On Vancian Casting

[Drolyt]

Alright, in order to stop hijacking the other thread I'll move this topic here. On the off chance anyone cares, here's my basic breakdown of why vancian magic is bad for the game:

1) First, let us be clear about what vancian magic actually does to the game. It does not provide more options. More options would be to increase the size of the character's spell list. Vancian restricts the characters options relative to the character's full spell list, but only on a day to day basis (or whatever timescale the system works on). Except it doesn't do this because either the character knows what threats it will face that day and will pick the exact right spells for it or they don't know and it is a guessing game. In the later case the character's power is certainly restricted, but not in a fun way. It just doesn't work.

2) Related to the above, there is a strong tendency for vancian casters to have more total options than any other character type. This is supposed to balance them, but see point 1 for why this either doesn't limit their power or makes them unsatisfying to play, because they either always have the right spell or are busy praying to Boccob that this time they will.

3) If the vancian casters don't have more options available than other characters then it is a straight nerf. Since it is not balanced either for vancian characters to have more options nor for them to have the same number of options, vancian casters can never be balanced relative to other characters. This is important, and why I brought it up in the fighter thread.

4) It makes character differentiation more difficult. One point that is made in favor of vancian is that it allows you to play a wide variety of characters. Except it doesn't do this half as well as just letting people pick their own spell list, and has the odd effect that the transmutation specialist whose shtick is transforming into a dragon can sure as heck become an illusion specialist the next day. Of course you could limit their spell list so that this doesn't happen but that also kills this supposed advantage of vancian.

5) It is complicated. I get that it is second nature for those of us who have been playing for years, but there are seriously people out there who think designing a GURPS character from scratch without templates is easier than playing a D&D wizard. The 3e warlock was popular because it let you pick your powers and then start playing which is what most people want.

6) It is thematically bizarre. Most magic users in myth and literature do not gain a different set of magical abilities because they rested for the night. That would be like if I went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow as a carpenter. It is silly. D&D has some fluff about how spells have to be "prepared" in your mind so that you can cast them with a standard action but honestly it is not how most people imagine wizards, especially if they have never played D&D. It is even worse when a player wants to play a more specialized spellcaster. If you want to play a necromancer or a summoner or a shapechanger you pick the spells that support that concept and for goodness sake you don't need to change that spell selection ever.

7) Given all this, you would think vancian adds something to the game. It doesn't. Or maybe I'm an idiot and it really does. Enlighten me.

[Username17]

Vancian magic works like almost all story magic. You foreshadow each magical effect you are going to use in the story by announcing that you have it available, and then you use it once. Everyone from Vasilisa to Aladdin to the guy in Scorpion Swamp works like this, because that is how story structure works.

Magic almost never works like this in serials, because the character's abilities are presumably properly foreshadowed in previous installments. Superman does not prepare his powers or use them necessarily once per story because the audience is expected to already know what Superman is capable of.

The only thing that is at all weird about Vancian Magic in D&D is that D&D is usually played as a serial rather than a stand alone. No one even thinks it's weird that a wizard in a Warhammer or Magic the Gathering battle has a limited number of spell cards and spends them to produce one-off effects. D&D characters have continuity, and thus intuitively we expect them to act like legendary characters about whom many stories are told rather than as folkloric characters that appear in a single story. And thus it is a little bit weird that Wizards operate like a character in a movie (who gets each of their abilities foreshadowed and then used) rather than as a character in a TV series (whose abilities are defined early and then used whenever convenient) is somewhat odd.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

Is it worth citing Charmed, here? They have spontaneous casting from a very small list for all the witches and most of the assorted supernaturals, but the bit where they frequently need to custom-bake a vanquishing potion for a given target seemed approximately Vancian to me.

[ishy]

1) First, let us be clear about what vancian magic actually does to the game. It does not provide more options. More options would be to increase the size of the character's spell list. Vancian restricts the characters options relative to the character's full spell list, but only on a day to day basis (or whatever timescale the system works on).

You lost me. You can increase the spell list size and still have Vancian magic. What are you actually comparing Vancian too? Everything usable at-will?

Except it doesn't do this because either the character knows what threats it will face that day and will pick the exact right spells for it or they don't know and it is a guessing game. In the later case the character's power is certainly restricted, but not in a fun way. It just doesn't work.

So you put in specific anti-X spells and more general spells. Say Summon Monster which works against more opposition and Command Undead which works vs undead. This problem was already solved in D&D.

2)

Wait what? Points 2 is just stating point 1 again?

3) If the vancian casters don't have more options available than other characters then it is a straight nerf. Since it is not balanced either for vancian characters to have more options nor for them to have the same number of options, vancian casters can never be balanced relative to other characters. This is important, and why I brought it up in the fighter thread.

Why is that not balanced? And what resource system are the other characters using?

4) It makes character differentiation more difficult. One point that is made in favor of vancian is that it allows you to play a wide variety of characters. Except it doesn't do this half as well as just letting people pick their own spell list, and has the odd effect that the transmutation specialist whose shtick is transforming into a dragon can sure as heck become an illusion specialist the next day. Of course you could limit their spell list so that this doesn't happen but that also kills this supposed advantage of vancian.

That is not a bad thing though? Just a preference, some people will like this, while others will not.

5) It is complicated. I get that it is second nature for those of us who have been playing for years, but there are seriously people out there who think designing a GURPS character from scratch without templates is easier than playing a D&D wizard. The 3e warlock was popular because it let you pick your powers and then start playing which is what most people want.

Disagree, Vancian casting is really easy to understand. The problem in 3e is that you have a huge spell list and a part of that list is utility and a part is worthless in pretty much all situations. Thus you can't just pick what sounds good, you have to read and evaluate it all.
The 3e Warlock was a failure, I've never seen anyone interested in it, ever. It sounds really cool to be at-will at first, but then they see that almost all their actions are at-wiill touch attacks that never miss for piddly damage and they tune out.

It is even worse when a player wants to play a more specialized spellcaster. If you want to play a necromancer or a summoner or a shapechanger you pick the spells that support that concept and for goodness sake you don't need to change that spell selection ever.

Than maybe you just need some different options? Nobody is saying you need to use Vancian casting for everything. You could just as easily have a necromancer class next to the vancian wizard.

[Drolyt]

Vancian magic works like almost all story magic. You foreshadow each magical effect you are going to use in the story by announcing that you have it available, and then you use it once. Everyone from Vasilisa to Aladdin to the guy in Scorpion Swamp works like this, because that is how story structure works.

Magic almost never works like this in serials, because the character's abilities are presumably properly foreshadowed in previous installments. Superman does not prepare his powers or use them necessarily once per story because the audience is expected to already know what Superman is capable of.

The only thing that is at all weird about Vancian Magic in D&D is that D&D is usually played as a serial rather than a stand alone. No one even thinks it's weird that a wizard in a Warhammer or Magic the Gathering battle has a limited number of spell cards and spends them to produce one-off effects. D&D characters have continuity, and thus intuitively we expect them to act like legendary characters about whom many stories are told rather than as folkloric characters that appear in a single story. And thus it is a little bit weird that Wizards operate like a character in a movie (who gets each of their abilities foreshadowed and then used) rather than as a character in a TV series (whose abilities are defined early and then used whenever convenient) is somewhat odd.

-Username17

That is actually quite interesting, but since I'm only concerned with RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons it doesn't really affect my conclusions.

Is it worth citing Charmed, here? They have spontaneous casting from a very small list for all the witches and most of the assorted supernaturals, but the bit where they frequently need to custom-bake a vanquishing potion for a given target seemed approximately Vancian to me.

I'm not familiar with that system, what are the mechanics for the custom spells?

1) First, let us be clear about what vancian magic actually does to the game. It does not provide more options. More options would be to increase the size of the character's spell list. Vancian restricts the characters options relative to the character's full spell list, but only on a day to day basis (or whatever timescale the system works on).

You lost me. You can increase the spell list size and still have Vancian magic. What are you actually comparing Vancian too? Everything usable at-will?

My point was that if you want a caster to be more versatile you give him more options or allow him to use his options more freely. Vancian has nothing to do with the first point, and does the opposite of the second point.

Except it doesn't do this because either the character knows what threats it will face that day and will pick the exact right spells for it or they don't know and it is a guessing game. In the later case the character's power is certainly restricted, but not in a fun way. It just doesn't work.

So you put in specific anti-X spells and more general spells. Say Summon Monster which works against more opposition and Command Undead which works vs undead. This problem was already solved in D&D.

For a certain definition of solved. But why bother solving it when you could just switch to a different resource manamgement system?

2)

Wait what? Points 2 is just stating point 1 again?

Not quite. Point 2 refers to the situation where you are trying to balance characters with vastly different options available to them (3e wizards and fighters, or perhaps more fairly 3e wizards and sorcerers) by making the more versatile character use a vancian system. It doesn't work.

3) If the vancian casters don't have more options available than other characters then it is a straight nerf. Since it is not balanced either for vancian characters to have more options nor for them to have the same number of options, vancian casters can never be balanced relative to other characters. This is important, and why I brought it up in the fighter thread.

Why is that not balanced? And what resource system are the other characters using?

It is not balanced because it is almost impossible to devise a system where vancian casters are not either stronger or weaker than other characters. As for what resource system everyone else uses, it doesn't much matter so long as they have a fixed set of known abilities, as opposed to the vancian system where abilities change every day.

4) It makes character differentiation more difficult. One point that is made in favor of vancian is that it allows you to play a wide variety of characters. Except it doesn't do this half as well as just letting people pick their own spell list, and has the odd effect that the transmutation specialist whose shtick is transforming into a dragon can sure as heck become an illusion specialist the next day. Of course you could limit their spell list so that this doesn't happen but that also kills this supposed advantage of vancian.

That is not a bad thing though? Just a preference, some people will like this, while others will not.

Sort of? If you don't care about wizards in your setting being differentiated then it isn't a big deal, but vancian still isn't better than the alternative, just not any worse in this specific case.

5) It is complicated. I get that it is second nature for those of us who have been playing for years, but there are seriously people out there who think designing a GURPS character from scratch without templates is easier than playing a D&D wizard. The 3e warlock was popular because it let you pick your powers and then start playing which is what most people want.

Disagree, Vancian casting is really easy to understand. The problem in 3e is that you have a huge spell list and a part of that list is utility and a part is worthless in pretty much all situations. Thus you can't just pick what sounds good, you have to read and evaluate it all.
The 3e Warlock was a failure, I've never seen anyone interested in it, ever. It sounds really cool to be at-will at first, but then they see that almost all their actions are at-wiill touch attacks that never miss for piddly damage and they tune out.

This is the problem. You may not have personally seen players interested in the 3e warlock, but there were metric fucktons of them. Google is failing me, but I remember polls showing they were by far the most popular non-core class. At any rate they are talked about a lot on the net. And really, you think people who think the fighter is balanced with the wizard find the warlock underwhelming?

It is even worse when a player wants to play a more specialized spellcaster. If you want to play a necromancer or a summoner or a shapechanger you pick the spells that support that concept and for goodness sake you don't need to change that spell selection ever.

Than maybe you just need some different options? Nobody is saying you need to use Vancian casting for everything. You could just as easily have a necromancer class next to the vancian wizard.

Then why have the vancian wizard? Besides that, it becomes difficult to balance the necromancer with the wizard who can do most of what the necromancer does and significantly more besides.

[Kaelik]

Ishy has explained completely why you are an idiot and everything you said is wrong. Pay particular attention to the very last line. It is actually a recurring theme throughout his post, because it is your fundamental problem.

Vancian casting is a resource management system. It needs to be compared to other resource management systems. Saying that Vancian casting is either having the right spells and rocking or not having the right spells and sucking is like saying that incarnum characters either have the right incarnums and kick ass, or have the wrong ones and suck.

It is a resource management system.

Also, it is not fucking complicated, once again, anything per day without fungible slots is vancian. Vancian casting is fundamentally no more complicated than mana based casting, because it is just mana based casting where you have to pick what you are going to cast ahead of time.

[Kaelik]

My point was that if you want a caster to be more versatile you give him more options or allow him to use his options more freely. Vancian has nothing to do with the first point, and does the opposite of the second point.

If you give a caster more options, without decreasing his ability to freely use them then he is just more powerful. Vancian casting is a resource management system where you give the caster more options in exchange for limiting his freedom to use them.

For a certain definition of solved. But why bother solving it when you could just switch to a different resource manamgement system?

Because all resource management systems have different problems, so your game benefits from having many of them with solved problems.

Point 2 refers to the situation where you are trying to balance characters with vastly different options available to them (3e wizards and fighters, or perhaps more fairly 3e wizards and sorcerers) by making the more versatile character use a vancian system. It doesn't work.

Except of course for how it does. The Storm Lord and the Wizard are balanced (after you nerf Gate).

It is not balanced because it is almost impossible to devise a system where vancian casters are not either stronger or weaker than other characters.

We already designed that system. It is called Wizards/Druids/Clerics/Conduits/Tome Totemists/Snowscapers.

As for what resource system everyone else uses, it doesn't much matter so long as they have a fixed set of known abilities, as opposed to the vancian system where abilities change every day.

And then everyone who wants to play a character concept that involves bringing different solutions to the table on different days tells you your system is fucking shit.

but there are seriously people out there who think designing a GURPS character from scratch without templates is easier than playing a D&D wizard.

You are an idiot. This has nothing to do with Vancian casting and everything to do with the large number of spells in D&D, and the fact that they vary wildly in quality.

Then why have the vancian wizard? Besides that, it becomes difficult to balance the necromancer with the wizard who can do most of what the necromancer does and significantly more besides.

Because you are an idiot. You make a Necromancer who can do things the Wizard can't, IE, make the Necromancer run off an investment pool and so therefore he can keep more and/or stronger undead as minions than the Wizard.

Why have the Wizard? Because some people want to play a character that brings different things to the table on different days.

[Drolyt]

Vancian casting is a resource management system.

It is a resource management system.

Thank you I honestly didn't know that. [/sarcasm]

Also, it is not fucking complicated

Explain that to the people who prefer sorcerer because it is simpler. Seriously, just because you and I have no problem rolling up a wizard doesn't mean it isn't complicated. That is like saying vector calculus is simple because you already know it.

, once again, anything per day without fungible slots is vancian.

... I think we speak a different language.

Vancian casting is fundamentally no more complicated than mana based casting, because it is just mana based casting where you have to pick what you are going to cast ahead of time.

And that is an extra step which by definition makes it more complicated.

My point was that if you want a caster to be more versatile you give him more options or allow him to use his options more freely. Vancian has nothing to do with the first point, and does the opposite of the second point.

If you give a caster more options, without decreasing his ability to freely use them then he is just more powerful. Vancian casting is a resource management system where you give the caster more options in exchange for limiting his freedom to use them.

Wow, I didn't know that. I totally haven't been talking about exactly that this whole time. [/sarcasm]

For a certain definition of solved. But why bother solving it when you could just switch to a different resource manamgement system?

Because all resource management systems have different problems, so your game benefits from having many of them with solved problems.

Except for the part where I don't think those problems have really been solved. Kind of the thing I've been arguing this whole time.

Point 2 refers to the situation where you are trying to balance characters with vastly different options available to them (3e wizards and fighters, or perhaps more fairly 3e wizards and sorcerers) by making the more versatile character use a vancian system. It doesn't work.

Except of course for how it does. The Storm Lord and the Wizard are balanced (after you nerf Gate).

It is not balanced because it is almost impossible to devise a system where vancian casters are not either stronger or weaker than other characters.

We already designed that system. It is called Wizards/Druids/Clerics/Conduits/Tome Totemists/Snowscapers.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

As for what resource system everyone else uses, it doesn't much matter so long as they have a fixed set of known abilities, as opposed to the vancian system where abilities change every day.

And then everyone who wants to play a character concept that involves bringing different solutions to the table on different days tells you your system is fucking shit.

As you have done repeatedly. Do you realize that the vast majority of RPGs do not in fact have a vancian system? I mean, if you have literally decided you don't want to play anything other than Dungeons and Dragons and that anyone wants to change anything is an idiot like me then that's fine, go play D&D.

but there are seriously people out there who think designing a GURPS character from scratch without templates is easier than playing a D&D wizard.

You are an idiot. This has nothing to do with Vancian casting and everything to do with the large number of spells in D&D, and the fact that they vary wildly in quality.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

Then why have the vancian wizard? Besides that, it becomes difficult to balance the necromancer with the wizard who can do most of what the necromancer does and significantly more besides.

Because you are an idiot. You make a Necromancer who can do things the Wizard can't, IE, make the Necromancer run off an investment pool and so therefore he can keep more and/or stronger undead as minions than the Wizard.

So the necromancer becomes like the barbarian. The wizard keeps him around because there is something useful they can do (absorb damage/command a horde of minions to absorb damage) but the wizard still solves most problems.

Why have the Wizard? Because some people want to play a character that brings different things to the table on different days.

Why? Who sits down and says "I'd like to have these powers, but I don't like the idea of being able to use them whenever I want". That isn't it. What you really want is to be able to do everything ever, and then slap on a shitty resource mechanic so you can say "I'm totally not overpowered, really". That kind of shit isn't good for the game. It might be good for your game, hard to believe as it is, but that has little to do with my point. People have fun with the 3e fighter too.

[zugschef]

drolyt, all the problems you have with vancian casting aren't actually problems of vancian casting.

[Drolyt]

drolyt, all the problems you have with vancian casting aren't actually problems of vancian casting.

So do my problems not exist, or am I conflating vancian casting with something else?

[Seerow]

I think the real issue comes with having an arbitrarily large list of spells known, which you change between each day, which isn't necessarily inherent in Vancian.

ie you could have, for example, something like gain 1 spell known per level, that's all you ever get, and you must prepare each spell at least once each day.

In which case you have vancian casting, but not the inherent flexibility/unlimited potential of a 3.x style vancian caster. The problem really comes down to the restrictions on the resource system, not necessarily the system itself.



As an aside, I personally hate the spell preparation minigame, and prefer sorcerers and use spontaneous clerics/favored souls over regular clerics whenever possible.

[zugschef]

drolyt, all the problems you have with vancian casting aren't actually problems of vancian casting.

So do my problems not exist, or am I conflating vancian casting with something else?

you are blaming vancian casting for problems which are not inherent to this mechanic. the problems you have with it is actually what dnd did with it.

[Drolyt]

I think the real issue comes with having an arbitrarily large list of spells known, which you change between each day, which isn't necessarily inherent in Vancian.

ie you could have, for example, something like gain 1 spell known per level, that's all you ever get, and you must prepare each spell at least once each day.

In which case you have vancian casting, but not the inherent flexibility/unlimited potential of a 3.x style vancian caster. The problem really comes down to the restrictions on the resource system, not necessarily the system itself.

But then you are just hovering between two extremes. Either you have a huge spell list to choose from like in D&D and that makes you very powerful, or you have a small list and you end up sucking. Even if you find a balance I'm not sure it is worth it because the mechanic adds nothing to the game.

As an aside, I personally hate the spell preparation minigame, and prefer sorcerers and use spontaneous clerics/favored souls over regular clerics whenever possible.

You and most people.

drolyt, all the problems you have with vancian casting aren't actually problems of vancian casting.

So do my problems not exist, or am I conflating vancian casting with something else?

you are blaming vancian casting for problems which are not inherent to this mechanic. the problems you have with it is actually what dnd did with it.

I think they actually are inherent to the mechanic. Can you please point me to the game which has vancian magic but doesn't have any of the problems I've mentioned? To be honest, I'm not aware of any other games with vancian magic.

[Kaelik]

, once again, anything per day without fungible slots is vancian.

... I think we speak a different language.

Yes, it is the one where I know what vancian casting is and you don't. We established that already in the last thread.

And that is an extra step which by definition makes it more complicated.

No, it is the exact same number of steps taken at different times. You have to choose what you are going to cast in a mana system too, you just choose it at the same time you determine when you are going to cast it and what the target is.

In vancian you make all the exact same choices, you just make one of them earlier.

Wow, I didn't know that. I totally haven't been talking about exactly that this whole time. [/sarcasm]

Instead of being sarcastic, maybe you could elaborate an actual point then. Because so far your complaints have been:

1) Vancian casting is too versatile.
2) Vancian casting is too restrictive.

Don't blame me for not figuring out what your actual complaint is, because you are being self contradictory.

Vancian is less restrictive on spell list and more restrictive than it's entire list. That is a feature not a bug.

Except for the part where I don't think those problems have really been solved. Kind of the thing I've been arguing this whole time.

Well yeah, you have been almost vaguely asserting that. But you sure have no plausible basis for the assertion, so we are going to keep pointing out that you are wrong.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

We have gone over this several times. They are balanced for the Wizard class. They are not balanced for whether the Wizard correctly or incorrectly predicted his opposition today, because both of those things are going to happen. They are balanced for the probability scope.

But thanks for straight up admitting that you don't know the solution that exists and you refuse to even investigate it.

As you have done repeatedly. Do you realize that the vast majority of RPGs do not in fact have a vancian system? I mean, if you have literally decided you don't want to play anything other than Dungeons and Dragons and that anyone wants to change anything is an idiot like me then that's fine, go play D&D.

Do you realize that most RPGs only have one resource management system because they are single player? Most video game RPGs run off mana casting because that is the easiest to simulate in an computer RPG. But if you are making a TTRPG, you have both the option and the obligation to provide different resource management systems to accommodate players.

I don't want to play RPGs that confine all possible character concepts to one resource management system, because that is shit.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

I have played with many casual gamers. And absolutely none of them have played a Sorcerer because the Wizard was too complex. Because 97% of the Wizard's complexity comes from the need to understand spells, and the same is true for the Sorcerer.

Just because you personally have some super weird hang up does not mean it applies across gaming culture.

So the necromancer becomes like the barbarian. The wizard keeps him around because there is something useful they can do (absorb damage/command a horde of minions to absorb damage) but the wizard still solves most problems.

You are a fucking idiot. The Necromancer has Necromancy spells too, some of which solve problems. Some of which solve problems the Wizard can't even solve as well. Your complete inability to understand the concept of writing balanced classes is not a valid criticism of a resource mechanic.

Why? Who sits down and says "I'd like to have these powers, but I don't like the idea of being able to use them whenever I want". That isn't it.

You are an idiot. People sit down all the time and say they want to have powers and not be able to use them whenever they want. They do it every time they play anything at all. Because technically you want to cast Fireball again a second time before your enemies go, but you only get to cast it once and then it is the enemies turn. That is because being able to do anything whenever you want makes a bad fucking game, so people accept all kinds of limitations to their spells to make the game actually fun.

They accept that they don't get to cast from all the spells in the game, they accept that they only get one a round, they accept that they run out of mana, they accept that they only can cast a spell once per encounter, they accept that making one spell stronger makes another weaker, and they accept that they have to pick the spells to cast today ahead of time.

They accept all these things in different amounts by picking a different resource management system based on their preference. But all resource management systems impose constraints, because constraints make the game more fun.

What you really want is to be able to do everything ever, and then slap on a shitty resource mechanic so you can say "I'm totally not overpowered, really". That kind of shit isn't good for the game.

No, what I really want is to play a Storm Lord/Time Mage/or Shadowcaster. Because my preferred resource management system is at will (though I wouldn't say no to a good investment system). But I recognize that other people want to play characters with different resource management systems, so I don't make threads saying that the only possible game design is one that only uses the one single resource management system that I prefer.

[ishy]

Sort of? If you don't care about wizards in your setting being differentiated then it isn't a big deal, but vancian still isn't better than the alternative, just not any worse in this specific case.

And if you do care about wizards in your setting being differentiated or not it is a good thing or a bad thing (depending on what you prefer). And if you talk about an alternative it would be nice if you could explain what alternative you're talking about? Because all resource management systems do things that you do want and that you don't want.

And really, you think people who think the fighter is balanced with the wizard find the warlock underwhelming?

Yes actually. For example: I was playing a psion in a campaign and the Barbarian was talking about how I was using the same powers over and over again.
But on a more common note, touch attacks really feel terrible in play to a lot of people. Because both always hitting on a 2 and not dealing relevant damage feel uninteresting.

Then why have the vancian wizard? Besides that, it becomes difficult to balance the necromancer with the wizard who can do most of what the necromancer does and significantly more besides.

Because people want to play different things? You could do what you want, and only have sorcerers in the game. Would make balance a lot easier I guess. But people who like different things than you do will feel left out.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

Who cares? No seriously.
I don't care if the undead hunter is exactly balanced with the snow caster in both undead related and the non undead related encounters at the same time. This is not an MMO where everyone needs to be able to be within 5% of each other or your game is a failure. You totally can have areas where certain classes shine.
Hell even a fighter who can prepare and buys a potion of fire resist will be a lot stronger vs fire elementals than one who is not prepared.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

Newbies usually pick the wizard not the sorcerer. Even the general advice given on boards is to pick the wizard, since you can switch out all the spells that suck instead of being stuck with them. YMMV of course.

Why? Who sits down and says "I'd like to have these powers, but I don't like the idea of being able to use them whenever I want". That isn't it. What you really want is to be able to do everything ever, and then slap on a shitty resource mechanic so you can say "I'm totally not overpowered, really". That kind of shit isn't good for the game. It might be good for your game, hard to believe as it is, but that has little to do with my point. People have fun with the 3e fighter too.

You're an idiot.
<Insert Image Macro of : Stop Liking What I Don't Like Here>
Plenty of people want that but don't want to be overpowered.
Go to any D&D board, and ask people how many characters they've made and how many different ones they want to play. I see players who like bringing in a new character every couple of sessions so they can do and try different mechanical things quite often too (those characters are usually not wizards but warriors / fighters / rangers etc since those can't switch what they want to do easily within the class)

[John Magnum]

No, it is the exact same number of steps taken at different times. You have to choose what you are going to cast in a mana system too, you just choose it at the same time you determine when you are going to cast it and what the target is.

In vancian you make all the exact same choices, you just make one of them earlier.

Ehhhh. I mean, you have to choose which spell you're going to cast on a round-to-round basis as a Wizard too. BUT when you're making the round-to-round choice as a Wizard, it should go a lot faster than the round-to-round choice as a Sorceror because you're picking from a smaller list.

[Drolyt]

And that is an extra step which by definition makes it more complicated.

No, it is the exact same number of steps taken at different times. You have to choose what you are going to cast in a mana system too, you just choose it at the same time you determine when you are going to cast it and what the target is.

In vancian you make all the exact same choices, you just make one of them earlier.

What. The. Fuck. I don't even... how can you not see that preparing spells is an extra step? Do you honestly think that just because the wizard has prepared his spells he doesn't have to select which spells, out of those he has prepared, he will use in combat? What weird game are you playing?

Wow, I didn't know that. I totally haven't been talking about exactly that this whole time. [/sarcasm]

Instead of being sarcastic, maybe you could elaborate an actual point then. Because so far your complaints have been:

1) Vancian casting is too versatile.
2) Vancian casting is too restrictive.

Don't blame me for not figuring out what your actual complaint is, because you are being self contradictory.

Vancian is less restrictive on spell list and more restrictive than it's entire list. That is a feature not a bug.

What I am saying is that it doesn't work. Depending on how well you play the spell preparation minigame you are either as versatile as having your full list or as restricted as having only a few spells. That is a bug.

Except for the part where I don't think those problems have really been solved. Kind of the thing I've been arguing this whole time.

Well yeah, you have been almost vaguely asserting that. But you sure have no plausible basis for the assertion, so we are going to keep pointing out that you are wrong.

Are you seriously claiming the D&D magic system isn't filled with problems, both in itself and how it interacts with other game elements? Go ahead and argue that vancian casting has nothing to do with that. Then explain to why basically every RPG that isn't a D&D clone threw that shit out the window, if it isn't because it causes problems.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

We have gone over this several times. They are balanced for the Wizard class. They are not balanced for whether the Wizard correctly or incorrectly predicted his opposition today, because both of those things are going to happen. They are balanced for the probability scope.

But thanks for straight up admitting that you don't know the solution that exists and you refuse to even investigate it.

Balanced on average isn't fucking balanced. Averages don't exist at the game table.

As you have done repeatedly. Do you realize that the vast majority of RPGs do not in fact have a vancian system? I mean, if you have literally decided you don't want to play anything other than Dungeons and Dragons and that anyone wants to change anything is an idiot like me then that's fine, go play D&D.

Do you realize that most RPGs only have one resource management system because they are single player? Most video game RPGs run off mana casting because that is the easiest to simulate in an computer RPG. But if you are making a TTRPG, you have both the option and the obligation to provide different resource management systems to accommodate players.

I don't want to play RPGs that confine all possible character concepts to one resource management system, because that is shit.

When did I ever bring up video games? And where are you getting this idea that RPGs have to have multiple resource management systems? Only thing I can figure is this is some sort of run off from the 4e fiasco.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

I have played with many casual gamers. And absolutely none of them have played a Sorcerer because the Wizard was too complex. Because 97% of the Wizard's complexity comes from the need to understand spells, and the same is true for the Sorcerer.

Just because you personally have some super weird hang up does not mean it applies across gaming culture.

Oh for goodness sakes, if you want to pretend there wasn't a huge fanbase for the sorcerer and the warlock specifically because they weren't vancian go ahead, but reality will not reshape itself around you.

So the necromancer becomes like the barbarian. The wizard keeps him around because there is something useful they can do (absorb damage/command a horde of minions to absorb damage) but the wizard still solves most problems.

You are a fucking idiot. The Necromancer has Necromancy spells too, some of which solve problems. Some of which solve problems the Wizard can't even solve as well. Your complete inability to understand the concept of writing balanced classes is not a valid criticism of a resource mechanic.

Your inability to understand the problems with balancing classes with different resource mechanics is astounding.

Why? Who sits down and says "I'd like to have these powers, but I don't like the idea of being able to use them whenever I want". That isn't it.

You are an idiot. People sit down all the time and say they want to have powers and not be able to use them whenever they want. They do it every time they play anything at all. Because technically you want to cast Fireball again a second time before your enemies go, but you only get to cast it once and then it is the enemies turn. That is because being able to do anything whenever you want makes a bad fucking game, so people accept all kinds of limitations to their spells to make the game actually fun.

They accept that they don't get to cast from all the spells in the game, they accept that they only get one a round, they accept that they run out of mana, they accept that they only can cast a spell once per encounter, they accept that making one spell stronger makes another weaker, and they accept that they have to pick the spells to cast today ahead of time.

They accept all these things in different amounts by picking a different resource management system based on their preference. But all resource management systems impose constraints, because constraints make the game more fun.

Do you really not see how those restrain your characters in different ways? Do you not understand the specific restraint I have a problem with is the one where you have different spells (or powers or whatever) every day?

What you really want is to be able to do everything ever, and then slap on a shitty resource mechanic so you can say "I'm totally not overpowered, really". That kind of shit isn't good for the game.

No, what I really want is to play a Storm Lord/Time Mage/or Shadowcaster. Because my preferred resource management system is at will (though I wouldn't say no to a good investment system). But I recognize that other people want to play characters with different resource management systems, so I don't make threads saying that the only possible game design is one that only uses the one single resource management system that I prefer.

Dammit, if you want to disagree with me go ahead but don't try to make it sound like my argument is "everyone should only play games the way I like!". Yes there is such a thing as preference. There is also such a thing as genuinely, objectively awful mechanics. Let me just make an extreme example of a shitty resource mechanic: you have access 52 spells of your choice from the wizard/sorcerer list. You write these spells on normal playing cards and every morning you draw six of them to see what spells you can cast today. See how easy it is to make a horrible mechanic? Now all I'm saying is that vancian magic, while not that bad, is still pretty bad.

Sort of? If you don't care about wizards in your setting being differentiated then it isn't a big deal, but vancian still isn't better than the alternative, just not any worse in this specific case.

And if you do care about wizards in your setting being differentiated or not it is a good thing or a bad thing (depending on what you prefer). And if you talk about an alternative it would be nice if you could explain what alternative you're talking about? Because all resource management systems do things that you do want and that you don't want.

I'm not sure what you just said. But fine, alternatives. The sorcerer mechanic. The warlock mechanic. The psion mechanic.

And really, you think people who think the fighter is balanced with the wizard find the warlock underwhelming?

Yes actually. For example: I was playing a psion in a campaign and the Barbarian was talking about how I was using the same powers over and over again.
But on a more common note, touch attacks really feel terrible in play to a lot of people. Because both always hitting on a 2 and not dealing relevant damage feel uninteresting.

What does the psion example have to do with warlocks? And I agree about the warlock, but that doesn't change the fact that people like them.

Then why have the vancian wizard? Besides that, it becomes difficult to balance the necromancer with the wizard who can do most of what the necromancer does and significantly more besides.

Because people want to play different things? You could do what you want, and only have sorcerers in the game. Would make balance a lot easier I guess. But people who like different things than you do will feel left out.

Except I'm totally fine with having necromancers and sorcerers and wizards and summoners and druids and clerics and psions and whatever in the game, all doing different things. It is only the one resource mechanic that I have a problem with.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

Who cares? No seriously.
I don't care if the undead hunter is exactly balanced with the snow caster in both undead related and the non undead related encounters at the same time. This is not an MMO where everyone needs to be able to be within 5% of each other or your game is a failure. You totally can have areas where certain classes shine.
Hell even a fighter who can prepare and buys a potion of fire resist will be a lot stronger vs fire elementals than one who is not prepared.

You don't understand my problem. I'm fine with different characters shining at different tasks. Different concepts totally lend themselves to different strengths. What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

Newbies usually pick the wizard not the sorcerer. Even the general advice given on boards is to pick the wizard, since you can switch out all the spells that suck instead of being stuck with them. YMMV of course.

Your history is confused. People were totally telling newbies to play sorcerers back in the day. The now dominant advice to have them play wizards instead so they don't get stuck with shitty spells was a reaction to that.

Why? Who sits down and says "I'd like to have these powers, but I don't like the idea of being able to use them whenever I want". That isn't it. What you really want is to be able to do everything ever, and then slap on a shitty resource mechanic so you can say "I'm totally not overpowered, really". That kind of shit isn't good for the game. It might be good for your game, hard to believe as it is, but that has little to do with my point. People have fun with the 3e fighter too.

You're an idiot.
<Insert Image Macro of : Stop Liking What I Don't Like Here>
Plenty of people want that but don't want to be overpowered.
Go to any D&D board, and ask people how many characters they've made and how many different ones they want to play. I see players who like bringing in a new character every couple of sessions so they can do and try different mechanical things quite often too (those characters are usually not wizards but warriors / fighters / rangers etc since those can't switch what they want to do easily within the class)

But wizards don't let you try out new characters or character concepts. They just let you play one character, who can do everything, but not all at once.

[John Magnum]

What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

And so you think the Sorceror is fine and dandy...?

[Drolyt]

What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

And so you think the Sorceror is fine and dandy...?

More or less.

[Omegonthesane]

What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

And so you think the Sorceror is fine and dandy...?

More or less.

Despite the fact that a Sorceror's performance depends on its performance in the spell selection minigame, not "every fucking day so they can improve if they fucked up", but "at chargen only, no backsies without fellating the DM"? I'm not seeing the logic.

Psion has the same problem actually.

Warlock could have been fine, just ask the Spherelock with its at-will fire blasts and potential for at-will sphere access. Similarly Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are perfectly workable, and Warmage gets an honourable mention for repeating their spellcasting mechanic and only being terrible because it focused on blasting. But Sorcerer? That's not defensible.

[zugschef]

What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

And so you think the Sorceror is fine and dandy...?

More or less.

the sorcerer is a fuckin horrible class and can die in a fire. no newbie or casual player will build a functional sorcerer, because building a sorcerer requires rules mastery.

criticizing vancian casting is like criticizing playing batman: he sucks because he has to know which toys to take with him?

[Username17]

Yeah, just to pile on: if you think the Sorcerer is OK, then you don't have the fucking right to get pissed at the Wizard. Especially if your chief complaint is that you don't like the spell selection minigame.

The Sorcerer is just a preparation caster where you have to select your spells off the big list when you level up and are then stuck with your choices until the next time you level up. If you don't like the fact that the Wizard can be stuck with spells that aren't relevant until tomorrow, the Sorcerer is by definition much worse. Because he can be stuck with spells that aren't relevant for a lot of fucking tomorrows.

-Username17

[...You Lost Me]

For chrissake, the sorcerer is a vancian class.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with your problems with the sorcerer, and everything to do with you getting mad at people who re-write their spell list.

[TarkisFlux]

Except for the part where I don't think those problems have really been solved. Kind of the thing I've been arguing this whole time.

Well yeah, you have been almost vaguely asserting that. But you sure have no plausible basis for the assertion, so we are going to keep pointing out that you are wrong.

Are you seriously claiming the D&D magic system isn't filled with problems, both in itself and how it interacts with other game elements? Go ahead and argue that vancian casting has nothing to do with that. Then explain to why basically every RPG that isn't a D&D clone threw that shit out the window, if it isn't because it causes problems.

If you feel that the system itself is problematic, the onus is on you to provide those problems and not just vaguely assert them. The problems are not particularly obvious to people who are not you. Bonus points if you're able to separate out the parts that are problematic in magic system as distinct from the parts that are problematic in the wizard system from the parts that are problematic in the vancian resource mechanic.

I have little interest in going through conduits/totemists/snowscrapers to see how they compare to a wizard at each level, but answer me this: are they balanced with a wizard who has the exact right spell selection for the situation, or for one who was trying to be ready for everything? Because the difference is not trivial.

We have gone over this several times. They are balanced for the Wizard class. They are not balanced for whether the Wizard correctly or incorrectly predicted his opposition today, because both of those things are going to happen. They are balanced for the probability scope.

But thanks for straight up admitting that you don't know the solution that exists and you refuse to even investigate it.

Balanced on average isn't fucking balanced. Averages don't exist at the game table.

You're right that averages don't exist at the game table, but are drawing the exactly wrong conclusion from it. If you play a game with only undead, the dread necromancer is going to be a lot better than a beguiler, however well designed the beguiler is. Balanced on average is the only balance that is possible in a game this complex where people at the table can just choose to not use large swathes of material.

Tell that to all the newbies that latch on to the sorcerer. I'm seriously amazed that you appear to have never played with a casual gamer.

I have played with many casual gamers. And absolutely none of them have played a Sorcerer because the Wizard was too complex. Because 97% of the Wizard's complexity comes from the need to understand spells, and the same is true for the Sorcerer.

Just because you personally have some super weird hang up does not mean it applies across gaming culture.

Oh for goodness sakes, if you want to pretend there wasn't a huge fanbase for the sorcerer and the warlock specifically because they weren't vancian go ahead, but reality will not reshape itself around you.

Right back at you. Pretending that your anecdotal evidence is somehow more valid than anyone else's is dumb. All of the meatspace groups that I've played with have an irrational hate-on for the Warlock because he is at-will. And the sorcerer players have all wished that they had played wizards instead of playing a two-trick magic man with a scroll dependency for utility options.

So the necromancer becomes like the barbarian. The wizard keeps him around because there is something useful they can do (absorb damage/command a horde of minions to absorb damage) but the wizard still solves most problems.

You are a fucking idiot. The Necromancer has Necromancy spells too, some of which solve problems. Some of which solve problems the Wizard can't even solve as well. Your complete inability to understand the concept of writing balanced classes is not a valid criticism of a resource mechanic.

Your inability to understand the problems with balancing classes with different resource mechanics is astounding.

Your inability to understand that it's not actually a large problem likely stems from your misunderstandings about balance over a game system vs. balance within a campaign.

You don't understand my problem. I'm fine with different characters shining at different tasks. Different concepts totally lend themselves to different strengths. What I'm not fine with is the idea that whether you shine depends on your performance in the spell selection minigame.

No, we get it, you don't like having the option to make bad choices in spell prep and want more power hand holding. That's totally fine.

It's weird that you think that having a class that allows you to make bad power choices on a daily basis is bad but don't think that a class that allows you to make bad power choices at level up and then be stuck with them indefinitely is bad (i.e. the sorcerer or favored soul). Maybe you just really want narrative consistency of powers, but that's a preference thing and not anything objectively better or worse than the alternatives without a designated story structure to support.

But wizards don't let you try out new characters or character concepts. They just let you play one character, who can do everything, but not all at once.

Again and forever, this is not a vancian problem. This is a full list (except for all the things that clerics and druids do that a wizard can't) problem. A necromancer running on a vancian spell selection resource management is a necromancer who gets to pick different offensive and utility powers every day, but is still a necromancer regardless of their selections. It may still be too variable for your particular tastes, which would be a vancian problem, but the everything thing is decidedly not.

Fuck, unpack your objections a bit and stop conflating everything.

[zugschef]

For chrissake, the sorcerer is a vancian class.

which proves that he hasn't got any problem with vancian casting.