Vancian magic is the best, why replace it?

I can see some value in coming up with alternate magic systems to use alongside it, but no better system than Vancian has yet been made for TTRPGs. And it isn't for lack of trying.

Ars Magica is pretty good too.

Some sort of system of spell dice might work.

A wizard starts with a small number of dice.  As he levels up, he gets more dice and/or his dice get bigger.  He can spend an action to gather his magic (roll all his dice, or re-roll some of them).  He spends points from his dice to cast spells, with various restrictions (maybe a certain spell can only be cast using points from two dice).  If he completely uses up a die, he loses that die for the day.  Individual dice can have special powers.  Example1: a red d4, if used to cast a spell, makes that spell deal fire damage.  Example2: if all dice used to cast a spell are showing the same number, the spell is uncounterable.

DO NOT burn your AD&D books. First and foremost.

Give the casters their normal slots PLUS a number of spells equal to their bonus for their main ability. And allow them to cast those spells at-will. No spell preparation. They can just pick a spell and cast it X times daily.

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM

People cling to Vancian magic because they're brand loyalists and/or it's a tradition they can't let go of (for whatever reason).

I'd say it's more because it's like hp, which is convenient as a game mechanic but does weird, unrealistic things to the setting if you take its impact to the logical conclusions.  So if you care more about gameplay than experiencing the fictional world then it's great for you.

Alternately, there seem to be plenty of folks whose primary experience with fantasy is D&D and thus D&D as a setting their normal.  While I enjoy playing D&D, I feel the setting implied by the rules and included material is pretty meh.

QuoteVancian magic is the best, why replace it?

I can see some value in coming up with alternate magic systems to use alongside it, but no better system than Vancian has yet been made for TTRPGs. And it isn't for lack of trying.

Because it does not fit fiction we try to operate in.
Which means Vancian magic is only good for D&D settings where magic is Vancian in world. It's terrible for any TTRPG with specifically different form of magic. It would be utter shit for Mage the Ascencion. It would not fit with Warhammer. And so on.

QuoteWhat I find hard with replacing Vancian magic is how to handle the "alpha strike". This was a problem in (for example) 3E psionics, where a character could burn magic very quickly to achieve large effects. Some of this is present is 5E as well, with the jokes about perpetual long rests.

A) not allowing metamagic really, or making it's cost really high
B) adding consequences of failur - the larger the more powerful attempt was made

So sure you can umph your fireball to burn 500 acres of forest full of goblins, but a) it can explode your head b) you won't be able to do anything else without 12 hours of sleep

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
I don't think it even represents "Vancian magic" ala Dying Earth very well.

Well, it sort of did when it was only B/X level play, or the equivalent in the original.  When the pinnacle is fireball, and the wizard has only about 5 or 6 spells, it's not stretching Vancian too far for low-powered games where the books describe a caster being limited to 2-4 spells.  It's not an exact fit, but it is analogous.  The wizard can do some fight ending things a few times per day, then they are back to their normal resources.  The magic items take the place of the more powerful Vancian abilities through controlling magical creatures for effects.  Of course, this rapidly scales out of control when we are talking about 11th level wizards and the number of slots they have.  So it is still mostly game play oriented, with a nod to the source material. 

As to replacements, it depends on what source material one does want to emulate.  In my case, I'd rather a system be more Vancian than D&D instead of less, because I consider the Vance source material enticing and a better starting point for something that produces the game play that I want--not least of which is that "operational resource management" that is D&D at sufficiently early edition and low enough level.  So I went with making the basic magic less powerful, more restricted, and requiring it to take 2 or more actions to cast (usually).  Then I tacked back on some Vancian style as exceptions, which are kept rather narrow even for very powerful casters.  Thus, it's back to the caster being able to do amazing stuff 3 or 4 times per day, and more often if someone has his back while he gets the spell up and running.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 06:02:50 PM
Which means Vancian magic is only good for D&D settings where magic is Vancian in world. It's terrible for any TTRPG with specifically different form of magic. It would be utter shit for Mage the Ascencion. It would not fit with Warhammer. And so on.

I always thought Rolemaster's magic system would be good for Warhammer with the Lore as written

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 06:02:50 PM

QuoteWhat I find hard with replacing Vancian magic is how to handle the "alpha strike". This was a problem in (for example) 3E psionics, where a character could burn magic very quickly to achieve large effects. Some of this is present is 5E as well, with the jokes about perpetual long rests.

A) not allowing metamagic really, or making it's cost really high
B) adding consequences of failur - the larger the more powerful attempt was made

So sure you can umph your fireball to burn 500 acres of forest full of goblins, but a) it can explode your head b) you won't be able to do anything else without 12 hours of sleep

Yeah, no metamagic helps a lot on the D&D chassis. But it is a good mechanic for the second that is more elusive. GURPS had a magic system that I never got to play but which looked interesting for the second. I also liked the old Warhammer idea that there was a total pool of magic that was giant but also never refreshed, making a caster that used magic for every problem a "flame that burned brightly".

The objection to Vancian that it does not fit the world is, of course, all that is needed to end the discussion. If the mages in your world just don't work that way then obviously a different system makes sense.

I've been using spell points. Works reasonably well.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html

QuoteI always thought Rolemaster's magic system would be good for Warhammer with the Lore as written

Have no idea how Rolemaster works.
I'm gonna say I generally enjoy 2e and 4e magic systems, both risky attempts to harness chaos energies with lot of risk.
Wizard is not engineer like in old D&D but more like intimidation factor.

QuoteI also liked the old Warhammer idea that there was a total pool of magic that was giant but also never refreshed, making a caster that used magic for every problem a "flame that burned brightly".

I do not remember such mechanics.
In 1e of Warhammer you got spell points - roll 2d10 or 2d8 per level of Wizard, that was permanent pool, refreshing daily.
In 2e and 4e you can cast indefinitely but casting is risky, and you can hurt yourself. So yeah there is aspect of burning yourself down if you use magic too often (or with first spell in life if you were really unlucky)

Quote from: Zelen on November 19, 2023, 04:29:07 PM
Vancian magic is good at what it does, which is to front-load the decision-making process of choosing spells to a downtime/rest activity so that in a combat players aren't looking at 50 million options, and making the process of casting spells a matter of crossing off a list.

Personally I like a roll-to-cast system, but every roll adds time to the game. I also think it's okay if spellcasters aren't casting spells every single round. It seems like the general gamer mentality has grown to expect that spellcasters don't do anything unless it's with magical assistance, which is not my preferred fantasy.

It's funny, because my biggest problem with Vancian magic is precisely the complexity at higher levels. A mid-to-high level caster is faced with deciding among a dozen or more options at any point, and I find that it is intimidating for a newcomer.

I usually recommend that newbies *not* play spell-casters in D&D, because there's a huge amount of page-flipping and complexity involved in playing such a character. But that's off-putting for some players who are interested in a magical character, but don't like the complexity.

There are some RPG magic systems I enjoy, like RuneQuest, Ars Magica, HarnMaster, and others. But they also tend to have a lot of complexity for magicians.

For something like D&D, I'd prefer a spell-caster that has only 5-6 options at most. But those could be very powerful and repeated options. I don't have an ideal RPG for this. I think of mass-market RPG-like boardgames like Eldritch Horror, Gloomhaven, Castle Ravenloft, etc.  They have magician characters that are not harder to play than non-magic characters.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
Not everyone likes Vancian magic.  Slots and memorization in the morning, and forgetting them from your mind afterwards is a bit weird.

My first is the "Four-by-Five" Magic System for the Fudge RPG by Steffan O'Sullivan. It is an elegant system to conceptualize although it takes a bit to get used to in practice. The system uses a Verb-Noun approach to create and define Special Abilities. There are four Actions (the Verbs) and five Realms (the Nouns).

My second favorite is the Microlite20 system which just uses D&D 3.5 magic, but put a cost on using the magic instead of the slot, use and forget. In fact you can sort of create a Warlock by making one spell a 'favorite' which gives it a discount.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 07:56:29 PM

I do not remember such mechanics.
In 1e of Warhammer you got spell points - roll 2d10 or 2d8 per level of Wizard, that was permanent pool, refreshing daily.
In 2e and 4e you can cast indefinitely but casting is risky, and you can hurt yourself. So yeah there is aspect of burning yourself down if you use magic too often (or with first spell in life if you were really unlucky)

In Warhammer Mass Combat Roleplay, aka Warhammer Fantasy Battle First edtion wizards have a life energy level that is depleted by casting spells in addition to their basic magic points.  Using magic can kill you.

Quote from: jhkim on November 20, 2023, 08:27:48 PM
It's funny, because my biggest problem with Vancian magic is precisely the complexity at higher levels. A mid-to-high level caster is faced with deciding among a dozen or more options at any point, and I find that it is intimidating for a newcomer.

I usually recommend that newbies *not* play spell-casters in D&D, because there's a huge amount of page-flipping and complexity involved in playing such a character. But that's off-putting for some players who are interested in a magical character, but don't like the complexity.

This is a little dumbfounding to be honest. I mean, first, yeah, I agree on not having newbies play spellcasters. When I started playing D&D, the rule was newbies play human fighters. As you learn the rules and become comfortable with the game, you can try out some of the other options. One of the things that makes D&D newbie friendly is you can do this and cut way down on the rules frontload barrier to entry.

But another thing that I thought almost went without saying, don't have newbies play mid-to-high level characters. That's another thing that makes D&D newbie friendly. You start at 1st level with limited options. By the time you get to 4th level or 8th level, you probably have a pretty good grasp on how things work and the extra options aren't overwhelming.

One final point, though, to be an absolute rules dick, because in this case it goes to the heart of the matter, Technically in 1E a magic-user starts with 4 spells in their spellbook, which is more generous than the other old school editions, and the MU only gets to add one per level after that. So by 8th level you have 11 spells (or 9 if you're playing RC D&D). In addition to however many you learned along the way. And that's key. Because "however many you learned along the way" has absolutely nothing at all remotely to do with "Vancian magic."

And that's the point. Experiences may vary, house rules may vary, preferences may vary, blah blah blah, but your experiences don't count for anything if you can't separate how much of that is attributable to a particular system, or worse here, a broad category of system as "Vancian magic" if you can't keep separate account of how much of it is the type of system, versus specifics of the game, versus specifics of what you choose to play, how you choose to play, and who you choose to play with.

Vancian magic is the solution to the quadratic wizards and it speeds up game play.  A player being forced to select the spells they would cast for the day and the number of times they'd cast them and not being able to pick from a list does two things:

1st) Game play is greatly sped up by not waiting for a player to decide if they should cast spell A, or B .... Z, instead they have a short list, pick it and move on

2nd) Vancian magic limits the total abilities of a Wizard.  If they have two fireballs and they find an ice monster, do they cast one of them now or do they save it later for later on?  Make them pick and hurt at expending a resource.