|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:10AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
When I played old D&D video games, I pretty much followed the vancian system. And how did I beat the restrictions? I found a way to have the party take an extended rest all the time so I could rememorize the spells for every encounter. That is how I beat the game, with full hit points and full daily spells.
When I play D&D at the table, I usually DM. I've been DM'ing games since the early 80s. I started with the blue box. Nobody followed vancian correctly in all the games I have DM'd in Germany, Japan, all over the U.S. Vancian sucks. Nobody really follows it. They forget to keep track of the spells they use (probably intentionally). Nobody had a correct understanding. And, I pretty much let them fire off spells they knew at-will. This really made the game fun and simple.
So let's just make 5E according to how people are really playing it.
So do away with vancian and make all the powers at-will.
If charm person is too powerful, then give many chances to save and break the charm.
If area spells do too much damage to targets within the area, then divide a set amount of damage among all hit targets.
Vancian magic sucks. It isn't how most fantasy magic works anyway. Nobody forgets magic and has to rememorize it every day. Harry Potter doesn't.
kira3696.tripod.com
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:13AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
|
just because you played it that way doesn't mean we all do. Nevered liked Vancian magis myself but a pretty wild assumption you make...
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:15AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2010
|
Yeah... Never been in a group that ignored the spell limits. That would be the same as lying about what you rolled, to us.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:17AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
just because you played it that way doesn't mean we all do. Nevered liked Vancian magis myself but a pretty wild assumption you make...
I also watch a lot of people play dungeons and dragons and I watch them all cheat. You're all in denial about spell limits.
If you do follow spell limits then you allow too many extended rests even though they aren't warranted. Am I right? I'm not assuming.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:21AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
When I played old D&D video games, I pretty much followed the vancian system. And how did I beat the restrictions? I found a way to have the party take an extended rest all the time so I could rememorize the spells for every encounter. That is how I beat the game, with full hit points and full daily spells.
When I play D&D at the table, I usually DM. I've been DM'ing games since the early 80s. I started with the blue box. Nobody followed vancian correctly in all the games I have DM'd in Germany, Japan, all over the U.S. Vancian sucks. Nobody really follows it. They forget to keep track of the spells they use (probably intentionally). Nobody had a correct understanding. And, I pretty much let them fire off spells they knew at-will. This really made the game fun and simple.
So let's just make 5E according to how people are really playing it.
You assume that your experiences are indicative of the norm. My experiences, on the other hand, indicate the opposite. I've never had problems with player misunderstanding how Vancian magic works. Now, I'm not opposed to systems which make the game easier to learn (and harder to cheat at), but I think that starting with such assumptions isn't helpful to the overall design goal.
Let's be honest. Most encounters have monsters that are a good few actual levels lower than the party. If they were equal level or higher, I as a DM of 30 years, with all the combat strategy I know and all the tricks, could easily kill the party.
This is not strictly true, or even generally true. Most of the creatures in my game, for example, are equal or higher level than the party (and indeed, I've found that using creatures of lower level than the party to be largely ineffectual).
So do away with vancian and make all the powers at-will.
If charm person is too powerful, then give many chances to save and break the charm.
If area spells do too much damage to targets within the area, then divide a set amount of damage among all hit targets.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but it would require a complete overhaul of the magic system, and would be counter to the design principals given by the designers; that being to make a version of D&D that is remminicent of all previous versions. Like it or no, Vancian magic is an iconic part of D&D for many people, and if D&D Next didn't have it, it would kill the brand due to further fracturing the fan-base.
No one wants Vancian magic (including daily- and encounter-based abilities) expelled from D&D more than me, but it's simply not going to happen. At least, not this time around. Maybe in 6E, if we're lucky.
Vancian magic sucks. It isn't how most fantasy magic works anyway. Nobody forgets magic and has to rememorize it every day. Harry Potter doesn't.
I agree that Vancian magic has many, many faults, particularly with regards narrative elements. It's also true that it's not "how most fantasy magic works," but that argument is irrelevant to game design. I wouldn't take Harry Potter as the defining fantasy wizard character, though.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:21AM
#6
|
|
|
The "Vancian Sucks" argument was lost months ago. Trying to argue against Vancian Casters now is a waste of effort.
[edited for clarity.]
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:27AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
I also watch a lot of people play dungeons and dragons and I watch them all cheat. You're all in denial about spell limits.
If you do follow spell limits then you allow too many extended rests even though they aren't warranted. Am I right? I'm not assuming.
You know you're going to get destroyed for stating a basic truth here, right? Just about every pre-4e game I've ever played has had at least one caster that, for whatever reason, felt it was their right to pick spells on the fly, swap out levels of spells for other levels or spells, or just add whatever he wanted to his spellbook. Usually it was with the DM's approval too. But it just exacerbated the whole Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit syndrome.
On the other hand, people ignoring spell limits, acquisition of new spell rules and having silly amounts of rests isn't the fault of the game itself. But if the majority of folks (as has been my experience too) tends to bend or ignore these rules consistently, maybe that does say something about the rules ... the fact that so many people bend them or don't use them tells you something about how fun they are.
So if I play Next I will use the first module I can that dumps Vancian casting. If that's not a possibility within the rules I really don't want to play it much.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:29AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Oh, look...another "One true way", "anyone who says differently is lying" thread.
And we wonder why these boards are in the shape they're in....
The 2 core goals of DDN:
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
- Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:31AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Vancian magic needs to be a module, not the core. Just like alignment mechanics; it's a relic of the past that's already been superceded by a better system. The core should be something that works better, like AEDU with rituals. Then everyone gets what they want because if you still like clunky stuff like Vancian and alignment mechanics you can still have it but the rest of us won't be forced to include it because a minority of a minority wants it because ... tradition.
Time to dump Vancian and move forward to the Next good thing.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 10:32AM
#10
|
|
|
Just to step in. Everyone does remember that the current spellcasting system is much more flexible than traditional vancian right? In fact, it's more flexible than sorcerers were in 3.5 :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
