Over in the Pathfinder 2.0 thread, I was surprised to see Vancian Casting on people's list of things they'd do away with.
I'm a fan of Vancian Casting myself. The idea of a memorized pattern containing a mystic energy that vanishes upon use is a wonderful idea to me.
I also think the scaling of spell levels and the power advancement works well.
Certainly it's not perfect (nothing is), but I feel the system has bred a wonderful balance of tactics and strategy into the game and permitted a variety of flavours of wizards and clerics without necessitating major new mechanics.
A pathfinder wizard would probably seem quite familiar to someone playing OD&D, and I think this casting system's endurance speaks to how well Gygax designed it.
I'm certainly intrigued by the words of power and classes like the psion or witch and warlock or the alchemist have shown us other forms of magic can work in D&D and PF, and I welcome those experiments.
But I'm a sucker for wizards and limits on spells per day for both narrative and mechanical reasons, and I prefer a vancian wizard over a witch or a psion any day.
Why do you hate/love/care less about Vancian Casting, for narrative and mechanical reasons?
I like vancian spellcasting because it just works good. I like having access to tons and tons of spells if not all of them, but still have to make tactical choices every morning with memorization.
I like vancian spellcasting because it feels unique. There's so g~!#$#n many spell point/mana systems, it feels nice that there is something with a different flavor.
However, I think it could be cleaned up a bit to be easier to understand, and I think that there should be a more explicit explanation of what happens IN-game. Though of course the drawback with that is that it isn't open to people's interpretation as much, so that would be a double-edged sword.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian spellcasting is by now iconic to Pathfinder/D&D and needs to stay within any new edition for me to even recognize it as being part of the D&D tradition.
That being said, I think there needs to be some thinking on making rest periods between spell/ability recovery shorter. The 15 minute workday remains a problem which Pathfinder actually excerbated with their new classes, due to the focus on limited use powers. I'd really like to see that partys can do more in a day than spend their powers and have to rest for a full day to recover. But that's a topic of a future thread of its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I like Vancian casting; it's not my favorite casting system, but I do like it, and I don't want to do away with it.
However, I don't want it to be the only option (by that I mean the only viable option; words of power was an attempt at a narrative magic system in one of the worst systems for such a thing). I'd like to see stuff like the Warlock or the like that provides other options. The problem with vancian is that I don't always want to play that way; the complexity can grate on me after a while (which is why I'm probably more critical of it now, I'm in the part of the cycle where I'm burnt out on vancian), and sometimes I'd like a less resource-management based system. Spontaneous casting alleviated some of the problems, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
Also, a problem (though overlookable) That I have is that Vancian casting doesn't seem very organic. It seems very constructed, and especially when I have to deal with concept like buying a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, that just makes it really obvious that in the universe of D&D/PF there is a spell "Cure Light Wounds" and it's not just that the gods have granted their vessel magic, or that a Wizard has done arcane research, or that a Sorcerer drew upon an internal power from magic in their blood, it's that the gods granted their vessel a codified set of abilities that are very constant, or a Wizard discovered not just a way to channel mana to create fireballs or draw creatures from other planes, or whatever, but it's that they discovered The exact formula, which is very rigid and very artificial, and makes magic feel like it doesn't function on any sort of science-like principles, but instead just some artificially codified mechanics. Though honestly, I recognize this is less due to vancian, and more due to other core assumptions of the system (the staple Wands of CLW for example), and I think even with a different magic system, it still could be almost as bad.
Honestly, I'd like something along the vein of magnuskn's feeling. I would prefer a system where you get significantly fewer spell slots, which refresh throughout the day and can prepare spells maybe in a 15 minute rest period. Enough time that you can't just stop for every threat and prepare a spell loadout, but if you do have the chance to take a 15 minute break, you could change up your tactics. And it prevents the situation where the caster has a great idea of something they could do, but they didn't prepare the right spell in the morning. It encourages clever thinking on the fly rather than resource management and correct foresight. Not saying the latter is wrong, but I sometimes just want to play the former, which Vancian doesn't do well. (I am aware that you can leave spots open, but that's still has the hassle of resource management, when I don't always want it).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it. I have NEVER liked "Spell in a can" or "Ammunition belt of spells" type of casting. Sorcerer is the closest acceptable Vancian spellcaster for me. Wizards and Witches and Clerics and all the other prepared casters can just go away for all I care.
I'm fine with "I know how to do X, Y, and Z" but "I can do X, Y, and Z...sometimes, but other days I know how to do A, B, and C" has always seemed very silly to me.
It's like if a person IRL was like "I can throw a ball, tie my shoelaces, and run in circles some days, but other days I forget how to do all of that. But then I can use a fork, blow my nose, and brush my hair instead.".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, because cold real world realism is best applied to magic in a fantasy setting.
It's like if a person IRL was like "I can throw a ball, tie my shoelaces, and run in circles some days, but other days I forget how to do all of that. But then I can use a fork, blow my nose, and brush my hair instead.".
I don't see it this way at all. First off, I don't see the magic as some inherent thing they should automatically be able to do (like throw a ball or tie shoelaces), and second, I don't really see wizard's magic as part of _themselves_ that much either. For me, it's more like a bag of tools - the bag can only hold so many tools, and when you have time you can pack it with whatever tools you have, so that when you need them you only need to reach within your bag and get them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I do not like Vancian magic. For me though it has less to do with flavor and more to do with restrictiveness. Maybe that's the lesser argument but there it is.
With regard to the fluff, I can actually get behind the idea of spellcasters having discovered a "formula" for creating a given magical effect. It fits in nicely with the idea of researching new spells too. Divine casters would be an example of the formula being largely shortcut with the power simply channeled to them by their divine source. Spontaneous casters would be genetically different, having a means of imprinting the formula on themselves and not having it go away, but lacking capacity to impress very many such formulae.
For an interesting take on the "formula" angle, check out Rick Cook's "Wiz" series, starting with "Wizard's Bane". Especially fun if you are a Forth programmer. :)
Anyway, having spent some time playing Shadowrun and Rolemaster, I am not tied to Vancian magic and much prefer the ability to cast from my entire repertoire with no limits based on what I happened to memorize that morning.
I think some of the concern folks have with regard to moving away from Vancian magic is about overpowering Wizards/Clerics. For example, even though Sorcerers/Oracles are spontaneous full casters, able to cast from anywhere on their list as long as they have the spell slots available, they are not considered OP compared to Wizards/Clerics because of the limits placed on them, namely the number of spells they have access to.
Moving to, for example, a power point system would allow similar tweaking. At the extreme case, imagine that a Wizard was switched to a power point system where casting a spell required PP equal to the spell level. Now imagine they only get as many PP to spend per day as their max level spell. So, you can cast 9th level spells? You get 9 PP. 1 Wish or 9 Magic Missiles, take your pick. Pretty weak. But it gives you a pretty fine tuned dial you can play with. Turn the number of points up a bit. Add modifiers due to stat. Now throw in modifications for on the fly meta application. Cap how much you can spend on such mods. So on. You're granting more flexibility but there are ways to cap the power level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I run PF games, I usually limit spellcasters to bards, sorcerers, and oracles, and if a player really wants to play a wizard, cleric, or druid, these classes simply replace their spells per day lists with those of sorcerers.
But I think converting everything to psionic power points would be a much better solution. It's just a huge amount of work with all the spell-like abilities of creatures and mystery spells, and so on. So spontaneous spell slots are a more practical solution.
If taking silly spell slots away from the game makes it no longer part of the D&D tradition, then I no longer want to play D&D.
I'm all for axing it as well. Mana-style points, the way a psionic caster does it, is way more flexible and interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate Vancian spellcasting and we always use 3pp or optional rules to dump it. We also convert casters to spontaneous as well.
I believe it seems unique and iconic to AD&D because every other game wanted to get away from it. Aside from the obvious AD&D based video games and books, you rarely see this concept of spell casting system in literature or games. Because IMO it sucks = )
In terms of modifying the power dynamic, it honestly has never been a problem for my group. I recognize how it could be, but we do not play PFS and we have a veteran group of players who have been together for years. No one gets worked up about stuff like this.
Personally it would make my day to see the Vancian system finally die off and get a more modern and flexible magic system. Mage the Ascension had the most amazing magic I've ever played, but it was overly powerful and would be hard to adapt in any real manner to PF.
These are my opinions of course, and your mileage may vary
I like Vancian magic, but the reasons I like it are mostly nostalgic, though I do think the 3.5 and PF systems work very well, at least in my experience. I hear and understand the arguments people have about mana/spell power pool systems. I can imagine how those systems seem contrived and "video-gamey." However, speaking as a GM, I know a lot of players would be much happier with a wizard or cleric that could cast any spell they know as long as they had the spell power to cast it. Though, I would find something like that, under the current rules, a bit overpowered. When players ask about similar systems I just point them to the sorcerer, bard, and oracle. They know a limited number of spells, and can cast as many as they have slots for.
In all reality, my own desires for spell casting could be reached with a simple rule change.
When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. He cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because he has cast a spell in the meantime.
If a wizard/cleric could prepare/pray for spells in the morning, then abandon unused spells to refill the slots with spells that will be useful in new situations I think the Vancian system would be darn near perfect, at least in my opinion. I know some GMs houserule this, and I've discussed it with players on more than one occasion. It's a pretty simple change, that makes a huge difference in the utility of a wizard/cleric.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the idea of Vancian spellcasting itself. I just hate that it is the default kind of spellcasting in pathfinder/D&D.
The core spellcasting classes (Wizard and Cleric) are supposed to represent the iconic spellcasters of fantasy worlds. If this is the case, then why do they not actually have spellcasting systems that reflect this? No fantasy world aside from D&D style worlds have Vancian style casting.
Vancian casters should all be special setting specific classes and not the default assumption.
I like the Vancian system for spellcasters under PF/D&D. I suppose I do see it as one of the sacred cows I suppose. I find that it works fine and helps to balance, albut in a small way, the power of spellcasters.
Magic point systems bug the hell out of me. Never enjoyed playing games that use that.
I would once again take the time to promote this product. This is the most recent system my group has used to replace the Vancian system, and it works very well.
Some of the bigger issues like repeatedly using mana/points to hammer your "go to" spell are addressed rather well within.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jack Vance created an interesting and unique form of spellcasting based on the idea that you could only cram a handfull of spells into your mind, and once you 'used' them they are gone.
While this works in and of itself, I dont think its great as the foundation of magic. The flavor of non-wizard spellcasters really need a different kind of casting. I am fine leaving wizards and wizard like casters (magi for instance) as vancian, but sorcerors and oracles should probably be spell point based, and possibly even moving away the existing spell structure entirely, maybe into something like the super genius games class the riven mage, where you only have a few basic spells and you change the effects by pouring more or less energy into it. That is probably my prefered style of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think fire and forget sounds silly personally. I'm not a fan of it. I guess it works, I mean its been around forever it feels like, but the idea that being able to use an I Win button so many times per day makes it balanced doesn't really make it balanced. The result is that short adventures get blown up by the characters, and longer force them to have nothing to do, and so we are told we have a specific ideal length of in game day and adventuring we have to do before we rest. I prefer when things are balanced enough that I can just use them, or that they can be used multiple times per day, but are hard to use repeatedly in a row(such as tome of battle's manuevers). Its also much harder to fluff than a reserve of power like power points.
@Kolokotroni - this is pretty similar to what we do and it works well.
A group member pointed out that if metamagic came free to casters (instead of using feats), magic could be vastly more customized and interesting. Obviously this would require some balancing for mechanical spell changes, but I like the idea that as a arcane caster leveled up they would learn to alter spells at will. One of the 3PP (I forget which) puts out several books like "7 Fireball Feats" and generally they are really entertaining and useful, but there just are not enough open feat slots for really customized magic.
True, this can be accomplished now, but a caster doesn't have many feats to do this with, thus limiting the customizing to maybe having no more than 3-5 metamagic feats ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like vancian spellcasting because it feels unique. There's so g+&#$&n many spell point/mana systems, it feels nice that there is something with a different flavor.
Well, every fantasy magic system in literature has a different feel. I don't especially like "mana point" systems myself; that seems to be the least realistic of the various options.
My preferred system is the skills/knowledge based system; every spell effect has a skill level. Ars Magica (one of my favorite systems) did this very well; the more damage you wanted your fireball (creating fire) spell to do, the higher Create Fire skill you needed. And by dividing skills between verbs and nouns, a magician who was good at creating fire was probably at least mediocre at detecting it or at creating torrents of water as well.
This is what I would have liked Words of Power to be closer to -- the idea being that I learn how to summon things and the more I learn about summoning, the better I am at it. As is, in all the flavors of summoning, my ability to cast a third-level summoning spell is independent of my ability to cast a sixth level one. I find it a little disconcerting that I could throw four fireballs at once (Meteor Swarm) but not a single one at a time.
What about the idea that its "your game"? Run it how you and your players like.
My players and I dislike the memorization system, so we dont use it. We also use alternate rules for magic items to eliminate the big six, and it works and feels great.
There are plenty of alternate PF compatible systems out there. Use whatever you like.
I hate vancian spell casting. Still it works for D&D and Pathfinder.
I've played White Wolfs Mage the accession and awakening. Those spell systems were great.
Personally I've always like the ability to prepare spells like tool kit. You load up your tool kit and you don't lose your screw driver after using it once. You can use it until your arm tires out.
So you prepare a number of spells. You can one of the up to your limit or any combo of such. We used to run 2E D&D wizards like that. Doesn't so well in 3E and PF as you have sorcerers.
A system that I think would be fun, and still capture the essence of Vancian magic, would be for spells to have a theoretical size, and for the intelligence of a wizard to provide a grid. This would be like physically mapping out a wizards mental capacity for casting spells, and you could customize it as you see fit. Unfortunately the system is complex to use in real time, but might work better with a computer/video game.
I do like the idea of Vancian magic: spells are not coming from the user, but exist on their own. by studying them, you gain access to them, but it takes a real mental effort to contain them, and you use the energy it takes to contain them to cast them.
I don't hate vancian spell casting, but I am not a big fan either. I does seem to work very well, but I much prefer the psionics system from Dreamscarred Press.
1 Concept - When you remember legends, storys, novels, movies, comics, etc... The concept almost always matches up better something like psionics. The only time I have found somthing that sounds even remotely like the vancian system, you find out the author played DnD as a kid (or young adult) and got the idea there.
2 Mechanics - Wasted potential and some things not getting much better. 2A - Hold person from a wizard that has made it to level 15 should be much more likely to succeed than the same spell from when he was first able to cast it. Ok, his int is probably a bit higher so the DC prob went up by 1. He might have learned spell focus enchantment. But might not. So it might or might not have gotten a bit better. I think it should certainly get better maybe a lot better. Instead he has learned new spells but the old ones have probably not changed much in effectiveness.
2B - If I want to burn all of my magical strength on a few (or even 1) castings of my most powerful magics, I think that should be possible. Instead a decent portion of my strength is tied up in lower level spells that might have no applicability to the current situation. Conversely, If I am going to be spending the day doing interviews, investigations, bargaining, etc... I would like to be able to have many more castings of Detect Thoughts, Foxes Cunning, Tongues, etc... But most of my power is tied up in really powerful magics that aren't needed today.
Heck, I don't even consider D&D fire and forget magic to be all that Vancian. In the Dying Earth, spells had the following characteristics:
1. They were memorized according to dramatic necessity; spells are never useless.
2. Spells are ultimates; they automatically win against anything but magic.
3. An expert wizard can memorize four spells per day; a top flight wizard can memorize six. And there's maybe 100 spells in existence.
So basically Vancian spells are "I win" cards that can be used 2-6 times per story. Which really doesn't match with D&D assumptions. I can think of a number of game systems where it would work (Heroquest, FATE, etc.), but even fire-and-forget magic barely works for D&D.
Ok, let's say "The spell system used in DnD and PF that many people refer to as a Vancian spell system even though some people (ericthetolle) don't think it is vancian."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No fantasy world aside from D&D style worlds have Vancian style casting.
Dude, it's called "Vancian" for a reason. Google it, or better yet, read The Dying Earth (1950). Also, Roger Zelzny's 2nd Amber series (1985-1991) used it, and there's at least one line about memorizing spells in John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969) -- even Wikipedia notes that "Prospero's practice of studying his book of spells the night before he might need them may have helped inspire the game's [D&D's] requirement for magic users to do the same."
None of those are D&D, although they're all cited (substituting the 1st Amber series for the 2nd) by Gygax as being foundational to the game.
Kirth,
Ok I will agree there are a few. But even those (at least the ones I have read as yet) don't seem to match up real well with DnD memorizing specific numbers of specific levels of spells.
I will also agree that it was Gygax attempt to mimick those with something workable toward a game.
However, they ones with anything similar are few and far between. Usually when you ask someone to think about or try to describe magic system from their own head, legends, novels, movies, etc... What they will give you is not very close to PF unless they also play PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I will agree there are a few. But even those (at least the ones I have read as yet) don't seem to match up real well with DnD memorizing specific numbers of specific levels of spells.
I will also agree that it was Gygax attempt to mimick those with something workable toward a game.
Which is why they don't match up: if you think people are miffed at a "15-minute adventuring day" now, what would it be like if you could only cast 5 spells per day? Clever use of a very few spells to solve key encounters works great in fiction, but not so well in a game.
That said, I still think casters in PF get WAY too many spells per level per day. And I could easily do with half as many spell levels, for that matter.
In any event, I'm not saying that Vancian casting "defines D&D" or anything like that; just that it is in no way confined to D&D -- rather, it was a fun new model in fiction at around and just before the time D&D was being formulated.
The main reason I don't like the current system is because its not friendly to 15 minute adventuring day. I absolutely have to have a lengthy day or a reason not to let spell casters use up all their high level spells quickly or they just blow everything up. I would rather have a few spells with a lot of different uses you can use all day. I'm not so sure if I can agree on spell casters having too many spells, the amount of spells the get varies wildly between class and current level. x/day isn't great balance. Its a balance that depends on the table.
I like it for flavor and nostalgia reasons, but that said, I'm not stuck on it or anything. And, yeah, there are much better-balanced systems, in terms of mechanics.
As I wrote in the Pathfinder 2 thread, I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will (maybe losing them if you have NO slots left), and go through and revise the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No fantasy world aside from D&D style worlds have Vancian style casting.Dude, it's called "Vancian" for a reason. Google it, or better yet, read The Dying Earth (1950). Also, Roger Zelzny's 2nd Amber series (1985-1991) used it, and there's at least one line about memorizing spells in John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969) -- even Wikipedia notes that "Prospero's practice of studying his book of spells the night before he might need them may have helped inspire the game's [D&D's] requirement for magic users to do the same."
None of those are D&D, although they're all cited (substituting the 1st Amber series for the 2nd) by Gygax as being foundational to the game.
I figured someone would come along and correct my exaggeration eventually. Maybe I should have said something more like: "No fantasy world that people typically think of today" ;)
I agree with thejeff that there shouldn't really be a whole lot of different magic systems within one setting. I don't think any of the PF casters are different enough to really call them different magic systems, but I can see room for two or three based on the fluff (arcane vs divine mainly). Much more than that would just feel off.
I don't particularly like Vancian magic, but I've never been able to come up with anything better, at least not for D&D style games. I've played Mage, and I've read through GURPS Thaumatology. None of those systems seem quite right for a D&D game though.
What I'd like out of the system is something with fewer but more flexible spells. I like wizards and their ability to eventually collect every spell, but I don't really like the current system of limits. Most things I can think of to fix this would be way too overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind Vancian spellcasting. It works.
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.
Is there a reason not to keep both options open? Spontaneous for those that like that, prepared for those that prefer that.
Add in some other classes that work more like the Warlock, spell points or some of the other suggestions.OTOH, there's something to be said for magic working consistently. There aren't a lot of genres settings that have multiple magic systems.
I was going to say for simplicity's sake, but I"m not sure that's really the only (or even best) reason.
Part of the problem with Vancian casting is encounter balancing. The difficulty of an encounter can vary wildly based on whether that *one* particular spell has been prepared or not. I'm also not convinced that spells balanced against one another for Vancian purposes would remain so for spontaneous purposes. The entire sorcerer class in 3.0 seems kinda half-baked to me for this reason. Not only was there no clear conceptual niche for the class, but the balance was wonky -- almost as if the only reason it existed was to put arcane spells to better use.
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.)
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...
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 the idea, but some of the specifics didn't sit right. Like the idea that a level 25 fighter is one feat away from being as good at that stuff as a level 25 wizard...
True, that was a problem, though I could see specific builds, such as a Rogue who doesn't use magic but dabbles in rituals which are opened by such a system.
A potential way to solve it would be to open Wizard or caster specific feats, or add class features to casting classes that make rituals more feasible for them, than for mundanes, but still leaves the design space open for a mundane ritualist.
For example, a way that I'd do it is that whenever a wizard gains a level (or maybe every other level), they can add a ritual to their spell book, in addition to the spell they'd normally be able to add. So a Fighter might be able to become a ritualist, but they won't be able to have the breadth of abilities that a wizard can have.
The two 'spell point systems' I recommend area the promising Super Genius entry recently (still haven't bought the second issue in the line) and the 3.5 oriented HypertextD20. I've been using the latter for years and it works too well for me to ever consider going back to F&F.
One (HB) system I played in yrs ago involved skill/strain checks as a limit on mages running amok. I wound up being the utility guy, lots of lesser spells with the ability to be casting a lot. The 'uber mage' was good for one or two spells per encounter before she was wheezing. No slot, F&F or spell points.
EGG told us back in '81 (?) that he chose what is really his interpretation of the Vancian system as a way for DMs to better prepare for adventurers. Early modules were easily derailed by odd choices of spells. Unless you had the right spell, too many foes were 'invulnerable', his word. A good DM would never do that, but quality DMs were both rare and precious...NOW! The very fact that boards like this exist means people want a higher grade of game.
@thejeff, @RDM: Well, looking at how Psions are handled in the Psionics Unleashed material from DreamScarred Press, there are limits on how many powers (spells) you get to know, more akin to how a Sorcerer works. I would have to check but I think the total works out larger than that of a Sorcerer but smaller than what a Wizard could obtain (i.e. everything, technically). As a result, one could provide that there would be limits to how many spells a caster could know. In the end, I suppose I find it frustrating that my effectiveness as a caster in a particular encounter that day could be virtually reduced to zero because I happened not to memorize the correct set of spells that day. For spontaneous casters and non casters, the GM can know for certain what assets those characters will have during the day and can tailor the encounters appropriately. But for prepared casters, they can't really assume you will have chosen the right spell or set of spells to allow you to be effective. It's... annoying.
@Jason Stormblade: The main concern with making things optional or suggesting houserules is the acceptance level. Words of Power are not usable in PFS play and they are part of the published source material. Psionics gets a great treatment from DSP but it's not really commonly accepted in most groups, in some cases just because of the stigma of "psionics isn't magic". It's the same reason why there is a push for acceptance into the core rules for updates of monks/rogues/fighters and any other change folks think "fixes" something. It would be nice to be able to argue for its inclusion at your table with that sort of weight behind it.
I figured someone would come along and correct my exaggeration eventually. Maybe I should have said something more like: "No fantasy world that people typically think of today" ;)No fantasy world aside from D&D style worlds have Vancian style casting.Dude, it's called "Vancian" for a reason. Google it, or better yet, read The Dying Earth (1950). Also, Roger Zelzny's 2nd Amber series (1985-1991) used it, and there's at least one line about memorizing spells in John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969) -- even Wikipedia notes that "Prospero's practice of studying his book of spells the night before he might need them may have helped inspire the game's [D&D's] requirement for magic users to do the same."
None of those are D&D, although they're all cited (substituting the 1st Amber series for the 2nd) by Gygax as being foundational to the game.
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.
Hey look, there's dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there. Try one. Mind you, pretty much all are failures or niches, but still...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Hey look, there's dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there. Try one. Mind you, pretty much all are failures or niches, but still...
No need for throwing the baby out with the Vancian bathwater.