| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, everyone!
I’m finding this a very interesting conversation, so I’ll throw in my handful of coppers. As a caveat, I’m fairly new to the game and don’t find Vancian casting so problematic as to have motivated me to actually think about how the things I would like to see would work out, so my ideas are a bit all over the place (spoilered for length):
If it really is spells per day, I suppose I can imagine some sort of strange quantized effect where every 24 hours a caster’s reservoir of power recharges (thanks to Kirth Gersen for the image of spells as electrons!), but that’s a bit too macro-scale for my liking.
I would prefer something a bit smoother, like some sort of recharge mechanic where it takes 24 hours for a caster to regain her/his power from running on empty, but s/he is always recharging her/his magic. I’m not sure how I would balance that; offhand, among other things, I would start by having lower level slots always recharge first. The book-keeping would get tricky depending on how multiple spell-levels handled, but I should like to think wizards and their ilk would be up to the challenge! :) So suppose a 1st-level wizard can cast two 1st-level spells per day. Tentatively, in my hypothetical system, if she cast one, she would get the spell back in 12 hours. Flashing ahead to her 5th level, if she could cast 4/3/2 spells from levels 1 to 3, respectively, she would recharge 1st-level spells in 2 hours, 2nd in a bit less than 3, and 3rd in 4, with the proviso that higher-level spells would only come back if there were no lower-level slots that needed to recharge.
I admit so simple a model would get scary at higher character levels, where more and more spell levels begin to converge around recharging in around 40 minutes, but would it be workable if one toyed with some sort of additional scaling for recharge times across spell levels, particularly combined with fewer spells prepared per nominal day? Or perhaps it takes a number of hours of rest equal to (spell-level – 1) in addition to recharge time to be able to concentrate on refreshing the pattern of spells of up to that level? That way, the raw power is available soon after any spell is cast, sure, but it’s still hard to prepare the most powerful spells again to the point of actually being able to cast them (and, not quite incidentally, reduces just how many 9th and 8th-level spells can get tossed around even under ideal circumstances). I’m talking out of my hat here, like I mentioned, and am under no illusions that this is remotely balanced, so please be gentle – all I want to do is gesture to the sort of thing I would like that’s closest to Vancian.
Sorry for the wall of text; I guess the tl;dr version is that I would prefer a slow recharge mechanism, if it could be balanced with the spells as we know them now. Alternatively, I was always intrigued by the reserve feats in 3.5’s Complete Mage, but I’ve never actually got around to playing with them to see how they might best be balanced, preferably while retaining the fiddliness of true prepared spells, which I like.
He didn't say he'd play without fluff. Just that he didn't need someone else to make fluff for him. That in no way infers they don't want fluff or story in their game.
Implies. The person writing the post makes an implication; the reader can draw an inference from what he's read. "Imply" and "infer" are one-way verbs that are in no way interchangeable.
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.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".
Name one. Dude, I have played dozens of FRP games, and even helped design a couple. So far, the best RPing came out of AD&D. That being said, with the right DM and group of players, the system doesn’t matter much. As long as it doesn’t get in the way (Chivalry & Sorcery), any game system can be fun and full of Role-playing. We have had tons of fun with Tunnels & trolls, fercrickiessake (it breaks down at higher levels). Runequest? Fun. Tekumal? Fun. Elric? Fun. Amber? fun.
I will concede that with D20 there’s a bit too much emphasis on combat maneuvering. This does cut into RPing a bit, just due to the fact there’s just so many hours in a gaming day. Still- it's fun.
Name one. Dude, I have played dozens of FRP games, and even helped design a couple. So far, the best RPing came out of AD&D. That being said, with the right DM and group of players, the system doesn’t matter much. As long as it doesn’t get in the way (Chivalry & Sorcery), any game system can be fun and full of Role-playing. We have had tons of fun with Tunnels & trolls, fercrickiessake (it breaks down at higher levels). Runequest? Fun. Tekumal? Fun. Elric? Fun. Amber? fun.
I will concede that with D20 there’s a bit too much emphasis on combat maneuvering. This does cut into RPing a bit, just due to the fact there’s just so many hours in a gaming day. Still- it's fun.
Of course its fun. It's the best fantasy system I know (but I will have to look into HERO).
GURPS? Shadowrun? GURPS in particular, though. The first four chapters all about character creation. It barely talks about combat except where specific things matter for it (like how being overweight help prevents knockdown). Several advantages and disadvantages never come up in combat, and are almost purely for fleshing out your character - perks and quirks are probably the best examples of this.
PF makes role-playing easier, for a lot of reasons. Classes kind of give you a framework to work around. Wizards are smart. Paladins are righteous. Fighters are tough. You can fill in the blanks yourself with any number of inspiring characters in fiction and non-fiction. And fantasy is a world everyone kind of understands without having to know all kinds of detail. I would submit the opposite is true in, say, Shadowrun, where you have do know a fair amount about the setting to really understand the kind of world the game takes place in.
Another possibility is that your group or groups just do their best RPing in PF. I always thought I did my best work in SR.
I used to hate vancian casting... Now I just don't care.
I don't hate it or like it. I'm used to it, though.
I'd not mind if it was removed in the next DnD/PF edition, but I don't mind if it stays either...
I'd like to have more options, though. Vancian and "spontaneous vancian" is okay for D&D/PF, but they don't represent mages such as Merlin or Gandolf very well.
Like: WHY does the spell system have to be Vancian? Either from a fluff standpoint OR a mechanics standpoint? Just because that's the way it's always been?The spell system being vancian is one of the core elements that have defined the game's D+D heritage, along with the core classes such as fighter, wizard, cleric, and thief/rogue. Along with d20 dice and weapon types.
Did the game HAVE to have any of these? Of course not, but the fact that it has for decades has defined the essential character of the game.
Could you do away with any or more of these? Sure, but then you'd be playing something quite different, a different game. And that would be another topic of discussion.
A different game wouldn't be such a bad thing. The magic system, IMO is one of the big main issues with this game as a whole, so trying something new would give them a chance to rectify that issue.
It's not precisely BECAUSE it's Vancian though, before you ask. I've just never been a big fan of prepared spells.
Rather than it being "D&D 3.75E", having Pathfinder 2 be its own game in a few more ways would be nice and refreshing IMO. Say what you will about 4E at least it tried to change things up a bit. It didn't WORK (though I don't really dislike it all that much) but they did try.
I prefer most legit SP systems, but few really manage all the odd bits well. Super Genius has a very nice entry to the field that intrigues. I have been using a house version of the one from HypertextD20, a system that foresees problems I never considered. Both allow the caster to be far more flexible and useful in game and dodge the 'Ooops, I cast the wrong spell' theme of many games. I expect the players to entertain me and the best way is to free them from rigid constraints like the Vancian system.
BTW, my current Rogue (3.0) is named 'Cugel, the not so clever'.
Man. Such a tough topic to really sink my teeth into being that theres so many touchpoints about casting...
How many can I know? 5 per level? 15 per level? infinite?
How much variety within what I know can I actually use? 5 of the spells I know? all of the spells I know as long as that number is 5? all of the spells I know?
How flat out many spells can I cast per day? 5 per level? as many as 40 as long as they're all low level? As many as there are rounds in a day?
Must I prepare them ahead of time?
Once prepared can I shoot them off whenever I want?
While I've always loved the vancian system I cant ever remember having played it straight. Even in 2e none of the campaigns I ever ran did we use 'prepare ahead of time'... Having an unlimited variety of options didnt make sense when you had to basically be prescient about which ones you'd need, so the infinite variety you had sort of became a 'fake boon'... Justifying it by saying it made you 'think tactical' didnt really accomplish that goal. It made you burn all your slots only on the most effective things and hope the nuance stuff never came up, and that meant your ability to deal with nuances was effectively zero... And it meant you also blew a whole slot on a creature comfort spell that you may not end up using that day so the number of spells per day was getting nerfed by having to be a 'planner for the worst'... The number of spells per level always felt about right, having to learn them felt right. Being able to know them all felt awesome but ultimately unneccesary. We never used spellpoints because we always felt that the one thing that made a wizard 'too powerful' was an unlimited capacity to cast combat spells. the 3.5 Warlock sort of exemplified why 'number of casts per day' was the most important factor in deciding if a caster was too powerful or not.
Once pathfinder got rid of warlock the question was 'which element of the above takes its place as the number one determiner of an overpowered caster, and on the forums here I think most of the votes point at 'spell variety' as the new litmust test of 'too powerful'... I'm not sure I agree with it... I actually feel like both the wizard and the sorcerer do too much limiting in each direction for my taste... I'd be happy with summoner if they could 'know' maybe twice as many spells per level tops... 5 is just too few for me to consider them. I then always prefer wizards, but hate the 'prepare ahead of time mechanic' as I always have. I'm not convinced that the 'more spells per day to know so few' and the 'can know so many spells as long as you rarely have what you need when you need it and cant cast as much per day' arent well balanced tradeoffs. Each goes too far in its own direction IMHO. I actually really like the idea of rituals because it means the spells you burn through are the 'I need them now! spells' while spells like Secure Shelter really shouldn't burn up a slot when I'm only really able to cast it when nothing else is going on and that kind of thinking sounds like an awesome concept.
I'm happier at our table when the gm allows me to know twice as many spells as a sorcerer and am happy to give up all that bloodline crud that I dont much like or care about. I'm even more happy if i'm allowed to play a wizard who doesnt have to pick his spells ahead of time, but also cant cast 3 fireballs in place of one 9th level spell. If I already burned up all my 3rd level spells and I feel like I need another fireball, I should have to make the choice if that need is strong enough to burn up a 4th or higher level spell slot to make it happen...
I like how vancian magic is conceptually, and I guess if i'm totally honest with myself, in the long view I've never been totally ok with how its been implemented no matter how far back I go... Thank goodness for houserules and playing with people who agree with you!
Look, we, as a collective (RPGamers), typically exist just outside of accepting "how things are," and, since we exist this way, often like to think that what is and has been is not good enough.
Vancian casting fits this pretty well. Is there a better system? Plenty of them, as a matter of fact (opinion[s]), yes. Is D&D going to change it's system? Already did. Is PFRPG? I hope not; I've been playing D&D since Elric was in Deities and Demigods and those weird undeads on the cover of Fiend Folio were actually mutated, planar humans. The Vancian spellcasting system is well established and, if I know Paizo as well as I think I do, they feel the same nostalgia that I do.
What's that you say? Vancian casting doesn't fit into your personal verisimilitude? Get over it. You've (presumably) gotten over that HP and BAB are abstract along with rounds, skill levels.... and, well, the entire game, why not the casting? It works. It works because it has worked for dozens of years.
[/rant]
Look, we, as a collective (RPGamers), typically exist just outside of accepting "how things are," and, since we exist this way, often like to think that what is and has been is not good enough.
Vancian casting fits this pretty well. Is there a better system? Plenty of them, as a matter of fact (opinion[s]), yes. Is D&D going to change it's system? Already did. Is PFRPG? I hope not; I've been playing D&D since Elric was in Deities and Demigods and those weird undeads on the cover of Fiend Folio were actually mutated, planar humans. The Vancian spellcasting system is well established and, if I know Paizo as well as I think I do, they feel the same nostalgia that I do.
What's that you say? Vancian casting doesn't fit into your personal verisimilitude? Get over it. You've (presumably) gotten over that HP and BAB are abstract along with rounds, skill levels.... and, well, the entire game, why not the casting? It works. It works because it has worked for dozens of years.
[/rant]
Great rant. But honestly, I have played other spells systems. They are NOT better than Vancian. Different, fun, imaginative, even "more realistic"- all that I'll grant. But in order to be better they have to be just as playable and balanced as Vancian. And- they aren't.
And in fact 4th ED is Vancian too, to an extent. Daily powers are very much Vancian, and an argument can be made for Encounter powers.
What's better could very easily be an opinion. Have to be careful when you say every other system is awful or one is the best without putting "I think" somewhere in the sentence. I've got quiet a few problems with vancian I've already stated. I've seen a few I'd argue work better, and others I'd say are 10 times more complicated for no real reason but to try and be dramatic about it.
I'm not sure how vancian daily or encounter powers are. I once saw a long thread argue about it and almost no one actually agreed. People were argueing guns, ToB, and at least one guy said power points were vancian.
No, I agree with you. The "matter of fact (opinion[s])" that I mentioned referenced are other people's play preferences. There was a time that I genuinely felt that "spell points" was the way to go, but now...not so much. I'm over trying to improve on what already works.
As for 4E, I kind of agree that they are (loosely) Vancian, but I feel like the 4E system is really based off of the MMORPG cooldowns.
What's better could very easily be an opinion. Have to be careful when you say every other system is awful or one is the best without putting "I think" somewhere in the sentence. I've got quiet a few problems with vancian I've already stated. I've seen a few I'd argue work better, and others I'd say are 10 times more complicated for no real reason but to try and be dramatic about it.
I'm not sure how vancian daily or encounter powers are. I once saw a long thread argue about it and almost no one actually agreed. People were argueing guns, ToB, and at least one guy said power points were vancian.
I didn't say Vancian was better or that the other systems were awful. Vancian is very playable, and has a nice balance between playability and 'realism".
What I said was "They are NOT better than Vancian" They are different. Not better, not worse. IMHO not as playable.
Look, in 4th ED, you have certain powers you can use once per "extended rest" which is a day. Pretty much Vancian. Not spellpoints or Mana. Doesn't work off your lifeforce, etc. Once a day. Once you get past the fluff, that's Vancian.
And, the old AD&D fluff is no longer there in PF. You don't "forget" the spell any more, (unless you prefer that fluff. ).
"Once you've cast a prepared spell, you can't cast it again until you prepare it again. (If you've prepared multiple copies of a single spell, you can cast each copy once.) If you're a bard or sorcerer, casting a spell counts against your daily limit for spells of that spell level, but you can cast the same spell again if you haven't reached your limit."
Its now "slots" not "forgets".
I used to dislike Vancian before I knew what to call it, then I really didn't like it when I discovered the fluff behind it... So I made my own flavor!
I see it as such: at the beginning of the day when a wizard is preparing spells he is actually reciting spells, but he is refraining from speaking the "activation word" which would cause the spell to happen. When he casts the spell later, he is just saying the power word for the spells he prepared earlier. The spell hasn't left his head, the magic was just completed. The spells with longer casting times either take time to manifest or have longer activation words.
When a cleric prepares spells, he is praying to his deity (or wherever he gets spells) asking for specific spells, and the deity by has limited the amount of spells he grants to his followers based on their length of devotion to him (level) and how much of his power he is willing to give up.
For the record, I was referring to the mechanics of D&D as Vancian, because EGG dubbed it so. Whatever became of magic in dying earth, while tangentially related as how literature and mechanics match up, does not have a bearing on the original question, which was regarding the mechanics of D&D up through pathfinder.
I think my post got eaten...
Anyway, I think I'd actually like the existing system a lot more if spells offered two effects each: one at-will and one fire-and-forget (and once you used the big effect, you cut off your ability to use the lesser effect).
So as long as you have fireball prepared, you can fling little fire effects around all day, but once you actually use fireball, that's gone too. Of course, that'd require rewriting all the spells, which is, I think, the biggest reason no one ever gets around to remaking the spell system.
(I know there were feats that did something like this, but that imposes an extra feat tax on feat-poor casters and provides a very limited, and very combat oriented, array of options.)
I think my post got eaten...
Anyway, I think I'd actually like the existing system a lot more if spells offered two effects each: one at-will and one fire-and-forget (and once you used the big effect, you cut off your ability to use the lesser effect).
So as long as you have fireball prepared, you can fling little fire effects around all day, but once you actually use fireball, that's gone too. Of course, that'd require rewriting all the spells, which is, I think, the biggest reason no one ever gets around to remaking the spell system.
(I know there were feats that did something like this, but that imposes an extra feat tax on feat-poor casters and provides a very limited, and very combat oriented, array of options.)
Cant say I didnt love the cleric version of that feat. As long as you had a healing spell socked away, you had a little cure cantrip you could fire off as often as you liked all day long.
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.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...
Of course, if a Fighter wanted to be any good at rituals, he would actually have to learn skills like Arcana and Religion, since many rituals required that you know those skills. So no, a Fighter just couldn't be as good at rituals as a Wizard was without investing in those skills (and, incidentally, the Wizard had easier access to those skills than the Fighter did).
Anyway, Vancian is... okay? Maybe? I dunno, I personally think that if it's going to be a thing, that either all characters in a party should run off of it, or none of them should. Daily powers will always be stronger than At-Will powers. That's really all there is to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What a wonderful discussion, aside from a little sniping.
For those who ask: Why Vancian?
I say this: D&D has offered alternatives throughout it's history. Psionics have been part of the game since 1E and plenty of homebrew magics have popped up in 3pp and dragon magazines.
But none of it stuck. D&D players, the majority of roleplayers for many years, have gone with some variation of Vancian, because it works. It's mechanically sound and the fluff does excite some people. (Full props to the cake analogy for the answer to "Fire and Forget")
Certainly Vancian magic isn't the sole reason D&D dominated the roleplaying scene and it's bastard stepchild Pathfinder dominates it now, but I'm hard pressed to say it isn't a sizeable chunk of it.
Vancian magic is simple: Here's your spell list, pick 2 level 1s and 1 level 2. Put an asterix beside the ones you pick. When you use that spell, erase the asterix. You don't get to use them again until the next time you sleep. Easy. No math, no fuss.
And from a design point, it's easy to reign in caster craziness in the levels that most people are playing at, 1-10.
As for the idea that "It's dumb that a character gets to be awesome once or twice a day then they're dead weight", I disagree. This is a great thing to me. If you want to be steady and stalwart, play a fighter, if you want to be flashy but frail, play a wizard. It gives the class a different flavour, and the CORE 4 principle that AD&D was built on does the flavour thing quite nicely.
As for mechanics versus literature:
In Middle Earth, most magic is a result of magic items, not spells. Gandalf opens magic doors with passwords, throws fire with his magic ring, fights with a magic sword and so on, and it seems to be powered by his soul/spirit/whatever. Extended use wears you out.
In Harry Potter, Magic is a series of patterns you learn. This wears you out.
In Earthsea, you learn the true names of things and it lets you command them to do things. This wears you out.
In Fionavar, you draw it from a living source or the earth or the gods or magic items. This wears you and your source out.
In the Dark Tower, you take drugs that give you heightened telekinesis and telepathy, if you've got the touch. This wears you out.
In Malazan, you tap other dimensions. This wears you out.
In Star Wars, you manipulate a mystical energy field. This wears you out.
Most literature has the mechanic of "magic makes you tired". However, many systems that have "Magic costs you HP" tend to be boring, because you rarely want to spend the cost of HP just to be effective.
The other common trope is "Magic=eventual insanity". Also not really a fun empowerment fantasy, which is what 90% of roleplaying is.
So unless you want a starwars d20 style VP drain or a CoC style insanity chart, comparing magic mechanics to most major works of fantasy is probably a bad idea.
We want our heroes to do awesome things, but we don't want them to die constantly. High Fanatasy literature demands expensive magic for dramatic tension.
D&D is cheap magic, and it's more fun. And Vancian magic has done a superb job for almost 40 years.
As for MP/PP, as I said above, Psionics aren't a new thing to the game and video games have been using MP for years. However, Video Games are the definition of the 15 minute adventuring day (how often have you run out of MP and not had a potion/tent/sleep button handy?) and PP never really took over Vancian in popularity.
I'd argue that strategic spellcasting makes for a better game than purely tactical. You pick your spells based on the intelligence you've gathered. If you picked wrong, things get hard, drama ensues. If you picked right, things are easier and you are rewarded for good planning.
I dislike sorcerors because they are just "Pick some useful spells, probably combat ones (because who needs knock?) and spam away". Your tactics and your strategy are boring. Same goes for psions and warlocks and most other pick and spams. But that's just my taste.
That being said, I think having several styles of magic is a good thing for the game. Psions, wizards, witches and oracles all have different flavours and that's a good thing.
But I think Vancian is simple, elegant and is my preference to teach new gamers.
I'm not sure that's quite an argument against other systems.
The problem with other magic systems that D&D and its variants have tried, is that they've never been the MAIN magic system. Psionics is always an optional thing, usually released after the game's been out as a sort of alternative to the Vancian magic the game was completely designed around.
In my opinion "none of it stuck" because the developers themselves never saw fit to try and use it as anything more than a less fully implemented optional rule, and the 3rd party stuff never caught on (if any of it was good) because, well, it was 3rd party and people have a phobia about that stuff.
I think another magic system COULD work just as well or better than the Vancian system if full effort was put into making it good and the core system of the game rather than an add-on.
Also, video games (especially nowadays) are pretty much contradictory to the 15 minute adventuring day phenomenon. Either magic restoring items like potions are extremely common, mana drops from enemies, or it restores over time in the majority of cases.
I'm not sure that's quite an argument against other systems.
The problem with other magic systems that D&D and its variants have tried, is that they've never been the MAIN magic system. Psionics is always an optional thing, usually released after the game's been out as a sort of alternative to the Vancian magic the game was completely designed around.
In my opinion "none of it stuck" because the developers themselves never saw fit to try and use it as anything more than a less fully implemented optional rule, and the 3rd party stuff never caught on (if any of it was good) because, well, it was 3rd party and people have a phobia about that stuff.
I think another magic system COULD work just as well or better than the Vancian system if full effort was put into making it good and the core system of the game rather than an add-on.
But why didn't the developers put the full effort in? Probably because A) They felt Vancian was the superior choice and B) The target audience preferred Vancian magic.
People didn't go wild for Psionics. It was a niche appeal, enough to survive and remain, but it never supplanted wizards and clerics at the table or in development rooms.
Argue why 4E failed, there were a lot of reasons, but a big one on my list was: Fighters became Warlocks and Wizards became Warlocks. The removal of the classic Vancian magic mechanic (argue that per days are Vancian if you like, I disagree) removed flavour and a mechanic that had worked reasonably well for 30+ years.
Maybe you feel that inertia alone has kept it around, I argue that it's design, from the get go, was one of the best things EGG did.
There are actually in a way four systems in pathfinder core to enact magical effects, if we go beyond what is arbitrarily defined as "spells".
- Spellcasting. This is vancian, though it can be argued that spontaneous casting is a different system.
- Abilities with a limit/day. This is also kinda vancian.
- Abilities with a limit of rounds per day that can enact different magical effects; bardic performance mainly.
- Abilities with a limit per day that can enact different magical effects (basically, a "spell point" system); the monk Ki pool mainly.
Vancian spellcasting is of course the largest and most central of those, but I think it's fair to say that spell point system exists for semi-casters like monks, bards, magi, and ninjas.
... I'd argue that strategic spellcasting makes for a better game than purely tactical. You pick your spells based on the intelligence you've gathered. If you picked wrong, things get hard, drama ensues. If you picked right, things are easier and you are rewarded for good planning. ...
I would say that is very group, campaign, and GM dependent. Some groups do not want to take the time to do any info gathering and/or planning. Some campaigns are very time critical with constant surprises. Some GM's just won't give you any significant information from information gathering or anything else, makeing planning difficult.
If you have any of those 3 playing a prepared caster becomes fairly frustrating. { Currently I have all 3 at the sime time. } All you can do is pick the same 'commonly good' spells a spontaneous caster would have picked. But you only get the number you prepared for the day.
Of course, if a Fighter wanted to be any good at rituals, he would actually have to learn skills like Arcana and Religion, since many rituals required that you know those skills. So no, a Fighter just couldn't be as good at rituals as a Wizard was without investing in those skills (and, incidentally, the Wizard had easier access to those skills than the Fighter did).
Right, so the implementation here actually made sense
Anyway, Vancian is... okay? Maybe? I dunno, I personally think that if it's going to be a thing, that either all characters in a party should run off of it, or none of them should. Daily powers will always be stronger than At-Will powers. That's really all there is to it.
Having the same system for all classes carries a whole lot of different problems, as is evident in 4e. To a lesser extent, it is also why the ToB's variant spellcasting system didn't work for me.
... D&D has offered alternatives throughout it's history. Psionics have been part of the game since 1E and plenty of homebrew magics have popped up in 3pp and dragon magazines.
But none of it stuck. D&D players, the majority of roleplayers for many years, have gone with some variation of Vancian, because it works. It's mechanically sound and the fluff does excite some people. ...
To a certain extent I agree with you. But I also agree with Rynjin.
As I said up thread the current PF system does work fairly well even if I have some logic, legend, and/or mechanics issues with it.
I currently like the Dreamscarred Press psionics system much better (at least to the extend that our limited play testing has allowed). It works fairly smoothly. Isn't horrifically complex. You can nova or contribute steadily over many enocunters, but not both. It fits for me and pretty much everyone I've talked to that tries it.
I would love to switch to just using that. However, that is a monumental task that I just don't have the time to pursue. I would have to re-write or not allow many races, most classes, and 80% (rough guess) of the stuff in all the books. Most of the monsters have spells or spell like abilities. The mechanics as written have no way to account for some things like undead even though it is a staple of fantasy.
So, even though everyone in my group likes psionics better, we actually don't use it much because most of the available material assumes it is not there.
|
But none of it stuck. D&D players, the majority of roleplayers for many years, have gone with some variation of Vancian, because it works. It's mechanically sound and the fluff does excite some people.
I think they went with it because that was what was presented as the base. Assuming some special quality to the system seems a little unfounded.
(1) I thought it was a pretty cute analogy. No one claimed it was scientifically accurate. And what the hell does scale have to do with magic? Dragons the size of jumbo jets can hover in D&D just by flapping their wings.
(2) I've stated repeatedly that I'm in no way wedded to Vancian mechanics. I like how they're set up, but wouldn't cry to see them go -- 3.5e psionics were a lot better balanced, game-wise.
(3) Since there aren't metaphysical powers in real life, declaring things to be "metaphysically bankrupt" is kind of a moot statement, don't you rhink?
|
I'm not sure that's quite an argument against other systems.
The problem with other magic systems that D&D and its variants have tried, is that they've never been the MAIN magic system. Psionics is always an optional thing, usually released after the game's been out as a sort of alternative to the Vancian magic the game was completely designed around.
In my opinion "none of it stuck" because the developers themselves never saw fit to try and use it as anything more than a less fully implemented optional rule, and the 3rd party stuff never caught on (if any of it was good) because, well, it was 3rd party and people have a phobia about that stuff.
I think another magic system COULD work just as well or better than the Vancian system if full effort was put into making it good and the core system of the game rather than an add-on.
Other magic systems can work just fine. I think it has less to do with developers effort and more to do with customer desire and a small pool. Vancian is at the heart of D&D for me. I only have time one fantasy game and its going to be D&D. The hobby only being so big tends to hold progress back. I was fine just sitting on my 3E library and playing forever. I don't mind if the game moves on I don't have to move with it.
I owe you an apology. I guess there are too many like me to move forward. I wish the hobby was bigger because I know a significant amount of the community would like to try different ideas and progress the game. I am good where I am at and if P2 uses a different magic system they are going to have to sell that like nothing before. I dont need or want to buy something like that.
Also, video games (especially nowadays) are pretty much contradictory to the 15 minute adventuring day phenomenon. Either magic restoring items like potions are extremely common, mana drops from enemies, or it restores over time in the majority of cases.
DDO used a spell point system but retained some of the resource management. You spell points did not replenish until you rested or the adventure was over. This was a great feature for a video game. They eventually jumped the shark with mana potions that could be purchased but for awhile it was a kick ass game.
To those of you that house rule wizards preparing a list of spells and then spontaneously casting from that list (am I understanding correctly), how do you determine HOW MANY spells they can memorize?
To those of you who do or have used spell points, how has it worked out in your games? We can all speculate, but can anyone say from experience if it's unbalancing or not?
I used a poor system for decades, basically spontaneous from your spells known, but then 1AD&D/2AD&D were hardly balanced. Like many I was frustrated. I played at least 6 'spell point systems' that all failed in one or more of a short list of ways:
1) Too overpowered, effectively turning every high end caster into a 'max spell response' for every encounter. The problem was always either in not capping the power available (way too many spell points) or allowing the caster to cast from far too large a selection of spell. I had a Wizard who could select from over 100 spells at level 8! Just limit the spells known? You will find Xeroxed (tm) mages as only the most effective spells get on the list. I speak from experience, but go ahead and try. The current
2) Too under powered, usually in response from casters overwhelming the game because the system was built that way (see #1). Spell cost was either based on 'arithmatic' (sp) progressions or squaring the spell's level (a L3 spell would cost 3x3=9). Neither addressed certain flaws that are out there. What flaws? How many Magic Missiles could you cast in place of a Fireball?
3) Bookkeeping, kinda of a mix solution of the two above. The GM tries to appease the 'I'm too weak' RP types while trying to not lose the power mad dice rollers (I am both). These get too weird and seem to always follow problems from above. They also serve as frustration portents of doom from a burnt out GM, much as the levels of spells blow out beginning GMs. Many a game has ended when the mage can cast that second fireball. I started collecting the thoughts of GMs that were burning out decades ago and this was a biggy, right behind party infighting and not enjoying it anymore. Short of actual violence and solving boredom, I see few ways to solve the first two, but we can upgrade your '67 Impala rustbucket to a Volt charcoal starter. Oops, 4E joke, sry. Chevy Cruze.
4) Lack of Balance, with the traditional 'Combat then caster' power curves. While bemoaning both the caster's nigh irrelevance at low levels, the same folks bemoan Fighters becoming deadwood fro level 'X'. All without advancing a single solution. For those who know me personally, treat this as my confession. The usual culprits here are not allowing the low end caster anything to play with (torch bearing wizards) and not watching the potential power spike at higher levels. This is usually the result of not paying attention to the math. This includes all the silly restrictions weak GMs place on players such as slow spell point recovery and GP costs to cast spells. One local GM tasks every spell with its level squared in gold! The brutal reality is that this is neither a argument for/against Vancian or SP casting, rather a flaw of both since '74.
I could go on, but I think I've primed the pump. I have used a variant of the HypertextD20 rules for years. Well thought out, they solve almost every problem I've seen and allow greater versatility to solve problems (that is, entertain me as GM). I use the old M:tG life beads as spell point markers, made some spell point cost changes in order to bring 0-levels into line (free cantrips? Does NOBODY playtest?), and did a couple of other tweaks that make casters hunger for metamagics, all without losing the power mad or offending RP types.
Any alternative must be simple enough to learn, but I see no reason to make it available to morons. I play with above average Int folks and expect high end play from high end casters (and players). Someone whose only response at level 9 is to 'fireball' the target disturbs me. This is a game of imagination, I expect to be held to a high standard in setting up a game and demand players to at least attempt the same in coming up with solutions. Those unfamiliar with all the details of a game whose rules run over 16 pages can be allowed for. I played chess for a decade before I ever learned to 'castle'. I don't expect a lawyer of shift manager to know the AC of a terrasque at level 1, they have REAL lives. I do expect a level 12 caster to live on her toes, just as I expect the Fighter to know every feat taken and dazzle me every game with blade work. Remember, the job of the CHARACTERS is to slay dragons, etc., the job of PLAYERS is to keep me eager to run again ASAP!
As I have pointed out before, Super Genius has a new system that is strong in its mechanics and reasoning. There are a couple of spots I'm vague on, but otherwise it looks sound. Hope I get to play in it soon.
As I keep going back and re-reading sections of the Psionics book, I'm becoming more and more infatuated with that system. TBH I like the flavor of the psionic powers more than spells and I think the Power Points system will jive better at my table when we get around to using it, but the flavor of the Vancian casting classes from the core rulebook (particularly oracle and witch for me) are something I can't leave behind all together.
Switching Vancian casting with psionic power point progressions (psion for witch/wizard, wilder for sorcerer/oracle, etc) would be a fairly straight switch if it came to that, would it not?
Switching Vancian casting with psionic power point progressions (psion for witch/wizard, wilder for sorcerer/oracle, etc) would be a fairly straight switch if it came to that, would it not?
Kind of, the only problem I can see is that psionic powers are built for the power point system, and most of the bonuses you get from that(augmenting) are best inherent probably. That's the best part of it I've always thought, not sure how well spell point variant rules work if you throw it into pathfinder as is.
Before reading this I really did not like Vancian, but now I think the problem for me is the spell level system, the fact that you only have X number of slots per spell level instead of X slots at all. I haven't read Vance's books but for what I read sounds great and like a better system than the actual, but that is just my opinion.
Switching Vancian casting with psionic power point progressions (psion for witch/wizard, wilder for sorcerer/oracle, etc) would be a fairly straight switch if it came to that, would it not?Kind of, the only problem I can see is that psionic powers are built for the power point system, and most of the bonuses you get from that(augmenting) are best inherent probably. That's the best part of it I've always thought, not sure how well spell point variant rules work if you throw it into pathfinder as is.
Well, I meant that spells would be swaped out for powers completely.
Most spells have an equivalent psionic power of the same level. In theory all spells and spells per day would be replaced by powers and pp per day, and all other class features would remain the same.
Monte Cook's class is called The Magister. The big work for Arcana Unearthed was that he had to rewrite basically ALL the basic spells to include that enhanced/weak version. Then he had to go through and assign some spells that were overpowered as 'exotic' and the like, because they didn't fit well with other spells. (why he did this with Magic Missile, I dunno).
Kirth, your electron example is spot on. In my home brew, the different levels of spells are known as Valences! :) Spell memorization slots are called 'engrams', and your spontaneous magic capability is an "Energized Valence."
And I'm a big fan of Heighten being able to increase the power of spells. It adds a lot of versatility without being too overpowered, esp for sorcerors.
==Aelryinth
|
I can't stand the Vancian magic system. The whole concept of using a spell and forgetting it just bothers the hell out of me. It's a necessary and annoying evil to D&D. So I see why they keep it. I would still play D&D if they took it out the game. I like my hamburgers with cheese. If all of the worlds cheese suddenly disappeared tommorow I would still be eating burgers. The only magi system I used in a rpg many years ago that felt like D&D but better was the Earthdawn magic system. Bear with me because the last time I played in a ED rpg was at least 10 or more years.
In Earthdawm a caster has spells per level. As well as a limit to how many spells he can cast. Say caster xyz has access to magic missle, melfs acid arrow. fireball, ice storm, mage armor, mirror image, jump, fly. XYZ unwisely decides to learn only offensive spells. He has four spells he can learn. he takes the time to study them and until he takes the time to schange them can cast the offensive spells over and over again. Broken. Hardly. He can't learn any other spell until then. If he needs mage armor he can't cast it. Needs a extra leaping ability to jump a cliff well he can't. The caster spells are locked in until he takes time to alter the list. It's a system where a caster can remember his spells yet not have access to all of them. That is a magic system I would like to see in D&D.
Our group uses the Spell Points system from Super Genius Games (without the Fatigue and/or Eldritch Dissonance rules) and really enjoy this system. The only real drawback is for the GM (myself) for it takes more time for me to change over the NPC’s , monster’s, etc. So I usually only change over the major players leaving the rest as written by the artist, and yes I understand that establishes some power creep into the game, but so be it. Our group also uses the Talented Fighter and Talented Rogue rules set and that also allows for some power creep for no other NPC’s have that many options, if played using the original author’s layout. To us it’s all about options, along with the enjoyment of the game and this is how we enjoy the game to its fullest.
The Vancian System is a much simpler system, but it makes no real sense for all the reasons already stated, in which I will not reiterate. Though at the end of the day each group should choose their poison and imbibe it the way they so chose, for the overall experience of the game is what it’s about.