On Vancian Casting

[Kaelik]

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?

Because it is the same number of steps.

1) Decide what spells to cast.
2) Decide when to cast the spells you can cast.

You can do 1 at the beginning of the day.

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.

And I am saying, and so is everyone else who is not you, that you are fucking wrong.

You are not as versatile as having your whole list no matter what, and your obsession with this "either maximum potential or the worst shit ever" just shows that you have never competently played a Wizard, because 99 times out of a 100 you are at neither of those extremes.

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.

Yes. Basically. Since all the same problems exist if you just make everyone at will casters or sorcerers it appears that in fact vancian casting has nothing to do with it.

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

Taking turns is balanced. It is perfectly reasonable for the Cleric to solve the Curse/Divination problem and the Snowscaper to solve the Scry/Transportation problem.

It is fine if the Wizard prepared Stinking Cloud, so the Snowscaper kills the undead and the Wizard is not quite as good in that fight, but when they fight the humans, he stinking clouds them and is MVP.

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.

Okay, new rule, stop saying RPGs. Lack of Clarity is not a point in your favor. If you are talking about TTRPGs, then day that. I just assumed since your point is not true of TTRPGs that you were talking about most RPGs in general.

I get the idea that TTRPGs should have different resource mechanics because most of them are meant to accommodate a wide range of people with a wide range of tastes in preferred balance of resource management.

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.

Okay you idiot, just because someone likes Sorcerers doesn't mean they hate vancian casting. There is a "huge fanbase" for Sorcerers that is slightly smaller than the huge fanbase for Wizards, and quite a bit larger than the huge fanbase for Warlocks. But since in most respects the same people who are fans or Sorcerers and Wizards are also fans of the other class as well, this does absolutely nothing to back up your completely shit claim that everyone hates Wizards.

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

I understand the problem, because I write classes with different resource mechanics and balance them against other classes with different resource mechanics. But because I am not retarded like you, I also know that these problems are solved by designing good classes, which is why your stupid claim that it is impossible to balance the Wizard with other classes already balanced with it is fucking stupid.

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?

You colossal fucking idiot. Of course I see how those restrain your character in different ways, which is why I told you that systems should have different systems to accommodate the different ways people prefer to have their characters limited.

I get that you specifically hate the one kind of restriction. And that is fine, you can just not play vancian classes. But there is no goddam reason for you to throw a fit that other people can play with the resource management system they 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!".

That is your actual argument. Your entire argument is that no game should be allowed to have vancian casting for any of its characters because you don't like it. You have presented no reason for anyone to believe that the ability of other people to play Wizards destroys the game for you for any reason other than your arbitrary and pointless hatred.

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?

There is such a thing as a bad mechanic in specific. But the system of random card based generation of spells is totally viable. So yes, something that is random shouldn't be daily. But it could be for example, round by round, like say Crusaders of Chaos Mages. Because the resource mechanic of drawing cards is perfectly acceptable.

By your logic Sorcerers are bad because if you only had one spell a day to spontaneously choose from all the spells in the game that would be a bad mechanic.

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

Okay, and explain how the game is magically worse having four classes instead of those three.

[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.

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

What? The psion? The class that has a power that lets anyone rebuild their entire character? Seriously with a 10 min cast time, anyone can change their entire power list, feats and skills too.
That is way worse for continuity and differentiation?

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.

Basically that people who think fighters are balanced like to compare fighters to fighters and casters to casters. And a warlock can't cut it compared to other casters. In addition to the warlock default being one of the most awful mechanics in the entire game.

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.

But why do you care if someone else plays with that resource mechanic? All you've posted so far is that you personally don't like it and thus nobody should ever be allowed to play with it.

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.

I don't think you understand your own problem. Sorcerers have the same mini game. In fact everyone has a performance that depends on <selection X> mini game. Say the equipment selection minigame.

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.

Uhmm I thought you were talking about present day. Yeah people in the past were wrong about lots of things. Like say mystic theurges being overpowered. Not sure what that has to do with sorcerers not being newbie friendly.

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.

Yes they do. You can totally have an epiphany as a wizard, pick new spells and reinvent yourself. If you want to, you can stick with non-evil spells all the time, and if something happens to your character to switch to using evil spells.
While a fighter usually has something like weapon focus, meaning he has to retire his character if he wants to do anything else.

[shadzar]

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. lets try forward thinking instead of backward thinking as hindsight is 20/20. Vancian DOES grant more options. The game of the time is wargames. Each figure has powers A,B, and C chosen by the game designers. The wizard can use one per attack. a choice of 3 "powers" to pick from. well this isnt unlike 4th edition is it? now comes D&D with Vancian casting. you have X powers per DAY which is the same as the 3 per of the miniature in the wargame, as a battle is probably a whole day event in a wargame, but THE PLAYER gets to pick from a list what powers to put in those 3 slots. Vancian casting gives options to players in the same way feats/skills in 3.x give option to players. More things for the player to pick from as opposed to say a DDM wizard character that has its stuff chosen for it, or a pre-gen. Vancian system DID increase the size of the spell list, by giving players a lsit to be able to pick from for the 1st time.

2. Praying is in no, ZERO, way shape or form associated with Vancian. Clerics didnt use a Vancian system. Vancian is the fire-and-forget, the entire memorization. Clerics didn't always have to memorize and I still can't find where it is spelled out that they must. This goes back to #1, Vancian being fire-and-forget has nothing to do with the size of the pool of spells. Fire-and-forget DOES limit a caster because a Fighter doesn't forget how to swing a sword after he has already done it once in a battle. A wizard forgets that spell, and yes might not have another one for the task at hand. Thus research into the things you are going to do is helpful.

3. number of options again has NOTHING to do with the Vancian system....

4. (see #3)

5. Warlock was 4th edition construct right? It was the 3.x sorcerer that did NOT have the Vancian system, IE: fire-and-forget memorization, to use spells, but could cast any of X spells he knew, and when he ran out of X spell uses, he was done for the day.

6. It is not bizarre, as it is the Vancian system. You know the one Jack Vance sued, and it worked enough in all of his novels for him to make profit. It doesn't indicate this is the ONLY way to do things, but the chosen way to be able to add a feel to D&D as well broaden the range of limiters that can be placed. Also again when moving from a wargame where you could maybe use an ability a single time, it is fire-and-forget. how many wizards in DDM could use a spell infinite times? so when moving from a wargame that had limited number of spells and times you could use a spell, Vancian fit best to transition and get people to be able to play the supplement to the medieval wargame. If people can accept the badly termed "bloodied" concept for 4th, which gives EVERYBODY berserek/barbarian type rage thematics, then so too should people be able to accept fire-and-forget memorization of Vancian as it is in place, FOR THE GAME. Remember D&D is a game, and must be playable, not a tool for writing your own short stories or novels. You can, but not legally publish them, and your story won't be D&D without Vancian casting. This is why Wrath of the Dragon God and Drangonlance movies are more accepted than the others that make the wizards look foolish for not slinging 1000 spells or as many as they want like Mako in Conan movies, cause there is no context in other D&D movies than those two why they cannot.

7. You are an idiot. Your words, not mine. I am only agreeing with you. The limit to the number of spells to choose from is like the limit to number of weapons a Fighter can use.. it just exists.

Vancian system, the Vancian part is from Jack Vance's novels, where the wizard had fire-and-forget memorization of his spells.

ALL RPGs will have a selection of spells greater than weapons. Spells can be created by the players and DMs, and publishers, cause they are easy to create and sell. The limit to spells comes from a competent DM that doesn't let someone grab any and all books and just pic anything out of it, but selects which spell to use in his world, that is common enough to be known. Places the spells that can be found later, or the player gets approval to research a new spell, even duplicating one not present in the world, but present in the core of the game, if the DM so chooses. Also using the %chance to learn spell, also helps with the balance of the wizard which DOES limit those able to be used under Vancian.

so in the whole fighter v wizard nonsense, this are the reason i never understand people bitching. remove things like offhand fighting penalties, and let trained fighters, those with a fighter class, be as close to ambidextrous when wielding weapons, and viola, the stops and check in place to hold wizards back are good enough. just dont play generic D&D where EVERY spell exists in the world, including those from every splatbook ever printed. Wizard's Spell Compendiums I am looking at your!

tl;dr:

Vancian fire-and-forget memorization of spells is incorporated into the D&D magic system, but the entire D&D magic system isn't Vancian, only the FAFM portion.

(see Dying Earth series for more on Vancian magic.)

[Drolyt]

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.

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?

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

Dammit, I debated adding an addendum and I guess I should have. I said more or less because I didn't feel like getting into a discussion about the damn sorcerer. Yes, the sorcerer gets fucked if he makes a bad spell selection at character creation. That is horrible. But that isn't inherent to the mechanic, it is simply that D&D has horribly unbalanced spells with no guidelines on which ones to pick. But besides that, I really don't think most people do that bad being handed a sorcerer. They probably end up as a blaster sorc, which means they play just fine with the sword and board fighters. Remember that is the balance point for a lot of players.

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.

You on the other hand don't seem to understand what vancian magic is. But yes, rewriting your spell list every day is bad for the game.

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

I'm trying. I think I need to stop responding point by point and instead come back after I've found a way to explain my points clearly.

[John Magnum]

Maybe you should have attempted to explain your points clearly at any prior moment in any of the threads you've posted in, because holy fuck.

[Drolyt]

Maybe you should have attempted to explain your points clearly at any prior moment in any of the threads you've posted in, because holy fuck.

I don't think my original post in this thread is that bad. Honestly I didn't realize how poorly I was explaining myself until Kaelik started replying to things I never said. Or at least I never intended to say those things.

[...You Lost Me]

You on the other hand don't seem to understand what vancian magic is. But yes, rewriting your spell list every day is bad for the game.

Oh my god. You are so dumb. Just like Kaelik said, the sorcerer is basically identical to a wizard except you memorize your spells on level up.

There's so little distinction in complexity, so little distinction in spell selection, that the fact that saying one of them is "complicated and useless" and the other is "totes OK" makes you look like a damn idiot.

[Drolyt]

Oh my god. You are so dumb. Just like Kaelik said, the sorcerer is basically identical to a wizard except you memorize your spells on level up.

I get that I'm not making a good argument, but I shouldn't have to explain how wrong this is. This is like saying that writing up a HERO character is exactly like choosing abilities for your VPP.

[...You Lost Me]

No, your problems with vancian are identical to your problems with sorcerers because you are identifying things that show up in sorcerers and then you claim they are vancian. This is like a Mistborn thread without the frozen fast.

[Drolyt]

No, your problems with vancian are identical to your problems with sorcerers because you are identifying things that show up in sorcerers and then you claim they are vancian. This is like a Mistborn thread without the frozen fast.

No, the problems with wizards and sorcerers are very different. I'd explain how if I could, but I'm obviously failing at that. If I have time then I'll try to put something together in a few days, but really it isn't that important. I still think vancian is a horrible mechanic, but it really isn't important for me to convert anyone to that viewpoint.

[wotmaniac]

Wait a minute -- since when is sorcerer vancian? Vancian magic is more than just spell levels and spell slots -- it's also the daily process of pre-allocating each and every spell slot at the beginning of the day .... which sorcerers don't do. Vancian magic is a very specific thing; just because something may have some of the trappings of vancian magic doesn't necessarily make it vancian magic.
And good god, "you're just memorizing at level-up" is complete bullshit; mainly because you're not pre-allocating your slots.

playing a non-fail sorcerer simply means that you don't have much room for niche spells on your spells-known list; which is fine, because that's what scrolls are for. Vancian magic basically allows for the wizard to completely invalidate any party member at any time -- and that's the problem that I personally have with vancian magic.

[Username17]

No, your problems with vancian are identical to your problems with sorcerers because you are identifying things that show up in sorcerers and then you claim they are vancian. This is like a Mistborn thread without the frozen fast.

No, the problems with wizards and sorcerers are very different. I'd explain how if I could, but I'm obviously failing at that. If I have time then I'll try to put something together in a few days, but really it isn't that important. I still think vancian is a horrible mechanic, but it really isn't important for me to convert anyone to that viewpoint.

The problems with the Wizard and the Sorcerer are literally exactly the same, except that the Sorcerer has a much longer refresh period and is therefore stuck with the same spell selection for longer. That's it. That's the only difference.

Now, Wizards get more different spells to select, select them more often, get some minor bonus feats, have a more useful primary attribute, qualify for way better prestige classes, and even get their next spell level a level early. So they are better, hands down and across the board. But that's all window dressing and implementation. Fundamentally, the chassis is literally exactly the same.

I don't even know what you think Vancian magic even is, because any analysis where you think the Wizard has a horrible mechanic must necessarily conclude that the Sorcerer has a horrible mechanic because it is the same mechanic. The only thing, and I mean literally the only thing that could make someone hate the Wizard without hating the Sorcerer is the thing where they get to catalog shop each adventuring day and could thus potentially slow the game down (while the Sorcerer is restricted to catalog shopping at level-up, and thus can do that shit at home). But even then, the obvious characters to complain about that would be the Cleric and Druid, because unlike the Wizard they don't write their spell options on their character sheets and have to actually flip through books at the table when they want to radically redesign their spell selection for a new day.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

The problems with the Wizard and the Sorcerer are literally exactly the same, except that the Sorcerer has a much longer refresh period and is therefore stuck with the same spell selection for longer. That's it. That's the only difference.

That and, well, the fact that the sorcerer doesn't pre-allocate each and every spell slot. This is a very big difference.

[Drolyt]

The problems with the Wizard and the Sorcerer are literally exactly the same, except that the Sorcerer has a much longer refresh period and is therefore stuck with the same spell selection for longer. That's it. That's the only difference.

Right, and rogues are vancian skillmonkeys because they pick their skills at level up. Fighters are vancian warriors because they pick their bonus feats at level up. Dammit, can you not see that a sorcerer is just like a beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage except they pick their own custom spell list? Of course you can't, and I think I can partially see what is happening. There definitely is a fairly old meme within the TTRPG community that sorcerers are just wizards who only get to prepare their spells on level. It isn't a completely uninsightful thing to say, but it misses the larger picture.

I don't even know what you think Vancian magic even is, because any analysis where you think the Wizard has a horrible mechanic must necessarily conclude that the Sorcerer has a horrible mechanic because it is the same mechanic. The only thing, and I mean literally the only thing that could make someone hate the Wizard without hating the Sorcerer is the thing where they get to catalog shop each adventuring day and could thus potentially slow the game down (while the Sorcerer is restricted to catalog shopping at level-up, and thus can do that shit at home). But even then, the obvious characters to complain about that would be the Cleric and Druid, because unlike the Wizard they don't write their spell options on their character sheets and have to actually flip through books at the table when they want to radically redesign their spell selection for a new day.

-Username17

But I did put the cleric and druid in the same category as the wizard . I never said this was just a problem with wizards. And sorcerers aren't vancian. I don't know of a definitive definition, but here is wikipedia:

Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world.[1][2]

Maybe I should have just said memorization and there would have been less confusion.

[tussock]

Src is Vancian, because a Wizard can also recast the same spells over again via empty slots, or pearls of power, or Lucubration, or all sorts of things that weren't in any Dying Earth book. And cast more spells than he can prepare at once in various other ways.

The Src/Brd known spells list and the Wiz/Drd/Clr prepared spell list are the same thing.


So I presume what Drolyt dislikes is being unable to spam the same thing over and over again in a single combat when you weren't expecting to need that particular option. Because that's about the only difference in play between Wiz and Src.

[Drolyt]

Src is Vancian, because a Wizard can also recast the same spells over again via empty slots, or pearls of power, or Lucubration, or all sorts of things that weren't in any Dying Earth book. And cast more spells than he can prepare at once in various other ways.

No, the problem here is that the wizard has various ways to overcome his vancian restrictions.

The Src/Brd known spells list and the Wiz/Drd/Clr prepared spell list are the same thing.

Yes, exactly. And the Wiz/Drd/Clr get to change their spell list every day.

So I presume what Drolyt dislikes is being unable to spam the same thing over and over again in a single combat when you weren't expecting to need that particular option. Because that's about the only difference in play between Wiz and Src.

Okay, clearly nobody understands what I dislike, and I'm being generous and assuming that is because I am communicating poorly and not because you are all dumbasses, but seriously if you don't understand what I am saying the correct response is not to ignore it and then assume I meant the most dumbass thing you can think of.

[Username17]

The problem here is that you are being a dumbass. The Sorcerer is not remotely similar to a warmage. They get to 8th level and have one 4th level spell that they can cast four times. That is literally the same as a Wizard, who happened to prepare 4 charm monsters that day except that he doesn't know three other 4th level spells to prepare instead or to mix and match with.

The Beguiler is different because he has a finished total list but each day can cast from a list of ready spells that is considerably longer than his daily spell slot limit. I mean, that is very similar, but it's not exactly the same. But the Sorcerer is. He's exactly the same.

So if you accept the Sorcerer and reject the Wizard, the only options are that the Wizard's higher power level is bothering you, or that you're being a dumbass. Since you keep insisting that this is about the core mechanics and not about power level, the logical conclusion remains.

-Username17

[Drolyt]

The problem here is that you are being a dumbass. The Sorcerer is not remotely similar to a warmage. They get to 8th level and have one 4th level spell that they can cast four times. That is literally the same as a Wizard, who happened to prepare 4 charm monsters that day except that he doesn't know three other 4th level spells to prepare instead or to mix and match with.

The Beguiler is different because he has a finished total list but each day can cast from a list of ready spells that is considerably longer than his daily spell slot limit. I mean, that is very similar, but it's not exactly the same. But the Sorcerer is. He's exactly the same.

So if you accept the Sorcerer and reject the Wizard, the only options are that the Wizard's higher power level is bothering you, or that you're being a dumbass. Since you keep insisting that this is about the core mechanics and not about power level, the logical conclusion remains.

-Username17

Fine. I'd rather be a dumbass than waste more of my time on this. I won't bring this topic up again, there are a lot more fruitful discussions to be had.

[Kaelik]

So if you accept the Sorcerer and reject the Wizard, the only options are that the Wizard's higher power level is bothering you, or that you're being a dumbass. Since you keep insisting that this is about the core mechanics and not about power level, the logical conclusion remains.

No, his actual complaint is that he hates with a burning passion the idea that someone could have access to a different set of spells on different days.

That thing where Sorcerers are stuck with the same spells for a level is a feature to him, not a bug, because he thinks that no one should ever be allowed to cast new spells they didn't have before.

I'm not sure how he feels about leveling up, because even Sorcerers and at will casters get new spells they have never had before on level up. He either hates that they have new abilities too, or he just hates the idea that Wizards can adapt to situations.

As far as I can tell, here are the two situations in which he feels the game is ruined and he has to rage quit the game:

1) You guys are spending the whole day in town. The Wizard prepares a bunch of Divinations and Construction spells, then the next day when they are going adventuring he prepares only combat spells.

It is unfair that the mean bad Wizard is better than his character, because the Wizard got to do out of combat stuff without spending any in combat resources. BROKEN!

2) You guys are adventuring, playing Red Hand of Doom and at the end of the day, you have found out that the Goblins are really serving Dragons. So you prepare a bunch of specifically anti Dragon spells, like Mass Resist Energy and "Ground" or whatever. Then you do a good job against the Dragons. BROKEN!

But then later, you end up doing a whole day without seeing any Dragons, and you feel bad because a lot of your spells were not the best for the situation. BROKEN! BUT IN REVERSE!

I'm not sure why he has a hate on for the idea that another player might have their effectiveness depend on their resource management choices that day. Certainly it is factually true that the effectiveness of a Sorcerer is dependent on your spell choices too, but where Sorcerers try to be decent at everything, Wizards can try to be super specifically good.

What I want him to realize is that a Sorcerer character is better or worse depending on two factors: 1) How good the spells he choose are, 2) How well they deal with the situation at hand.

And then, once he sees that both of those are true for Wizards on a daily basis, how it is okay for that to be the case for Sorcerers and not for Wizards provided he doesn't have to play Wizards.


Now, one good criticism of D&D is that the only classes worth playing are in fact vancian, because Warlocks and Fighters are shit. But if that is his problem he has done a terrible job communicating because he has fought at every turn to argue that vancian casters shouldn't be allowed to exist in the game at all even when people have specifically suggested that it should be one resource management system amongst many. However, he apparently believes that it is impossible to balance Wizards with anything not Vancian, but that is his own fault for refusing to read about Conduits and Snowscapers.

[Drolyt]

That thing where Sorcerers are stuck with the same spells for a level is a feature to him, not a bug, because he thinks that no one should ever be allowed to cast new spells they didn't have before.

I'm not saying no one should ever be allowed to play such a character. If I came across that way I'm sorry. I don't really care how you play your game. As long as you are having fun there is no problem, and even if you aren't it isn't really my business. My only argument was that a game without vancian is better than one with it, all else being equal.

As far as I can tell, here are the two situations in which he feels the game is ruined and he has to rage quit the game:

I have never ragequit a game. I have played many fun games of D&D, and I've played both wizards and druids many times without problem. I still think vancian casting is a bad mechanic.

What I want him to realize is that a Sorcerer character is better or worse depending on two factors: 1) How good the spells he choose are, 2) How well they deal with the situation at hand.

I understand that. 1) is a bug and 2) is a feature.

[Username17]

I do think we need to go over this, because you really seem to be hammering your head into a wall.

Right, and rogues are vancian skillmonkeys because they pick their skills at level up. Fighters are vancian warriors because they pick their bonus feats at level up. Dammit, can you not see that a sorcerer is just like a beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage except they pick their own custom spell list? Of course you can't, and I think I can partially see what is happening.

Rogues are not Vancian classes. Fighters are not usually Vancian classes either. But Barbarians are!

Vancian just means that you select what abilities you have available well in advance and you have distinct charges. That is all it means. That is all it has ever meant. Barbarians and Sorcerers pick what abilities are available considerably farther in advance than Wizards do, but they still have daily charges and are playing exactly the same game. Just you know, not nearly as well.

Now, we can talk about what the problems of Vancian resource management are all day, but if you think Sorcerers are even a little bit OK you obviously don't actually care about that. What I think you actually wanted to talk about are the problems of the implementation with Wizards. Specifically 3e Wizards, because while 4e Wizards use pretty much the same system, it's so dumbed down that it's hard to imagine anyone giving a single shit.

So, the problems with Wizards are:

• The number of slots they have to fill is large enough that it can seriously slow down play if a player decides that their normal adventuring spell layout isn't going to work and they need to start over from scratch.
• The Wizard spell list is so fucking long that it has some seriously overpowered bullshit in there like Planar Binding.
• The Wizard spell list has a lot of incredibly dog ass spells like Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, which requires an unreasonable amount of dumpster diving and min/maxing to not suck monkey ass.
• The combat and non-combat spells use up the same spell slots, which encourages players to do five minute workdays.
• The buffs last a considerably smaller timeframe than the day lasts, even when they start to last long enough to rest and get spells back, which means that you're encouraging the five minute workday even when you're already double dipping your spell slots.

Those are some pretty severe problems. But with the exception of the occasional time issue, all of them apply to Sorcerers too! Most of it applies to Beguilers and shit as well, although you don't need to do much dumpster diving to not suck because a spell list has been prebuilt for the class and the new player can mostly ignore the vast list of other spells.

But while that's a pretty severe list of problems, that's also pretty much exhaustive. All the butt hurt you were ranting about how it's a problem that Wizards can prepare for known challenges or use long rituals during down time or whatever the fuck - those aren't problems. Like, at all.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

This is like a Mistborn thread without the frozen fast.

Now, now, that's a little over-the-top. Drolyt is far and away more self-aware than Mistborn has ever been shown to be.

[Kaelik]

1) I think you should very very much address Frank's post that precedes mine, because it is very good and can go a long way to figuring out what you actually don't like.

2) Now I am going to call you an idiot.

I'm not saying no one should ever be allowed to play such a character. If I came across that way I'm sorry. I don't really care how you play your game. As long as you are having fun there is no problem, and even if you aren't it isn't really my business. My only argument was that a game without vancian is better than one with it, all else being equal.

Okay monkey fuck. Stop being retarded. No one cares about or is talking about how you feel about other people playing different games that you are not in, just like no one actually cares about how other people play games they are not in except in how it affects them.

But here is the thing, when you say "a game without vancian is better" you are making an argument about how games should be designed in a game design forum. And when I say "he thinks that no one should ever be allowed to cast new spells" I am talking about how you think games should be designed, not saying that you personally are going to show up at my house and tear up my character sheet. It is the part where you say that you think a game is better without vancian casting that is the problem, not that I think you are going to hunt me down.

I have never ragequit a game. I have played many fun games of D&D, and I've played both wizards and druids many times without problem. I still think vancian casting is a bad mechanic.

Wholly fuck! No one actually cares if you rage quit. I said that is the part where you rage quit because rage quit is a slightly funnier and slightly shorter way of saying "does not like that particular part of the game and thinks future games should be designed to avoid that."

What I want him to realize is that a Sorcerer character is better or worse depending on two factors: 1) How good the spells he choose are, 2) How well they deal with the situation at hand.

I understand that. 1) is a bug and 2) is a feature.

Okay, great, now. Move all the way to the very next paragraph and answer the question contained therein (that I mistyped):

"Once he sees that both of those are true for Wizards on a daily basis, how is it okay for that to be the case for Sorcerers and not for Wizards provided he doesn't have to play Wizards?"

[Drolyt]

1) I think you should very very much address Frank's post that precedes mine, because it is very good and can go a long way to figuring out what you actually don't like.

I'll look through it.

2) Now I am going to call you an idiot.

I'm not saying no one should ever be allowed to play such a character. If I came across that way I'm sorry. I don't really care how you play your game. As long as you are having fun there is no problem, and even if you aren't it isn't really my business. My only argument was that a game without vancian is better than one with it, all else being equal.

Okay monkey fuck. Stop being retarded. No one cares about or is talking about how you feel about other people playing different games that you are not in, just like no one actually cares about how other people play games they are not in except in how it affects them.

But here is the thing, when you say "a game without vancian is better" you are making an argument about how games should be designed in a game design forum. And when I say "he thinks that no one should ever be allowed to cast new spells" I am talking about how you think games should be designed, not saying that you personally are going to show up at my house and tear up my character sheet. It is the part where you say that you think a game is better without vancian casting that is the problem, not that I think you are going to hunt me down.

Good I guess, but from where I'm standing it is really hard not to feel like I've personally offended you somehow. I don't get that from anyone else, just you.

I have never ragequit a game. I have played many fun games of D&D, and I've played both wizards and druids many times without problem. I still think vancian casting is a bad mechanic.

Wholly fuck! No one actually cares if you rage quit. I said that is the part where you rage quit because rage quit is a slightly funnier and slightly shorter way of saying "does not like that particular part of the game and thinks future games should be designed to avoid that."

Again, it doesn't come off that way. Maybe I'm just being an idiot and misreading your posts, I don't know.

What I want him to realize is that a Sorcerer character is better or worse depending on two factors: 1) How good the spells he choose are, 2) How well they deal with the situation at hand.

I understand that. 1) is a bug and 2) is a feature.

Okay, great, now. Move all the way to the very next paragraph and answer the question contained therein (that I mistyped):

"Once he sees that both of those are true for Wizards on a daily basis, how is it okay for that to be the case for Sorcerers and not for Wizards provided he doesn't have to play Wizards?"

Because I already said that it was a bug? My problem with vancian casting isn't that you can prepare bad spells.

[Kaelik]

from where I'm standing it is really hard not to feel like I've personally offended you somehow. I don't get that from anyone else, just you.

In the immortal words of DSMatticus: "Kaelik gonna Kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?"

Because I already said that it was a bug? My problem with vancian casting isn't that you can prepare bad spells.

Okay, let us try this again. You just said that how well the spells the Sorcerer choose fit the situation determining how good the Sorcerer is is a feature.

If that is a feature when the Sorcerer does it, why is it suddenly a bug when the Wizard does it?