| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 04 Jun 2013 : 06:10:59
As you scribes can see by the title of this thread, I would like to know from all scribes of Candlekeep, what alternatives there are to the Vancian Casting System. This has been bugging me for a long while and I would like to read your responses and suggestions.
It is not to say that I do not respect the system but first off the Vancian system has been with DND for a long time. Im amazed at what WOTC did to 4e they did not change Vancian system. Although I have read 5e is remaining Vancian |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lyiat |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 16:18:43
Depends on what class you're playing. Wizards now memorize class level + int bonus bonus spells out of their spellbook per day and get a limited number of spellslots to cast them in. Spells can be cast in their appropriate spell slot level or higher. The higher the spellslot, the better effects you get. Usually. Cantrips are no longer restricted and are basically at will spells now.
Sorcerers are much the same, except they only have a set number of spells they can learn and can't revolve them out of a spellbook. Instead, they get metamagic abilities they can use with a pool of sorcery points. They can also spend said points to gain additional spell slots for the day, or expend spell slots to get more points.
All other classes fall inbetween. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 15:55:48
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
There are sorcerers who are spontaneous casters and thus not Vancian.
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Although I have read 5e is remaining Vancian
You've heard incorrectly. 5th ed is a merge between Vancian and spontaneous casting of 3.5e. It is not true Vancian as it has some enhancements and benefits taken from the spontaneous casting system that 3.5e sorcerers use.
How does it work? I only have the Basic Rules pdf... |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 07:08:25
Rhangaun is level 33.
Not even WotC is going to have a bunch of mid-teen wizards stomp someone on par with the Simbul in sheer power. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 07:01:29
intrestingly enough in 5edition quite well.
in 5e you can cast a counter spell from 4 guys and one will defuse the lvl 9 by spell and then rip him with swords and also spells.
so i think u need around... 7 wizard at level 5 to take care of him.
the mechanic is like this, u make a DC check of 10+the spell level, u get to add ur spellcaster ability u usually ad a +3 or 4
and a lvl 9 is 19-3 = 16 so its a 1 out of 5 chacne, so get 8 guys and u have a 1 - (.8 ^ 8) to fail thats: .1614
so its a 84% to make it on counterin a lvl 9 spell, thats pretty good odds.
take that Rhanguan. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:45:00
Yet again, Int score and Knowledge skills.
The Cowled Wizards only work if there's no even stronger archmage around. How long do you think they'd last if Rhangaun strolled in for a chat? |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:40:35
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
The one time Mystra played with the rules, she got slapped down. Hard.
Wizards are still creating new spells and items, still making new forms of undead and monsters, still rewriting reality to suit their whims. Mystra is the custodian, she explicitly banned the Simbul from going murderhobo on the Red Wizards because the Thayvians were advancing the cause of magic.
Their practical and theoretical understanding? Spell Focus, metamagic, item crafting and so on. Only wizards know why you need x material component for y spell and so on. That Int score isn't just for show.
i mean theory that a wizard can look at things and demonstrate what is the fundemntal cuase of something, what in its nature makes it so. something i never saw in almost any fantasy novel btw.
i would think the realms would be a better place for the people in the realms because it seems that magic is used for evil more then for good.
which is why the Cowled Wizard's of Amn is a good idea btw. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:38:23
btw i view magic kind of like biology, it has specific mauserments but it changes and interacts with so many things and is a process and not a static thing that its easier to apply concepts of biology yo it. though unlike biology it does not have a goal-directed action it migth take an artificial one if engineered a bit. hence the Weave.
so for example u have a range of what states it can occupy. the fundamental reason that biology is in terms of state-potential is because u always see the entity in a whole and can not abstract from one part alone like you would in physics. in that sense magic is a whole, or Organic. thats why magic is compared so much to life, and perhaps why sorcerers can use magic like it was life force.
so in magic u have a range of absolutely certain states. the place in that range is undetermined though. so when something like the spellplauge or a mythal hits the whole has changed and with it the parts, so the states it took might change as well.
|
| LordofBones |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:30:41
The one time Mystra played with the rules, she got slapped down. Hard.
Wizards are still creating new spells and items, still making new forms of undead and monsters, still rewriting reality to suit their whims. Mystra is the custodian, she explicitly banned the Simbul from going murderhobo on the Red Wizards because the Thayvians were advancing the cause of magic.
Their practical and theoretical understanding? Spell Focus, metamagic, item crafting and so on. Only wizards know why you need x material component for y spell and so on. That Int score isn't just for show. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:21:32
oh, by abstract i mean that which ommits certain things and retains only a few from a select qualties.
i do belive abstractions are about reality and applicable to them.
the thing is if they have such a practical and theoretical understanding what is the method they use? also how can they do that if Mystra keeps playing with the rules from time to time? i would think for one that most wizards would hate Mystra for making them closer to priests and less of scientist who look at nature.
also u can think that they would hate Mystra for blocking off many technological progress that could be made in general. IE her hamepering of Gond. |
| Lyiat |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:19:24
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Magic isn't abstract knowledge to a wizard. I'm more than willing to bet that wizards know exactly how and why magic interacts with the world. At the very least, that's what the bonus feats imply. Wizards get bonus feats to show that their intellectual understanding and comprehension of magic and spells allows them to manipulate or apply their knowledge in ways beyond 'Point, fireball, loot.'
While true, I don't think Magic is always 100% predictable. Like cooking, it's not an exact science. There is definitely a scientific approach to it, but each pie is going to come out slightly differently depending on the cook. Magic does weird stuff, quite frequently. Look at the Spellplague, and Wild Mages. A wizard botches a spell and it could just fizzle out, or summon Orcus into a tavern. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 06:07:58
Magic isn't abstract knowledge to a wizard. I'm more than willing to bet that wizards know exactly how and why magic interacts with the world. At the very least, that's what the bonus feats imply. Wizards get bonus feats to show that their intellectual understanding and comprehension of magic and spells allows them to manipulate or apply their knowledge in ways beyond 'Point, fireball, loot.'
This also probably explains all the various undead templates and monstrous and magical beasts out there, some enterprising wizard went "FOR MAGIC!" and got busy. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 05:57:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is a discussion about magic, not philosophy. 
thats the thing. everything is philosophy. anything that involves abstracted knowledge at least.
but i will try and tone it down. but sierously its like the movie where the girl got new eyes and she sees ghost everywhere. the same for philosophy, after you 'get your eyes' u can not unsee it. everywhere and all the time. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 02:57:02
As for magic not being "logical" I wasn't saying it must not be bound to its own rules, I'm only saying the explanation for the supernatural sometimes goes beyond our view of the natural (for example, in the established Vancian rule in which the spell is "forgotten"... Why not? Magic would just be in another paradigma).
As for the extra spells being cast from spellbooks as scrolls, well, scrolls in 2e were not simply spells written in parchments, its very materials were special and different from a spellbook. Besides, in my game I designed the house rules years before this variant of using the book as a scroll showed up. And finally, getting the spell back is easier if scrolls are easy to acquire, not the case in my campaign.
 |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Oct 2014 : 02:03:10
This is a discussion about magic, not philosophy. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 20:35:06
well if u hate to talk so much why did u comment in the first place?
Secondly if u dont agree with the premise your a bad arguer for not challenging the premise, as people who follow logic would do. why do u expect to state something and the premise to 'magiclly' disappear.
secondly why would i follow a statment that disagrees with my premise? after all i have premises because i think, and with good reason, that they are true. in i never defualted on showing how that statment is wrong and why the premise is affrimed because of it. as a rule dont enter an argument if you dont want to check ur premises.
i told you already in a philosophical context non-sense has another meaning. which i explained, and it is easy to see what it comes from, non-sense, not of the senses.
well ur not a fun person to argue with. goodbey. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 20:31:27
Classic D&D Vancian does offer the advantage of simplicity. Fewer choices, less confusion, fewer arguments, less real time wasted preparing your spell list, more time available to just cast those spells during actual gameplay. Admittedly, it really hurts low-level spellcasters, and it doesn't help the party a lot when those precious few spell slots can only be used for combat magic or only for utility magics. Some players are able to make the most out of their magic, using it in surprisingly elegant and inventive ways - while lazy and uncreative players need to use more magic more often to achieve successful but somewhat inferior results.
The spellpoint-like system presented in 2E Players' Option: Skills & Powers and the unrestricted Arcanist spellcasting of 2E Netheril: Empire of Magic looked interesting but proved unsatisfying for my group - they just imposed needless slowdowns into gameplay and took something intangible away from the spellcasting classes. We had much greater success with the spellpoint system presented in the 2E Players' Option: Spells & Magic sourcebook.
Then again, we don't even play (much) with sorcerers and such stuff. Making magic too easy makes it less meaningful. I'm of the opinion that players who require open-ended unrestrictive unlimited spellcraft with handholding spoiled baby rules simply aren't really qualified to play high-level spellcasters. |
| Lyiat |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 20:21:50
Look, I'm done arguing with you. As always, you seem to completely miss the point of any given statement that disagrees with your premise.
I'm also not going to sit here and have someone who can't spell out "you" and "your" comment about my grammar. Nonsense, in the English language, is a communication or behavior that is devoid of sense; it is something that lacks a coherent or understandable meaning or behavior. "Your rant about Aristotle's definition of nonsense and lightning bolts was nonsensical", to use it appropriately. You don't get to throw rocks in a house made from glass.
You'll get no further communication from me, on any thread. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 20:02:15
btw dont use nonsensical, in a philosophy context non-sense means not of the senses. aristotles term.
he makes it to something that u do not percive with ur senses in any point of argument. here it is the opposite, u do percieve with your senses a bolt of electricty AND u loose hp and feel pain, also u see the bolt flying with your eyes. another person might smell burning flesh etc...
so nonsensical is not the term. this is based on a bottom-up approach. one that says that we percive reality and then we explain it by use of induction and logic.
here all you know is that when u do XYZ the lighting bolt does XYZ. so you add to what u know of lighting bolt that when there is no magic it does ZYC and when u do do sometype of magic it does RTE. u just add more potentials to the entity, one thing is sure, it can not be used with magic and not do RTE. A is A. a lighting bolt is a lighting bolt. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:56:04
There was a pretty nifty spell points system in Incursion: Halls of the Goblin King roguelike.
Personally, I'd use it or vitalized spell points mentioned a page back if I were to move away from Vancian. After all, D&D psionics by itself is a spell points system.
Also, the Spellcraft check idea is pretty nifty too. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:54:52
so u have a context where gravity does not happen. there is no violation of law.
if i plunge myself into FR and see something and say "that is not part of nature it is not real!!!! nature needs to have this and this. therefore magic is not part of the world" i would be equal to a man in real life who sees light curve and say "NO! EINSTIEN IS WRONG!! LIGHT IS A STRIAHGT LINE!!! then Gravitonal lensing is not part of physics, its supernatural" all that happend is the context changed in both cases. |
| Lyiat |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:44:37
Gravity follows consistent rules. It is the property of all physical objects to attract one another. There is a spell, called Reverse Gravity, that turns this into a repulsion instead of an attraction, hurling people up into the air. Flying is simply exerting enough force to resist this natural pull, not changing the properties of gravity that it is now the reverse of what it is intended to do. That is the violation of a law, not a context. There are spells that inverse entropy, an express violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Magical electricity routinely ignores the behavior of natural electricity, ignoring grounds and jumping to nonsensical targets instead of flowing into the earth like it normally would. These are not a different 'context'. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:30:54
no, magic does not wrap the laws of reality. for it to be anything it has to be part of reality, that is what it means to exist.
therefore magic can not bend the laws of reality, what ever happens happens and is part of reality.
the fact that u have laws of XYZ does not mean that does laws exist within every context. when magic arrives the context changes and new phenomena happens.
gravity can mean the same thing, bodies stick to the ground. well what about when they fly? does that violate the law of gravity? no. it just changes the context.
magic, like any other field of study(even in our world), has its own rules. but it is part of the whole, all the magic in the world is not apart from the things we percive. we see a whole and we induce that whole in to our own knowledge.
so no, magic is part of reality. if it is part of reality it has a nature. if it has a nature that interacts with us then we can study its nature by conceptualize its nature via following the law that it has a defenite nature, by logic. |
| Lyiat |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:22:20
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Logic goes out the window with magic, unless you really think you can apply logic to the wish spell. Magic follows its own laws.
thats the thing, if magic follows its own laws - it has a nature - then u can know its laws by applying logic and induction to it.
for example in the wish spell u can ask for things specfied in the Players Handbook, you can not ask for "i wish this wish wont come true"
even a wish spell is bound to the laws of reality.
... Except that is the exact opposite of what magic does. Magic warps the laws of reality and makes it it's plaything. Magic violates basic rules of kinetic energy, laws of thermodynamics, laws of gravity, ect ect. Nature can not create a perfect sphere of flame with no fuel source.
Magic has it's own rules, it's own internal logic, that isn't consistent with the natural order. And sometimes that internal logic itself gets hurled out the window. Just look at Wild Mages. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:14:27
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Logic goes out the window with magic, unless you really think you can apply logic to the wish spell. Magic follows its own laws.
thats the thing, if magic follows its own laws - it has a nature - then u can know its laws by applying logic and induction to it.
for example in the wish spell u can ask for things specfied in the Players Handbook, you can not ask for "i wish this wish wont come true"
even a wish spell is bound to the laws of reality. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 19:01:39
Logic goes out the window with magic, unless you really think you can apply logic to the wish spell. Magic follows its own laws. |
| Xal Valzar |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 18:51:42
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
but then again, it is magic, not logic.
OH NO! (' ')
well its not that bad but it is a grave metaphysical mistake, the one that leads to most of the confusion about magic.
also logic is mans way of surviving, we owe our life to our use of logic as it is our way of understanding reality, even a fantasy reality. saying magic is illogical means that we either throw out the real world or we throw out fantasy, both of which are precious.
alas don't worry i have a resultion and an explanation.
Magic must have a nature, everything in fact must have an exact definite nature. The alternative to something not having a nature is for it to both be itself AND not be itself IE nothing. I mean literally nothing.
It as if I were to roll a 14 and not a 14. Well... what did i roll? nothing, that is a contradiction, something that is and is not.
we can see that there are 2 axioms involved (an axiom is what is a fundamental fact that all other facts and arguments rest on). The axiom of existence. that: it IS.
the flip side of that is that it posses a definite nature. an identity. this is another aspect of the same thing. that: IT is.
whatever it is it is itself. A is A.
so whatever magic is IT IS magic.
now what does this have to do with logic?
well logic is a human invention - invented by Aristotle - of a way of thinking to follow thought in accordnce to the laws of reality. the most fundamental law is the law of non-contridiction. when thinking about magic(or anything else for the matter) one must think of what he is aware of there being and then identify it in a way that does not cause contradictions.
though magic is very much different from our sciences the same general method of induction must be applied to it to discover its exact nature by logic. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 15:03:41
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Wizards are among (if not) the most powerful classes in the game, how can their potential be limited by Vancian casting?
I wonder about things like that, myself... The character I'm playing now is a gun mage, a variant sorcerer. He can do some nasty damage from a distance -- but the big battle we had Thursday night, he got stuck in melee and had his butt handed to him. He would have been reduced to 0 hp or less if not for a couple of breaks and getting to shoot enemies with a vampiric touch. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 18 Oct 2014 : 09:49:25
Wizards are among (if not) the most powerful classes in the game, how can their potential be limited by Vancian casting? |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 17 Oct 2014 : 20:25:34
There are already enough points and numbers to add up, keep track of, count and multipy. And as my group does not meet very regularly to play we are all very happy about this system as it is just "easy to play" imo.
True, the Vacian System might not be the most interesting system for players, as it limits the potential of the wizard. However, I always liked it it's easy handling. And furthermore - I use this option already for many many years through 1st, 2nd, 3rd and now 3.5 ed. that I don't recall if it actually is an official rule or house rule - a wizard in desparate needs of a certain spell might always read it straight out of his spellbook like a scroll, destroying the pages on which that spell is written on in the process.
But hey - he can always copy it back into his spellbook from the next scroll he get his hands on. |
| xaviera |
Posted - 17 Oct 2014 : 14:56:42
I was also going to mention the Ars Magica system.
Outside of a Vancian system or some other variant where you choose from a fixed list of spells (e.g. D&D Sorcerors), the options seem to me to be limited to some sort of point-based system where the costs for parts of a spell are added up. Such systems could be 'grammatical', with a subject-verb-object structure and/or a set of categories for which values must be specified (target, distance, area of effect, element, etc.). The devil, of course, is in the details.
It might be interesting to play in a low-magic world where High (i.e. Ritual) magic is the main form of casting (a combination of the Deryni novels and the Chivalry & Sorcery system for making items), but some sort of point-based system still needs to be used to determine how much time/effort is involved in the casting.
|
|
|
