Can we please keep Vancian casting out of D&D?

Long story short since I have to go to work right away: I've never understood the marriage between Vancian spellcasting and D&D. Vancian spellcasting is an antique. Something that doesn't lead itself to very cinematic or interactive gaming. A caster shouldn't just "forget" a spell in the middle of combat it's almost as nonsensical as running out of mana points and screaming "OOM". Ugh. In almost every aspect the AEDU system is better so I don't understand why WotC is backpedaling away from a system that worked to a system that never worked?

 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
No.

Think inclusive not exclusive.   Alienating half or more of the customer base would be a bad start for 5e.  Instead of saying "keep this out" why not say "make sure you provide this option too"

 
No.

Think inclusive not exclusive.   Alienating half or more of the customer base would be a bad start for 5e.  Instead of saying "keep this out" why not say "make sure you provide this option too"

 

Seconded. I agree
Because many players are used to it being the magic system of D&D.

I always found interesting that often, the same players who found absurd that martial characters could not be able to use the same powers all day long ( 4E ) also found it normal for the wizard to not be able to use the same powers all day long (other editions Vancian magic).
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
I guess my reply to that, Kyber, would be "opinions vary."  You think the AEDU system is better, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it appears to be the opinion of Wizards that it isn't.  At least in it's current state.  I doubt that the "powers that be" didn't sit around a table and arbitrarily decide to do away with AEDU, for no good reason.  I guess that there will be a module to the system that will allow for it, as what we have in our hands right now is only D&D Next in its infancy.  Patience is a virtue.  
If you don't want Vancian just House Rule it out. Here are my house rules on magic.

Casters do not need to re-memorize or prepare spells

They can choose any spell from their 30 power slots during the encounter as needed just as fighters choose feats and rogues choose skills as needed.

Casters cast their spells immediately during their turn.

If similar improved powers should appear in new published modules, characters can swap those powers at no cost.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

I'd re-title this to "Can we please make Vancan casting a module", but there's already a topic like that around here...
DDN will be a 40th 'anniversary' edition.  Little bits of nostalgia and legacy mechanics are sure to find a place in the game.  Vancian magic is a biggie though; with the exception of 4e, it's been around since  the beginning.  I'd be surprised if it were a module and not core.

It's the only legacy mechanic that I'm actually looking forward to seeing make a comeback.  I appreciate the AEDU power structure but when it comes to magic, Vancian just feels like D&D to me.

= = =

3e clarified things a bit.  Vancian casters don't 'memorize' spells, they 'prepare' them.  That is, a spell is prepared by casting all but the final bits ahead of time.  A caster can only put so many spells on 'hold' at a time.

When the spell is ready to be released, the final bits are cast.  To cast the spell again, it must be prepared (earlier), held (for a time), and released (later).  A cast spell isn't 'forgotten' exactly, it might be more accurately described as 'unavailable'.
/\ Art
No.

Think inclusive not exclusive.   Alienating half or more of the customer base would be a bad start for 5e.  Instead of saying "keep this out" why not say "make sure you provide this option too"

 



Because some options are contrary to the goals of the game.


The goals of your game, maybe.  What about the goals of my game?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Rolling back daily to an encounter would definitely help to break the fight/sleep/fight/sleep pattern.  May have to scale back the 'slots', though.
No.

Think inclusive not exclusive.   Alienating half or more of the customer base would be a bad start for 5e.  Instead of saying "keep this out" why not say "make sure you provide this option too"

 



Because some options are contrary to the goals of the game.



Perhaps contrary to your goals for the game but definitely not for my goals for the game.  And apparently not for the actual WOTC designers.   My goal is to have fun.  I have no other goals for a game.  Game design theory is nice if it adds to fun.  If not then it's not worth much to me.  4e was the ascension of a certain game theory, probably a group that thinks along your lines, that there is an objective standard for fun.  It turned out though to be not very fun for a lot of WOTC's customers.  WOTC has wisely I think decided to target some of those lost customers.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

You know, spells and rituals pretty much being one and the same does a lot to explain what is actually going on with vancian. Vancian is like casting a bunch of rituals at the start of the day and holding the power in you so you can release it at a moment's notice. Does that make more sense than "forgetting" a spell?
No.

Think inclusive not exclusive.   Alienating half or more of the customer base would be a bad start for 5e.  Instead of saying "keep this out" why not say "make sure you provide this option too"

 



Because some options are contrary to the goals of the game.

But what are the goals?  In 4e, the goals of the game included letting everyone play what they want without being overshadowed, and the means to that end was class balance.  Vancian casting was almost completely done away with because it's contrary to that goal.  

People hated that, they wanted the nostalgia of playing a magic-user or they just wanted a shot at powergaming up the most powerful character possible, and caster was the best first step in that process or whatever.  5e's goal is not balance, and it is, in part, catering to nostalgia and rewarding system mastery (since there are those who want either or both, and it wants to be 'inclusive.')   How its going to succeed at being inclusive when there are also those who want balance and playability remains to be seen. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

How its going to succeed at being inclusive when there are also those who want balance and playability remains to be seen.


Assumption in your post:  that because balanced Vancian casting has never been attempted, balanced Vancian casting is not possible.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There must be a way to design Vancian casting so that it's more balanced and playable than it was in the past.  There were issues, to be sure.  I just wonder if those issues are really as insurmountable as some people seem to believe.  

I'm just a hobbyist; couldn't design my way outta a paper bag ;).  For those who have the knack however, I'm curious to hear what you think.  Can it be done?  Or is Vancian casting a lost cause?
/\ Art
There must be a way to design Vancian casting so that it's more balanced and playable than it was in the past.  There were issues, to be sure.  I just wonder if those issues are really as insurmountable as some people seem to believe. 


People believe them because there has been no system that has done balanced Vancian casting.  However, what I continue to point out is that none of them even tried to be balanced.  So using them as the only examples of past history for asking the question of "can Vancian casting be balanced" is insufficient and inaccurate.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There must be a way to design Vancian casting so that it's more balanced and playable than it was in the past.  There were issues, to be sure.  I just wonder if those issues are really as insurmountable as some people seem to believe. 


People believe them because there has been no system that has done balanced Vancian casting.  However, what I continue to point out is that none of them even tried to be balanced.  So using them as the only examples of past history for asking the question of "can Vancian casting be balanced" is insufficient and inaccurate.



Nobody has tried to balance Vancian casting, ever? Hmm...

Not in any D&D edition, no.  I'm not familiar with the whole RPG market.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Long story short since I have to go to work right away: I've never understood the marriage between Vancian spellcasting and D&D. Vancian spellcasting is an antique. Something that doesn't lead itself to very cinematic or interactive gaming. A caster shouldn't just "forget" a spell in the middle of combat it's almost as nonsensical as running out of mana points and screaming "OOM". Ugh. In almost every aspect the AEDU system is better so I don't understand why WotC is backpedaling away from a system that worked to a system that never worked?

 



Ignoring the fact that as far as some people are concerned, AEDU didn't work, I think the answer is simple.

No, you can't keep Vancian magic out of Next.  If you read multiple design statements, you should be able to take it out if your group does not want it, but you won't be able to keep it out.  WoTC wants fans of all editions to be able to play a version of Next that they like, and that means Vancian magic must be in the game even if your group chooses not to use it. 
Jack Vance deserves your respect, it's Vancian, not "vancian." The goal for Next is to be inclusive; you can't include by exclusion.
DDN will be a 40th 'anniversary' edition.  Little bits of nostalgia and legacy mechanics are sure to find a place in the game.  Vancian magic is a biggie though; with the exception of 4e, it's been around since  the beginning.  I'd be surprised if it were a module and not core.

It's the only legacy mechanic that I'm actually looking forward to seeing make a comeback.  I appreciate the AEDU power structure but when it comes to magic, Vancian just feels like D&D to me.

= = =

3e clarified things a bit.  Vancian casters don't 'memorize' spells, they 'prepare' them.  That is, a spell is prepared by casting all but the final bits ahead of time.  A caster can only put so many spells on 'hold' at a time.

When the spell is ready to be released, the final bits are cast.  To cast the spell again, it must be prepared (earlier), held (for a time), and released (later).  A cast spell isn't 'forgotten' exactly, it might be more accurately described as 'unavailable'.



Hmm....

That holds interesting potential for spell cast out of combat. I imagine that a caster could sit there with his spell book open and go through the entire process of the spell, taking maybe 15 minutes (much longer than a combat) and throwing a fireball at a castle wall, even though it's not "prepared", but if it is prepared, he can just throw bat crap and say fire in backward latin, and a fireball shoots out. :P

Of course, I always houserule compenents away. I prefer the idea that casters are directly interacting with the magical energy of the universe, and manipulating it through will and formulaic ritual, to the whole component thing.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I know nobody cares, but my own personal problem with Vancian magic is that it is a theory of how magic should work and how wizards should work : prepared, memorized spells that are limited in use through the day, but maybe very powerful, level progression by having more spells by day.
It is, in a way  a setting choice - how magic works in a given world. So yes, include vancian magic in DDN if you want, but don't force all settings and wizards to use it.
In other words, if Vancian is not the way I envision magic, why should I care for a game based on it ? Or : if you want me to be interested in DDN, show me what other magic "theories" will be available.

Edit : in a way, that's also true for other aspects of the game, like how martial characters work. Fighters as normal people with a + to hit and damage, and nothing real else is also a setting component. And fighters with lot of tactical abilities also a theory of how martial things work in a given setting. And Wuxia fighters another one. It is probably why 5E classes will have a hard time managing to seduce everyone, as we don't all want to play with the same underlying theories of how these things work...
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
one thing that people seam to forget is that if balance is a serious consideration then you cant just say "its ok if you have X, or if X is blatedly useless/overpowered because it will be a modual" because in order for the game as a whole to be balanced all combinatios of things that could be at the same table must be balanced.

for example if the vadican wizard is overpowered, that effects the figher while means the fighter needs to be changed. if the at-will only wizard is underpowered then the fighter might be ok.

let us say that a party has both a fighter and a wizard, and the wizard using about a third of his powers each fight on the assumtion that 3 is the average number of encounters each day. let us also say that is 2-3 spells.
wizard spells are much more powerfull then the fighter's abilty to hit things with a sword (they have to be or the wizard is useless, given spells are limited and hiting with a sword is not). cantrips however are less powerfull then hiting things with a sword to compensave for having spells.

if this is the case then in encounters 1-3 of each day the wizard with outshine the fighter, EVERY DAY. however in encounter 4+ the wizard would be of little use.

this is bad design, trading off who is usefull is bad design when a way is open to make everyone usefull all the time. and in practice the wizard with be usefull far more often then the fighter.

Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
balanced is overrated.


what one thinks is blancing another thinks it is screwing with soemthing that didnt need fixed  
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Let's look at some of AEDU for a minute and see if it makes any more sense than vancian. 

1. Why do you get Daily spells only once per day? Isn't that the same as vancian magic only being cast once per day? Actually, in vancian magic you could prepare the same spell multiple times and thus do them more than once per day.
2. Why do casters lose the ability to cast an encounter power during an encounter, but can go right to another encounter mere seconds later and suddenly know the spell again? That somehow makes sense?

My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
balanced is overrated.


what one thinks is blancing another thinks it is screwing with soemthing that didnt need fixed  




Yes!  It's all subjective viewpoints, which is why DDN must be inclusive!  This way, all these viewpoints are valid.  So, keep Vancian, AEDU, Spell points, etc!  Also, balance is a tough issue that means a lot of things to different people.  My take on balance is very different from another's take.  There's also an inherent danger from focusing too much on balance and subtracting from other aspects as a result.

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
Let's look at some of AEDU for a minute and see if it makes any more sense than vancian. 

1. Why do you get Daily spells only once per day? Isn't that the same as vancian magic only being cast once per day? Actually, in vancian magic you could prepare the same spell multiple times and thus do them more than once per day.
2. Why do casters lose the ability to cast an encounter power during an encounter, but can go right to another encounter mere seconds later and suddenly know the spell again? That somehow makes sense?



Never said Dailies were a good idea either - AEDU was a Vancian-light system (showing, with the critics about how martial characters were absurdly unable to do what they know all day, exactly what many Vancian-haters always thought about wizards).
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
balanced is overrated.


what one thinks is blancing another thinks it is screwing with soemthing that didnt need fixed  




the main problem for WOTC if they ignore balance is that a very large number of people who play 4th will not buy anything for 5th if they do not have the game balanced. (me for one)

a game that is not balanced also hurts RP alot, it grates alot of people alot to play a adverturer that is not needed on the adventure. if my ranger does not help the party then why is he there? why does the party not drop me of at the nearest town and say "ya we like you, but your just a ranger at best you are useless, at worse a drain of resources"

why would anyone hire me for anyting but routine stuff? I cant hope to fight anyone with spells.

balance also tends to give everyone interesting choices both in combat and during character creation, if you like a tatical charcter you are not restricted to casters.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Include it, and other casting systems. I won't try to keep the things you want out of the game, why not do me the same courtesy?
Let's look at some of AEDU for a minute and see if it makes any more sense than vancian. 

1. Why do you get Daily spells only once per day? Isn't that the same as vancian magic only being cast once per day? Actually, in vancian magic you could prepare the same spell multiple times and thus do them more than once per day.
2. Why do casters lose the ability to cast an encounter power during an encounter, but can go right to another encounter mere seconds later and suddenly know the spell again? That somehow makes sense?



Never said Dailies were a good idea either - AEDU was a Vancian-light system (showing, with the critics about how martial characters were absurdly unable to do what they know all day, exactly what many Vancian-haters always thought about wizards).



I think the purpose of the AEDU system is that it simply takes more energy and a greater strain on the wizard to cast more powerful spells and so they broke it down to various levels of use. Not that I agree with this system, but that"s how I think it was intended.

My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
Long story short since I have to go to work right away: I've never understood the marriage between Vancian spellcasting and D&D. Vancian spellcasting is an antique. Something that doesn't lead itself to very cinematic or interactive gaming. A caster shouldn't just "forget" a spell in the middle of combat it's almost as nonsensical as running out of mana points and screaming "OOM". Ugh. In almost every aspect the AEDU system is better so I don't understand why WotC is backpedaling away from a system that worked to a system that never worked?

 


I get that you don't like the flavor imposed by vancian casting mechanics.  I understand that because I don't care for it either.  However, is there any good reason why vancian shouldn't be available for those who want to use it?  I can't think of a single good reason to answer that question.  That's why I've been advocating that DDN needs interchangeable magic subsystems.  If you don't like vancian, you shouldn't be forced to use it just because you want to play a wizard.  You should have at least one option, at the launch of DDN, for swapping it out for another subsystem.  The same is true of psions.  If you don't like point-based, you should be able to swap it out.  This is a place where the highly-touted modularity of DDN can shine like a supernova.  No one should be forced to use a casting subsystem they don't like just because it's been made the default one for the class.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Include it, and other casting systems. I won't try to keep the things you want out of the game, why not do me the same courtesy?



because you cant have a half balaned system, either it is or is not. having a vadican wizard will probably  mean my fighter and ranger can't contribute then that means I will not be having fun during the game

it means that anyone who wants to contribute must play one of a limited number of classes (say 3-4 out of 10) and sence they are all casters they play in a similar fashion. and if I dont like that style I cant play the game.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Long story short since I have to go to work right away: I've never understood the marriage between Vancian spellcasting and D&D. Vancian spellcasting is an antique. Something that doesn't lead itself to very cinematic or interactive gaming. A caster shouldn't just "forget" a spell in the middle of combat it's almost as nonsensical as running out of mana points and screaming "OOM". Ugh. In almost every aspect the AEDU system is better so I don't understand why WotC is backpedaling away from a system that worked to a system that never worked?

 


I get that you don't like the flavor imposed by vancian casting mechanics.  I understand that because I don't care for it either.  However, is there any good reason why vancian shouldn't be available for those who want to use it?  I can't think of a single good reason to answer that question.  That's why I've been advocating that DDN needs interchangeable magic subsystems.  If you don't like vancian, you shouldn't be forced to use it just because you want to play a wizard.  You should have at least one option, at the launch of DDN, for swapping it out for another subsystem.  The same is true of psions.  If you don't like point-based, you should be able to swap it out.  This is a place where the highly-touted modularity of DDN can shine like a supernova.  No one should be forced to use a casting subsystem they don't like just because it's been made the default one for the class.



I think there is a fundamental problem with having vancian and non-vancian styles as both optional that no one is thinking of. Maybe no on else here remembers, but spells that went from vancian style to AEDU were changed significantly to reflect the different methods. If both system were to be supported then you'd need to also have completely separate spell descriptions/capabilities as well. Particularly, a lot of ending conditions were added such as Save Ends or lasts until the end of your next turn, etc. If you can use the spells more often then they can't be the same power level.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
@captpike: Vancian casting is not inherently unbalanced. Vancian casting simply means you memorize a spell and then when you cast it, it's gone till you memorize it again. That's all it means.
It doesn't mean spells increase in power per level, doesn't mean you automatically get access to every spell, doesn't mean the spells are individually super-powerful, doesn't mean there's a spell for every situation.
Not in any D&D edition, no.  I'm not familiar with the whole RPG market.

There's probably a good reason why the only notable non-D&D videogame to attempt a Vancian system (Final Fantasy) abandoned the concept after the first one.
Even the remakes of FF1 use a simple 'MP' system.

Chrono Cross used a system that is at least semi-similar, though it had a different resource mechanic in that in addition to the prepared slots that were consumed on use, you had to engage in physical attacks in order to power the spells.  But it's not as if the concept hasn't ever happened in any other context.  In fact, much of the depth of the combat system is the core of the Vancian aspect:  preparation, planning, and then strategic use during the fight.  Running out of spells was a real, meaningful issue.  Each slot was meaningful, and there were multiple choices to make, whether a variety of attack powers coded to six different colors (with enemies strong/weak against color pairs), or with a number of buff/debuff effects that still competed for those precious slots with the attack spells.  Overall it is quite easily my favorite videogame RPG resource system to date, especially once you consider the requirement to use physical attacks in addition to the spells for all characters.

I'm just less familiar with other tabletop RPGs than I am with videogame RPGs, so I didn't want to make a broader statement than I knew.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
@captpike: Vancian casting is not inherently unbalanced. Vancian casting simply means you memorize a spell and then when you cast it, it's gone till you memorize it again. That's all it means.
It doesn't mean spells increase in power per level, doesn't mean you automatically get access to every spell, doesn't mean the spells are individually super-powerful, doesn't mean there's a spell for every situation.



the problems with vadican, no matter how it is used in detail are

1) you can blow your load whenever you want.

2) they are limted resources that means they must be better (at least on average) then what everone else can do at will

this means that you can only have balance vs say a figher who can only do things at will for a given number of spells per encounter. once past that number you start to pass the fighter, and if you have enough/the day is short enough you will always have that number.

any class that can only do things at will can easily become very boring because every turn you do the same thing in the same (there are ways to avoid this but it is hard to do)
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
the problems with vadican, no matter how it is used in detail are

1) you can blow your load whenever you want.


.....

You've got to be kidding.  Do you realize how ridiculous these two statements are?  How contradictory they are?

Here's a question.  What happens if part of the 'detail' that you say is 'no matter' includes "you can't blow your load whenever you want"?

All of the concern and alleged impossibility of a balanced Vancian system is based on assumption and conjecture.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It would be easy enough to say that casting multiple memorized spells in quick succession gives you brain damage (or causes the spells to interact in dangerous ways, or whatever). How often and how quickly you cast the spells you memorized isn't a characteristic of Vancian casting. Only the fact that you memorized and then forgot the spells is fundamental to the system.
Long story short since I have to go to work right away: I've never understood the marriage between Vancian spellcasting and D&D. Vancian spellcasting is an antique. Something that doesn't lead itself to very cinematic or interactive gaming. A caster shouldn't just "forget" a spell in the middle of combat it's almost as nonsensical as running out of mana points and screaming "OOM". Ugh. In almost every aspect the AEDU system is better so I don't understand why WotC is backpedaling away from a system that worked to a system that never worked?

 


I get that you don't like the flavor imposed by vancian casting mechanics.  I understand that because I don't care for it either.  However, is there any good reason why vancian shouldn't be available for those who want to use it?  I can't think of a single good reason to answer that question.  That's why I've been advocating that DDN needs interchangeable magic subsystems.  If you don't like vancian, you shouldn't be forced to use it just because you want to play a wizard.  You should have at least one option, at the launch of DDN, for swapping it out for another subsystem.  The same is true of psions.  If you don't like point-based, you should be able to swap it out.  This is a place where the highly-touted modularity of DDN can shine like a supernova.  No one should be forced to use a casting subsystem they don't like just because it's been made the default one for the class.



I think there is a fundamental problem with having vancian and non-vancian styles as both optional that no one is thinking of. Maybe no on else here remembers, but spells that went from vancian style to AEDU were changed significantly to reflect the different methods. If both system were to be supported then you'd need to also have completely separate spell descriptions/capabilities as well. Particularly, a lot of ending conditions were added such as Save Ends or lasts until the end of your next turn, etc. If you can use the spells more often then they can't be the same power level.


I'm very aware that differences between the two exist, but I think you're overstating them.  You say that spells will have to do different damages if you can do them more often.  Why are you assuming that you can do them more often than vancian-style casters?  In an AEDU DDN wizard, fireball could begin as a daily at 5th level (assuming it's still a 3rd level spell, and that access to such still happens at 5th level), then become an encounter power after 6 or more additional levels (I'm not stating that as a solid number, just a guesstimate).  Can you give me a specific example of a spell that was massively changed when it was adapted from 3e to 4e?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

the problems with vadican, no matter how it is used in detail are

1) you can blow your load whenever you want.


.....

You've got to be kidding.  Do you realize how ridiculous these two statements are?  How contradictory they are?

Here's a question.  What happens if part of the 'detail' that you say is 'no matter' includes "you can't blow your load whenever you want"?

All of the concern and alleged impossibility of a balanced Vancian system is based on assumption and conjecture.



even if there was a two spell per fight maximum, that could in no way be passed it would still mean that for two turns you are doing something blatented better then the fighter can ever hope to do. and the first two turns are worth more then the following 4 most of the time.

if would have to be something like you can only cast a spell (with absolutly no way around this limitation) once every three rounds, and I doubt they are going to limit wizards that much




Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )

I think there is a fundamental problem with having vancian and non-vancian styles as both optional that no one is thinking of. Maybe no on else here remembers, but spells that went from vancian style to AEDU were changed significantly to reflect the different methods. If both system were to be supported then you'd need to also have completely separate spell descriptions/capabilities as well. Particularly, a lot of ending conditions were added such as Save Ends or lasts until the end of your next turn, etc. If you can use the spells more often then they can't be the same power level.


I think it's why it would be very important to test as soon as possible alternatives to Vancian spellcasting, while trying to keep the same spells. "mana points" with the cost of spells based on their level, "potential magic" where you slowly build during the fight the energy for the spell, "circumstancial magic" using magic nodes and environment or events, etc. Or each magic system will have to be a module with its own rules AND spells and very difficult to "cross-breed". This will probably be the solution they choose, as building autonomous closed magic systems will be easier. Anyway they will have to chose what is in the core rules, and what is not - it will probably be Vancian, as it is the traditioal D&D magic system. And this may cause problems with potential customers, as would any other choice. This is the weak point of "modular" - you have to begin somewhere, and need time for options, and so the first customers you can seduce are just a part of who you aim for, and maybe the only one who will give you the time to reach them...
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
Sign In to post comments