Original D&D Discussion
« Revising the Vancian Magic System »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 25, 2013, 5:07pm




Original D&D Discussion :: Community :: OD&D Workshop :: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Page 2 of 2 Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread] [Share Topic] [Print]
 AuthorTopic: Revising the Vancian Magic System (Read 1,505 times)
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
**
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Sept 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Pace, FL
Karma: 11
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #15 on Jan 30, 2010, 3:41pm »


Jan 29, 2010, 10:14pm, Thangobrind wrote:
"I'm just curious about where this interpretation comes from."

Hi morandir!

In 1st Edition (see PHB p 26) the "Spell Progression" table for the M-U is dubbed "Spells Usable By Class and Level." One axis is the characters XP Level. The other axis is "Magic-User's Spell Level" with levels 1 to 9 making up the columns. The center of the graph is occupied by numbers that represent (a) the quantity of spells a character knows and (b) his memory slots. The (b) part here is more implied than overtly stated, which is a big part of the problem as I see it.

This conflation continued into 2nd Edition. I'm not sure about 3.x editions.


This is me scratching his head, "Huh?"

In ODD, the spell chart is what the MU can memorize (or prepare) and use per day. The spells the MU has in his spellbook are *not* specified anywhere...or nowhere that I remember (or can find). I always thought I was playing it right when I made the MU *earn* every spell they had in their books (after the first few anyway).

I always gave 1st level MU's 1d4 1st level spells to put in their spell book (if they started at a higher level, I gave them a few more, but not many). I would give a high INT MU an extra 1st level spell for their book...sometimes, but not always. IAC, as the game progressed the MU could find, buy, steal, research (with costs), spells to add to their book, but they got no new ones just for leveling up.

When they did level up, they were able to prepare/memorize more spells of various levels, and that's were the chart came into play. Not for the spells they had in their spell book, but for the ones they could cast that day.

Now, it might be different in AD&D...I never got into those versions. It might have been different in 3rd ed, too, but if it was I ignored it.

Oh, and Greyhawk had something in it about max and min spells based on INT, but I don't think I ever used that rule.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Kelmult Dwarven Fgt-2
Olaf, the very lucky...so far! Human Fgt-2
Yusuf Kamal(Chainmail & Shield: AC 4, MV 6, HD 1, XP: 0, hp 6. #AT 1. 1d8 Sword, 1d6 Bow, 1d4 dagger x 2. Lucky Amulet, rations, waterskin x 2. GP: 0. [gold necklace & jewelry case with a few silver rings & bracelets...est. 70 gp])
Thangobrind
Level 3 Conjurer
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Gygaxian Naturist


[homepage]

Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 87
Location: Binghamton, NY
Karma: 5
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #16 on Jan 30, 2010, 4:59pm »

"In ODD, the spell chart is what the MU can memorize (or prepare) and use per day. The spells the MU has in his spellbook are *not* specified anywhere...or nowhere that I remember (or can find). I always thought I was playing it right when I made the MU *earn* every spell they had in their books (after the first few anyway)."

That's a great way to handle it, and more or less what I'm proposing here. Whether the conflation I'm talking about is an artifact of 1st Ed or completely in my imagination, it all stems from the lack of clarity in the books themselves. I guess I'd just like to clear things up a bit and maybe allow for a little more variation within the M-U class in O/AD&D.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

The Perilous Dreamer
Level 7 Enchanter
****
member is offline

[avatar]

Halenar Frosthelm


[homepage]

Joined: Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 510
Karma: 65
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #17 on Jan 30, 2010, 5:55pm »


Jan 29, 2010, 8:50pm, Thangobrind wrote:
My problem is the conflation of the wizard's 'memory expansion' (through the mechanic of gaining memory slots as he moves up levels in standard D&D) with the number of spells in his spellbook. These things are tied together -- essentially one and the same -- in standard D&D. I advocate breaking them apart into two distinct elements.



Jan 29, 2010, 9:48pm, Morandir wrote:
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that a caster can only have a number of spells in his book equal to the number he can cast; it's certainly not that way in later editions of D&D (I'm thinking of 3e here, where I got my start), and no one I know who played older versions of the game has ever suggested to me that they played this way either.

Is this something that I've just missed, due to my coming to the game from 3rd Edition? My wife's elf has a spellbook with probably 10+ level 1 spells in it, even though she can only prepare 4/day. Have I been doing this "wrong"? Not that I'm going to change how I do it or anything; I'm just curious about where this interpretation comes from.

Mor.



Jan 29, 2010, 10:14pm, Thangobrind wrote:
In 1st Edition (see PHB p 26) the "Spell Progression" table for the M-U is dubbed "Spells Usable By Class and Level." One axis is the characters XP Level. The other axis is "Magic-User's Spell Level" with levels 1 to 9 making up the columns. The center of the graph is occupied by numbers that represent (a) the quantity of spells a character knows and (b) his memory slots. The (b) part here is more implied than overtly stated, which is a big part of the problem as I see it.

This conflation continued into 2nd Edition. I'm not sure about 3.x editions.



Please don't take this the wrong way, but several things strike me about this:

First of all you seem to be saying that the OD&D Vancian system is broken based on your quoting of the AD&D rules in the PHB. I don't mean to be testy here, but it strikes me as odd that you would say there is a problem in OD&D and then base all of your arguments on quotes from AD&D. Why don't you quote the relevant portions of the rules in OD&D and then make your argument about it being broken.

Second of all, I have my OD&D books right here and there is nothing in them about memory slots, spell slots and other terms from later editions. I agree with Morandir, OD&D lays out the numbers of spells that a magic-user can memorize per day at any given level. It no where places a limit on how many spells can be in the magic users repertoire at each level. A magic user may have access to 30 1st level spells but can only use 4 of them in any given day. A magic user's "memory expansion" and the number of spells in his spell book are not tied together in OD&D. I think OD&D already has them as distinctly separate elements. I am not sure what you mean by standard D&D but from your statements it appears that you mean AD&D by standard D&D.

Third of all, please go ahead and work out a different way of handling spells in OD&D, just do it based on variance from the OD&D rules not on variance from the AD&D rules.


Jan 30, 2010, 3:41pm, eris wrote:
This is me scratching his head, "Huh?"

In ODD, the spell chart is what the MU can memorize (or prepare) and use per day. The spells the MU has in his spellbook are *not* specified anywhere...or nowhere that I remember (or can find). I always thought I was playing it right when I made the MU *earn* every spell they had in their books (after the first few anyway).

I always gave 1st level MU's 1d4 1st level spells to put in their spell book (if they started at a higher level, I gave them a few more, but not many). I would give a high INT MU an extra 1st level spell for their book...sometimes, but not always. IAC, as the game progressed the MU could find, buy, steal, research (with costs), spells to add to their book, but they got no new ones just for leveling up.

When they did level up, they were able to prepare/memorize more spells of various levels, and that's were the chart came into play. Not for the spells they had in their spell book, but for the ones they could cast that day.

Now, it might be different in AD&D...I never got into those versions. It might have been different in 3rd ed, too, but if it was I ignored it.

Oh, and Greyhawk had something in it about max and min spells based on INT, but I don't think I ever used that rule.


I like what eris does here, it is pretty similar to most of what I have seen for house rules and I never used the Greyhawk thing either as it is written.

Now having said all of that, I read the Vancian Crunch essay and Vancian Crunch lite essay. I think I understand what you are saying but since I have never had any one at 16th level let along 20th level in my game, and since I view 12th level as a maximum, it follows that with the max number of spells per day for a 12th level magic-user being 21, I viewed that as a reasonable number and not a problem that needed to be fixed.

I have also looked at the first draft of your memory expansion table. I have absolutely no problem with you using this method to cut the total number of spells per day down drastically as in the example of two 9th level spells and one 1st level spell on a given day, or of course the person could have 19 1st level spells that day.

You have given me some ideas about reducing the total number of spells they can use, of prehaps allowing them to take more low level spells in place of high level spells, and allowing them to substitute a higher level spell in lieu of several low level spells.

However, my personal preference would be to avoid familiars, especially a demonic familiars, drugs and spell components. My reasons I imagine are unique to my game as compared to yours. I have kids as young as nine in my game and demonic familiars and drug use would not make a couple of mothers happy and would likely get those players removed from the game. As for spell components and the like, I find it just slows down the game and is one more thing to keep track of. I try to minimize the numbers of things we have to keep track of in detail.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Thangobrind
Level 3 Conjurer
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Gygaxian Naturist


[homepage]

Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 87
Location: Binghamton, NY
Karma: 5
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #18 on Jan 30, 2010, 6:22pm »

"I have kids as young as nine in my game and demonic familiars and drug use would not make a couple of mothers happy and would likely get those players removed from the game."

Totally understandable! :-D

And thanks for the great response. You're right -- I've based most of my assumptions here on AD&D. From what you and others have said, it seems like OD&D already makes the distinction between memory expansion and spell acquisition/progression.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

tavis
Level 7 Enchanter
****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 571
Location: NYC
Karma: 34
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #19 on Jan 30, 2010, 6:34pm »

That's very inspirational! I posted some ideas and critiques in response, plus lots of Vance quotes, at The Mule Abides.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

I blog at The Mule Abides, always welcome new players in NYC at New York Red Box, and am one of the designers of Adventurer Conqueror King - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1420....-conqueror-king
apeloverage
Level 6 Magician
***
member is offline





Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Karma: 20
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #20 on Jan 30, 2010, 7:54pm »

A possible interpretation:

Spells are living things, which can live indefinitely in a wizard's brain. Once cast out of the wizard's brain they return to their own dimension, and their passage has a magical effect.

Spellbooks contain instructions on how to summon a spell into the wizard's brain. The instructions themselves are normal words, without magical power or limitation.

A wizard's ability to memorise spells represents the gradual changing of the structures of their brain, to be able to house more and more spells. This is why they 'forget' a spell once it's cast, and why they can 'memorise a spell twice.'

Spell scrolls contain the spells themselves, which is why they're destroyed by the spell being transferred into a wizard.

(one implication of this would be that you can't transfer a spell from a scroll to a spellbook though)
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Teleleli; the people, places, gods and monsters of the great city of Teleleli and the islands around.
The Perilous Dreamer
Level 7 Enchanter
****
member is offline

[avatar]

Halenar Frosthelm


[homepage]

Joined: Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 510
Karma: 65
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #21 on Jan 31, 2010, 5:42pm »

For additional information about OD&D magic I refer you to the article "The Dungeons & Dragons Magic System" by Gary Gygax in The Strategic Review Vol2 Issue#2. Here I will quote bits of that article and briefly comment.

The basic assumption, then, was that D & D magic worked on a “Vancian” system and if used correctly would be a highly powerful and effective force. There are also four basic parts to magic: The verbal or uttered spell, the somatic or physical movement required for the conjuration, the psychic or mental attitude necessary to cast the spell, and the material adjuncts by which the spell, can be completed (to cite an obvious example, water to raise a water elemental). It was assumed that the D & D spell would be primarily verbal, although in some instances the spell would require some somatic component also (a fire ball being an outstanding example). The psychic per se would play little part in the basic magic system, but a corollary, mnemonics, would. The least part of magic would be the material aids required, and most of those considered stored or aided magic, so as to enable its more immediate employment, rather than serving to prolong spell casting time or encumber the player using these aids.


The group I played with did not change anything we were doing after this article came out, the abuses mentioned in the full article are not things that we did. As far as how the spells worked we did not use all four components as Gary laid it out. We did use the verbal or uttered spell and the psychic or mental attitude necessary to cast the spell. Those two things were part of all spells. Some, but not all, spells used the somatic or physical movement required to cast the spell and for no spells did we require a material adjunct or component.

Spells do various things, and just what they do is an important consideration, for some order of effect in regard to the game would have to be determined. Magic purports to have these sorts of effects: 1) the alteration of existing substance including its transposition or dissolution); 2) the creation of new substance; 3) the changing of normal functions of mind and/or body; 4) the addition of new functions to mind and/or body; 5) summon and/or command existing entities; and 6) create new entities. In considering these functions, comparatively weak and strong spells could be devised from any one of the six. Knowing the parameters within which the work was to be done then enabled the creation of the system.


This quote is just provided mainly for information and your consideration. I find it useful to refer to when a player wants to create a new spell. Someplace I used to have something written about how to use these six items to determine the level of a new spell, but I haven't seen it in years. It is a good thing to make the level of a new spell appropriate for the level of a PC. IE don't let a 3rd level magic-user invent a 9th level spell.

Because the magic-using D & D player would have to be able to operate competitively with fellow players who relied on other forms of attack during the course of adventures, the already mentioned “Vancian” system was used as a basis, and spells of various sorts were carefully selected. Note, however, that they were selected within the framework of D & D competition primarily, and some relatively powerful spells were apportioned to lower levels of magic use. Charm Person and Sleep at 1st level are outstanding examples. The effect of some spells was set to reflect the level of the magic-user employing them. Many of the spells were developed for specific use in dungeon expeditions or during wilderness adventures.


I think the point that some spells are more powerful than you would expect for their level is a great point. Some first level spells are much stronger by comparison with higher level spells, such as Sleep at 1st level vs Locate Object at 2nd level or Clairvoyance at 3rd level or Confusion at 4th level. The main thing is to not have too much power at a low level but still have enough for the magic user to have fun too. [This whole argument also applies to clerics who should not be there to do just healing and nothing else; although it is good to point out that cleric can be relatively effective as fighters if well-played.]

A few — mostly drawn from CHAINMAIL — were included with the table top battle in mind. All such spells were assumed to be of such a nature so that no less than three of the four basic components of magic were required in their use. All spells were assumed to have a verbal component. Each and every spell (not found on a scroll or otherwise contained in, or on, some magical device) would be absolutely mnemonic, magic-users would have to memorize the spells they wished to have available, and when a particular spell was recalled and its other parts enacted, then the memory would be gone and the spell no longer available until it was re-memorized (thus the magic-users’ spell books!). Most spells were also envisioned as containing a slight somatic and/or material component, whether in the preparation of a small packet of magical or ordinary compounds to be used when the spell was spoken or as various gestures to be made when the enchantment was uttered.

Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others.


As he comments later in the article, if a magic-user gets too much in the way of magic items he can totally dominate the game at higher levels in a way that was not intended. My comment is that a fighter with a magic sword - even a Paladin with a Holy Sword, and magic armor does not unbalance the game at all compared with a magic-user with an assortment of wands, scrolls, staves and miscellaneous items. If you err on the side of too little magic items it is easy to correct, if you err on the side of way too much that is hard to correct since you have already spoiled the players.

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Thangobrind
Level 3 Conjurer
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Gygaxian Naturist


[homepage]

Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 87
Location: Binghamton, NY
Karma: 5
 Re: Revising the Vancian Magic System
« Reply #22 on Feb 1, 2010, 8:01pm »

Definitely some great insights into spell design and level-structuring here. Thanks for the info!
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

« Page 2 of 2 Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread] [Share Topic] [Print]

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free


This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Notice | FTC Disclosure | Report Abuse | Mobile