold effectively. If you prepare a ritual, you use a slot. If you use a spell (derived from that ritual) you lose a slot.
For prepared spellcasting this is the perfect explanation... It requires a little more stretching for when it comes to spontaneous casting... Maybe your body is so that your stamina can be used in place of rituals, but just for specific rituals you "know"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryujin, maybe you should try thinking of magic a little bit differently than how it appears in the rhetorical box you have decided to place it.
-- Magic exists as an independent thing from its casters, and while you can "know" a ton of spells (See your spell-book), to cast one requires using your mental power to hold it until you want it to be cast.
-- You only have so much mental energy you can use without resting, and that amount increases as you get a stronger brain and more experienced at casting spells.
-- You can either hold all the spells possible in your mind, having studied and followed the rituals recorded in your spell book for an hour, or you can leave some of your mental energy free, so you can spend only 15 minutes binding the energy for a specific spell in the middle of your day.
If they work so well, why don't the games sell?
I have tried a lot of systems, and the only "spell points" system I tried that was playable (and even sold some games)' was Runequest.
Still, the magic system was what many complained about, and the game-sadly- died.
Because D&D is the dominant brand. It was the first. It's the only one with any name recognition outside the hobby. It's the common denominator. Among gamers, the vast majority started playing D&D. It may not be their favorite, but it's usually acceptable.
I'd really hesitate to say D&D is dominant because it has a Vancian magic system.
Avalon Hill was *THE* dominant brand in war games. Where is it now?
I am not saying D&D is dominant just because of Vancian magic. But it is part of it. Basically D&D (in both combat & magic) has hit the sweet spot of just complicated enough, just realistic enough, etc and still be playable. Most other systems listened to that tiny minority that wanted a more complicated & “realistic’ magic system- but then found out that minority either wasn’t enough to support them or was just complaining and moaning to have something to complain about.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian spell casting is one of the only two systems where magic has some omph to it that I've found, the other being Shadowrun's system. I wasn't a wizard in Dresden though, that might have had something good to it.
There is just something about it. The need for foresight, that your actually expending energy and effort to get things accomplished, that makes it more interesting to me.
Seriously I've never understood why a minority of people complain about it so vocally. We saw what getting rid of it did to D&D in their borification of magic edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a huge fan of Vancian Magic, yet I think it is a necessary "evil".
One of the great killers of spell point/mana systems is that there are no fundamental rules for magic beyond Spells Known/Slots per day. Anything is possible via magic in D&D. Scaling power levels are also "off" as some splashy abilities are available at relatively low levels.
Death/Gravity/the Vacuum of Space heck even the basic laws of Matter and Energy are only minor inconveniences in the face of a D&D spellcaster. That lack of limitations leads to an assumption that no barrier could be imposed and you get "Rocket Tag".
Spell Points/Mana systems just exacerbate relative power inequities in the system. There can be no balance between classes when you have characters that can just go nuts at every encounter. Up thread someone pointed out that in Dying Earth, Vance's spells were "auto wins"; this is true of D&D in most circumstances.
The Spells are to Powerful.
Most systems with a point system recognize this and power down the magic. Sadly these systems fail to capture the wider player base because they want the potency of D&D magic. It's just that some also want the handicap that goes with them to vanish. The true God Wizard.
I've played lots of variant systems. Some good, some not so great. Over and over I find that balanced systems where the Mage just spams "magic bolt" for 1d6 damage fails to capture the players sense of the dramatic nature of spells. very few of these systems have spell lists even 10% of the size of the standard d20 system, much less the add ons.
On the other end of the spectrum; Allowing players to spam Lord Voldemort's Death Curse or "Sectum Sempre" is a terrible idea in a game that requires some degree of challenge to keep players engaged.
I've yet to see a game where spamming spells is a good thing, story wise. The CLW Wand is a possible exception, yet without it, the "15 minute" adventuring day would be just the adventuring day. Everyone would be beat up enough in most campaigns to call it for a few days of rest. Rememorizing would be a non issue.
"The Blade is Faster than the Spell"
A Mechanic that has slowly disappeared with each iteration of D&D is casting times. In AD&D the best spells were often hampered by onerous casting times. That has changed. Now even Summon Monster can be performed as a Standard Action and sometimes even as a Free.
No one Spammed Summon Monster in AD&D, it was horribly inefficient at 1 minute to cast. It was great as a prep spell but not mid fight.
With the current action economy, most fights are over pretty quick. Would the spellcasters be satisfied only getting off 1 or 2 spells in a typical encounter and likey doing nothing but casting a spell for the first 3 rounds? If so great you can ditch the Vancian system and spontaneous casting all together. Everybody knows everything. The spellcaster auto wins and the rest of the party just blocks until he gets off his Wish or whatever. The other players become very important and melee is fundamental to most encounters which become capture the flag (enemy spellcaster).
None of my players want to be the wizard in that scenario. they want to "do something" every round. That's the essence of D&D, which is where the Spell Slinger comes from I think. Sure we have some literary battle mages but most of the rapid fire spellcasters are post D&D fantasy.
Just one old guys opinion but given the Standard Action casting time and Vancian Magic system D&D is sorta stuck. You can't ditch one without the other unless you want a game that's all spellcasters, players and monsters.
But you still use up one of your slots for the day, right?
I think this is an excellent description of the system as is, and it does make a lot of sense.However, I wish the missing component were here in the game. Why can't I cast a spell by using the full time to cast it? Why is the only way I can cast a spell be because I have prepared it?
You can cast using the full time:
1) Open your spellbook.
2) Prepare your spell (read as: enact the great part of the ritual you are going to complete the moment you cast the spell) for 15 minutes.
3) Cast spell.And there you go.
Of course. Your ability as a wizard is determined by how many rituals your mind can hold effectively. If you prepare a ritual, you use a slot. If you use a spell (derived from that ritual) you lose a slot.
For prepared spellcasting this is the perfect explanation... It requires a little more stretching for when it comes to spontaneous casting... Maybe your body is so that your stamina can be used in place of rituals, but just for specific rituals you "know"?
Not with DnD Next rules :
Rituals
A ritual is a version of a spell that takes longer to cast and sometimes requires special materials. The advantage of casting a spell as a ritual is that doing so does not use a spell slot. The drawback is that completing a ritual takes several minutes, if not hours.
That means for example that you can teleport a group either by casting the spell normally (1 standard action, 1 slot used) or by ritually cast it (1 hour casting, no slot used).
In DnD 3 (and its variants, 3.5 and Pathfinder), you can let open slots to fill during the day, but you still have to use those slots.
As a house rule I let peeps cast a spell from a book they don't "know" yet with a substantial casting time. Hasn't effected anything ever really. Not that the option ever gets used much. It's a combat game. Long cast spells are available but seldom viable.
Sorry but 90% of all of the mechanics are combat focused. In most RPGS actually.
The other stuff doesn't need rules.
It's near heresy to say so but you can play twice a week for 20 years with just the CRB and scratch paper if you're good at the "other stuff".
I do like your post above about green sprites, I may steal that.
Ryujin, maybe you should try thinking of magic a little bit differently than how it appears in the rhetorical box you have decided to place it.
-- Magic exists as an independent thing from its casters, and while you can "know" a ton of spells (See your spell-book), to cast one requires using your mental power to hold it until you want it to be cast.
-- You only have so much mental energy you can use without resting, and that amount increases as you get a stronger brain and more experienced at casting spells.
-- You can either hold all the spells possible in your mind, having studied and followed the rituals recorded in your spell book for an hour, or you can leave some of your mental energy free, so you can spend only 15 minutes binding the energy for a specific spell in the middle of your day.
Nah. It's more fun to be dismissive of the whole process, because I still don't like it that much either way.
However, I think one of the few things 4e did right was the distinction between rituals and quick and dirty magic. It's almost like in the Dresden files, which makes it better suited for roleplaying.I really liked the idea, but some of the implementation details didn't sit right. Like how a level 25 fighter was one feat away from being as good at rituals as a level 25 wizard was...
Yeah, I'd say you'd need a certain magical talent for ritual casting. A pure Fighter would have no, or at least only minimal access.
Sorry but 90% of all of the mechanics are combat focused. In most RPGS actually.
The other stuff doesn't need rules.
It's near heresy to say so but you can play twice a week for 20 years with just the CRB and scratch paper if you're good at the "other stuff".
Yeah, this. The game is derived from tabletop war games, I believe, and it shows. If you really want roleplaying, there are far better systems for it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's really no reason for any caster to have several independent pools of spell slots at different power levels unless they're a cleric of a perverse or overly bureaucratic god.
Just as there's no reason that electrons have distinct energy levels -- as opposed to just any old amount of energy at all -- except that they do. Yes, we can take an electron at a lower energy level and energize it up to a higher energy level (just as we can Heighten a spell), but you're still jumping it up by set quantifiable increments, just as you can only Heighten a spell in 1-level increments. And in a normal atom, there are a set number of "slots" at each energy level, not just a totally variable number.
So, D&D spellcasting looks just like an atom, with each electron a spell. As you gain levels, your "nucleus" gets more highly-charged, and you fill up the lower levels and get progressively higher-level ones.
^ not a competition but For the Win!
I would never play Pathfinder or D&D without Vancian magic. I think the staff knows this to be true for the majority of their audience.
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.