Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Cheeseman 03-04-07, 08:00 PM	For those unfamiliar with the term, "vancian" spellcasting is the name used to describe the magic used by wizards in D&D. It is my opinion that this system in inherently flawed, for reasons I will detail below, and I am hoping that this thread will help bring to light some possible resolutions to these issues. Before I begin, I will detail the premises I intend to discuss. First, the advantages of vancian spellcasting: 1) Each spell is a static entity, detailing its exact effects regardless of the circumstance in which it is used. This allows the GM and players to adequately evaluate the relative value of a spell's effect on an encounter or adventure without the need to know the specific details of the encounter itself. In other words, a fireball always deals 1d6 fire damage per level of the caster to each creature in a 20-foot-radius spread. Without introducing foreign entities (like metamagic) to the equation, it is easy to judge the value of casting fireball in most circumstances against taking another action. 2) Because of the specific nature of spell descriptions, it is possible to create many spells with functionally equivalent effects, but that achieve such effects in different ways. This allows a great deal of freedom in spell-creation, which helps enhance creativity and better develop the themes of the setting. After all, would Bigby be as famous if he had named his 7th-level spell "Grapple Person"? 3) Also because of the specific and predictable nature of spells, it is possible to stratify them into a tiered system of increasing effectiveness (i.e. "spell levels"). This grants spell designers an easy way to balance magical effects and restrict access to them at various levels of play. Because every spell of 3rd level has a predetermined range of power, adventure designers can better tailor their encounters to the power level of characters who have access to spells no higher than 3rd level. Similarly, it is also possible for designers to anticipate the abilities a party will have access to at a given level, and design challenges that include such abilities. Most adventures, for example, would not assume that members of a party can fly unless they had access to 3rd-level spells (the first level where spells allowing constant flight are found). As you can see, vancian casting allows a great deal of creativity and control in adventure design, and keeps encounters fun and challenging for appropriately-leveled parties. In addition, it allows for flavorful and evocative descriptions that the DM can use to enhance the flavor and verisimilitude of his setting. However, for its merits, the vancian system also has numerous flaws. The following premises outline the problems I see in the system: 4) Because each spell has a specific effect, the creation of many spells is required in order to facilitate the wide array of applications for magic. While fireball is great for toasting gangs of kobolds, it's a bit much for starting a campfire and no good at all for heating a teakettle. 5) The large number and limited application of spells necessitates access to many spells in order to be productive in the variety of situations an adventurer will face. 6) Because more spells are constantly being developed, each new spell must become more specialized in order to differentiate it from already-existing spells. This invariably leads to spells that are increasingly superior to comparable spells in extremely specific circumstances, but increasingly inferior in others. 7) Since spellcasters must be allowed general access to a wide variety of spells in order to fulfill the roles expected of them, a limitation must be placed on their access to these spells in each individual situation to prevent the spellcaster from always using whatever highly-specific spell he needs to defeat any given challenge. 8) Spell memorization creates a limitation by forcing spellcasters to anticipate what spells they will need for upcoming encounters and choose them ahead of time. While this prevents spellcasters from using the vast array of very specialized spells to exploit weaknesses in every encounter, it also prevents adventure designers from constructing situations in which such spells are intentionally meaningful, since there is no way for them to be sure a party will have access to such a spell when the situation arises. 9) Since designers cannot depend on players having access to specific magic to overcome encounters, they are forced to craft encounters so that such magic is not necessary, or risk ruining the fun of the encounter (and possibly killing the PCs). Because of this, spellcasters rarely prepare such highly specialized spells ahead of time, since they know that they will not be needed to overcome the vast majority of challenges, and such spells tend to be generally inferior in the everyday situations they do face. Effectively, a spellcaster is forced to choose between preparing spells that are generally mediocre in a majority of situations, or spells that are extremely useful in situations that most probably will not come up, and obviously inferior in all others. Naturally, most choose the former, which thereby relegates a huge number of otherwise interesting and creative spells to a state of ineffectuality. In the core rules we have examples of both extremes. The wizard can learn any spell that exists, but rarely gets to use many of them because he is afraid of being ineffective and unable to fulfill his role by not having prepared spells that are useful in the common situations he is likely to face. On the other hand, a sorcerer need not worry about being unable to fill his role, since he always has access to the same selection of spells, but his selection is so limited that he still cannot afford to learn any spells that do not benefit him in most general circumstances. In either case, fringe spells that lack more general utility simply get ignored. And that is a true shame, since it squanders some of the best aspects of the vancian system's creative and evocative nature. It is my hope that some of us bright folks here on the boards can find solid middle ground between creativity and game balance in D&D's spellcasting system. Rather than each individual group using their own fragmented house rules, why not pool our experiences to better enhance the fun in all our games? I look forward to your feedback, and thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts on this complicated topic.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-04-07, 11:20 PM	Use the Expanded Psionics Handbook's rules. It has most of the advantages, without most of the disadvantages.
Tempest Stormwind 03-04-07, 11:26 PM	A sound analysis, although it leaves off two other points of contention many people have with the system. A) it doesn't feel like fantasy magic. It was used by ONE author, in ONE series, which was a hybrid sci-fi fantasy setting. As such, a lot of people familiar with fantasy will find things like "I can't cast another third-level spell, but I've got piles of 9th level slots available" or "I didn't prepare another fireball this morning" to be alien and counterintuitive. B) There is inherently a lot of bookkeeping involved. From personal experience, a single wizard NPC's spellbook takes twice as long for me to make than an entire skill-based character... and that's just the book. If I wanted to be an accountant, I wouldn't play D&D. Moving on to solutions: The vast majority of those problems don't exist in psionics, I might add. Thomar beat me to posting about it, but I'll go into more detail. First, dealing with vancian advantages. 1) Fixed evaluation. Psionic powers are statted in precisely the same fashion as spells, thus they inherit this effect. Since you disregard the effect of caster level on evaluation (stating that 1d6/caster level is fine), the fact that a single psionic power varies in potency based on power points spent on it (which are limited by manifester level) is also disregarded. 2) Functional equivalence. I don't believe this is an advantage, since it's just reflavoring, and anything can be reflavored. Anything. For instance, see the Truenaming Psionics link in my sig for how it applies to the XPH. 3) Power level ranking. Again, this applies directly to psionic powers as well. There is a bit of an advantage to magic here, since psionic powers augment (that is, an energy ray (1st level power) that you spend 5pp on (the cost of a 3rd level power) does the damage you'd expect a 3rd level power to do, but in a smaller area since it's still only a 1st level effect)... but the general idea still holds. So, it retains most, if not all, of the advantages of vancian casting. Moving on to the disadvantages. 4) Overdiversity in spells. Due to the nature of augmentation, several powers are condensed. The equivalent to Summon Monster in psionics is Astral Construct -- but instead of NINE different powers, there's just ONE, and the effect you get with that power depends on how many power points (i.e. what level slot) you use to activate it. In exchange, psionic powers often lack the sheer brute force of magic spells (in the case of Astral Construct, you cannot multi-summon like you can with Summon Monster, and the Summon Monster lists provide you with FAR more versatile creatures). While it isn't perfectly split up, it does provide for a large array of flexibility -- if for no other reason than you don't need to spend additional powers known to get the same effect. 5) Limited-access spellcasting hinders performance. This is still a problem in psionics, I admit. However, again, augmentation dramatically increases the flexibility with which you use your fewer known powers. In exchange, though, your initial effects are weaker, especially since they don't scale for free (I think only three powers do). 6) Overspecialization in spell design. While this is a cheap shot to magic, there's only been ONE official expansion book for psionics. In the XPH, there are fewer total powers (for all classes) than there are sor/wiz spells in the PHB. There aren't thirty more specialized versions of previous spells in every book. 7) Limits needed on accessing spells to prevent the perfect tool for the job. Psionic characters manifest spontaneously, similar to sorcerers. Each has a small list of powers known, and that's *all* that they can draw upon. My shaper can't manifest Energy Push (even if it'd be the perfect power) because she doesn't know it. (There's even some specialization between the different classes and psion specialities to further this distinction (i.e. my shaper could never manifest Psionic Charm, since that's a telepath's schtick), but that doesn't really apply to this point.) A notable exception is the erudite variant in Complete Psionic, which always *does* have the perfect power available at any given point... but each time he manifests a new power, he grows less flexible, until (very shortly in) he'll be locked into the smallest array of unique effects available to anyone. 8) Spell prep problems in adventure design. This doesn't apply at all to psionics, as there's no spell prep. The problem here is, it shouldn't apply to magic as well -- that's what scrolls are for. (You think my wizard actually carries around Endure Elements or Scholar's Touch in his spells per day?) Furthermore, most mages have access to divination techniques to see what's coming up for them -- which gives them an enormous advantage if they think to employ it. 9) Due to 8, Specialization is not a good idea (unless divinations are employed) and Generalization is the natural compromise. Since 8 is invalid, I feel this one is as well, although it does apply in casual play. It also doesn't apply at all in psionics, since once you've picked a power, you know it for life, and you have to learn to make do with it (unless you use the Psychic Reformation power). While some characters have this problem in abundance (Wilders in particular), others (psions in particular) have enough powers known to pick thematic or fun choices instead of those strictly based off of power. (Augmentation helps here -- imagine if knowing Charm Person would also let you spend the appropriate spell slot to cast Charm Monster, Mass Charm Person, and Mass Charm Monster. That's essentially what augmentation allows the psion to do.) There are problems with psionics; I'm not saying it's perfect. What I am saying is that it solves essentially every problem you've outlined here while retaining the advantages. The biggest disadvantage psionics has is the name -- older editions (even up to 3rd) had broken systems under that name, and several DMs instantly refuse to look at 3.5's WORKING system as a result.
T.rex 03-05-07, 12:55 AM	I posted some ideas on this very thing a week or so ago but got no responses, so I am glad to see it brought up again. Repeating my self from then, I think that the Sorcerer is the bastard child of WOTC's inability to slay the ghost of Vance. I think that the first step is to rid ourselves of, oddly enough of the wizard (at least her spells casting method) and merge the two. I agree that the Psionic method of "magic" is far superior in flavor and fun to the spell casting we are fed today. I proposed a less radical system that kept the spell slots, not because I like them better but because it is less radical, and easier to swallow for the old guard (not that they would adopt it). Any way, it got very little responses and subsequently dropped off the board. Oh, well. If i can find the info on the thread I will post it. I do however feel that keeping as close to the existing system is best as it has the best chance of being widely accepted. Here is a earlier thread that may be of some help however. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=694465
ElIsRa 03-05-07, 02:02 AM	Personally, I think that trying to use Psionics as a "fix" for magic is the cheap way out. You can't chose funtion over from. That's not what role-playing is about. And personally I think that probelms stated here are quite minor and mostly resolved by the right mix of splat books, Complete Mage being high on that list with the invent or the Reserve Feat.
navar100 03-05-07, 02:31 AM	Considering how in the numerous fighter sucks threads people are saying how so uber spellcasterse are, I don't think the D&D vancian magic is a problem needing to be fixed. Ironically, back in my 2E college days no one in our college group liked it, and we all used a home made mana point system. It was fine tuned here and there, but we were happy with it. When 3E came out I was disappointed they kept the system. When 3E psionics first came out, however "flawed" some may think it was, I really liked how its power point system worked and thought that would have been better as the standard. The 3.5 psionics fix was even better. Still, I have gotten used to the system. While I probably still wouldn't mind a magic conversion into the psionics system, I've come to be ok with the current system.
Nom 03-05-07, 06:56 PM	Nitpick: the "Vancian" in D&D magic generally refers to the slotted, prepared nature of it. Rolemaster, for example, uses discrete spells, but it is not "Vancian" because it uses a mana system rather than a slotted, prepared system. (Actually, from my understanding what makes it particularly "Vancian" is the preparation, not the slotting). Preparation is orthogonal to slotting and magic points; you can have either without the other. Similarly, discrete (vs customisable) spells is orthogonal to both, although a slotted system certainly tends towards discrete spells.
The_Cheeseman 03-05-07, 07:56 PM	Indeed, Nom, you are quite correct. It was not my intention to imply that all of these elements were irrevocably linked with one another, but rather to illustrate the relationship between them as to better understand the system D&D uses for spellcasting. As your post implies, the removal of spell memorization would render the system no longer "Vancian," but I don't think that would necessarily be a negative change. I have been a fan of psionics for quite some time, and I even tried to compose a document that converted every psionic power into a more "magic-flavored" version (assigning them to a school of magic rather than a discipline, renaming the powers to better match their magical equivilents, etc), but that did not turn out to achieve the goal I was aiming for. You see, while I definitely agree that psionics is more streamlined, and ultimately more mechanically sound, that is not so much the problem I have with magic in its current form. Psionics tries to minimize the number of individual powers by making them each more dynamic and functional, which works quite well with the imbedded augmentation mechanics. However, thinning the spell list is exactly the opposite of my intent - I want spellcasters to have more opportunity to use the myriad spells available to them without sacrificing performance via inherent opportunity cost. The suggestion of the Erudite psion variant from Complete Psionics is an interesting prospect in this regard. Perhaps it could be adapted to create a similar arcane class, sort of a hybrid wizard/sorcerer who maintains a spellbook, but can still cast spontaneously. If this were the case, how many spell slots and "unique" spells per day do you think would be fair? Certainly more than the Erudite, simply due to the differences between the two systems, but the exact number could be difficult to judge accurately. I have also considered a system similar to the Mage of the Arcane Order, wherein a spellcaster could "acquire" a needed spell by paying a cost in combat actions (perhaps 1 full round of concentration). Any thoughts on this?
Aramar the Black 03-05-07, 09:10 PM	I am no expert in this matter, but I would like to note that Jearom Darkwind had an excellent redition of a Netherese spellcaster, and I found the magic system used for it to be an excellen alternitive to the current core system. However, he has currently removed all links from his sig, and I never marked that page. I think I have the files somewhere, and I could find them if there are no objections.
ArcTan 03-05-07, 10:39 PM	Personally, I think that trying to use Psionics as a "fix" for magic is the cheap way out. You can't chose funtion over from. That's not what role-playing is about. The point is that the form of Vancian spellcasting doesn't really resemble the form of magic most people want to roleplay. And personally I think that probelms stated here are quite minor and mostly resolved by the right mix of splat books, Complete Mage being high on that list with the invent or the Reserve Feat. Not really. Reserve feats add one extra function to an existing set of spells that gives them a little more versatility, but they're far from a complete overhaul of the system.
ArcTan 03-05-07, 10:40 PM	Considering how in the numerous fighter sucks threads people are saying how so uber spellcasterse are, I don't think the D&D vancian magic is a problem needing to be fixed. Too powerful is just as much a balance problem as not powerful enough.
Tempest Stormwind 03-05-07, 11:11 PM	I am no expert in this matter, but I would like to note that Jearom Darkwind had an excellent redition of a Netherese spellcaster, and I found the magic system used for it to be an excellen alternitive to the current core system. However, he has currently removed all links from his sig, and I never marked that page. I think I have the files somewhere, and I could find them if there are no objections. Essentially, it was a direct copy of the psion in several regards, but with a heavy specialization focus and an augmentation system attached to it (NOT the XPH's, but not the one from UA, either -- it literally set the caster level based on the points you spent). It looked more different than it really was since he did a beautiful job flavoring it for magic, with built-in depths of the weave and strain on the spellcaster being the cornerstones of it. Using psionics for magic works quite well if you just change a few names.
navar100 03-06-07, 03:40 AM	Too powerful is just as much a balance problem as not powerful enough. The problem in this case would be the individual spells not the method of casting, and it is not the damage dealing spells which would probably have to be scaled like for psionics that is causing the problem.
1hitparry 03-06-07, 09:21 AM	I like the Vancian system because it's different from magic points. Having to actually plan out your spells in advance is actually a challenge rather than just spamming out your MP. Granted, this doesn't even come close to touching some of the issues discussed here, but I guess I just overlook those. In any case, I don't understand why people are complaining. If you don't like it, don't use it? Seems to me that that would be the logical choice. Edit: Actually, I've changed my mind. I'll just assume this is place where people need to rant. I've had to do that a few times.
Cromag 03-06-07, 10:35 AM	The suggestion of the Erudite psion variant from Complete Psionics is an interesting prospect in this regard. Perhaps it could be adapted to create a similar arcane class, sort of a hybrid wizard/sorcerer who maintains a spellbook, but can still cast spontaneously. If this were the case, how many spell slots and "unique" spells per day do you think would be fair? Certainly more than the Erudite, simply due to the differences between the two systems, but the exact number could be difficult to judge accurately. I have also considered a system similar to the Mage of the Arcane Order, wherein a spellcaster could "acquire" a needed spell by paying a cost in combat actions (perhaps 1 full round of concentration). Any thoughts on this? There are a couple classes like this already Spirit shaman in the complete divine chooses a new spell list each day and can spontaneously cast from that list. Warmages and beguilers both have a spell list large enough to call it a book and they cast spontaneously from the list. on a side note the spell casting from Mage the ascension (WoD) was the best casting format I have seen to date, but would take a lot of work to make it balanced in D&D. It had specific capabilities as you grew stronger and a huge amount of versatility. you could learn specific spells (rotes) that you used often with ease, and also use the rules to make a spell up on the fly with only a little extra difficulty to cast.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-06-07, 01:53 PM	B) There is inherently a lot of bookkeeping involved. From personal experience, a single wizard NPC's spellbook takes twice as long for me to make than an entire skill-based character... and that's just the book. If I wanted to be an accountant, I wouldn't play D&D. This is inherently the biggest disadvantage in vancian magic IMO. It's so complex that the DM generally doesn't have the prep time to create NPCs with that kind of system. Because of the accounting involved, it's much more of a PC system than a DM system. The biggest advantage of Vancian magic is that it varies the PC's choices of spells. When you've got spell points, basically you just use your best spells all the time. It also means that there's very little middle ground between fully charged and expended. A psionic character for instance can do all his best powers until he's one or two power short of doing nothing at all. The power drop is so drastic as to kind of screw over the game. When you're out of power you're absolutely forced to rest, unless you like playing a commoner. The vancian wizard at least is always going to have something to do, even if it's just toss magic missiles, since his power descends on a more stable curve. He also has many more tactical choices to make since he only has a few really powerful spells that he can choose to save or cast, as opposed to just firing off a series of the best spell he can cast and then becoming completely useless. Tactically over the course of an entire adventure, the vancian wizard has much more depth because of this. Of course as stated before, all that vancian crap on the DM end doesn't mean much at all, since his characters play for a single encounter and that's it. It's a fundamental problem D&D has, trying to unify mechanics for PCs and NPCs. DMs really don't want complex systems and class builds for NPCs. They just want to be able to plop down some creature quickly without worrying about a bunch of stuff and run a battle where the creature will at least 95% of the time, die. So get a competitive AC, attack and damage and maybe give the creature some interesting abilities. And that's it.
tarkin 03-06-07, 02:22 PM	Advantages: 1) static spells 2) Variable themes 3) Levelled. You left out. 4) Logically, works well with the concept of spells being complex and needed to be prebuilt, waiting to be used. I.E. Prepared Spells are like pre-built machines, crafted and ready to be used, not something you build on the fly. 5) The fact that you need to pre-build a spell requires a caster to THINK AHEAD. While you thought this was a disadvantage, it is reality an Advantage, because players are even allowed to leave a slot open if they are too stupid to think ahead. Now, here are the disadvantages. (note I switched to letters, to be less confusing) A) More specific spells, which includes what you thought was a next one, the fact that more spells = you need to learn more of them. B) Specialization means new spells are better, but less commonly usefull. Again, this includes what you of as the next one. C) New one. It seems silly for someone to know how to make a scorching Ray, but not a Burning Hands. D) If a player and a DM are a complete and total idiot, then they will not be able to use research, foreshadowing etc. to figure out which spells are going to be needed later in the day, and will be forced to leave a slot open. This pisses off stupid DM's and players. E) Again, stupid spellcasters end up in a situation where they do not do well, because they made poor choices about spell use, researching what creatures they will face. This pisses them off. -------- How to solve the problems you mentioned using the core rules. I. Buy scrolls. Not that hard to do. If you are the DM, and the players are repatedly moronic and ignore your hints/advice to buy scrolls, give it to them as treasure they find. Ensure that the fringe spells they are likely to need are the ones they find. II. Leave a spell slot open if you are a wizard. III. Use a handy dandy variable use spell such as LIMITED WISH, ANYSPELL, SHADOW CONJURATION/EVOCATION, MNEMONIC ENHANCER (Prepare version) IV. Actually do some RESEARCH about what you are going to fight/where you are going. The DM should say things like say "Rumors of undead" abound or "You have found an ancient map showing that the Lost city you seek was once far larger before the sea level rose. Your map shows a treasure vault out in the middle of the harbor", or "Other adventures had to turn back because they had no Knock spell" If the players ignore your scrolls, don't have spell slots open, did not take a variable spell, and ignored your hints to take anti-undead spells, breathing underwater spells, and a Knock spell, they deserve to lose.
Taelohn 03-06-07, 02:41 PM	A) it doesn't feel like fantasy magic. It was used by ONE author, in ONE series, which was a hybrid sci-fi fantasy setting. As such, a lot of people familiar with fantasy will find things like "I can't cast another third-level spell, but I've got piles of 9th level slots available" or "I didn't prepare another fireball this morning" to be alien and counterintuitive. This would've been true thirty years ago. Since then, however, this kind of magic has been used hundreds of times - in the myriad novels set in D&D worlds. Some of them (such as the Dragonlance Chronicles) describe it quite well (and many have in-character explanations for why their magic functions the way it does). The Vancian spellcasting system is one of those classic things that makes the game distinctly "Dungeons & Dragons", rather than a more modernized and generic "d20 Fantasy" game (though the latter may well be what some people would prefer).
JohnSnow 03-06-07, 04:15 PM	First off, I want to address those who seem to think that the Vancian magic system is some sort of metagame puzzle they have to solve in order to be a "good" D&D player. Such people actually think they are "better" or "smarter" players because they've worked out ways around the complexities of an obtuse magic system. As an example: 5) The fact that you need to pre-build a spell requires a caster to THINK AHEAD. While you thought this was a disadvantage, it is reality an Advantage, because players are even allowed to leave a slot open if they are too stupid to think ahead... D) If a player and a DM are a complete and total idiot, then they will not be able to use research, foreshadowing etc. to figure out which spells are going to be needed later in the day, and will be forced to leave a slot open. This pisses off stupid DM's and players. E) Again, stupid spellcasters end up in a situation where they do not do well, because they made poor choices about spell use, researching what creatures they will face. This pisses them off... If the players ignore your scrolls, don't have spell slots open, did not take a variable spell, and ignored your hints to take anti-undead spells, breathing underwater spells, and a Knock spell, they deserve to lose. If you want to make judgement calls about the wizards in game, that's one thing, but making judgement calls about players and DMs based on their dislike of the magic system is uncalled for. Continue in this vein, and I'll consider it a public service to flag the post. Fine, you disagree and think the system is dandy. So go elsewhere and let the rest of us continue on topic in peace. There are plenty of threads for you. On the other hand, some of us think the system is broken. Let us have one thread devoted to addressing the problems we see. Now, for something slightly more on topic: This would've been true thirty years ago. Since then, however, this kind of magic has been used hundreds of times - in the myriad novels set in D&D worlds. So you're arguing it feels like generic fantasy because D&D novels use the system? Is that what you're actually saying? More to the point, how often does a character, even in a D&D novel, not have the right spell prepared? I certainly don't agree that spell preparation is essential to D&D. Look at the Sorcerer, Warlock, Warmage, Beguiler, Channeling magic (2e's Player's Option: Spells & Magic), the "daily spell list" variant rule (Unearthed Arcana), Spell Points (Unearthed Arcana), recharge magic (Unearthed Arcana, the magic system in Green Ronin's True Sorcery, or a dozen other variant systems. So now that we've established that the effort is worthwhile, shall we get back on topic? I started working on a system using True Sorcery as my inspiration. However, that system calls for characters to build spells on the fly and that can bog down play tremendously. I'm looking at something that allows characters to have certain powers they can use at-will, and others that are partially draining. Since I have an issue, of sorts, with the magnitude numbers of spell points, I'm looking at a replenishable pool that allows the caster to throw off a certain number of spells in a certain period of time. Other than simplicity of game play, my goals have been to: 1) Enable spellcasters to continue adventuring as long as the other characters in the party. Basically, everyone is constrained by the same resource - hit points. Yes, this means there must be some limit to the amount of magical healing a character can receive in a day. 2) Limit the amount of power a spellcaster can blow off in one encounter. I hate it when spellcasters do nothing but blow off their big spells in a single encounter. 3) Restore logic to the spellcaster's abilities so that we don't have casters who can throw a fireball to roast an army, but don't know how to muster up a flame to start a campfire. 4) Curtail the world-changing effects out of the system. Prevent magic from overshadowing all of the other characters. 5) Enable non-world changing effects to be usable at-will. 6) Allow players to make any flavor of spellcaster they want. 7) Scale the spells better so as to eliminate the break point that occurs around 10th level and results in high-level play being less satisfying than playing in the game's acknowledged "Sweet Spot." Tall order I know, but it's been a very enlightening exercise.
Vedic Cold 03-06-07, 05:29 PM	@ JohnSnow: I agree that denigrating the play style of those who dislike the Vancian system of magic is counterproductive. However, it bears pointing out that the title of this thread is "An Analysis of 'Vancian' Spellcasting," not "We All Hate Vancian Casting So Don't Post Your Opinion Here Unless You Do Too." As for the topic at hand, I personally got into D&D with 3rd Edition. Vancian preparation of spells was my first experience with D&D magic, but it was not the first RPG magic system I experienced. That was actually the Rolemaster magic system utilized by Middle Earth Role Playing. The use of a magic point system was interesting and fun, but no more or less so than the Vancian style of D&D. Each has its inherent flavor, as well as advantages and disadvantages. However, I lately find myself leaning towards playing sorcerers and other spontaneous casters when I want to play a magic user. The flavor of a wizard, being learned and bookish, is appealing to me. However, I seem less and less inclined of late to want to deal with having to use the methods for spell preparation. This evolution of personal preference may have to do with the steady creep of more and more character classes that cast spells spontaneously, or it may just be a temporary shift in taste. I don't know. But I don't think that Vancian spellcasting is a relic that should be abandoned - rather, it's a style of spellcasting that is challenging and requires the player to make use of forethought and careful planning. Not everyone likes to play this way, but as long as there are those who do, then Vancian spellcasting will retain its place in D&D.
JohnSnow 03-06-07, 05:46 PM	I agree that denigrating the play style of those who dislike the Vancian system of magic is counterproductive. However, it bears pointing out that the title of this thread is "An Analysis of 'Vancian' Spellcasting," not "We All Hate Vancian Casting So Don't Post Your Opinion Here Unless You Do Too." Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said: If you have something constructive to add, please stay, but, on behalf of those of us who see a system in need of fixing, if all you want to do is defend the system as is and insult people who don't like it, maybe this isn't the thread for you. Which is really what I meant. I guess I should have been clearer. ;) But I don't think that Vancian spellcasting is a relic that should be abandoned - rather, it's a style of spellcasting that is challenging and requires the player to make use of forethought and careful planning. Not everyone likes to play this way, but as long as there are those who do, then Vancian spellcasting will retain its place in D&D. I actually don't really object to Vancian spellcasting existing in D&D, so much as the fact that the entire magic system is built around it. For example, does it make sense that sorcerers, who cast spells spontaneously, should be able to make a fireball, but not start a campfire? To me, the answer is obvious. However, I'm fine with wizards as wizards, for those who want them. Although a wizard (derived from the same root word as wisdom) being an Int-based class strikes me as a bit wonky. But I digress... What I'm not fine with is that those of us who want spontaneous casters have to work within the same system that's been in place for 30 years, just because it's been in place for 30 years. You want to differentiate sorcerers and wizards? Change the way sorcery WORKS and the spells sorcerers have access to. Come up with a new system that reflects a different approach to magic. Personally, my other beef is that spellcasters and their "slots" tend to dictate the pace of the adventure. When the casters are out, they want to stop for the day. And I freely admit, it's not the player's fault - I play my wizard like that too when I play one. That's a pacing problem that arises entirely from applying a gamist solution (magic as a disposable resource keeps casters from being overpowered) to a campaign problem (runaway magic can alter the world). Simply limiting the effectiveness of a spellcaster in a given encounter would be the real solution to the game balance problem. The resource management approach actually ducks this problem. As to the world balance problem - I'm open to suggestions. I'm personally looking at subdual damage (and spellcasting skill checks) in the system I'm designing. But to be fair, it's technically for Iron Heroes, not D&D.
Taelohn 03-06-07, 06:34 PM	So you're arguing it feels like generic fantasy because D&D novels use the system? Is that what you're actually saying? No. I said the statement "It was used by ONE author, in ONE series" would've been true before D&D came about, but now that decades have passed and hundreds of D&D-based novels have been written, that is no longer the case. The vast majority of people familiar with Vancian spellcasting know about it because of D&D, not because they've read the Dying Earth novels. It doesn't feel like "generic fantasy magic" - it feels like "D&D magic". More to the point, how often does a character, even in a D&D novel, not have the right spell prepared? It's actually fairly common, especially when dealing with lower-level characters (like Raistlin as of Dragons of Autumn Twilight). Even higher-level spellcasters sometimes find themselves low on spells (like Elminster in Elminster in Hell or in The Summoning, which actually mentioned the spells he still had prepared at one point). I certainly don't agree that spell preparation is essential to D&D. Look at the Sorcerer, Warlock, Warmage, Beguiler, Channeling magic (2e's Player's Option: Spells & Magic), the "daily spell list" variant rule (Unearthed Arcana), Spell Points (Unearthed Arcana), recharge magic (Unearthed Arcana, the magic system in Green Ronin's True Sorcery, or a dozen other variant systems. Yes, there are a lot of alternative magic systems out there. I recognize that many people prefer them, and I'm not saying that any one system is inherently better than any other. I don't think the Vancian spellcasting system is essential to D&D in a gameplay sense (as you've illustrated, there are a lot of alternatives), but I think it is essential in a thematic and nostalgic sense. Like beholders and magic missiles, it's one of those things that showcases the difference between "this is a fantasy world" and "this is a D&D world". If I were to design a more generic and more flexible "d20 Fantasy" system, which used the same mechanics but didn't have the "Dungeons & Dragons" logo attached to it, I probably would do away with most of the "sacred cows" (and employ some sort of mana/spell point system for casters). For new and unique game settings, that would probably work very well. I just couldn't see that being implemented in something like Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or the Forgotten Realms. So now that we've established that the effort is worthwhile, shall we get back on topic? The topic is "An analysis of 'Vancian' spellcasting". Nothing about that indicates that all responses must paint it in a negative light. I was simply offering a counter-argument to one of the "points of contention" that were brought up.
Huzzah! 03-06-07, 06:49 PM	If you're looking for more versatility, look at the magic system presented in Wheel of Time RPG. Scaling Issues A particular spell, say fireball, can be cast at any level you choose at the time of casting and takes up one spell of that spell level. You can decide whether to cast it as a 0-level campfire starter or as a 9-level firestorm. Versatility They combine many varied spell effects into one spell. Harden air can be used to make tools (prestidigitation), immobilize a person (hold person & hold monster), and make a shield or wall around yourself (force wall). It does negate the need for some metamagic feats, i.e. enlarge, maximimize, etc. because you can just choose to cast the same spell at a higher level for the desired result. They balance this by having a pretty restricted selection of spells compared to core D&D, but I suppose this was to fit with the game world.
JohnSnow 03-06-07, 07:00 PM	Like beholders and magic missiles, it's one of those things that showcases the difference between "this is a fantasy world" and "this is a D&D world". If I were to design a more generic and more flexible "d20 Fantasy" system, which used the same mechanics but didn't have the "Dungeons & Dragons" logo attached to it, I probably would do away with most of the "sacred cows" (and employ some sort of mana/spell point system for casters). See, to me, this is one of those arguments that only hardcore D&D people care about. To most of the world, D&D IS d20 Fantasy. To preserve those nostalgic D&Disms is to marginalize the game into being a limited subset of fantasy roleplaying. Personally, I'd rather see D&D embrace a larger role as the "pre-eminent fantasy roleplaying game" rather than cling desperately to the limited subset of fantasy roleplaying defined as "D&D as it has evolved." Because if that happens, I think more and more people will find other fantasy games (even d20 ones?) that better suit their particular tastes. For better or worse, most gamers are D&D gamers. Which means that those of us who want to play usually end up playing D&D. For some of us, Vancian magic is a chicken bone we choke on when we swallow D&D. I'd like to be able to just play D&D (with optional rules A, B, and C) rather than having to houserule the game until I find it palatable. Or play with a variant Player's Handbook, like I do now.
tiercel 03-06-07, 07:19 PM	One of the problems I have seen sometimes with the Vancian system is along the lines of what's been mentioned already -- well, a lot of times it is easy to wind playing a wizard like a sorcerer. That is to say, *in practice* wizards tend to evolve a "default spell list" of catch-all generically useful spells and not deviate too much from them. Yes, wizards can and do load up on spells of a certain type when advance intel is available, but there may be several reasons they don't do so: Not really available. At low levels this can be a factor especially when you don't have access to good info-gathering spells, and/or find the opportunity cost of casting one or more such spells high compared to the total number of spells available in a day. You may be looking at a situation where mundane info-gathering is limited because of the need for stealth/surprise attack, or you may simply be looking at time pressure -- the plot requires you go into the Cavern of No Return *today* and you don't have time to mess about and figure out which spells would be best suited. Theme. Someone who wants to build a highly themed caster will tend to pick the same sorts of spells to reinforce that theme, which limits their day-to-day flexibility in spell choice. Fatigue. Having to choose a new set of spells every day can get old, especially if you don't have good specific foreknowledge of what you're facing. Additionally, you are keeping the other players waiting while you load your character up on spells at the beginning of the day -- on your average adventuring day, it's usually easier to just take your "generic adventuring spellset," perhaps with a couple of minor tweaks given what advance info you do know. Necessity. If you are the only arcane caster in the party, chances are you will almost always have at least one (for example) teleport memorized if you are capable of doing so. Some spells are just so generically useful that it is hard to justify clearing out an entire spell level to spam a specific-use spell even with foreknowledge -- sure, protection from elements is going to be real handy against that dragon but are you going to go *entirely* without fireball, fly or haste today? And of course, the problem is that to the extent that you aren't really taking advantage of your ability to access different spells, you are playing your wizard like a sorcerer with fewer spells per day and less flexibility within that spell choice and in applying metamagic.
T.rex 03-07-07, 12:18 AM	I in essence like what has been talked about here but I noticed that an element has not been addressed here as of yet. What about Divine magic? Right now the RAW treat the two very similar, except that the divine spell casters get to pick any and all spells in any and all splat book the player can get his/her hands upon, where as the wizard/sorcerer has by contrast a very limited selection. I do realize that this is somewhat a tangent but if the dream of achieving a Vancian-free Nirvana is to come true this will need to be addressed. I personally think that arcane casters should have to buy their spells with skill points each level (this would of course necessitate them getting significantly more skill points of course. I think the Divine spell casters should have to in the morning when they are in "on the phone" with their deity should have to "order" a very limited list of their powers for the day. It is the one use of the Vancian concept that does ring true with me. Either that or each level they get a set choice of powers based upon their Domains.
The_Cheeseman 03-07-07, 03:51 AM	I am intrigued by the suggestion of the spirit shaman's casting system (a good suggestion, and one I had completely overlooked). Does anybody have experience playing one, running one as an NPC, or even playing alongside one? It seems like it would be easy enough to adapt it as a Wizard-type character, only without the spirit-centric abilities and perhaps a larger number of spells "retrieved" per day. An accompanying decrease in hit die size, base attack bonus, and proficiencies would definitely seem sufficient to grant as many as 4 "retrieved" spells per day as a base, and perhaps an additional one for a specialist school. Actually, one could almost combine the erudite, mage of the Arcane Order, and spirit shaman mechanics together. Consider this: No spellbook needed, instead a mage selects a number of spells per level that he has mastered, as if by spell mastery. A mage may master additional spells by reading magical writings, such as scrolls or spellbooks (which some mages would still keep specifically for archival and educational purposes). Mastering a spell takes as long as it would normally take to copy it into your spellbook as a wizard, but without the cost of scribing. Each day, a mage may choose a number of spells that he has mastered to ready in his mind. A mage can only ready a set number of spells in this fashion each day, and he cannot "forget" a spell that he has readied until he has rested for another 8 hours (this clears his mind and allows him to refocus his mental energies). If the mage wishes, he may leave some readied spell slots unused in order to accomodate additional spells that he may need over the course of the day. A mage may ready any number of spells in this fashion with an hour of meditation (such as a wizard needs to memorize his spells). If the mage chooses to leave readied spell slots open, he may choose to fill them with additional spells over the course of the day, as needed. Readying a spell in this way requires a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level) as well as 1 full round of concentration, and it provokes an attack of opportunity from opponents that threaten the mage. On the mage's turn the following round, the spell is readied and may be cast normally. If the Spellcraft check fails, or the mage's concentration is broken, he fails to ready the spell, but may try again on his next turn. A mage may take 10 or 20 on this check, but this extends the time of concentration to 10 rounds or 10 minutes, respectively. A mage can cast any spell he has readied spontaneously, just as a sorcerer does with known spells, with one caveat: the mage must apply any metamagic effects to the spell as he readies it, he cannot apply them spontaneously to spells he has readied normally. When making a Spellcraft check to ready a metamagic spell in an open slot, use the spell's modified level for the Spellcraft DC. To ready or master a spell, a mage must have an Intelligence score of 10 + the spell's level. To cast a spell, a mage must have a Charisma score of 10 + the spell's level. The number of spells a mage can cast each day is shown on the advancement table. Additionally, a mage gains bonus spells per day for a high Charisma score. The DC of saving throws against a mage's spells are equal to 10 + the spell's level + the mage's Charisma modifier. With this method, a mage can master a wide variety of spells, but it still maintains the bookish flavor of the wizard, and allows the DM to restrict access to spells he doesn't want available (beyond simply saying, "I'm banning the spell soandso"). It also removes the annoyance and expense of having to maintain a spellbook. In this way, it is also easy for a DM to "fudge" an NPC caster's prepared spells on the fly, as there is no way for a PC to know exactly what spells the NPC has mastered, or how many open slots he has remaining. A mage can ready his favorite spells, or the ones he thinks will be most useful, at the beginning of the day, so that they can be used at a moment's notice. If he runs into an unexpected situation, he can attempt to call a needed spell to mind, but doing so is risky and uses up time in combat that could have been used to cast a spell he already had prepared. Finally, by adding a bit of multiple attribute dependency between Intelligence and Charisma, we help balance the ability scores of mages and eliminate the ability to treat either Charisma or Intelligence as a "dump stat." No longer can a spellcaster focus all his resources on pumping a single ability score, possibly helping to bridge the gap between spellcaster and melee class balance. It also introduces some interesting flavor, in that it requires a powerful brain to learn magic, but an equally powerful will to effectively wield it. It may be worth considering granting bonus spells readied for high Intelligence, though the base allotment of readied spells may have to look more like a spirit shaman than a wizard in that case. One could also partially emulate the staggered spell-level progressions between sorcerers and wizards by granting 0 spells readied or per day at odd levels, thereby allowing mages with a high relevant ability score to use the wizard's progression, while those with only "sufficient" scores (such as a gish) get the sorcerer's progression. What do you all think of this mechanic? Would you use a class with this type of spellcasting in your game (either as a player or a DM), and if not, what changes would you make to improve it? Does it address all the flaws you perceive in the vancian system, or does it leave some issues untouched? Also, thank you to everyone who is contributing to this discussion, I am pleased to note that it has been mostly civil, and also quite inspirational. Don't be afraid to voice your opinions, but please provide some explanations for them as well. The purpose of this thread is not simply to rant about what we do not like, but rather to take a good look at magic in D&D, and see what we can do to make the game more enjoyable for us all.
Eveng 03-07-07, 08:17 AM	I have had some of these problems with the Vancian system crop up in the campaign I am currently running, mostly dealing with the fact that the wizard didn't get to use his more exotic spells since he didn't dare choose them. Now, careful reading of the basic rules reveals that the wizard can choose to leave some of his spell-slots open, and then later in the day use time to read up on spells. This takes some time (don't remember how long), so it is not very useful in the middle of combat, but still, it goes a long way towards solving the problem with the exotic spells without causing massive imbalance. Personally I think the spell system used in Warhammer fantasy roleplaying is fairly good, and really like a mana-based system, but D&D magic is really great as well, and I would recommend reading the book "The Dying Earth" by Jack Vance to get the flavor of the magic system;)...
Kursk 03-07-07, 03:02 PM	Good analysis. However, I've played more FRPG's than I can count and none were OVERALL, as good as D&D.
Nefir Falken 03-07-07, 05:23 PM	Dealing with the "Vancian" aspect of D&D spellcasting, I can see some benefits from a role-playing perspective, in terms of "realistically" defining how a spellcaster is collecting the necessary energies to be able to fire off a spell in so short an amount of time. Having to "pre-cast" your spells is similar in nature to using a muzzle-loading rifle. Casting the spell from an "empty slate" would require loading the energies into the spell construct and then discharging it. Casting a prepared spell just involves directing and releasing the energized spell construct. That said, I don't feel that the "Vancian" system should be used as the primary aspect of the spellcasting methodology, even though you might be able to incorporate it to a limited extent in a versatile spellcasting system. My suggestions would be to have three primary areas for spell deployment: 1) Intrinsic spells -- these are spells that the caster has mastered, able to cast at will (at a cost of magic points/mana/etc.). This typically includes mastering some, if not all, of the available augmentations for the spell. 2) Learned spells -- these are spells that the caster has discovered, adapted for his use, and placed in a spell/prayer book. Learned spells can either be prepared (see below) or cast directly from the book. This allows for a spellcaster to access nearly all of his spells (including augmentations for Intrinsic spells that he hasn't mastered), but forcing him into a vulnerable position in order to cast them (hands occupied, longer casting time). 3) Prepared spells -- these are spells that the caster has partially cast initially, in order to simply direct and release at a later point. Prepared spells allow the caster to spend time out of combat to build up a spell, either to deal with a long casting time or to have a number of "loaded guns" when entering a tense situation. Prepared spells occupy a certain number of magic points, and limit the ability of the caster to cast other spells on the fly (because the caster can only be using so many magic points at a given time). Any spell that a spellcaster observes can be learned (either through skill points or a separate spell points system) by analyzing the spell as it is cast and the researching the way in which he will need to cast it. Each spellcaster's exact formulae for spells are unique to the caster, so even learning from a friendly spellcaster takes time and effort to adapt the spell to your style. Divine spellcasters have a slightly different set, in that they have a common prayerbook for their diety's domain spells (which is always made available to members of their order), but all other spells require the caster to design his own prayer recitation (spellbook entry) in order to cast the spell. The spontaneous variants for arcane and divine spellcasting simply have an easier time mastering learned spells, but don't learn as many (or as many augmentations unless mastered). Mastering would probably be handled as either class level abilities and/or feats. Again, learning spells would be with some sort of point system, either skills or a separate group. BTW, if you hadn't noticed, I'm also advocating spell seeds and augmentation as a way to allow for spellcasters to learn spell types, not necessarily just discrete spells. Spells are cast after determining basic components, including range, damage, effect, and difficulty of evading/resisting. Players can use pre-existing "recipies" to avoid on-the-fly math for every spell, but can still do a quick calculation if they want to add components as needed.