Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM
Especially, I dislike the concept of wizard as limited-ammo artillery, which I feel comes more from modern-era wargaming than the inspirational fantasy fiction. Gandalf isn't artillery - he'll throw burning pine cones repeatedly, or fight with a sword most of the time. I think a good model for replacement is the Warlock, as Chris24601 cited earlier.

Honestly I think trying to recreate a character like Gandalf in a roleplaying game is futile, since his magic is so ill-defined and the way he uses it dictated is by plot needs, rather than a gamer trying to maximize his power in every situation.

Setting genre emulation aside, a wizard whose primary job is just to repeatedly zap people with magic is a pretty dull character.  (...)  I prefer the wizard as a utility caster to the wizard-as-blaster. I'd like to see more games experiment with stripping out direct-attack spells entirely, kind of like LOTFP does.

Fair enough about Gandalf. I've only played a brief one-shot of LOTFP - can you say more about what casters are like?

I will say, your description of zapping sounds very different than my experience of the Warlock class. The Warlocks that I've seen are most often scryers and tricksters, especially using their invisible familiar and Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. Yes, they also can contribute in combat by zapping people, but that isn't their primary function. Having an invisible flying familiar makes a huge different outside of combat, as they scout and spy and take tiny actions to mess with the enemy. Then the disguise and illusions start up. I recall my GM at a convention game being rather flummoxed when my bard and my son's warlock rushed into a fight each disguised as an ally of opposing sides. Having Disguise Self at-will is a huge difference from it being a slotted spell, because then it's a go-to tactic rather than having to decide whether to use a slot for Disguise Self or for Burning Hands.

A common problem I've seen with a limited-ammo wizard as a utility caster is that given life-threatening combat, the player will often save their slots or points for crucial combat-useful spells rather than utility spells like Detect Magic, Speak With Animals or Disguise Self.

---

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM
I think one could easily do other flavors of magician by a similar means. A Gandalf-like wizard, a nature magician, a priest, etc. I could easily make something that works for me and my games, but I don't think I have a good enough handle on what D&D players expect in terms of balance to make something that other people would use.

IIRC, 3.5 did some yeoman's work with a lot of their half-caster classes. The Duskblade is one of my favorite iterations of the "spellsword" archetype in D&D, and I remember really liking the Beguiler as well. The wizard spy/assassin is one of my favorite high fantasy archetypes, and it tends to be underserved in a lot of roleplaying games.

I never played 3.5, but the half-casters that I'm familiar with were tied to the Vancian spell slot system, as opposed to the Warlock that uses primarily at-will cantrips and invocations. Is there anything about the Duskblade that lends itself to a non-Vancian system, do you think?

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM
I prefer the wizard as a utility caster to the wizard-as-blaster. I'd like to see more games experiment with stripping out direct-attack spells entirely, kind of like LOTFP does. If a wizard has to have combat spells, it ought to be things that alter the battlefield or inflict negative effects on the enemies, but I'd rather see wizard players more encouraged to use their magic for exploration/roleplay/puzzle-solving.   

Yes, I'm aware that you can play a wizard that way in pretty much any edition of D&D, but my experience has been that almost no one does, which suggests to me that the systems in place do not encourage it. I'm also generally the guy that will argue that you're better off accepting D&D for what it is, and if you want something else, play a different game. I wouldn't really suggest what I'm talking about here as a quick fix. You could achieve it within the D&D framework, but I suspect it would take something close to a ground-up rebuild of the system.

Yep. That matches my goals for magic.  Kept bits of Vancian magic.  Changed the ability scores almost completely, tossed all the spells and wrote my own (and kept them limited), and changed how the power creep of spells works.  Also gave the casters more skills and weapon ability to compensate.  "Ground-up rebuild of the system" to the point that it isn't D&D at all anymore, just something that gives an experience akin to what B/X gives (and AD&D 1E can give if you actually play close to the rules). 

Now, given my goals are not what the OP is asking for, that kind of sounds extreme.  However, the relevant bit of my experience is that if you are looking to simply replace Vancian magic and keep all the spells and other class abilities the same, it isn't going to work well.  It might work well enough for certain GM's nudging things the way they want with understanding players, and a few key house rules.  But if you really want it to "work" for a wider audience, it automatically means at the very least pruning and grafting and in some case wholesale digging out in the current set of spells.  You also need very much to decide if magic is "Vancian" in the stylistic sense (not mechanical D&D sense) or not.  Can wizard do conflict ending things with magic or not, and if so, what are the limits on it?  There's no point in even trying to replace Vancian magic or bolting to another system until that question at least has a working hypothesis.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM
Yes, I'm aware that you can play a wizard that way in pretty much any edition of D&D, but my experience has been that almost no one does, which suggests to me that the systems in place do not encourage it.

That's a pretty big leap. In my experience, wizard-as-blaster is almost always the choice in *every* system that provides such a choice. My own homebrew systems actively discourage direct attack spells (mathematically), yet those spells are still what the players select.

Random starting spell selection could force the issue.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 23, 2023, 10:02:24 AM
Yup.  Too much overthinking and not enough games name dropped to check out. 

Guilty, but I haven't loved the published alternatives that much and have homebrewed my own for years.

In my current system, wizards know a small number of spells. They can cast any spell at any time, roll to *attack*, and casting carries an HP cost. The total spell casting bonus can be applied to the attack roll, number of targets, spell duration, etc. to shape the spell as desired.

My previous system, which I may like better, was daemon magic: rather than "learning spells", wizards "bind daemons" to themselves. Each daemon empowers a single spell effect. The daemons sleep most of the time, but can be awakened once/day. (Thus, like the scroll idea, in order to have "3 fireballs", you would need to be bound to 3 "fireball daemons".)

I think I like the second better because it keeps what I do like about Vancian magic: *qualitative* resource management, rather than *quantitative*. The choice between casting Fly or Teleport is much more interesting to me than the choice to spend 2 points or 3.

One thing of possible note: I'm not a fan of spell *levels*, and have done away with them in both systems. Some spells are more powerful than others, and that's fine. (In fact for me it's more than fine, because I think it enhances the mythic feel of magic in the world). In my first system above, which is essentially pure mana, having no spell levels is balanced by the fact that the same spell is more effective in the hands of a higher level wizard. In the second system, it is balanced by availability, which is entirely controlled by the DM since there's no way to "create" or "learn" spells from scratch.

In D&D I'm liking ACKS' spell repertoire. A pool of "memorized" spells (really, the ones you're keeping up on both in memory and in ritual/taboo observance), that you can cast freely out of. But the repertoire is smaller than all spells and usually smaller than all you know. So you're still making choices about what to prepare, but the less powerful utility and hyper-specialized spells end up getting cast more often because you can have them in your repertoire alongside Sleep and Fireball without risking you'll never get to cast that slot.

Separately, I haven't yet but still would like to do something with full, true Vancian/Blackmoor campaign/Face in the Frost style casting, where a prepared spell might be per adventure rather than per day. In Vance's Dying Earth spells were all much more powerful, but an adventurer might set out with only a few crammed in his head total, and only refresh them with study during downtime. In The Face in the Frost the protagonist drops some major spells when he needs them, but never repeats one, and often loses the physical focus - in one instance he sacrifices a particular card from his tarot deck to destroy a bridge, but then comments he's not getting that off again. And in Blackmoor it seems that spells were per adventure, that they might have implied physical components as well, but that was quickly de-emphasized as the game progressed.

I even speculate there could have been a brief period where scroll use, potion use and mages' spell casting all had more thematic overlap than they quickly separated into. But I'm reading that in, I have no firm evidence, and it was dropped very quickly if it ever was there.

But I do think a game where spells were more powerful still but much more limited, one per adventure, could be interesting. Not sure I'd do it in D&D, though if I did mages would need a little boost, a few more hit points and weapon proficiencies to make them more Adventurers with a back up than counting on casting spells every round.

Quote from: jhkim on November 24, 2023, 02:30:23 AM
Fair enough about Gandalf. I've only played a brief one-shot of LOTFP - can you say more about what casters are like?

It's essentially just the standard OSR spell system/list, but Raggi stripped out all of the blasting spells. So no fireball, lightning bolt, flaming sphere, etc. Looking at the spell list now, and the only spells I see that directly hurt the target are Magic Missile, Cloudkill, Disintegrate, and Power Word Kill. I haven't played the game extensively either, but from what I've seen it goes some distance towards encouraging wizards to be a bit more creative in combat.

Quote from: jhkim on November 24, 2023, 02:30:23 AM
I will say, your description of zapping sounds very different than my experience of the Warlock class. The Warlocks that I've seen are most often scryers and tricksters, especially using their invisible familiar and Mask of Many Faces and Misty Visions. Yes, they also can contribute in combat by zapping people, but that isn't their primary function. Having an invisible flying familiar makes a huge different outside of combat, as they scout and spy and take tiny actions to mess with the enemy. Then the disguise and illusions start up. I recall my GM at a convention game being rather flummoxed when my bard and my son's warlock rushed into a fight each disguised as an ally of opposing sides. Having Disguise Self at-will is a huge difference from it being a slotted spell, because then it's a go-to tactic rather than having to decide whether to use a slot for Disguise Self or for Burning Hands.

Agreed. The 5e Warlock can be the a ton of fun to play, especially if you go the "arcane con man" route. So much so that having so many optional class features devoted to improving Eldritch Blast strikes me as unnecessary, if not a bit of a trap which can trick a player into making the class less fun to play.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM
A common problem I've seen with a limited-ammo wizard as a utility caster is that given life-threatening combat, the player will often save their slots or points for crucial combat-useful spells rather than utility spells like Detect Magic, Speak With Animals or Disguise Self.

Again, I completely agree. That's actually my biggest dislike for the Vancian system. Having to prepare your spells in advance encourages players to opt for the most broadly useful spells, which usually means mostly combat spells and a few common utility spells like Dispel Magic and Fly. When a situation arises that would make use of one of the more interesting or specialized spells, they probably won't have it prepared. 

Quote from: jhkim on November 24, 2023, 02:30:23 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM
IIRC, 3.5 did some yeoman's work with a lot of their half-caster classes. The Duskblade is one of my favorite iterations of the "spellsword" archetype in D&D, and I remember really liking the Beguiler as well. The wizard spy/assassin is one of my favorite high fantasy archetypes, and it tends to be underserved in a lot of roleplaying games.

I never played 3.5, but the half-casters that I'm familiar with were tied to the Vancian spell slot system, as opposed to the Warlock that uses primarily at-will cantrips and invocations. Is there anything about the Duskblade that lends itself to a non-Vancian system, do you think?

The Duskblade is still tied to 3.5's version of the Vancian system. What I like about it, relative to some other iterations of the gish archetype, is that it gets the full martial attack progression, a decent spell list, decent spell progression (it ultimately gets up to 5th level spells), and the ability to cast spells while wearing progressively better armor as you level. Meanwhile, it still doesn't make either the fighter or the wizard obsolete in their own roles. It does arguably make the Ranger and the Paladin obsolete, but that's because both those classes were terrible in 3.5.

The Beguiler is probably closer to what you're talking about. It doesn't have to prepare spells (much like the 3.5 sorcerer), but unlike the Sorcerer, it also doesn't have a "spells known" table. You still have spell slots, but can use them to cast any spell on the class' spell list. They also get a d6 hit die some weapon/armor proficiencies above the usual wizard ones, plus some class features trying to make a sneak attack feature specific to spells. It's not perfect; it could probably use a better attack progression and the magic sneak attack features need more work, but it's a step in the right direction.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 24, 2023, 05:32:29 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 12:08:18 AM
I prefer the wizard as a utility caster to the wizard-as-blaster. I'd like to see more games experiment with stripping out direct-attack spells entirely .......  You could achieve it within the D&D framework, but I suspect it would take something close to a ground-up rebuild of the system.

Yep. That matches my goals for magic.  Kept bits of Vancian magic.  Changed the ability scores almost completely, tossed all the spells and wrote my own (and kept them limited), and changed how the power creep of spells works.  Also gave the casters more skills and weapon ability to compensate.  "Ground-up rebuild of the system" to the point that it isn't D&D at all anymore, just something that gives an experience akin to what B/X gives (and AD&D 1E can give if you actually play close to the rules). 

That's pretty close to exactly how I'd go about doing it. Particularly the bit about giving the casters a bit more non-magic capabilities. That's the piece I think most people miss. Personally I don't think any class should be a one-trick pony, but wizards especially suffer from it. Putting all these severe limitations on spellcasting falls flat if you make wizards also not be useful at anything else. I don't suppose you've published that system?

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 24, 2023, 07:25:00 PM
That's pretty close to exactly how I'd go about doing it. Particularly the bit about giving the casters a bit more non-magic capabilities. That's the piece I think most people miss. Personally I don't think any class should be a one-trick pony, but wizards especially suffer from it. Putting all these severe limitations on spellcasting falls flat if you make wizards also not be useful at anything else. I don't suppose you've published that system?

It's in alpha testing still.  Character mechanics and magic are falling into line, but I still need to write a coherent draft of the rules.  Right now, they are scatted all over multiple documents and reference sheets.  Then I need to about double the number of creatures in my bestiary.

Back in the (thankfully limited) time in which I was playing AD&D (greater gamers, terrible game) their solution struck me as a simple and elegant way to recreate the premise of "magic points". Simply take the sum of the levels of the spells that you can cast, and that's the total number of "level points" that you have to cast spells in a given day. So you can cast that Level 1 spell nine times, or that Level 9 spell one time. Mix and match to your preference.

Not sure how it looks now since I ditched all the AD&D books more than three decades ago.

As Earthdawn is often described as "D&D done right", you could always take a gander at that. In the setting, to prevent the taint of astral space from effecting you, spellcasters put spells in "spell matrices" that allow cleansed mana to power the spell (evocative of the Metamagic, "Cleansing", from Shadowrun). Thus, the limit on the number of spells that you can cast is the number of spell matrices that you acquire, which varies as a function of Discipline (class) and Circle (level).

You can switch and swap which spells you have in a matrix (taking an hour-or-so, IIRC). This means that it's more of a limit on which spells you have available per encounter and not how many you can cast in a given day (you can keep on casting a spell in a matrix as many times as you want).

On the other hand, you can also cast magic "raw" (without a matrix), but risk that aforementioned taint of corruption. Above and beyond that, certain objects can be imbued with additional spell matrices and you can cast from grimoires.

Most of the stuff from Earthdawn pretty much "fixes" what is otherwise, for me at least, a terrible magic system from AD&D (be it true Vancian or otherwise).

Of course, there are other problems with Earthdawn, including screwing the pooch a little bit on the difference between spells and Talents (minor+ superpowers for PCs) that introduces "half magic", which amounts to a variation of a professional skill (stuff you can do "for free" as part of your magical Discipline). So six of one and half dozen of t'other.

The "problems" with Earthdawn magic is the other reason that I'm using GURPS for it.

Quote from: Kage2020 on November 25, 2023, 02:19:00 PM
Back in the (thankfully limited) time in which I was playing AD&D (greater gamers, terrible game) their solution struck me as a simple and elegant way to recreate the premise of "magic points". Simply take the sum of the levels of the spells that you can cast, and that's the total number of "level points" that you have to cast spells in a given day. So you can cast that Level 1 spell nine times, or that Level 9 spell one time. Mix and match to your preference.

Not sure how it looks now since I ditched all the AD&D books more than three decades ago.

I used a similar idea when calculating spell points (link above) - but I gave fewer SP* AND I still think there are too many.

(* E.g., 1-2-4-6-9-12-16-20-25-30 etc.)

The main issue is fireballs - when you can cast ten 10d6 fireballs every day at level 10, you pretty much destroy every encounter regardless of not being able to cast any other spells.

(Fireball is problem in general because if two wizards have it, it boils down to who wins initiative).

TSR D&D spells are not really balanced by level, so it is hard to adapt the system without rewriting it completely (my own attempt is in my Alternate Magic PDF).

The GURPS solution for fireballs and other spells works pretty well, but only because HP in general isn't as inflated.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 25, 2023, 03:11:00 PMThe main issue is fireballs - when you can cast ten 10d6 fireballs every day at level 10, you pretty much destroy every encounter regardless of not being able to cast any other spells.

Create a separate mechanic that limits the power of the fireball? For example, from Earthdawn it might be your Circle. From GURPS skill-based mechanic it's Magery.

Or a setting consideration? You have to channel the magic through something to bump the power (e.g. Wheel of Time and angreal)? Or you can only empower spells with more energy when channeling from a ley line (or whatever).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 25, 2023, 03:11:00 PMThe GURPS solution for fireballs and other spells works pretty well, but only because HP in general isn't as inflated.

If you're talking about the skill-based system, there are other controls as well as many other variations (c.f. Thaumatology) and different magic systems entirely (e.g., Ritual Path Magic, Chinese Elemental Powers, Sorcery etc.). For example, in Sorcery your limited by your "levels" in Sorcerous Empowerment that control how "big" of a spell you can cast, and by the fact that it costs Fatigue to do so (though there are ways around this, e.g. Alternative Rituals or just rewriting the Modular Ability power build). This actually works fairly well in an interpretation of the Earthdawn-Shadowrun meta-setting and, as I've been re-reading the books recently, I can see how it would work well for Wheel of Time, too.

In my Dark Passages retroclone I wanted to distinguish between fireball and lightning bolt so lightning bolt did 1d6 per level and fire ball did 1d20 with a level x 5' radius.

In the afore mentioned The Arcane Confabulation you can increase the volume affected by any spell by increasing the difficulty.  Much as I'm a Rolemaster fan, I've never felt you needed to list another spell for variations in scope.

Now that I think about it, one common problem with GURPS skill-based magic in many interpretations is that it has a real problem when dealing with modern or future settings. Mostly this comes down to how armour is represented, or the ability to be protected against damage,

Ah, yes, used to love GURPS Thaumatology, but I was talking about the skill system.

My Alternate Magic for OSR games was partially inspired by Thaumatology.

As for armor, IIRC GURPS has plenty of mind -affecting spells... in a world with guns, this might be more useful than fireballs.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 26, 2023, 09:13:01 AM
As for armor, IIRC GURPS has plenty of mind -affecting spells... in a world with guns, this might be more useful than fireballs.

Yep, totally correct. But as as above, and especially in some settings, nothing feels better than throwing a power bolt and, ala The Covenant, crushing vehicles. (It's one of the many critiques people have of the spell-based system when they're trying to "convert" settings such as Shadowrun. I know because I've been one of the people doing the complaining and having a correctional swat up the side of the head. )

Admittedly, you can do that with "Magic as Powers", which also means that you can do it with some of the more recent magical variations, e.g. Sorcery. All you need to do is layer on things like Crushing Damage, Knockback, or give the 'ole fireball Armour Penetration or what-not.

Me? One trick pony. Almost a single pony; not quite.

Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:05:27 PM
Because you're assigning this condition of "Me" (or "I" from my subjective standpoint) - and I'm certainly not going to talk about what others want, thus I'm speaking from *my* perspective.

That's not what you were doing, though. You were distinguishing yourself as *I* versus some other thing. You're making implicit assumptions about those other things. And now you're explicitly  assuming my position here:

QuoteAnd you're missing the point that I'm making about *myself* in this analogy:

And here:

QuoteYou're losing sight of the fact that *not* all D&D settings assume "magic" is the same, or its even governed in the same way.

I haven't missed your point. And I haven't lost sight of this. Your point is obvious and not in dispute and does not address or go against anything I have actually said. You're just assuming without evidence that I'm missing it. And I have likewise never assumed magic is the same in all D&D settings.

QuoteThe universal constant here (and then not really) is Vancian Magic Mechanics. I didn't make this up - TSR did. Yet even they give you other options because they too realize their player base, and even some of their founding developers *DIDN'T LIKE IT*.

Psionics was present in AD&D 1st Edition and used a point-based system, nothing resembling "Vancian" at all. And TSR realized that their player base and founding developers didn't like the point-based Psionics system. There are a bunch of other factors muddying the waters, and I have plenty of other information that I'm not going to go into here that's allowed me to conclude quite clearly the real problem was, but what it shows is a point system alone is not sufficient for players to actually like it.

QuoteThe degree to which this exist is irrelevant - because Vancian is the general rule, we all played it, we're all generally fine with it. But the whole point is this thread is talking about alternatives. Not how to defend its existence. I actually don't care what you think of Vancian Magic, or to what degree you like/dislike it. I'm only speaking to the points you're making about my points. /shrug.

The OP could have requested non-Vancian systems without voicing an opinion on the matter. Or could have stated some preferences without putting down the "Vancian" system. But he didn't do either one of those. When negative remarks are made about something that a lot of people like, or straight up inaccurate remarks are made, that's going to elicit pushback on those points. It works fairly consistency when talking to a single individual. You put it out there for many to see, you are pretty much guaranteeing those responses.

Knowingly or not, this is exactly what the OP asked for. And so when the very responses that were elicited show up, it is then inaccurate to infer they somehow imply, suggest, or indicate that liking non-Vancian systems or are somehow invalid or off-topic. And that inaccuracy will likewise elicit further responses. As you say, you were speaking to points I made about your points. Of course I initially didn't even reply to you at all. I replied to someone you had responded to who felt your remark about brand loyalty being the only reason for sticking with Vancian magic was unfair and/or inaccurate.

It's really, really simple. If you want to have a discussion, by all means have a discussion. If there are things you don't want to see discussed here, stop bringing them up. Stop making negative statements, stop making unfair statements, stop making inaccurate statements and move on.

QuoteI'm glad you like it. Who cares? What is your alternative?

They were in my initial post on this thread, and I also literally referenced them in the very post you're replying to.

Quote

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMAnd just an FYI, Gary wrote in detail about why he made the magic system the way it is, what he was trying to achieve. And it had a lot more to do with when you take wizards out of story books and give them to players to play, he wanted to make sure they had a reason to go around in robes rather than armor, to use wands or staves when they could just cast spells themselves, to need eye of newt and other weird things, and so on. The need to study spells daily was to reinforce the image of the wizard who was always consulting his spell books.

Great. Now explain how Vancian Magic achieves that. You're confusing the Vancian Magic subsystem with class-design.

I bolded it for you, since you somehow missed the most immediate sentence you were responding to. The need to study spells daily is literally the thing the OP bitched about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with class design. I could require this in a skill-based RPG if I felt that was consistent with the game world.

QuoteWell then why in the fuck are you defending Vancian Magic in a thread about alternatives to Vancian Magic? You're *that guy*.

Why did the OP feel the need to express an opinion in the initial post to a thread if it was really about alternatives to Vancian Magic? Why the fuck did he have to shit on it. If I started a new thread saying, "Hey, I wanted to have a discussion about alignment since people here seem mostly cool with Tenbones despite the fact he beats his wife," when you try to defend yourself, does that make you *that guy*? Should some jowl flapping idiot start laying into you for not sticking to the topic about alignment?

You don't want things to be discussed, stop bringing them up, stop saying negative shit, stop saying things that are unfair or inaccurate.

Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works. It is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it. It says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

Is that optimal gaming for you? No. You said it yourself. So what is your alternative? Just because I'm saying the same thing you're saying and you don't like what/how I say it, means what exactly in the context of this thread?

You just want to be right about something? Or you're more interested in telling someone they're wrong, even though you agree with them in order to make it sound like you have something to say. LOL Grow up.