TheRPGSite

Not everyone likes Vancian magic.  Slots and memorization in the morning, and forgetting them from your mind afterwards is a bit weird.

The two I'm used to are both from Palladium. 

1st edition Palladium games used spells per day.  A wizard could cast any spell they knew, or the same spell over and over.  I'll point out I did say, "any spell the wizard knows."   You don't get all spells.  You get some at character creation, and a couple when leveling up, or you can buy them at a magic shop, or get lucky and convert a single use scroll.  After that, it's just a number of spells each day. 

2nd edition swapped out spells per day with magic power points, and each spell now has a cost.  The other restrictions are all the same.

Another idea came from miss-reading Tiny D6 rules on magic.  You could be something called a Scroll Reader.  I thought it meant your flavor of wizard can re-use scrolls that normally are one-use consumables.  They collect scrolls into a book, and it's once per day for each.  If you want lightning bolt three times a day, you have to own three lightning bolt scrolls. 

In reality Tiny D6 simply restricts scrolls to that magician character, only they can read the scrolls, but the scrolls still disappear like traditional one-use consumables.  This seems a bit restrictive, but that's what they wrote.

I sort of like my version better. 

What replacement system is your favorite?

Runequest and Artesia I think 🤔

In Runequest most spells that you have learned will always work when you cast, as long as you have enough power points and can overcome the resistance from someone you're trying to affect. Most spells are not super powerful though (blade sharp is a typical one) but it could evolve into pretty hefty magic as you learn more. There are two "schools" : Spirit Magic (Basic Magic) and Rune Magic (Divine Magic).

In Artesia, spells are very "realistic" in that they resemble incantations and curses from real folklore.

What I use in my fantasy setting is a combination of keeping instantaneous spells weak and making more interesting and powerful spells take time and preparation.  Also, many forms of magic in my setting require a lot of prep, area, and sometimes even structures.  A wizard's tower in my setting isn't just a house for a wizard but a magic tool for performing certain spells.

In short, I have four tiers of magic.  The first tier is magic that can be used in a snap and usually not very powerful.  A common spell that PCs can have is Spark and it literally just creates a momentary spark.  Often this is combined with kerosene or coal dust for actual attacks.  Some more advanced tier one spells can directly do damage akin to a sword or an arrow.  Typically, a PC can always use a tier one spell without limit.  Also, i keep these spells weak enough that the player isn't just spamming magic missile in combat or prestidigitating their way out of minor complications.  It's more like having a really good survival kit rather than having a pocket full of guns.

Tier two magic is use to put an enchantment on something.  This will take between a few minutes to several days depending on the strength and the longevity of the particular spell.  This includes spells that would be considered curses like giving bad luck or causing illness.  The enchanting of items to use them as magical tools such as wands is done at this level and the quality of the tool is dependent on the quality of the spell used as well as the craftsmanship of the object.  This tier also introduces augery and seeing spells.  Most tier two seeing spells are good for simple decisions or getting a binary answer to a single question.

Tier three magic is spells that are best described a layering of multiple tier two spells.  They require the use of a location, even if temporarily, so that the spell caster can put down sigils and lay out enchanted tools.  Often these spells are related to communication and information gathering and can be very specific and gather a lot of information.  This is where magical barriers can be made, magic traps are set, and transportation magic is created.  A spell caster can also use tier three spells to make a place that amplifies tier one spells to much greater power levels so that they can do more amazing things.  Often these spells take weeks or months to cast and the most advance ones can take well over a year.  Some will take multiple spell casters working together to attempt.

Tier four spells are the construction of a permanent magical tool.  This can be a hand held tool but usually it's something like a wizard's tower that gives the wielder considerable foresight, a crucible that endows power to a metal for forging magical weapons, or a permanent strong magical barrier that seals away an immortal monster.

I've long been a proponent of power/magic/mana points, because Vancian magic makes no sense, BUT...

Ever since the thread I started about useful shorthand being useful I've come to an epyphany:

What if the spell caster doesn't "forget the spell"? What if what appears to be magic slots is really shorthand for the magical power the spellcaster has?

This neccesitates two fundamental changes to the magic system:

Whatever spells the spellcaster knows he can cast as many times as the spells per day table allows, it's not that he needs to study the spell, it's that he spends magical power.

So a Lvl 1 spell caster has 2 1st level spells, this means he has power enough to cast 2 1st level spells he has learned (written in his book) or 1 2nd level spell that he knows.

That's the second change, a spell caster can trade 2 spells of a lower level for 1 spell of a higher level. So two 1st level for one 2nd level or two 2nd level for one 3rd level or 4 1st level for one 3rd level.

Now add the 1st tier spells from BadApple's system as zero level or "cantrips" and you've got something that works almost exactly like vancian but with some key differences, that it assumes there's a power cost without the need to keep track of metacurrency, you instead keep track of the "slots".

Quote from: BadApple on November 18, 2023, 12:28:14 PM
What I use in my fantasy setting is a combination of keeping instantaneous spells weak and making more interesting and powerful spells take time and preparation.  Also, many forms of magic in my setting require a lot of prep, area, and sometimes even structures.  A wizard's tower in my setting isn't just a house for a wizard but a magic tool for performing certain spells.

In short, I have four tiers of magic.  The first tier is magic that can be used in a snap and usually not very powerful.  A common spell that PCs can have is Spark and it literally just creates a momentary spark.  Often this is combined with kerosene or coal dust for actual attacks.  Some more advanced tier one spells can directly do damage akin to a sword or an arrow.  Typically, a PC can always use a tier one spell without limit.  Also, i keep these spells weak enough that the player isn't just spamming magic missile in combat or prestidigitating their way out of minor complications.  It's more like having a really good survival kit rather than having a pocket full of guns.

Tier two magic is use to put an enchantment on something.  This will take between a few minutes to several days depending on the strength and the longevity of the particular spell.  This includes spells that would be considered curses like giving bad luck or causing illness.  The enchanting of items to use them as magical tools such as wands is done at this level and the quality of the tool is dependent on the quality of the spell used as well as the craftsmanship of the object.  This tier also introduces augery and seeing spells.  Most tier two seeing spells are good for simple decisions or getting a binary answer to a single question.

Tier three magic is spells that are best described a layering of multiple tier two spells.  They require the use of a location, even if temporarily, so that the spell caster can put down sigils and lay out enchanted tools.  Often these spells are related to communication and information gathering and can be very specific and gather a lot of information.  This is where magical barriers can be made, magic traps are set, and transportation magic is created.  A spell caster can also use tier three spells to make a place that amplifies tier one spells to much greater power levels so that they can do more amazing things.  Often these spells take weeks or months to cast and the most advance ones can take well over a year.  Some will take multiple spell casters working together to attempt.

Tier four spells are the construction of a permanent magical tool.  This can be a hand held tool but usually it's something like a wizard's tower that gives the wielder considerable foresight, a crucible that endows power to a metal for forging magical weapons, or a permanent strong magical barrier that seals away an immortal monster.

I like it very much, I would LOOOOOOOOVE to read more about it.

The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task. Magic Points can do it, but I've found that they sometimes fumble in the execution. One of the issues I had with Dragon Warriors was that my sorcerer characters consistently outperformed the martials in combat, and part of that was the large magic pools and being able to dump all their points into their most powerful spells at will.

I kind of like systems that treat spells as equip-able items. Index Card RPG does it that way, and then balances it by having limited equip slots (and magic generally being kind of underpowered). Warlock! has a similar system, and then balances it out by the wizard character not only having to spend Stamina (which is essentially health), but also having to have the scroll in-hand and then succeed on a casting check. In addition to being a simple way of limiting spell-spam, the spells-as-items system also allows the DM to give out spells as loot, and more kinds of interesting loot is always a plus. 

Moving out of the realm of tabletop games, I like the system used in the first two Dark Souls games, where you can "attune" a limited number of spells, and then each spell gives you a set number of casts per attunement slot. I wouldn't mind seeing that adapted to a tabletop game. Shadow of the Demon Lord's system, where based on your Power stat, you just get a set number of casts of each spell based on the spell's level, produces a somewhat similar result.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
What replacement system is your favorite?

For D&D, a compromise. I understand some of the newer editions have this already as a feature of specific spellcasters, but even back in the day we ran it like this-
You don't have to memorize specific spells. You just have to know them, and you can cast any known spell from the appropriate spell slot.
A caster can break up a spell slot. IE a 3rd level spell slot can be broken into three 1st level spells, or a 2nd and a 1st.
That generally worked for us.

TBH I like Vancian magic but I do not consider it universal one.
But I kinda think it's more original idea than mana/magic points which is terribly video-gamish.

Now if mana/prana was your lifeforce then I could go with system that link this organically - you can drain yourself while doing magic, or charge yourself by draining elemental source or another person.

Totally separate magical energy or generally treating magic as some separate source of weird energy is just... meh.

So you wanna separate system - do some ritualistic hermetism where all battle-magics must be prepared inside various artefacts you enchanted through long nights of fasting, nude gymnastics, meditating over Thai poetry and smoking shrooms.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task. Magic Points can do it, but I've found that they sometimes fumble in the execution. One of the issues I had with Dragon Warriors was that my sorcerer characters consistently outperformed the martials in combat, and part of that was the large magic pools and being able to dump all their points into their most powerful spells at will.

I kind of like systems that treat spells as equip-able items. Index Card RPG does it that way, and then balances it by having limited equip slots (and magic generally being kind of underpowered). Warlock! has a similar system, and then balances it out by the wizard character not only having to spend Stamina (which is essentially health), but also having to have the scroll in-hand and then succeed on a casting check. In addition to being a simple way of limiting spell-spam, the spells-as-items system also allows the DM to give out spells as loot, and more kinds of interesting loot is always a plus. 

Moving out of the realm of tabletop games, I like the system used in the first two Dark Souls games, where you can "attune" a limited number of spells, and then each spell gives you a set number of casts per attunement slot. I wouldn't mind seeing that adapted to a tabletop game. Shadow of the Demon Lord's system, where based on your Power stat, you just get a set number of casts of each spell based on the spell's level, produces a somewhat similar result.

I have not seen much fireball spamming in 5E. There is quite a bit of this though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dz65h6H5gM

I nominate GLOG and it's magic dice system as being a very good replacement of D&Ds magic system.

what I enjoy about it is it grants the Vancian without being quite as encumbered with tracking things, generally you have a small amount of spells that can be memorized, there are no spell levels, its based on Magic die, so the spell is as powerful as you invest in it, the issue is the more gas you put in a spell the more likely it is go go wild and do something bad.

Magic dice are awesome as they die resource management and risk management at the hip, it makes Wizards feel very dangerous and fragile.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 18, 2023, 12:49:57 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 18, 2023, 12:28:14 PM
What I use in my fantasy setting is a combination of keeping instantaneous spells weak and making more interesting and powerful spells take time and preparation.  Also, many forms of magic in my setting require a lot of prep, area, and sometimes even structures.  A wizard's tower in my setting isn't just a house for a wizard but a magic tool for performing certain spells.

In short, I have four tiers of magic.  The first tier is magic that can be used in a snap and usually not very powerful.  A common spell that PCs can have is Spark and it literally just creates a momentary spark.  Often this is combined with kerosene or coal dust for actual attacks.  Some more advanced tier one spells can directly do damage akin to a sword or an arrow.  Typically, a PC can always use a tier one spell without limit.  Also, i keep these spells weak enough that the player isn't just spamming magic missile in combat or prestidigitating their way out of minor complications.  It's more like having a really good survival kit rather than having a pocket full of guns.

Tier two magic is use to put an enchantment on something.  This will take between a few minutes to several days depending on the strength and the longevity of the particular spell.  This includes spells that would be considered curses like giving bad luck or causing illness.  The enchanting of items to use them as magical tools such as wands is done at this level and the quality of the tool is dependent on the quality of the spell used as well as the craftsmanship of the object.  This tier also introduces augery and seeing spells.  Most tier two seeing spells are good for simple decisions or getting a binary answer to a single question.

Tier three magic is spells that are best described a layering of multiple tier two spells.  They require the use of a location, even if temporarily, so that the spell caster can put down sigils and lay out enchanted tools.  Often these spells are related to communication and information gathering and can be very specific and gather a lot of information.  This is where magical barriers can be made, magic traps are set, and transportation magic is created.  A spell caster can also use tier three spells to make a place that amplifies tier one spells to much greater power levels so that they can do more amazing things.  Often these spells take weeks or months to cast and the most advance ones can take well over a year.  Some will take multiple spell casters working together to attempt.

Tier four spells are the construction of a permanent magical tool.  This can be a hand held tool but usually it's something like a wizard's tower that gives the wielder considerable foresight, a crucible that endows power to a metal for forging magical weapons, or a permanent strong magical barrier that seals away an immortal monster.

I like it very much, I would LOOOOOOOOVE to read more about it.

From a design standpoint, a setting standpoint, or a spell list?

Basically, it a way for me to sort spells into four boxes based on how much I think they should be used.  Most tier one spells are less powerful than 5e cantrips.  On the other end, you can have a Wish spell when you spend millions of gold and years constructing an elaborate atelier that will crumble from the sheer power flowing through it.  You also always have to pass a skill check.

In my setting, anyone can use magic but magic is difficult to learn.  I think of it like learning calculus.  There are no natural users of magic among humans so anyone using it studies it rather intently.  I also make it so most magic is about a more considered and refined act of ceremony rather than just being something a PC just throws out for effect.

As far as the actual spells list, most of it comes from D&D or OSR books.  Some of them are just my own creations.  Over all, If it looks like some cool magic, I adopt it.  That being said, most magic is about either finding something or hiding it so a lot of magic is playing cat and mouse with other magic users. 

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.

I have to start by completely shitting on your premise. It's relevant to my answer. There's tons of good about the so-called "Vancian" magic system that goes unappreciated. The slots make it a hell of a lot easier to manage as GM, just crossing a spell off my notes as the spell is cast, no stopping to calculate or deduct spell points. But it also makes it plainer for players to see their options on front of them.

That said, I think the best magic system is the one from Dangerous Journeys Mythus Magick. It's a magic point system, super versatile, and the sheer volume of content ensures you can do  whatever you want with it. Just one thing, though. Dangerous Journeys is on a "critical turn" scale during combat, which are 3-second rounds. And only Charms (Eyebites which most casters don't get) can be done in a single CT. Cantrips are 5 CT, Spells take a full Battle Turn (10 CTs), a Formula takes 5 Battle Turns, and Rituals take a full Action Turn (100 CT's) or more. Maybe you might get off a Cantrip. It sucks to be waiting around for that long in combat. But the longer activation time powers just aren't practical.

As I said, though, the system is very versatile. So there's a work around. There's a power that lets you activate the casting in advance to be delayed pending a trigger, that way you can fire of a power instantly as needed (and without having to make a skill check or subtracting spell points in the moment, having already paid the cost and made the skill check when initially setting up the trigger). You just have to prepare it in advance. If you think you're going to need it more than once, you prepare more than one instance of the spell with the trigger.

Again, this is my favorite magic system. But if I'm being honest, this amounts to extra steps just to end up getting the same rake in the face. But, hey, if extra steps are what you need to walk you through how to imagine magic working in a way that you don't hate, then so be it. I'd argue you could have just done that all along, and it's kind of weird to insist on imagining things in a way that you hate. I mean it's not like you really do forget the spell in AD&D. The magic user still has knowledge to understand the spell. That's how they're able to re-up it again. What AD&D calls "memorize" is the implantation of the magic in the mind for later use. That's a separate thing from knowledge of the spell.

Another system I really like are some "House Rules" presented in The Lost City of Gaxmoor module if I remember correctly. It's using D&D, so you have to memorize your spells in advance. However, you can use a spell you don't have memorized by sacrificing a higher level spell you do have memorized. And you can also sacrifice a memorized spell to cast another spell at a higher caster level. So it gives the benefits of spontaneous spell use and being able to pump up spells, just like you get with magic-point systems, but while retaining that initial benefits I cited of the Vancian magic system.

One of the more unique magic systems was from Pocket Fantasy.

In combat you have a short list of 6 combat spells available, and a wizard can cast 2 per fight.  Out of combat, you can cast 2 spells per game session of whatever you can think up and, and if the GM will allow it the GM will assign that a skill check number, and you roll to attempt it.

It had a few benefits. 

1.  Wizards are always wizards.  They can cast 2 spells from a short list of 6 magic spells in combat every fight, so they always useful.  They never do the whole, "Welp, I'm out of spells, so let me put on this chainmail, strap on this sword, and I'll fight as a gimpy fighter the rest of the adventure."  In other words, they never run out of magic, and they're magic is strong enough to matter.

2.  Word count space is at a premium in a rules lite game.  The whole, "You can cast whatever the GM will allow," thing means you have every spell there is, but it only took up a few lines in the rulebook.  If you want to cast, "Summon Stone Fortress" so we all have a nice place to sleep tonight, and the GM lets you do so if you can roll a 1D6, roll 3 or better (aka 67%), so be it.  But, in a fight you can't cast that (there are only 6 battle spells), so it won't be abused to suddenly have a fortress appear right in the middle of a fight.   Even then, between fights the GM may not allow it, or suddenly that Summon Stone Fortress spell will be a 1D6, get a 6 to cast.

I always thought that was a neat little magic system.

Vancian has a lot of good things about it from a game point of view.  However most of my favorite fantasy literature has magic systems where if you cast enough spells you get tired and eventually run out of gas.  This is best modeled by a mana system, so that's my preference

Use a syntactic magic system a la Ars Magica. Make players spend magic points and roll to cast every spell. Penalize excessively powerful spells like fireballs to discourage spamming.

I've run Ars Magica and AD&D with Vancian Magic.  My players are typically too lazy for something like Ars Magica- though I, personally, love it.  I know there are other options- a ton of them, but they just want to eat pizza and roll the dice, so Vancian Magic it is.  I can make it work, rules wise and setting wise, so that's what I use.

I recently made a psionics system and as I did so I thought about how it related to Dark Sun (where arcane magic is invented by a psionicist).  This quote by Galadriel also came to mind:

QuoteFor this is what your folk would call magic, I believe: though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?

So here is my idea:

"Magic" to do with charming and perception is psionics.  This is the subtle magic of historic fantasy.  Psions have one power point per XP in my system (xp needed to reach a level is the level squared, characters start with 1 xp) but you can scale it to whatever.

Additionally, there is raw elemental divine magic.  This magic is flashy but not as easy to control.  Instead of discrete spells you have a more free form system.  The quality of your result is based on your skill check.  This is the magic of clerics in dark sun, or of benders in avatar.  Using this raw magic directly is difficult, so you might have to appease spirits or visit elemental shrines to connect with it.

Then there is arcane magic.  Psions can, instead of learning normal psionic power, can use their extreme mental powers to to bundle up elemental magic into discrete spells.  This can be vancian magic, but you can put some twists on it.

By making psionics the base power, we can unify it with extraordinary martial powers, such as a berserker's rage, or a knight's immunity to fear.

Palladium's Rifts system is a great example of how not to do spell points, with each spell's level and cost assigned arbitrarily.  Rolemaster's spell point per level is so much cleaner.  GURPS is decent but you'll still be constantly looking up spell costs.  Both have some kind of underlying rationale to spell level placement though Rolemaster's is less useful for guessing as it varies by class.

For my own, The Arcane Confabulation, I eventually settled on accumulated penalties with increasing radius as casting spells churns up the miasma in the aether.  This makes the careful accumulation of power through preparation and the careful stilling of the aether after casting important but not essential features of spell casting.  Leaving the aether in turmoil results in two headed calfs and other negative influences over time so sloppy and lazy magicians have a way of becoming very unpopular.

Quote from: zagreus on November 19, 2023, 08:55:14 AM
I've run Ars Magica and AD&D with Vancian Magic.  My players are typically too lazy for something like Ars Magica- though I, personally, love it.  I know there are other options- a ton of them, but they just want to eat pizza and roll the dice, so Vancian Magic it is.  I can make it work, rules wise and setting wise, so that's what I use.

RAW Ars Magica is great. I love the crunchiness and flavorfulness of it, and the downtime mechanic really scratches an itch for me, as someone that enjoys gams with resource management.

Sadly I've only ever gotten to play a few sessions ever, as it's extremely difficult to find a GM. The little I did play was very memorable.

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.

Quote from: Zelen on November 19, 2023, 04:29:07 PM
Personally I like a roll-to-cast system, but every roll adds time to the game.

This needs to be absolutely central to design.  My approach is that an action should never result in more than one d20 being rolled.  I'm going for "players roll the dice", so players roll to cast their spells, and they roll to save against monster/npc spells.  Monsters don't need to roll cast (that is covered by the player's save) and they don't get saves (that is covered by the player's roll to cast the spell).

If a player character has an ability that gives him an extra attack as part of the same action, he uses the same roll for both.  No rolling additional d20s, one per action.

Setting matters. Depends what your setting demands.

If you're looking for something to simply replace Vancian in a "normal" D&D campaign, well are you prepared to do the legwork of retooling the mechanics of the system to accommodate whatever you're replacing it with?

Whatever system I use for magic there are couple of things I demand:

1) Skill check. Non-casters must make a check to swing swords/shoot bows - you're making a check to cast your fucking spell.
2) Magic is Risky. If you fail your cast, there will be a chance something *bad* happens. The degree of which depends on the conceits of the setting.
3) Magic is rare and powerful. That means YOU as a caster are rare and might become powerful, but you do not exist in a vacuum. i.e. Casters will be dealing with caster-things which tend to not necessarily be pleasant or have responsibilities that non-casters can't even imagine.

Right now - Savage Worlds is my system of choice. It's mid-crunch (number of systems required to run the game) low-complexity (number of calculations required to run those systems). The magic system is *super flexible*. You can run low-magic settings where a "caster" might only know a few abilities. Or you can crank it up to INSANE levels that outstrip d20's parameters and blows their doors off - WITHOUT having to fundamentally change the mechanics. You can run it natively which uses Points to empower the Casters Powers (Spells) and you can spend extra points to charge your spell with extra effects.

Example: You might choose a spell called "Bolt" - you give it a trapping chosen when you get the Power. (Lightning, Fire, Cold, etc). When you cast it - it costs 1PP, but if you want to modify it the spell has these options: Armor Piercing (+1-3), Lingering Damage (+2 - basically makes your bolt do damage over time after cast), Increased Range (+1/+2) and a whole host of options.

Each spell also has special modifiers that depend on the PC's Rank (level) in casting. The options make casters *very* versatile compared to their d20 counterparts.

Savage Worlds has a Pathfinder Edition that effectively encapsulates all of the d20 system into the Savage Worlds system. It plays faster, scales vastly higher (you can *easily* play high-level very high-magic infused campaigns without difficulty), and runs smoother.

If you want to take it to God-mode, you can easily crib the mechanics from Savage Worlds Rifts - now you're running around with magic that can level castles and towns with ease. Likewise non-casters can scale to pretty insane levels too. And most importantly the spellcasting system uses the normal task-resolution, so there very little extra to learn outside of the regular mechanics.

Not really on topic, but I'm always interested in these kinds of discussions.

I never really liked the concept of the spell being wiped from the mind in Vancian magic.  I just considered the daily study to be the Magic User studying all the phenomena and elements that allowed the spell to be cast at that time.  So the alignment of the stars, planar convergence, local ley lines or places of power, and other associated variables, along with brushing up on the various gestures, magic words, and materials required.  Similarly, I just consider Spell Slots to be just the amount of Magic Energy the caster has per day.

In our games I allow caster to cast any spell they have memorized normally any number of times per day, up to their available spell slots.  If they don't get a chance to study on a particular day, but the spell is one that they have studied recently (ie last memorized spells) then it requires a casting roll.  Success and the spell is cast normally; Failure and the spell is cast at half effect.  I even allow a caster to cast a spell they know, but don't currently have memorized with a casting roll.  Success and spell is at half effect; failure and the slot is lost.

I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

The mechanism of Vancian magic "feels" like a War Game method of treating a caster as an armor-unit in a wargame. Which should be obvious to anyone that knows the history of D&D's mechanics emerging out of wargaming.

It's one of my largest criticisms of D&D is that, mechanically, magic in the game never really was representative of the fantasy games that inspired it. I don't think it even represents "Vancian magic" ala Dying Earth very well. It's a narrative label placed on top of a chunky wargaming ammunition mechanic and sure, back then it sounded cool, to have an ammo round call 'Melf's Acid Arrow' loaded into the "slot". But it's always been a clunky system. Despite having the name "Vancian Magic" - literally every other fantasy series in the Appendix N. did magic differently, and the rest of the TTRPG world that evolved outside of D&D made better (or not) attempts to capture it.

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).

QuotePeople 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 mean people who play with Gygaxian intention of game first, setting second, players third - well treat it as part of game, and that's gamist aspect is feature not bug for them.

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).

Or maybe they just like it.  I see no reason to be dismissive towards those who's opinion might diverge from yours.

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

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).

What 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 nice feature about Vancian magic is that every time you cast the caster now has fewer options. It makes them consider the opportunity cost of firing off a spell. A very good fatigue system might do the same. But that is the part that of the system that is hard to replace with spell points and such. The extremely powerful spells of D&D look a bit out pf place in a power point system.

I like to compare to Rolemaster, which did power points reasonably ok and made each type of spell effect a costly planning in advance exercise (you learned one list at a time and never had enough points). It shifted the strategic point of focus, but kept it in play and mages tended to have specialties and themes.

Vancian magic has proven to be a bookkeeping handshake. It doesn't feel right for most games, but it can be relatively straightforward to keep track of what spell slots are expended and when they reset. So while I am not a huge fan of the flavor, I understand why it continues to persist.

Given my 'druthers, I much prefer unified cooldown, where players have a pool of MP or Mana or whatever you choose to call magic energy which is constantly recharging. This creates an opportunity cost where casting a large spell means you briefly can't cast again, which puts significantly more weight behind your choice of spells and incentivizes players to do more things than simply spell-cast.

The tradeoff for this mechanic is that you must keep a running tally of your MP, which is pretty bookkeeping intensive. I personally keep these figures by looping a paperclip over one edge of the character sheet, which slides along a few digits to indicate the current running total. I have played systems which used running tally MP systems (Hero System) and they are very hard to manage without a device like this.

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.

Quote from: David Johansen on November 19, 2023, 02:42:50 PM
Palladium's Rifts system is a great example of how not to do spell points, with each spell's level and cost assigned arbitrarily.  Rolemaster's spell point per level is so much cleaner.  GURPS is decent but you'll still be constantly looking up spell costs.  Both have some kind of underlying rationale to spell level placement though Rolemaster's is less useful for guessing as it varies by class.

For my own, The Arcane Confabulation, I eventually settled on accumulated penalties with increasing radius as casting spells churns up the miasma in the aether.  This makes the careful accumulation of power through preparation and the careful stilling of the aether after casting important but not essential features of spell casting.  Leaving the aether in turmoil results in two headed calfs and other negative influences over time so sloppy and lazy magicians have a way of becoming very unpopular.

Spell casting that has side effects to everyone around you instead of you is a new one.

I've seen plenty of games that have a skill check system with various penalties for failure ranging from, "It just doesn't work," to, "You blow up."

I don't think I've seen one that poisons the surrounding land, plants, and animals.  It makes a bit of sense, though. 

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 20, 2023, 12:15:35 PM

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).

Or maybe they just like it.  I see no reason to be dismissive towards those who's opinion might diverge from yours.

Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 20, 2023, 04:31:00 PM
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.

D&D isn't a setting. It's a set of rules. You'll note that your fondness of things like HP, are even now in 5e a constant complaint because beyond a certain point (post 10th level) the same inherent math issues that St. Gary correctly identified WAY back in original D&D - the game was never meant to go beyond 10th level - is now a problem because of weak designers who don't know how to scale the system with the assumptions of play (at that level).

You're kind of underscoring my point. It's convenient if that's all you know. And most people grew up on D&D. Is it the best set of mechanics? Unless you're making ad populum argument, I'd say no. And if you are - well I can't do anything about that.

I care about gameplay and mechanics that underpin that gameplay. Vancian magic is an artifact that isn't horrible, but it's not representative of what people *really* think of Magic outside of TTRPG's. And when it is, it's due to habit. Much like people love to discuss assigning Alignment to fictional characters as if alignment is as narrow as most of their arguments and justifications for such (which ironically renders the point of alignment silly). Hence Batman can be all alignments depending on ones justification du jour.

Vancian magic is a wargaming artifact. Good GM's can make it work, just like they can make anything work. If you like it, great! I have sentimental love for it, but nothing more. The thread is about alternatives.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2023, 11:24:42 AM

QuotePeople 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 mean people who play with Gygaxian intention of game first, setting second, players third - well treat it as part of game, and that's gamist aspect is feature not bug for them.

I don't ascribe to GNS theory. Singular tribalizing and trivializing how people engage in gaming was a cancer to the hobby then, and it remains that way now. Different doses in different amounts of "gamist", "simulationist" and "narrative" elements all make for a good game. Pretending that just because a portion of players like to pretend the mechanics *is* the game seem to be missing the point and it certainly makes for a reductionist take on D&D as a whole. Which is yet one of many bad reasons to lean on that notion as a defense of Vancian magic (which I don't even hate, I just think it's clunky today).

So we're really just talking mechanics, right? Very few people play TTRPG's, even now, with "Gygaxian Intention" whatever the fuck that is. People play D&D *because* that's likely  what their friends play, and that's what the GM is likely running, and you're stuck with it and it might be the only thing you know.

And millions of people love it and stick with it for those reasons. If you're a Gygax fan you should be like me and decrying how the system has been fucked up for several editions for reasons that have *nothing* to do with what you think gamists want. And if they do - they're doing it for reasons of scarcity more than because they're into "Gygaxian Intention" (heh I love this... I need to use it on my group.)

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:56:20 PM

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).

What 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 nice feature about Vancian magic is that every time you cast the caster now has fewer options. It makes them consider the opportunity cost of firing off a spell. A very good fatigue system might do the same. But that is the part that of the system that is hard to replace with spell points and such. The extremely powerful spells of D&D look a bit out pf place in a power point system.

I like to compare to Rolemaster, which did power points reasonably ok and made each type of spell effect a costly planning in advance exercise (you learned one list at a time and never had enough points). It shifted the strategic point of focus, but kept it in play and mages tended to have specialties and themes.

It's a good point. The *real* problem is the bloat of magic in general in D&D. Spells aren't "balanced" against anything inherent into the system now, or really ever. The idea is that wizards were *frail* in 1e and 2e so sub-5th level they really were glass-cannons, and no one really complained. But we all knew back in the day that there were spells that simply were fucking powerful as all hell.

Flash forward to 3e and beyond there are practically so many options that I honestly don't know why they even bother with Vancian magic as a mechanic. The big problem is that spells and the classes that use them simply do rules-exceptions that post 5th level scale fantastically higher than non-casters. Is it 3x-era bad? Nah. But in a case by case basis Vancian Magic as a mechanic doesn't curtail the deeper issue.

So this means if you're going to play D&D you either gotta roll your sleeves up and retool the system. A system which doesn't even really conform to most other forms of task resolution - but then they don't really have to since you fire-and-forget most of them (literally) and their effects vary widely to the point of being mini-mechanic sub-systems unto themselves.

As a GM I'm going to make the setting demand what is needed of the system - not the other way around. Its one of the reasons I don't GM D&D anymore. Because they've mutated the system into something I find unwieldy, and their settings have become garbage too. But! I'll run the fuck out of any of their 3e settings and earlier but I'll use a set of mechanics that I can get more precision out of with less work. And you have to do that work if you're committed.

This is why I don't worry about "alpha strikes" in general. If such things were possible in my games it would mean you've figured out something that was never intended by my setting's demands, not because someone wrote it down in some obscure book, and I'm somehow beholden to include it. But it's also my job as the GM to set that stage LONG before any of my players even commit pencil to paper on their characters.

Fantasy Craft's magic system could be utilized - it's spell points and their spells scale accordingly. But it also balances stats so Casters are Glass Cannons(tm) and they can't stat-dump. And it's a skill-check to use their magic. Best d20 system that requires very little modification (since it's a toolkit system). Worth a look for an alternative.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on November 20, 2023, 11:15:20 PM
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.

You're inherently comparing Vancian magic to some sort of magic system where a PC has two dozen or more options. But that's not true of all magic systems. For example, in my Vinland game, the prophetess character had three abilities - Hex/Bless, Second Sight, and Speak with Spirits. (She gained three more over the campaign, but those were more rarely used since they were long rituals.) These each just had a line or two to describe them. But it was powerful and made her very important, without being overpowered.

I generally agree with your #1. My problem with many RPG magic systems is having a dozen or more fiddly little abilities -- which often are defined to have to be limited by slots, components, etc. This isn't particularly magical - it can often feel convoluted and fiddly rather than wondrous. Even with Vancian casting, a spell-caster's turn is often slow because there are tricky tradeoffs and one of a dozen slots to choose from.

In terms of game design, I think looking at how magicians work in RPG-like board games is a good comparison. There, magic characters tend to have just 3 or 4 abilities. Warlocks have similarities in that most of their abilities are always-on or at-will, like having a special familiar and/or invocations.

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 02:01:48 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on November 20, 2023, 04:31:00 PM
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.

D&D isn't a setting. It's a set of rules. You'll note that your fondness of things like HP, are even now in 5e a constant complaint because beyond a certain point (post 10th level) the same inherent math issues that St. Gary correctly identified WAY back in original D&D - the game was never meant to go beyond 10th level - is now a problem because of weak designers who don't know how to scale the system with the assumptions of play (at that level).

You're kind of underscoring my point. It's convenient if that's all you know. And most people grew up on D&D. Is it the best set of mechanics? Unless you're making ad populum argument, I'd say no. And if you are - well I can't do anything about that.

I care about gameplay and mechanics that underpin that gameplay. Vancian magic is an artifact that isn't horrible, but it's not representative of what people *really* think of Magic outside of TTRPG's. And when it is, it's due to habit. Much like people love to discuss assigning Alignment to fictional characters as if alignment is as narrow as most of their arguments and justifications for such (which ironically renders the point of alignment silly). Hence Batman can be all alignments depending on ones justification du jour.

Vancian magic is a wargaming artifact. Good GM's can make it work, just like they can make anything work. If you like it, great! I have sentimental love for it, but nothing more. The thread is about alternatives.

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm at.  I'm not a fan of Vancian magic or hp, but I acknowledge that they accomplish several good things mechanicwise. 

I disagree strongly that D&D isn't a setting.  The rules say many, many things about how the physics of the setting works and imply many more.  Sure you can play Greyhawk or Dark Sun or Planescape or whatever the space gerbil setting was called, but they're all recognizably D&D.  Even in the game novels you can tell if a game was written based on D&D without being told.  Many folks are so used to D&D and its relatives that they assume it represents all of fantasy.  It doesn't.  You just can't do Amber or The Adept or Witch World or many others with D&D without changing either the game or the setting beyond recognizability.  In some cases you can hammer the square peg into the round hole if you hit it hard enough, but it leaves gaps, flaws in the game.  I believe that for an RPG to be any good, the rules and setting need to be reflections of each other.

Apparently Dave Arneson was a fan of spell points. Vancian magic for D&D was Gary's idea. Gary thought the latter would have been simpler to manage. He may well have been right during the first few levels. But even in the upper single digit caster levels, Vancian magic seems to begin to show its limitations. Honestly, none of the rules I have seen for handling magic have been amazing. Good enough is good enough for me, though. I find levels 1-5 the most fun in old school systems anyway.

One thing I dislike about traditional D&D magic is choosing spells EVERY DAY. And IIRC the cleric can access ALL SPELLS - or, at the very least, the GM has to go through all spells and tell the PCs which ones are available.

Also, fighters take long to replenish their HP while casters get all their spell backs every day. IIRC someone suggested that in early D&D (or Chainmail) you picked spells by expedition which would make more sense (i.e., choose your spells when you're in civilization).

Spell "levels" dissociated from PC level (and dungeon level - or even SPELL POWER because some spells of the same level are just stronger than others) is another thing I dislike, but I find so ingrained that it is hard to change now.

AD&D casting has some awesome aspects that were lost in time, however; finding random spells, roll to see if you can learn them, spell research, etc. Maybe the whole game could be build around that.

Might be misremembering, haven't used traditional D&D magic for a while.

But I find that he "Vancian" idea of spells disappearing from your mind is not a bad one. It is magic, could happen in a million of ways; lately I've been thinking in terms of living spells or spirits that you bound and release.

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

Meh. You can attach whatever fiction you want to it.

I was pondering this one, and had a bit of an idea.

Magic-users get a certain number of spell points per day. They can choose to 'fix' spells into those spell points, which lets them cast quickly, OR -- they can 'shape' a spell using unused spell points, which grants flexibility but takes longer.

Let's say you're Bob the Wizard, with 15 spell points. You know a few cantrips (0 SP), magic dart (1 SP), analyze spell (1 SP), shield (2 SP), conjure animal (2 SP) and explosion (3 SP). You prepare the following:

1x explosion (3 SP)
2x magic dart (2 SP total)
2x shield (4 SP total)
And Bob has 4 uncommitted spell points.

He can cast any of his prepared spells without making a roll and swiftly, too. But to cast analyze spell or conjure animal, he has to shape the spell, which takes longer (and runs the risk of failure).

I like the idea of flexible spells but found it a bit slow in play.

Sometimes I want to go full minimalist - you one spell point per level, a fireball causes 2d6 damage, you can spend 5 FP to create a 10d6 fireball.

Every impressive spell (wish etc.) becomes a lengthy ritual instead.

But I find balancing spells tiresome and boring, so I just go with existing spells and ignore "balance". High-level casters feel incredibly powerful, however; especially clerics feel indispensable to the party.

My games are B/X inspired, but I think AD&D-style fighters are needed to balance MUs and clerics.

Quote from: David Johansen on November 20, 2023, 09:47:59 PM

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.

Yep, that is the old mechanic I was recalling

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AM

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm at.  I'm not a fan of Vancian magic or hp, but I acknowledge that they accomplish several good things mechanicwise.

Outside of Vancian Magic itself - this would be an interesting thread to discuss those things. Make it happen! I'd be happy to discuss. I don't think there is much light between us but it'd be fun to see where we land with everyone else too.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AMI disagree strongly that D&D isn't a setting.  The rules say many, many things about how the physics of the setting works and imply many more.  Sure you can play Greyhawk or Dark Sun or Planescape or whatever the space gerbil setting was called, but they're all recognizably D&D.

No. They're distinct settings. The rules are largely the same - the rules don't describe the explicit natures of those settings. It's easy to prove: remove all the rules from fluff, and what do you have? The setting fluff between all their different IP's read entirely different from their conceits. The rules themselves only attempt to describe them and even then the GM has a tremendous influence on how those rules are actually expressed - GM's emphasize the things they wish to emphasize in order to maintain coherence. It's precisely the loss of this coherency that has allowed this assumption that the *rules are the game*. This is why the "freakshow" is so prevalent in 5e.

I'll further point out - I run Savage Worlds Greybox Forgotten Realms. *Entirely* different set of rules, and it handles the conceits of the 1e Greybox Realms with as much fidelity at the original rules. In fact, it's better, because the Savage Worlds rules are more flexible, and scale better than D&D. There is zero-need to cling to HP, Vancian Magic, AC, Alpha-strike Builds, because the entire nature of the ruleset is designed to be modulated and tweaked to fit the needs of the game. It's much harder to do that in d20 - but it's to be expected given that d20 is the original ruleset. The *real* issue is how they tried to "improve" it in the weirdest most inefficient manners over succeeding editions.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 03:25:11 AMEven in the game novels you can tell if a game was written based on D&D without being told.  Many folks are so used to D&D and its relatives that they assume it represents all of fantasy.  It doesn't.  You just can't do Amber or The Adept or Witch World or many others with D&D without changing either the game or the setting beyond recognizability.  In some cases you can hammer the square peg into the round hole if you hit it hard enough, but it leaves gaps, flaws in the game.  I believe that for an RPG to be any good, the rules and setting need to be reflections of each other.

What do you expect a game-novel to do if not represent the mechanics of the game... somewhat. Ironically, one of things about the game novels of D&D is the fictional changes they made in the novels eventually got reciprocated back into the game mechanics via gear, spells etc. which only caused more incohesion to the rules. OR they ignore the rules outright. YES people think of D&D Fantasy *as* fantasy. It's a legitimate (if lame) genre of fiction - gamelit.

But that's not an argument that the rules *are* the game. Quite the opposite. It's an argument that people don't read *good* fantasy fiction, and worse, D&D tropes that exist because of mechanics are seen as a means of describing fictional secondary worlds. This is a far cry from playing a game in those worlds. Mind you, I'm speaking of non-D&D settings.

This is kind of an argument ad populum. It's like those lame videos about people statting DC and Marvel Superheroes in 5e stats. As if those rules can fully describe the realities of Supers gaming in the Marvel or DC. They can't. But when d20 is all one knows, whattya gonna do?

If one subscribes to the rules-are-the-game, then why have a setting at all? And to that end - this seems to be what WotC is going for in 6e. So maybe we're talking about two different things and different ways of playing TTRPG's? I think playing the rules as the game is low-grade gaming. But anyhow...

Vancian Magic - go with spell points, or retrofit an exisiting d20 parallel version like Fantasy Craft (or just go play Fantasy Craft). My better solution: go take your favorite set of mechanics, and convert your D&D setting to it.

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 01:52:31 AM
Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

The best option to replace Vancian inside a D&D framework is, IMHO the 3.5e Warlock.

Warlocks got a small number of at-will spell-like abilities (about a dozen total by level 20... only 6-7 by level 10) that form their magical toolkit. That put them more on par with non-spellcasting PCs in terms of effectiveness and often required using their abilities creatively.

Later editions refined them by giving them different slates of magic based on their patron, but the gist was still "here's your specialty subset of magic you can use as often as a fighter can swing a sword or do their special maneuvers."

A more system agnostic example would the Benders from Avatar... each (except the Avatar) has their particular element that forms their toolbox, most with some subspecialties (healing and bloodbending for water, tremorsense and metalbending for earth, etc.)... all of which were essentially at-will magic (needing to learn techniques might suggest skill-based, but once learned benders could then use those techniques consistently... which makes it more akin to a level-based system with downtime training needed to access new benefits).

The main advantages are keeping the options down to a manageable number that is easier to evaluate next to what non-casters receive because it operates on the same at-will use level and, if the particular school they use is well defined, should encourage some out of the box attempts to use their tools in creative ways.

QuoteMeh. You can attach whatever fiction you want to it.

No you cannot without bending yourself into pretzel. Game and setting needs to cooperate, otherwise everything is just pretentious and false to the bone.
And maybe Savages are universal toolkit, but D&D definitely is not.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM
You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

That's what alcohol is for...

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

It's funny, that's actually how I remember thinking the magic system worked in D&D when I first picked up the books as a kid. I don't think any of us had read the Amber novels, but I know one of my friend's mother did (because she named him after one of the characters); maybe that idea filtered down to him somehow.

I like that explanation as well, even in non-Vancian systems. It helps explain how you can cast a spell (which in lore is supposed to be quite a complex thing) in 3 to 6 seconds. 

I like Vancian magic well enough in standard games. In more historical fantasy games I sometimes enjoy running these days however I prefer using Pundit's own historically inspired magic system based in Hermeticism and folk practices. You can tweak it to add new stuff you come up with or increase the power of magic to be more on par with traditional fantasy if you want while keeping the feel.

For example, I've considered dropping in Lovecraftian Grimoires with fittingly Lovecraftian ceremonial magic and summoning rituals, adding spells from Aquelarre or historical sources, etc.
Apollonius had a nice spell for summoning a house servant in the Greek Papyri for example. Diabolists the PC's fight might have access to unsavory rites from the Book of Eibon, Grimoire of Pope Honorius, or things associated with witches' Black Sabbaths, flight ointments and the like (Medieval Chaos Sorcery is something I'd like Pundit to explore, where precisely do chaos cult skeletons come from, etc.?).

Currently Running: Lion & Dragon (S&C)

Currently Smoking: RPGPundit Presents #6: Pipeweed

(I am become shill, merchant of worlds  8) )

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

That's an interesting case.  I remember reading the books and thinking "Wow, that's straight out of D&D."  I recently read an article in the complete collection of Zelazny's short works describing how he started playing D&D with George RR Martin and various others.  I've misplaced the book so I can't confirm the timing, but I suspect that this was a case of D&D ideas acting as inspiration for fantasy literature rather than the more usual other way around.

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 21, 2023, 01:52:31 AM
Or maybe, much like AC, THACO, HP, Classes, etc. etc. everything in D&D has come under endless debates for literally 40+ years... Sure *you* may like it. But let's not pretend that other methods of handling magic that is *not* Vancian, is not equally long established. The point of the thread is literally talking about replacing Vancian magic. There is a reason for that.

Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

I'm really just discussing the point, not trying to be dramatic.

There is a reason WE ALL have tweaked D&D over the years. It's a tradition to homebrew things that "don't sit right". I specifically bring up the Usual Suspects(tm) (HP, AC, Class, Alignment, etc. etc.) *because*, like you - I'm of the same vintage, and we've both seen these discussions a bazillion times. And people have written screeds pro/con on this stuff for enough pages to make a few trilogies of the worst novels if printed out.

That *means* something. That means there has always been some kind of dissatisfaction with these things in expression. Yes it *could* be the GM. Or it could be that the abstractions themselves don't make sense with the narrative being wrought by the game in conjunction with one another. Players are players, not game-designers. But GM's, once they get their training-wheels off, are almost always armchair designers because their games are "supposed" to operate the way they think it should in their heads. And there is always something... not right.

Vancian magic sticks in the craw of a *lot* of people because of its idiosyncratic nature - both in fiction and in mechanical practice at the table. I don't really know of any other magic system in TTRPG's that's not a direct d20 analog that uses it.

Without spending TOO much time on it... this is what I'd do.


Non-Vancian D&D magic - big riff off of the 3e Talislanta system
1) I'd leverage all the Schools of Magic to create real distinctions in the formulas below. Each school has different *discrete* modifications to the basic spell effects list. Caster classes would be able to choose from a limited number of schools.

2) Spells must be rolled like any other skill. Failure causes problems. Spell level is based on what level the caster *chooses* to cast the effect at. Thus a caster can scale his spells accordingly, where going beyond his means (i.e. Class level) incurs a penalty risk for failure, for the reward of a greater effect. The inverse is true too - where a caster can make a spell *impossible* to fail by downshifting the level of the effect below his minimum threshold. Failure to cast means backlash - 1d6/level of the attempted spell.

3) BASIC Spell effect list available to all schools. Each school would have their own "effects" which modify these spells:

Shields - Personal Caster only protection. Absorbs 2-damage per level. Duration 1rd/level of spell.
Barriers - Area-effect protection 5-feet per level. Walls, Cones, Bridges, Cylinders (each have their own scaling dimension outlined). 2hp/lvl. 1rd/lvl duration.
Bolts - 10ft/lvl range. 1d4 damage/lvl no cap. School effects may apply special conditions depending on the trappings of the school.

4) School Spell Lists: Each school of magic would have on top of the Basic Spell effects. example:
Necromancy School - Animate Dead, Contact Lower Plane, Domination, Energy Drain, Necromantic Aura (Damage Field), Necromantic Bolt, etc.

Each school would have their own set of effects modified by their school. In this manner, you'd get the effects of pretty much any/all D&D specific spells but they would be curated closer towards making the school trappings matter over the discrete effects rather than the random exceptions they do now. The idea is the make the effects cleave *much closer* to the regular task-resolution mechanics of the rest of the system. You incorporate the scaling needs not to the class assumptions - but to the player's agency, because now there is risk involved.

5) Spells per day - You can cast 1 spell per day per level. PERIOD.
Optional rules: You get a bonus spell per bonus from Intelligence. You may cast beyond your capacity at penalty.

It would not take very much work once you curated the basics of each school.

Super-high level magic like Wish, Time Stop etc. would *require* specific levels to even cast. This doesn't mean lower-level casters couldn't try to cast them, but it means the penalties of even trying to attempt to cast them successfully would warrant severe caution less they fail. Magic backlash should be commensurate to the level of the spell being cast.

Obviously there are a few other details - but this would be a basic framework I'd try. I have others of course...

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

I'll use a different analogy.

Some people play chess because they enjoy it in and of itself. They don't *care* or even know what it's supposed to represent - a war. Each move of each piece is an abstraction of something potentially epic, each move is a potential machination of incredible subtlety - a move to cover other moves. But it's just pieces being moved on a checker-board for most people.

Depends on the resolution in which you decide to play the game. *I* want more resolution. It's not that I don't appreciate Chess as a game. I do very much. Just like I appreciate D&D. But they're just rules, not what I demand from my TTRPG experience.

I want people to feel the game, to be immersed in their Knight PC running down the evil Bishop and lancing that fucker through the head. I want that Evil Black Bishop to summon diabolical monsters to defend himself. I *don't* want it to be relegate to a simple move on a checkerboard where the Knight takes Bishop - and let's all pretend that's a TTRPG and defend it.

Vancian Magic is what it is - a mechanic. Is it a good one? Depends on what you want in your game. I think it's a low-resolution mechanic because it serves Gygax's wargaming needs *at the time* of its inception. I conceive of magic operating a little more dynamically, a little more dangerously than what is presented in D&D. And it's not simply that I started with D&D - I did - but I also played Bard Games Atlantis, Talislanta, I also played Palladium Fantasy, among other games during that same era. D&D-style Fantasy is not solely the province of D&D, it just happens to be the most popular because that's what most people stuck with. I don't need to be beholden to a mechanic that doesn't serve what I want in my game. It's like pretending *no* advancements have been made since the inception of D&D Basic. If that's what you're contending, (which I don't believe you are), then we have some unspoken claims that would need resolving first, heh.

Ironically if you're trying to replace Vancian magic - which is what this thread is asking about - why are we debating why? I'm not in here to wax nostalgic about Vancian Magic and how we should protect it. Why should I be trying to convince him to stick with something they don't care about? This is not a controversial topic at this point, even WotC has given their own spins on it. What's the issue?

I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2023, 04:44:29 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on November 21, 2023, 03:18:17 PM
Look, I like you so I don't really want to get into it, but that is not the point at all.  I, in fact, don't particularly care if people use Vancian magic or not.  You'll notice that I included my preferred tweaks to Vancian magic earlier in the thread, and I've literally played magic dozens of different ways in D&D since I started playing in 1975/76.  That is certainly what the thread is about.

I take exception to the statement that only brand loyalists or people who can't escape from the past use Vancian magic is unnecessarily combative and really has no place in the discussion.

On the journey from 1 to 10, 1 being old school D&D exactly as is, 10 being ultimate RPG enlightenment, it's easy when you're at 3 to look back and wonder why all these silly people can't leave those archaic mechanics behind, but when you get to be about 7 or 8 and still looking forward, trying to get to 10, you start seeing some things, not everything, just some things circling back to how they were at 1, and you gain a newfound appreciation for those things. And you're a lot more understanding about why some people choose to just stay at 1.

I don't think he's being combative. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand, let alone appreciate for himself, why or how things at 1 are actually good. You can't force a 3 to be a 7.

You're not enlightened, you don't have any special insight into game design, and there is nothing particularly remarkable about D&D.

Quote from: Domina on November 22, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Free of context.

D&D style fantasy demands limits as a conceit (barely these days). Otherwise you're in my territory of Supers. ZERO LIMITS BABY!

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:25:09 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 22, 2023, 12:13:26 PM
I don't place any limits on how often you can use your fun abilities.

Free of context.

D&D style fantasy demands limits as a conceit (barely these days). Otherwise you're in my territory of Supers. ZERO LIMITS BABY!

I've run plenty of fantasy games without any such limits. It's not demanded.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2023, 11:52:29 PM

Quote from: Votan on November 20, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 20, 2023, 10:34:54 AM
I find a quasi-Vancian system can still make sense. In this version, a magic-user isn't memorizing in the morning. They're just doing all of the ritual work to have a spell ready to fire on a moment's notice. In the evening, of course they can't use that same spell again yet because they haven't had the chance to ready themselves for it. As for why they can't just immediately re-prepare? Maybe the preparation process itself takes a toll on the magic-user's mind or body, necessitating a break from the process for a while.

Merlin in Roger Zelanzy's Amber series actually described doing exactly that -- leaving everything but a few key words out that can be executed to complete the ritual later.

That's an interesting case.  I remember reading the books and thinking "Wow, that's straight out of D&D."  I recently read an article in the complete collection of Zelazny's short works describing how he started playing D&D with George RR Martin and various others.  I've misplaced the book so I can't confirm the timing, but I suspect that this was a case of D&D ideas acting as inspiration for fantasy literature rather than the more usual other way around.

He wrote that first scene with Merlin long before he was playing the game, which was late in his life.  Though he had been around writers who were playing well before that, so that the idea could have percolated that way.  OTOH, Zelazny was so widely read, he could have picked it up from any number of sources.

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 11:52:12 AM
There is a reason WE ALL have tweaked D&D over the years. It's a tradition to homebrew things that "don't sit right". I specifically bring up the Usual Suspects(tm) (HP, AC, Class, Alignment, etc. etc.) *because*, like you - I'm of the same vintage, and we've both seen these discussions a bazillion times. And people have written screeds pro/con on this stuff for enough pages to make a few trilogies of the worst novels if printed out.

That *means* something. That means there has always been some kind of dissatisfaction with these things in expression. Yes it *could* be the GM. Or it could be that the abstractions themselves don't make sense with the narrative being wrought by the game in conjunction with one another. Players are players, not game-designers. But GM's, once they get their training-wheels off, are almost always armchair designers because their games are "supposed" to operate the way they think it should in their heads. And there is always something... not right.

Vancian magic sticks in the craw of a *lot* of people because of its idiosyncratic nature - both in fiction and in mechanical practice at the table. I don't really know of any other magic system in TTRPG's that's not a direct d20 analog that uses it.

It's funny.  I went down all those roads--magic points, effects-based (multiple systems and house rules), variations on the slots, etc.  And where I ended up isn't AD&D 1E Vancian, either.  But it took me a long time to realize that in my "D&D-like" games my dissatisfaction with magic was not the core Vancian mechanics but all the cruft that had built up around it.  That's especially true in the WotC versions.  The idea of limited slots for magic is adjacent to limited slots for equipment--a compromise for a certain kind of game play at the expense of exact fidelity to a setting.  However, that only works if:

1. You prioritize that game play.
2. You are willing to limit your setting to something that makes sense with that compromise so as to minimize the dissatisfaction, and then enjoy the game play that comes out of that from the trade. 

That's not compatible with wizards having 30 spells on the first level spell list, or a zillion caster types with complicated interplay of cross-over spells, or many spells that are practically pointless.  To do those things is to take the game play advantage that was bought with that trade and toss it in the garbage.  That's not even getting to trying to shoehorn slots into a magic setting where they in no way fit. I can see some "only adequate" fits working with the right kind of mind set for the game, but everyone has a limit.

Net effect is that I want my "D&D-like" games to play like D&D, and that includes some kind of minimal Vancian magic.  If I want to play something different, I'd rather use a different system than try to force it onto a D&D model. 

That's exactly my feelings and experiences as well. I have less interest in rehabilitating a subsystem - like Vancian Magic, than getting on with running and playing the game I want to run using rules that already do what I want.

I have no interest in playing D&D rules for their own sake.

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:06:44 PM
I'll use a different analogy.

That's really not necessary. It's not like I'm having difficulty understanding where you're coming from. It's you who are having trouble understanding others. And your analogy verifies that insofar as it really doesn't address my point.

QuoteDepends on the resolution in which you decide to play the game. *I* want more resolution. It's not that I don't appreciate Chess as a game. I do very much. Just like I appreciate D&D. But they're just rules, not what I demand from my TTRPG experience.

Just to clarify, what you're talking about appreciating here has zero to do with where I thought you were lacking appreciation. So you're still in the "not appreciating" column. The heart of the matter is when you put emphasis on *I*. Why do you assume that what you want is different from what I want? I haven't really talked about what I want. I haven't said I play by the rules because it's the rules. And so far, no matter how many stars you put around 'I' you haven't said a single thing that about what you want that differs from what I want. I'm sure there's something somewhere. But so far nothing that anyone has mentioned. Nothing that is germane enough to have reared its head.

This is significant. Because when you stop saying I and start acknowledging that it's we, that we want this other thing that isn't just playing chess for the sake of playing chess, and we want this thing that isn't just using the rules of D&D for the sake of using the rules of D&D, then the actual difference between us is I see that the "Vancian" magic system can be a useful tool in getting what we want and you don't see it. And that's why I say you're at 3 and not 7. To assume facts not in evidence and insist that we just must want something different is a grotesque evasion of this simple fact.

QuoteVancian Magic is what it is - a mechanic. Is it a good one? Depends on what you want in your game. I think it's a low-resolution mechanic because it serves Gygax's wargaming needs *at the time* of its inception.

Suppose we want the same thing. So far no difference between us pertaining to this subject has come up. The question of whether or not it's a good mechanic then, it turns out, does not necessarily depend on what you want in the game. We might just like different mechanics.

And 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.

QuoteI conceive of magic operating a little more dynamically, a little more dangerously than what is presented in D&D. And it's not simply that I started with D&D - I did - but I also played Bard Games Atlantis, Talislanta, I also played Palladium Fantasy, among other games during that same era.

Again with the 'I' stuff. Okay, I didn't play those exact same games. But I saw plenty of action cartoons where someone might throw up a magic shield against a magical beam of power. If the beam persisted, though, the defending spellcaster might become drained. It certainly seemed like the caster was expending some invisible resource rather than the spell having some fixed, pre-set duration. D&D did not set my expectations for how magic should work. If anything, it challenged my expectations. I have no particular reason to believe it set the expectation for anyone. Your experiences are not that unique.

QuoteD&D-style Fantasy is not solely the province of D&D, it just happens to be the most popular because that's what most people stuck with. I don't need to be beholden to a mechanic that doesn't serve what I want in my game. It's like pretending *no* advancements have been made since the inception of D&D Basic. If that's what you're contending, (which I don't believe you are), then we have some unspoken claims that would need resolving first, heh.

Well, I mean, I've actually already stated the exact opposite in this thread. My favorite magic system, the one I consider the best, is actually a magic point system. It's got a ridiculous amount of content and lets you do pretty much anything you want. Of course there are always going to be tradeoffs for the spellcaster. And what I found was players doing was accepting the drawback of longer casting times for more powerful spells, then getting around the drawback by using magical triggers, essentially preparing in advance the spells they thought they would most likely need.

They weren't doing it out of D&D inertia. They were doing it because when just about every conceivable pairing of pros and cons is on the table, preparing spells in advance is a highly desirable thing. They didn't do that exclusively. They kept some points available for the quick spells and even for some slower ones likely to be useful in situations that are not time-sensitive. But their A-game comes from the prepared spells. And so I have to ask the question if this is all really worth the extra complexity.

You can answer that question for yourself any way you like, but it is clearly a legitimate question. So when you say things like "it's like pretending no advancements have been made", it's like you're pretending that's not a legitimate question. And if you've simply just never considered the question before, that's the sort of thing that puts you at 3 rather than 7.

QuoteIronically if you're trying to replace Vancian magic - which is what this thread is asking about - why are we debating why?

Well, for one, I'm not debating anything. And two, I'm not entirely sure that's really what the thread is about. Being an experienced DM who is expected to know what players mean when they tell me what they want to do, working in sales, and being married to a woman, all of these things have taught me that what people say isn't always what they mean. In this thread, the evident premise is the OP has no clue what he wants. That might not actually be true. This might all be for the sake of discussion. But that is nonetheless the premise here. The OP doesn't list a single thing he wants. Only that he doesn't want a Vancian magic system. And the only reasons he gives for that I dispute. So I'm looking at an OP that has no clue what he wants and doesn't even know the first thing about what he doesn't want. That might not be your assessment at all. And in fact the OP can certainly chime in with extra information to correct me. But for the time being, this is my assessment of the OP, and given that, what would you have me do? I've played along and listed a couple of alternate systems I like and I've tried to correct what I thought was wrong.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2023, 12:06:44 PM
I'll use a different analogy.

The OP doesn't list a single thing he wants. Only that he doesn't want a Vancian magic system. And the only reasons he gives for that I dispute. So I'm looking at an OP that has no clue what he wants and doesn't even know the first thing about what he doesn't want.

Well, that's easy.  Read the title of the thread, and do that.  I just want people to talk about their favorite non-Vancian magic system. 

I do think it's weird that most of the thread is pushback against the idea that D&D and Vancian are not universally popular.

I also don't like word wall posts.  You can't read thru the whole thing while sitting on the toilet without your legs going numb, so there is that. 

This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

:)

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

:)

Yup.  Too much overthinking and not enough games name dropped to check out. 

What prompted me was actually my own mistake.  I mentioned the Scroll Reader from Tiny D6. 

It almost seemed like a way to re-work Vancian magic that's less weird.  It didn't end up working as I thought.  In Tiny D6 games the Scroll Readers are the only people able to use magic spell scrolls, which lose all power and turn into a blank page after being read. In that game normies can't use scrolls at all.  Also, the scroll reader needs to be constantly finding replacement scrolls. 

But that gave me an idea.   I would have preferred this;

A Scroll Reader can re-use scrolls.  The scroll only goes blank for a day after being used.  They travel the world searching for more scrolls to become more powerful.  For convenience Scroll Readers typically bind up the many scrolls they own as a single book they keep locked shut for safety, and on a shoulder strap so it's always close at hand.  The Scroll Reader still matters as well, as they're own level sets how strong the magic is, and how many scrolls per day you can read before the ability to have them come back is gone.  Also, you can infer that a desperate Scoll Reader can keep reading off ALL of their scrolls, permanently loosing the scrolls beyond their scrolls-per-day limit. 

This way Vancian magic style "use and forget" is still a thing, sort of.  You don't forget.  The page in your spell book goes blank. 

It also explains why wizards seem to always carry spell tomes around everywhere they go. 

That's how I would do it. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 23, 2023, 10:02:24 AM

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
This thread has gotten into some very deep philosophical territory from where it began:

"Best options to replace Vancian magic?"

:)

Yup.  Too much overthinking and not enough games name dropped to check out. 

What prompted me was actually my own mistake.  I mentioned the Scroll Reader from Tiny D6. 

It almost seemed like a way to re-work Vancian magic that's less weird.  It didn't end up working as I thought.  In Tiny D6 games the Scroll Readers are the only people able to use magic spell scrolls, which lose all power and turn into a blank page after being read. In that game normies can't use scrolls at all.  Also, the scroll reader needs to be constantly finding replacement scrolls. 

But that gave me an idea.   I would have preferred this;

A Scroll Reader can re-use scrolls.  The scroll only goes blank for a day after being used.  They travel the world searching for more scrolls to become more powerful.  For convenience Scroll Readers typically bind up the many scrolls they own as a single book they keep locked shut for safety, and on a shoulder strap so it's always close at hand.  The Scroll Reader still matters as well, as they're own level sets how strong the magic is, and how many scrolls per day you can read before the ability to have them come back is gone.  Also, you can infer that a desperate Scoll Reader can keep reading off ALL of their scrolls, permanently loosing the scrolls beyond their scrolls-per-day limit. 

This way Vancian magic style "use and forget" is still a thing, sort of.  You don't forget.  The page in your spell book goes blank. 

It also explains why wizards seem to always carry spell tomes around everywhere they go. 

That's how I would do it.

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

Wizards in D&D should be like the wizard in Diablo 3.

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

That is how dungeons and delvers dice pool works.  A wizard's fireball is unlimited ammo, does 1 damage, and has a range of 5 spaces on a battle map.   You hit with a skill check of Intellect attribute + Arcane skill. 

An archer has 20 shots per quiver, 2 damage per shot, and a range of 10 squares on a battle map.  Skill check is Agility + Ranged. 

In a duel between the two my money is on the archer.

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 11:57:35 AM

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

It could even be as simple as the magic just doesn't work if you try to re-read a scroll twice a day.

If you want three fireballs a day, you better own three separate fireball scrolls. 

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM
That's really not necessary. It's not like I'm having difficulty understanding where you're coming from. It's you who are having trouble understanding others. And your analogy verifies that insofar as it really doesn't address my point.

I'm not having trouble understanding you. I'm wondering why you're telling me something I already know.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMJust to clarify, what you're talking about appreciating here has zero to do with where I thought you were lacking appreciation. So you're still in the "not appreciating" column. The heart of the matter is when you put emphasis on *I*. Why do you assume that what you want is different from what I want? I haven't really talked about what I want. I haven't said I play by the rules because it's the rules. And so far, no matter how many stars you put around 'I' you haven't said a single thing that about what you want that differs from what I want. I'm sure there's something somewhere. But so far nothing that anyone has mentioned. Nothing that is germane enough to have reared its head.

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. And you're missing the point that I'm making about *myself* in this analogy: The abstraction of Chess is being likened to the abstraction of Vancian magic in what it does mechanically vs. what the abstraction is intended to do. You'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. The 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*.

The 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.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMThis is significant. Because when you stop saying I and start acknowledging that it's we, that we want this other thing that isn't just playing chess for the sake of playing chess, and we want this thing that isn't just using the rules of D&D for the sake of using the rules of D&D, then the actual difference between us is I see that the "Vancian" magic system can be a useful tool in getting what we want and you don't see it. And that's why I say you're at 3 and not 7. To assume facts not in evidence and insist that we just must want something different is a grotesque evasion of this simple fact.

So when TSR/WotC gave us alternative rules to use Magic, including alternative systems that were Magic under another name (Psionics) across many editions, that was some lone gunman thinking "I think Vancian Magic sucks and I'm going to do this, because who cares what the fucking players, and other developers think?" Yes, people wanted something other than Vancian Magic since the inception. But not enough to give a shit about it outside of forums and Letters to the Editor sections of Dragon, and BBS's back in the day. Get over it. If Dave Arneson didn't like it and use it in Blackmoor, and he gets the credit he deserves, then at least that should matter, or nothing matters other than the fact "Vancian Magic" is unique to D&D alone. You're being obtuse if you believe it's nothing more than a mutated Wargaming mechanic. Literally everyone knows this from that era.

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

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMSuppose we want the same thing. So far no difference between us pertaining to this subject has come up. The question of whether or not it's a good mechanic then, it turns out, does not necessarily depend on what you want in the game. We might just like different mechanics.

And 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. AGAIN - it doesn't serve the purpose today in 5e that it did in Basic. The games are different. I actually don't care whether you like/dislike the same mechanics as myself. I care whether the mechanics of the game I'm running, support what I want in my setting. Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AM
Again with the 'I' stuff. Okay, I didn't play those exact same games. But I saw plenty of action cartoons where someone might throw up a magic shield against a magical beam of power. If the beam persisted, though, the defending spellcaster might become drained. It certainly seemed like the caster was expending some invisible resource rather than the spell having some fixed, pre-set duration. D&D did not set my expectations for how magic should work. If anything, it challenged my expectations. I have no particular reason to believe it set the expectation for anyone. Your experiences are not that unique.

Because you seem to question the notion that Vancian magic is exists as some ubiquitous phenomenon that is fine and dandy as if nothing else existed? Sharpen your inference skills. It's precisely why I brought it up - it's not unique to me. DUH.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 23, 2023, 12:21:58 AMWell, I mean, I've actually already stated the exact opposite in this thread. My favorite magic system, the one I consider the best, is actually a magic point system. It's got a ridiculous amount of content and lets you do pretty much anything you want. Of course there are always going to be tradeoffs for the spellcaster. And what I found was players doing was accepting the drawback of longer casting times for more powerful spells, then getting around the drawback by using magical triggers, essentially preparing in advance the spells they thought they would most likely need.

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

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 23, 2023, 12:45:21 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on November 23, 2023, 11:57:35 AM

Yeah, I think that would work, or treat it as a page in the tome goes blank for a day. Or perhaps even just the magic user is unable to read it for a day?

I did include 2 alternatives that I rather like above!

Take care and have a nice turkey day!

It could even be as simple as the magic just doesn't work if you try to re-read a scroll twice a day.

If you want three fireballs a day, you better own three separate fireball scrolls.

Yeah that would work!

I still prefer the "Four-by-Five" Magic System for the Fudge RPG by Steffan O'Sullivan, the Microlite20 system. Both allow you to do anything you like, but have costs and limitations. In the case of 4x5 you have to have the 'ingredients' to make the magic, and in the case of Microlite20 you have to have a high enough level, like with 3.5, and enough HP to eat the cost.

Ultimately its about having fun and working out something with your friends.

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Yeah. 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.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 21, 2023, 06:59:49 PM
The best option to replace Vancian inside a D&D framework is, IMHO the 3.5e Warlock.

Warlocks got a small number of at-will spell-like abilities (about a dozen total by level 20... only 6-7 by level 10) that form their magical toolkit. That put them more on par with non-spellcasting PCs in terms of effectiveness and often required using their abilities creatively.

Later editions refined them by giving them different slates of magic based on their patron, but the gist was still "here's your specialty subset of magic you can use as often as a fighter can swing a sword or do their special maneuvers."

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.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 18, 2023, 08:37:41 PM
I think the best magic system is the one from Dangerous Journeys Mythus Magick.

I agree; the DJ magic system is very cool.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 18, 2023, 12:58:20 PM
The Vancian system largely exists to prevent wizards from being able to spam fireballs every round (which 5th edition ignored). So any system that replaces it has to find a way to perform the same task.

Or you could just design a system such that it doesn't break because of something as simple as throwing a fireball every round.

Yeah. 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. There's a standard defense of the Firebolt and Eldritch Blast cantrips in 5e which goes something like "well, all the martial classes get a standard attack that improves as they level up. Casters should too". That's always struck me as missing the point. "I hit it with my sword" for round after round is every bit as dull as spamming Eldritch Blast is. I'd rather see the focus on making fighters more interesting to play, rather than making wizards less so.

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.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:50:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 21, 2023, 06:59:49 PM
The best option to replace Vancian inside a D&D framework is, IMHO the 3.5e Warlock.

Warlocks got a small number of at-will spell-like abilities (about a dozen total by level 20... only 6-7 by level 10) that form their magical toolkit. That put them more on par with non-spellcasting PCs in terms of effectiveness and often required using their abilities creatively.

Later editions refined them by giving them different slates of magic based on their patron, but the gist was still "here's your specialty subset of magic you can use as often as a fighter can swing a sword or do their special maneuvers."

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.

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.

In GURPS Magic for 4th edition you can do 1d6 per level of magical aptitude for upto three seconds for a pretty hefty 9 dice for most player character mages.  Better for higher tech games but not so much for lower powered fantasy.

In third edition you maxed out at 3d period but I increased it by the skill level casting cost discount so you could do 4d at skill 15 and so forth.

Quote from: Kage2020 on November 26, 2023, 04:52:15 PM

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.

I didn't like standard magic in GURPS 3rd edition, though I have little experience with the 4th edition. (My 4th ed games were customized and didn't use standard magic.) In 3rd, there were a lot of places where it seemed dominated by odd corner conditions, like a few spells that could be incredibly powerful when bought up to skill 20 or higher. Also, the prerequisite system leads to a long list of little-used spells that the player doesn't really want, though they could come in useful occasionally. I found this overcomplicated, and would prefer to just pay more for more useful spells.

That said, I did like the magic system in GURPS Voodoo a lot. It had some issues in implementation, but it was extremely flavorful and interesting, far moreso than the standard magic.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 01:15:13 AM
That said, I did like the magic system in GURPS Voodoo a lot. It had some issues in implementation, but it was extremely flavorful and interesting, far moreso than the standard magic.

My general stance when it comes to the "standard magic" system is that it's not the standard magic system and, like Fight Club, one doesn't talk about the standard magic system. ;)

Well that's the real issue with D&D "Magic" writ-large - it's a hodgepodge of collected rules exceptions with 50+ years of uncontrolled growth, with little context to these spells to their respective settings. There have been attempts to "normalize" spells across Greyhawk and Realms spells, but for the most part it's been "anything goes".

What needs to happen is the GM (because WotC will never do it) has to establish what, precisely, they want magic to do and how they want spellcasters to engage with magic itself. It's more than just saying "Vancian Magic" sucks, because it exists as an artifact of its time in relation to the system that birthed it.

It's not enough to say "we want utility" - we need to specify as much as possible what that utility is. Because when we say "utility" we're talking about the beefy rules-exceptions that people love/hate.

We want magic to - Blast, Defend. There should be an solid established scaling principle to this that is bound to the non-itemized progression of non-casters. This is tricky because this calls for a re-examination of the HP system and progression in terms of what you as a GM want in the system.

Personally I think if you're going to create a "core group" of spells for D&D, there should be an accepted batch of spells that fall across all schools of magic that are balanced internally against the rest of the system as much as possible. Note: I'm not saying balance for the purposes of homogeneity across the board, I'm saying that the math expressions of these "core spells" based across attach/defense/utility need to interact with the core task resolutions of the rest of the system (not necessarily other class abilities directly).

How would this be expressed? Depends. By keeping Spell Levels, that *could* be the indicator of Spell Point cost. This assumes that you've integrated scaling of those Spells as I indicated above. The benefit to this pre-calculation design is that it means players don't have to do any calculation at the table. All spells of <X> level cost their Spell level in Spellpoints. The alternative is that you figure out those algorithms (like in many systems) where each iteration of that effect costs <X> (like 1 Spell point per d6 of damage) and you indicate what level you're casting the spell at. This is not a big deal, except where you're also forced to calculate Range, Area of Effect, etc. which is where those friction points are in such systems.

Another way to help mitigate this is by keeping numbers *low*. D&D "typically" uses a d6/lvl as its scaling mechanism. The problem in later editions is that HP values have increased dramatically compared to earlier editions. I think most people don't even see this is an issue - most GM's see the problem of Save or Suck mechanics, which 5e has mitigated somewhat... but it's still unsatisfactory.

Savage Worlds has very low numbers (and it doesn't use HP at all - so that's a huge help). Damage is typically 2d6 with more d6's based on good rolls (or you power up your spells for more Spell points), but rarely if ever higher than 5d6.

Talislanta has static HP (unless you play 3e which is 2hp/level). They give you all the algorithms for their spells upfront so you can customize your spells for your caster and school specifically.

Fantasy Craft, which is a d20 system (3.x) makes spells cost Spell Points equal to the Spell's Level. However they cooked down the spells into specific algorithms that also requires a skill check (as a balancing lever against the LFQM issue). All spells conform to specific bounded values for Distance, Duration, Area Effect, etc. For example:

DISTANCE
This is the maximum distance at which the effect may be placed.

Personal: The effect happens at the caster.
Touch: The effect happens at a character or object the caster touches.
Close: The effect may happen at any distance up to 50 ft. from the caster.
Local: The effect may happen at any distance up to 250 ft. from the caster.
Remote: The effect may happen at any distance up to 1,000 ft. from the caster.
Unlimited: The effect may happen anywhere in the caster's current setting (per the GM).
Short Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 50 ft. away.
Medium Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 250 ft. away.
Long Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 1,000 ft. away.

When a spell is used to attack (e.g. "Touch attack" or "Long range attack"), the Spellcasting result is also the attack result.
Spell attacks that inflict damage share the Spellcasting check's threat range. Ranged spell attacks are subject to deviation

Each spell will have one of these specific values for each dimension. So it's pretty much fire and forget Spell points system that emulates what I consider core PHB spells.

I use these as examples that tackled the 'Vancian System' directly. In order to fully replace it in D&D, you'd have to be prepared to do a lot of elbow-grease. And I think it's a worthy effort if you're committed to playing d20.

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
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.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
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.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
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.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Oh okay, i see, so i did misunderstand. I havent actually played a wargame with an ammo mechanic either but i don't play any historical wargames.

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Slambo on November 27, 2023, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
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.

I might be misunderstanding, but what Wargame uses Vancian magic? Im pretty sure even Chainmail didnt

He's referring to the ammo mechanic for some of the heavier unit options, most notably tanks and artillery.

Oh okay, i see, so i did misunderstand. I havent actually played a wargame with an ammo mechanic either but i don't play any historical wargames.

You should definitely try it out.  Odds are, you'll get trashed in you first game but HWG dudes tend to be chill and will be happy to help you learn to play and improve your strategies.

Quote from: tenbones on November 26, 2023, 11:14:26 PM
Except you're citing the narrative reason why "Vancian Magic" as a system works.

That was in response to your point about caring about what the rules represent.

QuoteIt is a mechanic that is used in wargaming - and they slapped the narrative on top of it.

They also used dice, pencils, and referees in wargames and they played at a table. The fact a thing happened in wargames is apropos of nothing.

QuoteIt says nothing about the quality of the mechanic today. Hence the point of the thread.

I can tell you about the quality of the mechanic. It's great. If we're deviating from that point, it's only because you're grasping for reasons to avoid facing the fact that people actually like the mechanic. It's not just a matter of brand loyalty. It is a good mechanic.

QuoteIs that optimal gaming for you? No. You said it yourself.

Actually, I didn't say that. I said in my favorite system, where any kind of magic at all is possible, in actual play ends up looking close enough to the "Vancian" system that I wonder if it would just be better to just do that in the first place, trimming the fringe optionality in exchange for simplicity. As in it's possible that the Vancian system might actually be the one for "optimal gaming."

Out of all the games I frequently play (obviously these are only those I like), I can't say any of the magic systems, "Vancian" included, stand out as obviously better or obviously worse than the others. So when someone insists that it's obvious, not even controversial, that it is somehow an outdated throwback system that only exists out of brand loyalty and was merely wargaming with a slap-on narrative, that just strikes me as an extremely ignorant position to hold. It's possible to dislike something and still be aware of and honest about its merits.

QuoteYou 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.

Sounds like confession through projection.

Are you still arguing with yourself? Carry on brave soldier!

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 02:20:39 AM
Are you still arguing with yourself? Carry on brave soldier!

I'm pretty sure he's just high from trying to smell his own farts (believing them to be flower-scented).

D&D Vancian is great at being D&D Vancian. It fails at trying to emulate any other magic system.

As to how beloved and easy and intuitive Vancian is... even the 5e D&D movie didn't use it (and they even used item Attunement as a plot point) even with a climactic sorcerer vs. wizard duel at the end.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 28, 2023, 08:54:29 AM
D&D Vancian is great at being D&D Vancian. It fails at trying to emulate any other magic system.

    Which makes it perfect for what D&D has become since WotC took over--a self-referential, self-important, self-devouring ouroboros of a game. :D

Yeah it's definitely its own thing. Just because I think a mechanic is shitty, and someone happens to like that mechanic, doesn't mean I'm saying that person is a shitty person.

But maybe I'm wrong? LOL

Quote from: tenbones on November 27, 2023, 11:22:29 AM
Well that's the real issue with D&D "Magic" writ-large - it's a hodgepodge of collected rules exceptions with 50+ years of uncontrolled growth, with little context to these spells to their respective settings. There have been attempts to "normalize" spells across Greyhawk and Realms spells, but for the most part it's been "anything goes".

What needs to happen is the GM (because WotC will never do it) has to establish what, precisely, they want magic to do and how they want spellcasters to engage with magic itself. It's more than just saying "Vancian Magic" sucks, because it exists as an artifact of its time in relation to the system that birthed it.

It's not enough to say "we want utility" - we need to specify as much as possible what that utility is. Because when we say "utility" we're talking about the beefy rules-exceptions that people love/hate.

We want magic to - Blast, Defend. There should be an solid established scaling principle to this that is bound to the non-itemized progression of non-casters. This is tricky because this calls for a re-examination of the HP system and progression in terms of what you as a GM want in the system.

Personally I think if you're going to create a "core group" of spells for D&D, there should be an accepted batch of spells that fall across all schools of magic that are balanced internally against the rest of the system as much as possible. Note: I'm not saying balance for the purposes of homogeneity across the board, I'm saying that the math expressions of these "core spells" based across attach/defense/utility need to interact with the core task resolutions of the rest of the system (not necessarily other class abilities directly).

How would this be expressed? Depends. By keeping Spell Levels, that *could* be the indicator of Spell Point cost. This assumes that you've integrated scaling of those Spells as I indicated above. The benefit to this pre-calculation design is that it means players don't have to do any calculation at the table. All spells of <X> level cost their Spell level in Spellpoints. The alternative is that you figure out those algorithms (like in many systems) where each iteration of that effect costs <X> (like 1 Spell point per d6 of damage) and you indicate what level you're casting the spell at. This is not a big deal, except where you're also forced to calculate Range, Area of Effect, etc. which is where those friction points are in such systems.

Another way to help mitigate this is by keeping numbers *low*. D&D "typically" uses a d6/lvl as its scaling mechanism. The problem in later editions is that HP values have increased dramatically compared to earlier editions. I think most people don't even see this is an issue - most GM's see the problem of Save or Suck mechanics, which 5e has mitigated somewhat... but it's still unsatisfactory.

Savage Worlds has very low numbers (and it doesn't use HP at all - so that's a huge help). Damage is typically 2d6 with more d6's based on good rolls (or you power up your spells for more Spell points), but rarely if ever higher than 5d6.

Talislanta has static HP (unless you play 3e which is 2hp/level). They give you all the algorithms for their spells upfront so you can customize your spells for your caster and school specifically.

Fantasy Craft, which is a d20 system (3.x) makes spells cost Spell Points equal to the Spell's Level. However they cooked down the spells into specific algorithms that also requires a skill check (as a balancing lever against the LFQM issue). All spells conform to specific bounded values for Distance, Duration, Area Effect, etc. For example:

DISTANCE
This is the maximum distance at which the effect may be placed.

Personal: The effect happens at the caster.
Touch: The effect happens at a character or object the caster touches.
Close: The effect may happen at any distance up to 50 ft. from the caster.
Local: The effect may happen at any distance up to 250 ft. from the caster.
Remote: The effect may happen at any distance up to 1,000 ft. from the caster.
Unlimited: The effect may happen anywhere in the caster's current setting (per the GM).
Short Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 50 ft. away.
Medium Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 250 ft. away.
Long Range: The effect travels from the caster up to 1,000 ft. away.

When a spell is used to attack (e.g. "Touch attack" or "Long range attack"), the Spellcasting result is also the attack result.
Spell attacks that inflict damage share the Spellcasting check's threat range. Ranged spell attacks are subject to deviation

Each spell will have one of these specific values for each dimension. So it's pretty much fire and forget Spell points system that emulates what I consider core PHB spells.

I use these as examples that tackled the 'Vancian System' directly. In order to fully replace it in D&D, you'd have to be prepared to do a lot of elbow-grease. And I think it's a worthy effort if you're committed to playing d20.

Already solved by prowlers and paragons.

*All* supers rulesets have solved this problem.

Importing those aspects of any given supers-ruleset into a d20 game will require the same considerations I posted above. Which is why it hinges on the assumption that the GM is committed to playing d20 (for what reason, I don't really care to surmise).

Savage Worlds uses Powers instead of discrete "Vancian" spells, and is closer to a Supers mechanic abstraction. It works very well for the exact same reason.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 18, 2023, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
What replacement system is your favorite?

For D&D, a compromise. I understand some of the newer editions have this already as a feature of specific spellcasters, but even back in the day we ran it like this-
You don't have to memorize specific spells. You just have to know them, and you can cast any known spell from the appropriate spell slot.
A caster can break up a spell slot. IE a 3rd level spell slot can be broken into three 1st level spells, or a 2nd and a 1st.
That generally worked for us.

You have to be careful in making spell slots tradeable like that because of spells that scale with level. A mid to high level magic user can really do some damage trading a level 4 spell slot for 4 1st level because of how magic missile scales.

Then don't put scaling spells in the game.

Quote from: Domina on November 29, 2023, 08:38:14 AM
Then don't put scaling spells in the game.

Well duh. We are talking about shoehorning a different spell resource system into older D&D games. Rewriting scaling spells would be a lot of work. Creating a new game it would be easier, but still a lot of work.

Wrong thread post.

Before I settled on the system I currently use, I played with a "magic charge" system.

The idea was that the PC would start combat with three spell points and gain one every round up to a maximum.  (I never settled on a maximum.)  Then spells would cost spell points and the more more powerful the effect, the more it cost.

Yes, I completely ripped this off of video games.  I tried it at the table a few time and it seemed to work pretty well, the down side is that it's one more thing to keep track of.

I really like dungeon crawl classics magic, but its a ton of work. The basics are easy roll d20+int bonus + level (usually) but every spell its is own chart and has a secondary effect generated when you learn the spell. You can cast the same spell all day, but you lose use of it when you fail and critical fails can lead to mutations or misfires.

Quote from: BadApple on November 29, 2023, 10:20:24 AM
Before I settled on the system I currently use, I played with a "magic charge" system.

The idea was that the PC would start combat with three spell points and gain one every round up to a maximum.  (I never settled on a maximum.)  Then spells would cost spell points and the more more powerful the effect, the more it cost.

Yes, I completely ripped this off of video games.  I tried it at the table a few time and it seemed to work pretty well, the down side is that it's one more thing to keep track of.

One wargame i play, Age of Fantasy/Grimdark Future recently changed magic to work similarly, only you have to roll a 4+ on a d6 after spending the points to cast, but you can also spend extra points to add +1 to the d6 roll.

Quote from: Slambo on November 29, 2023, 10:23:45 AM
I really like dungeon crawl classics magic, but its a ton of work. The basics are easy roll d20+int bonus + level (usually) but every spell its is own chart and has a secondary effect generated when you learn the spell. You can cast the same spell all day, but you lose use of it when you fail and critical fails can lead to mutations or misfires.

DCC magic is certainly on the wild & wacky unpredictible end of the spectrum. It certainly reinforces the concept that magic is dangerous and attempting to control it is a very risky proposition indeed. I think there is room for some of that risk in a slightly less wacko system.

Quote from: Slambo on November 29, 2023, 10:23:45 AM
... dungeon crawl classics magic, but its a ton of work.

It went fast and smooth for a group I played in, but everybody had all their own spell tables printed out underneath their character sheets.

If you're looking things up in the book every time things do grind to a halt.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 28, 2023, 03:13:31 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 18, 2023, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
What replacement system is your favorite?

For D&D, a compromise. I understand some of the newer editions have this already as a feature of specific spellcasters, but even back in the day we ran it like this-
You don't have to memorize specific spells. You just have to know them, and you can cast any known spell from the appropriate spell slot.
A caster can break up a spell slot. IE a 3rd level spell slot can be broken into three 1st level spells, or a 2nd and a 1st.
That generally worked for us.

You have to be careful in making spell slots tradeable like that because of spells that scale with level. A mid to high level magic user can really do some damage trading a level 4 spell slot for 4 1st level because of how magic missile scales.

Yes, and fireball is even worse.

I wrote an alternate system for that, but if someone wants a quick fix, you always cast existing spells as if your level is twice the spell level, minus one.

IF you want to "upcast", you need to use a higher level "spell slot": for example, using a fourth level spell allows you to cast MM as if you were level 7.

Still doesn't fix powerful 1st level spell such as charm, sleep, etc., but works well for fireball, lighting bolt, MM, etc.

Oh well, I really wish spells were balanced (and measured by some other word than "level").

I am playing in a campaign using the GMs homebrew set of rules based upon Microlite20, but the magic is very different. The game involves an intensive problem of resources including food and water and weapons creation and maintenance. Magic is based upon actions that require a certain number and mix of 'magic points' (that is not what it is called but...) based upon the 4 Elements which are replenished only after a long rest and a full meal with food and water. You don't get much of the 'magic points' and replenishing the 'magic points' can take time and luck. Once your 'magic points' are exhausted you don't have any more magic.

Becoming a magic user requires a sort of ritual with components. Learning magic is a matter of understanding the formula for the magic which can be acquired by being taught, observed in action, etc.

An interesting and fun system which makes things a bit frustrating in action... which is the entire point.

Quote from: Dave 2 on November 29, 2023, 11:29:37 AM

Quote from: Slambo on November 29, 2023, 10:23:45 AM
... dungeon crawl classics magic, but its a ton of work.

It went fast and smooth for a group I played in, but everybody had all their own spell tables printed out underneath their character sheets.

If you're looking things up in the book every time things do grind to a halt.

To clarify a bit, i mean its a ton of work to make spells for the system since each one is so in bepth, i always print out spell books when i play and it helps a lot.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 29, 2023, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 28, 2023, 03:13:31 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 18, 2023, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
What replacement system is your favorite?

For D&D, a compromise. I understand some of the newer editions have this already as a feature of specific spellcasters, but even back in the day we ran it like this-
You don't have to memorize specific spells. You just have to know them, and you can cast any known spell from the appropriate spell slot.
A caster can break up a spell slot. IE a 3rd level spell slot can be broken into three 1st level spells, or a 2nd and a 1st.
That generally worked for us.

You have to be careful in making spell slots tradeable like that because of spells that scale with level. A mid to high level magic user can really do some damage trading a level 4 spell slot for 4 1st level because of how magic missile scales.

Yes, and fireball is even worse.

I wrote an alternate system for that, but if someone wants a quick fix, you always cast existing spells as if your level is twice the spell level, minus one.

IF you want to "upcast", you need to use a higher level "spell slot": for example, using a fourth level spell allows you to cast MM as if you were level 7.

Still doesn't fix powerful 1st level spell such as charm, sleep, etc., but works well for fireball, lighting bolt, MM, etc.

Oh well, I really wish spells were balanced (and measured by some other word than "level").

If defenses actually kept pace with magic, and if everyone had equal access to those defenses, this wouldn't be a problem.

Charm Person is only broken because some classes simply don't have the option of heavily investing in Willpower without gimping themselves. Because class based systems are shit.

That's precisely reason they are not shit, because you cannot have everything but you need to choose what's gonna be cool, and what's gonna be gimp, without some tween power fantasy.

Quote from: Domina on November 29, 2023, 11:18:11 PM
Charm Person is only broken because some classes simply don't have the option of heavily investing in Willpower without gimping themselves. Because class based systems are shit.

Huh, so your solution would seek to make every character equally vulnerable or resistant to everything I guess? You and I have a very different definition of "shit".

Quote from: Domina on November 29, 2023, 11:18:11 PM
If defenses actually kept pace with magic, and if everyone had equal access to those defenses, this wouldn't be a problem.

Charm Person is only broken because some classes simply don't have the option of heavily investing in Willpower without gimping themselves. Because class based systems are shit.

  That's not a problem with class-based systems--that's a problem with 3E deciding to make the saves 'rational', stat-focused, and progressing at varying rates, which combined to produce dramatic gaps. That, combined with attackers' abilities to boost save DCs (especially after the mental buff spells were introduced), and the fact that a lot of the spells were copy-pasted from 1E/2E with minimal changes to the new underlying mechanics, seems to be the source of the problem.

Quote from: Zalman on November 30, 2023, 07:05:01 AM

Quote from: Domina on November 29, 2023, 11:18:11 PM
Charm Person is only broken because some classes simply don't have the option of heavily investing in Willpower without gimping themselves. Because class based systems are shit.

Huh, so your solution would seek to make every character equally vulnerable or resistant to everything I guess? You and I have a very different definition of "shit".

For certain things in a game the amount of difference in those things should be more constrained than other things.

It's one thing for a mage to fail a save 20% of the time and a fighter to fail 40% of the time. It's another if the mage only fails 10% of the time while the fighter fails 80-90% of the time.

It's why one of the most common fixes I see in 5e is to just grant everyone proficiency in all the saves... that constrains the difference to about 7 points between a dump stat modifer and a maxed one instead of the 13 point difference that can result otherwise.

Particularly since the number needed to save keeps going up. A -1 vs. a DC12 save while the proficient guy has a +2-5 is one thing. Still having a -1 when the DC is 18 and the proficient guy now has a +11 is another.

This is definitely an area where I think old school D&D did better than later editions. It was no accident fighters had the best saves (and while the others tended to not be as overall strong they still got better relative to the opposition as they leveled up).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 30, 2023, 08:55:01 AM

Quote from: Domina on November 29, 2023, 11:18:11 PM
If defenses actually kept pace with magic, and if everyone had equal access to those defenses, this wouldn't be a problem.

Charm Person is only broken because some classes simply don't have the option of heavily investing in Willpower without gimping themselves. Because class based systems are shit.

  That's not a problem with class-based systems--that's a problem with 3E deciding to make the saves 'rational', stat-focused, and progressing at varying rates, which combined to produce dramatic gaps. That, combined with attackers' abilities to boost save DCs (especially after the mental buff spells were introduced), and the fact that a lot of the spells were copy-pasted from 1E/2E with minimal changes to the new underlying mechanics, seems to be the source of the problem.

Yep, more specifically it is the WotC design team falling for exactly the trap that "keeping pace" does--false symmetry.  It goes something like this:  Wouldn't it be cool and satisfying if as a character gets more powerful, their attacks get harder to resist?  Sounds entirely plausible until you actually do the work of trying it in the design.  It is so very easy to screw that up, where attack/defense are on the same track.  You simultaneously get the feeling of numbers escalating out of control and the characters stuck on a treadmill--and that's if you don't screw it up too much.  (See Elder Scrolls Oblivion on launch for another example of the same problem.) 

There's all kinds of ways to address that.  In a video game, you can even fine tune it, if serious about it and willing to watch it like a hawk.  In a TTRPG, a much better way to handle it is to ... not escalate attacks getting harder to resist in the first pace--or at least put some hard limits on the escalation and don't time them to something automatic with other leveling or power gains.

In our homebrew system, we use classes.  But everyone gets the same level progression (+1/2) plus their relevant stat for saves.  Ie, if you're 6th level your base bonus is +3 and you add your relevant stat (+1 to +6 for most people).  It definitely means that you have characters who are more likely to fail a particular save, but there is less extreme difference.  Likewise, there's no reason to pick up a multi-class to gain a new 'save proficiency' or 'good save'.

The TN also scales at +1/2 per level of the caster, so against equal level opponents you're effectively making a save against their relevant stat (ie, INT +6) versus your relevant Defense (ie, Wil +2).  If the opposition is lower level, your level based save bonus makes a real difference. 

For spellcasting, we use a small number of spells known and a relatively small number of spell points.  You can cast your spells known in any combination until you run out of spell points.  Spells scale with caster level (ie, a 1st level attack spell may do 1d10+1d10 per CL), so in some sense using your 1st level spells is efficient.  A 2nd level spell might do about the same damage but it allows for a ranged attack, rather than a touch, or it might have a rider (like stunned) on a failed save.  Wizards therefore might use the 1st level spell if the opponent has gotten close, but they may use a 2nd level spell if they have range even though it is more expensive. 

We keep the number of spell points relatively small, so in most fights the wizard has to 'take a breather' to get a few more spell points, which helps prevent always spamming the same spells and/or makes wizards feel a little more dynamic than they are in most D&D systems.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 30, 2023, 09:24:21 AM
There's all kinds of ways to address that.  In a video game, you can even fine tune it, if serious about it and willing to watch it like a hawk.  In a TTRPG, a much better way to handle it is to ... not escalate attacks getting harder to resist in the first pace--or at least put some hard limits on the escalation and don't time them to something automatic with other leveling or power gains.

Yep, in fact I grew weary of the separation between "attack" and "defend" within an abstract combat round. As if a stronger fighter who wields their weapon well won't be harder to hit. Personally, I think this separation is one of the things game design is wed to mostly out of habit.

No, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

QuoteNo, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

Why so? Even Superman is weak against mind magic :P

Quote from: Domina on November 30, 2023, 09:58:06 AM
No, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

Calling anyone who does not agree with your ideas retards does not present you or your ideas in a very mature light.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 30, 2023, 12:25:39 PM

QuoteNo, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

Why so? Even Superman is weak against mind magic :P

Why not?

The setting should dictate the propensity of magic and its proliferation. The System should provide whatever mechanics and spells that would "fit" in the system. The Game in the Setting, should be a curated form of those System mechanics (spells).

So in your Fantasy Setting - how powerful are Magic-users supposed to be? How common is magic. In my games, even my D&D Settings like the Realms where everyone assumes magic is everywhere, I curtail it way back. It's also why I stick to the conventions of the Gray Box 1e edition in terms of fluff.

Does this mean all the high-powered magic beyond 4th level spells doesn't exist? Nope. But it does mean 1) Most people will rarely even ever meet a Mage. 2) Where Mages proliferate, like Halruaa, magic is mighty and plentiful and the world they live in represents that.

PC's walk a line between those poles. I care about their backgrounds, who taught them magic, pedigrees, because it becomes fodder for the Fraternities/Sororities of magicians that exist outside of the normal world. I want my players and their PC's to feel part of these secretive societies. I never have normal NPC's simply be *amazed* at magic. They *FEAR IT* (generally) and treat spellcasters accordingly - unless there is reason not to.

Ironically, Vancian Magic systems work particularly well in this environment, (Magic is Rare but Powerful) - where I throttle spell-acquisition behind roleplaying. You have to go and interact with other spellcasters (your master, your Guild, other casters) to trade spells theories etc. I also make PC's decide ahead of time what spells they're researching before they level and feed them content so that when they do level, they get their eureka moment, which feels good, and justifies even such realizations in the middle of an adventure. If they don't do this - they have to wait.

I apply these constraints in my non-Vancian games too, which obviously is slightly tweaked.

Again - it's how you want it represented. If you just say it's all on the table free to grab, you're asking for whatever headaches you own doing so. I've never outlawed a single spell in D&D. Never have, never will. But I'll make the acquisition of it commensurate to it's actual power and impact on the world around it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 30, 2023, 12:38:39 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 30, 2023, 09:58:06 AM
No, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

Calling anyone who does not agree with your ideas retards does not present you or your ideas in a very mature light.

I have had several unpleasant interactions with Domina and after thinking it over I just added her to my ignore list. I know I can be prickly at times, but I have not seen any civil interactions from her.

For those of you who, like me, did not know how to block someone here are the instructions:

How to block someone here:

1. Click "Profile" from the menu at the top.

2. Hover over "Modify Profile" from the sub-menu lower on the page.

3. Click "Buddies/Ignore List"

4. Click "Edit Ignore List"

5. Enter username and click "Add"

  Mongoose Conan had a pretty good system, from memory it was quite similar to DCC in many ways though spells tended to be a bit more subtle.  I thought WHFRPG 2e handled magic pretty well (though this is from reading...there could all kinds of problems in play I am not anticipating).  DCC I enjoy a good bit.  My favorites though are GURPS and Savage Worlds.  I think they are similar enough to one another and to games like Eden Studios Armageddon/Witchcraft as well as Palladium's rifts. 

   For me GURPS is best because it represents a well rounded caster in that if he knows the spell and has energy he can use it as much as his energy allows, and if he has high skill he can use lower powered versions of spells at will (provided his skill checks out).  The skill roll I think is dependent on setting, if you want some more risk I think having a consequences to failure line up closer to DCC is implementable to make that work easily.  I think if you want more reliable magic you can simply process them as powers or use several of the examples from thaumatology to work your magic.   Even the base system from the base book is good enough to represent what I like to see in my magic though.   

Quote from: squirewaldo on December 01, 2023, 11:36:41 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 30, 2023, 12:38:39 PM

Quote from: Domina on November 30, 2023, 09:58:06 AM
No, retards. I didn't say have everything. Fighters should be able to choose to have strong willpower and be good at fighting.

Calling anyone who does not agree with your ideas retards does not present you or your ideas in a very mature light.

I have had several unpleasant interactions with Domina and after thinking it over I just added her to my ignore list. I know I can be prickly at times, but I have not seen any civil interactions from her.

For those of you who, like me, did not know how to block someone here are the instructions:

How to block someone here:

1. Click "Profile" from the menu at the top.

2. Hover over "Modify Profile" from the sub-menu lower on the page.

3. Click "Buddies/Ignore List"

4. Click "Edit Ignore List"

5. Enter username and click "Add"

Assuming you know what someone means instead of actually reading their post is a hell of a lot less civil than a mean word. Retard.

I'm partial to the D6 systems magic system (which is also really sort of the tech development system from D6 space reskinned I will note, or vice versa, for the tony stark types) and because i have to graft osric atop D6 to please my herd of cats my issue becomes how to utilize the vancian spell memorization charts atop that. Spell memorization (and really any "hanging" magic such as a spell on a scroll or a potion effect) as presented in D&D is, under D6 system by default, defined as a ward, and so use of said spell memorization charts is merely an expansion on the limits of how many wards of what power level or type a character can maintain at any given time....i otherwise limit the number to the number of whole dice a pc has in their relevant extranormal attribute.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 28, 2023, 03:13:31 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 18, 2023, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 18, 2023, 10:43:34 AM
What replacement system is your favorite?

For D&D, a compromise. I understand some of the newer editions have this already as a feature of specific spellcasters, but even back in the day we ran it like this-
You don't have to memorize specific spells. You just have to know them, and you can cast any known spell from the appropriate spell slot.
A caster can break up a spell slot. IE a 3rd level spell slot can be broken into three 1st level spells, or a 2nd and a 1st.
That generally worked for us.

You have to be careful in making spell slots tradeable like that because of spells that scale with level. A mid to high level magic user can really do some damage trading a level 4 spell slot for 4 1st level because of how magic missile scales.

Sure. But then, a fireball has an advantage in being an area of effect spell. And the damage runs something like this-
9th level Fireball: 9D6 damage with an average of 27. / Caps at 10D6 at level 10.
9th level Magic Missile: 5D4+5 damage with an average of 15. / Caps at 5D4+5 at level 9.
The advantage MM has, IMO, is it being more precise and has no "friendly fire" risk. Damage isn't a big issue.

Also you know using 4 slots also uses more time

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 28, 2023, 03:13:31 PM
You have to be careful in making spell slots tradeable like that because of spells that scale with level. A mid to high level magic user can really do some damage trading a level 4 spell slot for 4 1st level because of how magic missile scales.

Just wait 'til you find out what 1E illusionists can do.