Magic without the Vance

[Deleted]

In my campaign I am currently running I have decided to altogether drop Vancian magic for a number of reasons:

1) I find it very disruptive, that when a spell-caster has used up his spells, he is compelled to return to town and rest for a day to restore his spells. This really takes you out of the game--both figuratively, and literally out of the dungeon. It kills any built-up tension and diminishes atmosphere, which sometimes requires a lot of work on the part of the referee. Overall, the fluidity of play suffers.

2) The whole idea that a person, even a genius level character, is able to memorize, repeatedly mind you, an incredibly elaborate set of instructions perfectly, activate them somatically without mistake all while doing this, oftentimes, in the heat of battle, is hard to swallow. Even in a fantasy game I still expect verisimilitude.

3) This one relates to the first reason, but with Vancian magic a high-level magic user does not need magical items such as wands, staves, etc. because once he is low on spells, he can simply rest and restore his spells. Therefore, these items become nearly worthless and lose much of their value, hence "fun".

My solution was simple, and so far, it has worked beautifully.

I have merely done away with spell memorization! Spells can still be written to and cast from scrolls, but of course this requires an investment of gold and time. Magical items such as wands, staves, and scrolls are now much more valuable, hence "fun"! The party makes half as many trips back to town to restore spells and when a magical item is found for the magic user, it is exciting and momentous!

I realize that there are ways to keep your party from returning to town or from restoring their spells, but this seems too much like railroading and requires too much of an antagonistic attitude towards the players in my mind.

[Random]

At risk of sounding like a jackass, how exactly does robbing magic-users of the ability to memorize spells prevent them from "using up" their spells and slowing down the game to restore them? You're basically using scrolls instead of spell memorization, which is essentially the same thing, a finite number of spells to be cast before returning to town to get more. Or, even worse, the magic-users are flat broke (and without wands or scrolls) and so can't cast any spells at all. Such a character might as well be left in town in exchange for a fighting-man until more magical items can be found for him to use.

Obligatory smiley face so you don't think I hate you:

[Deleted]

Nah, you don't sound like a jackass, but I don't think you're fully grasping the implications of what I put in place.

Magic users, with their one starting spell are already weak, so I guess I don't see how "robbing" them of that one measly spell is putting them at a severe disadvantage.

The difference between a scroll and a memorized spell is the amount of time and gold which are required to cast that one spell. This is basically the same as the caster having to search out and pay for reagents in order to cast a spell. The effect this has is that the time between spell replenishment is longer, and besides, what else is the magic user going to spend his gold on? I don't see how that is so far fetched.

You also completely ignored a large part of my argument which places a greater value on magical items.

The smiley face definitely helped.

[Random]

I didn't ignore it; I mentioned that it would suck if a magic-user simply did not find any useful magic items. Then he'd be screwed once he ran out of gold to make scrolls.

[Deleted]

I guess I don't see the problem. Putting a premium on spell-casting does not necessarily disarm the magic user. He is still capable of fighting with a dagger, inflicting the same amount of damage as a fighter, just without the armor (this also depends on whether you use variable damage, which I do.) He can throw them or stab with them, the former allows him to attack from a distance. Also, just the fact that a magic user is a magic user is a weapon unto itself. His very presence as a sorcerer is apt to strike fear into the hearts of the superstitious which a medieval/fantasy is full of, superstition that is.

Burning flasks of oil also provide an interesting weapon with a slight "aura of magic", that is, if you consider McGuyver a magician! The magic user is supposed to be a clever fellow, he should be played like one!

[Random]

Perhaps we're simply in disagreement, which is silly since the point of this thread was to share how well your change is working out. I just don't see how a magic-user would be all that great (compared to other classes) this way unless you really dumped a load of magical widgets in their path.

[Mushgnome]

Hi Christopher, I understand what you are going for here, and like your idea. I think 3rd and, especially, 4th edition D&D are headed in this direction, in response to decades of player frustration with "fire and forget" magic-users. In the newer editions, spellcasters get more per-encounter and at-will abilities. Furthermore, there is a "wealth by level" table that guarantees players have a certain amount of gold they can spend on magical loot.

There are, however, two big reasons why I would never personally use this idea in an old-school game:

1) Vancian magic adds an extra layer of "resource management" to the game. "First level magic-user only gets one spell per day, so you'd better not blow it!" is such an iconic part of D&D that it just wouldn't feel like the same classic game to me without it.

Now, sometimes I like to play games (using other systems) where quivers are always full of arrows, torches burn forever, and magic-users can "recharge" in various ways. Resource management is not always fun, but the original D&D implementation of it is definitely a classic.

2) To me, old-school play means "players vs. dungeon, with DM as referee." The players know all the rules and try their best to "win" each fight, trap, or trick using the tools at their PC's disposal. Players who choose to play spellcasters have a set list of spells from which they can select which to memorize, based on the challenges they anticipate encountering.

Your proposal has more of a "DM is the storyteller and world-builder" vibe. If I am reading your post correctly, it means spellcasters are limited to the specific magical effects (scrolls, wands, potions, etc.) with which the DM chooses to stock the dungeon. Furthermore, if the DM is into random monster/treasure tables, there is no guarantee that spellcasters will find anything useful at all. "Do I trust the DM to gift my PC with the right tools so that playing him is interesting and fun?"

In other words, I prefer the active "my sleep spell is memorized; let's earn some XP so I can level up and learn more spells!" to the passive "I sure hope the DM left a wand of sleep lying around here somewhere."

Now if it helps you develop your idea at all, let me tell you about a game I DM'd using Mike Mearls' "Iron Heroes" 3E rules. In this campaign, there were no spellcasting classes. Any PC could "learn a spell" by finding a scroll and passing a Decipher Script check. Casting a spell required only gathering the necessary components and reciting the memorized words (passing a Spellcraft check). However, in this campaign, spells were dangerous, costly, and creepy. Instead of charm person, magic missle, fly, etc. I had spells like "Summon Mor-Goa, the Demon Frog-Dog of the Deep," which required crafting a bass drum from a whale skull and hide, then beating this drum and chanting the evocation under the night sky on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

In this game, we supplemented these spectacular Cthulhoid "spells" by handwaving minor "everyday magic." I gave players who wanted to play "magical" PCs the opportunity to do through describing their character's actions as arcane instead of mundane. One player was a high-Charisma thief with a lot of social-oriented feats. Without altering any rules of the game, we called her a "mind witch" and described her Bluff and Intimidate checks as "sorcerous mind-control." Another player was a Runethane tattooed with arcane marks and wielding an ancient sword. In mechanical terms, he was simply a very good fighter, but within the mythology of the game, he was a powerful "magic-user" whose skill with the blade had mystical origins.

Feel free to borrow any of these ideas if they help with your game.

[Deleted]

Random:

I don't think you expressing your opinion was silly. Your comments brought up some good points and have caused me to consider the issues more carefully. Thanks!

Mushgnome:

I agree with you that foregoing Vancian magic does take away from the "D&D feel". I also like your summarization of old school as the players vs. the dungeon with a referee. That sums up very nicely and neatly the way I have been trying to express old school, at least in my own mind, if that makes sense.

I'm not sure if I am understanding the "DM as storyteller and world-builder." One of the biggest draws for being a DM for me is creating a world that causes the players to want to explore it and subsequently are left with a sense of wonder and mystery, even if that means altering the rules to fit my vision. If that was what you meant, then I think I agree.

As for Vancian magic adding in that extra layer of resource management, the resource management is still there, it's just that the resources have become more rare--more difficult to obtain, hence more valuable. This forces the magic user to be very cautious and thoughtful in the use of spells.

Thanks for the insightful and thought provoking reply!

[ragnorakk]

The only question I have is this: what's the matter with the one memorized spell/day AND scrolls, wands, etc?

Personally I often want start MU's with a ring of spell storing or wizardry, a wand with charges = to INT, things like that -
if they're grumpy over the one spell a day thing...

[blackbarn]

On the one hand you said the Vancian MU needs to go back to town and rest when he runs out of spells, but on the other hand you wondered what use magic items were since the MU could just go rest and restore his spells. I think these two problems cancel each other out, don't they? When the MU runs out of spells, those items are very valuable so he doesn't have to run home!

I am not against you changing rules to suit your game, I just found those statements to be at odds.

[Deleted]

I am assuming you are referring to the following from my first post:

The party makes half as many trips back to town to restore spells and when a magical item is found for the magic user, it is exciting and momentous!

If that is not it, please correct me.

What I meant by going back to town, was as in an effort to create more scrolls (spells). I can see where that may have been misleading. Thanks for pointing that out.

EDIT: Now that I reread your post, I am really confused. Are you talking to me, or someone else, or both of us?

[Mushgnome]

Oct 19, 2010 15:49:40 GMT -6 christopher said:

Mushgnome:

I'm not sure if I am understanding the "DM as storyteller and world-builder." One of the biggest draws for being a DM for me is creating a world that causes the players to want to explore it and subsequently are left with a sense of wonder and mystery, even if that means altering the rules to fit my vision. If that was what you meant, then I think I agree.

You are on the right track. My comment was inspired by a thread I read somewhere about,"What if J.R.R. Tolkien was your DM?" My feeling is he was clearly a fantastic world-builder and storyteller, but maybe not such a great dungeon master, if you know what I mean. "You quest for many days to find and defeat the dragon Smaug. When you get there, an NPC kills him in one shot with a magic arrow."

I'm saying this because I think one consequence of making magic-users more dependent on loot is that the players' assumptions about "winning" the game will change. Instead of thinking "How do we kill the dragon?" they'll think "Where did the DM hide the arrow of dragon slaying?"

[eris]

Oct 19, 2010 16:46:39 GMT -6 ragnorakk said:

The only question I have is this: what's the matter with the one memorized spell/day AND scrolls, wands, etc?

As far as I can see, nothing is wrong with that.

Personally I often want start MU's with a ring of spell storing or wizardry, a wand with charges = to INT, things like that -
if they're grumpy over the one spell a day thing...

Yeah, IMO, nothing wrong with that either. It just depends on how you want to treat magic in your game.

Recently, I was running a game with a 1st-timer in it. He wanted to be a MU, but really had a problem with "one measly little spell a day!" so I told him, "Okay, I'll give you an unlimited number of Prestidigitation spells a day. It can't do much, but if you're creative..."...and make something of it he did! "Can I tip that vase off the shelf and try to have it fall on the Goblin's head? Sure can try, roll a d20 and let's see what happens."; "Can I make a gust of wind blow smoke from the fire into that Orc's eyes? Let's give it a try..."; "If I can make a little fire on my fingertip, can I use it to light this torch? I'm sure you can, give it a try."; "Can I pull that rug from under the Orc and make him fall down? Probably not, but if you roll a 20, you'll have pulled it off."; and so on. He spent several adventures with just his minor magic trick and well placed daggers and had a lot of fun. Frankly, I think it was better training for him in the old school philosophy of "try it and see what happens" than if I'd given him a spell (or three) that did X, and only X. No, no resource management on that spell, but that'll come later as he begins to acquire "real" spells and magic items.

[leon]

The so called "Vancian" magic system is one of D&D's most characteristic features. If you drop it, you might as well play some other game. A bit of an exaggeration of course, but you get the picture.

Oct 18, 2010 20:09:08 GMT -6 christopher said:

1) I find it very disruptive, that when a spell-caster has used up his spells, he is compelled to return to town and rest for a day to restore his spells. This really takes you out of the game--both figuratively, and literally out of the dungeon. It kills any built-up tension and diminishes atmosphere, which sometimes requires a lot of work on the part of the referee. Overall, the fluidity of play suffers.

Why don't you make it so as to not be able to casually walk back to town and the pick up from where he left without consequences? Some things are time critical. There may be reinforcements, the enemies might follow the party to town to eradicate them, they may even get the money and run, or whatever. Anyway, the back to town to regroup, won't be solved by removing spellcasting ability from magic users (how about clerics btw?).

2) The whole idea that a person, even a genius level character, is able to memorize, repeatedly mind you, an incredibly elaborate set of instructions perfectly, activate them somatically without mistake all while doing this, oftentimes, in the heat of battle, is hard to swallow. Even in a fantasy game I still expect verisimilitude.

The elaborate part is done when the caster is calmly memorizing the spells, not in the heat of battle. Only a few words and hand motions are performed in the thick of action, so no problems there. If you feel that something is disrupting the caster then he may lose the spell or you may force him to make a check to see if he went properly through the motions.

3) This one relates to the first reason, but with Vancian magic a high-level magic user does not need magical items such as wands, staves, etc. because once he is low on spells, he can simply rest and restore his spells. Therefore, these items become nearly worthless and lose much of their value, hence "fun".

You could simply reduce the number of spells the casters can cast per day then. Although this would probably also entail lowering XP level cost for spellcasting classes since you would seriously reduce their power.

My solution was simple, and so far, it has worked beautifully.

I have merely done away with spell memorization! Spells can still be written to and cast from scrolls, but of course this requires an investment of gold and time. Magical items such as wands, staves, and scrolls are now much more valuable, hence "fun"! The party makes half as many trips back to town to restore spells and when a magical item is found for the magic user, it is exciting and momentous!

I realize that there are ways to keep your party from returning to town or from restoring their spells, but this seems too much like railroading and requires too much of an antagonistic attitude towards the players in my mind.

If your players are cool with it then fine, but I would never play a spellcasting class in such a game which, you know, can't even do what its name implies: cast spells.

[James Maliszewski]

Oct 21, 2010 17:01:06 GMT -6 leon said:

The so called "Vancian" magic system is one of D&D's most characteristic features. If you drop it, you might as well play some other game. A bit of an exaggeration of course, but you get the picture.

It's not a huge exaggeration, honestly. Every edition of the game for more than 30 years has included it, more or less as it was when it appeared in the 1974. I think the system is flexible enough that certain modification to it are possible without making it unrecognizable, but, speaking only for myself, I can't really think of D&D without Vancian magic.

[Deleted]

Yes, Vancian magic has been a large part of D&D, but not because it makes D&D what it is, it just happens to be one of the more identifiable characteristics of D&D. Class, levels, ability scores, hit points, and armor class, those all scream D&D to me. It just seems a bit exaggerated (there's that word again) to say that Vancian magic can single-handedly make or break D&D. It is too subjective to really nail down, unless of course some kind of consensus is reached. Might make a good poll?

leon:

Note, magic-users still "cast" spells, just not from memory. They cast them from scrolls, with wands, with staves, really any magical items.

[leon]

Oct 21, 2010 21:47:58 GMT -6 christopher said:

Note, magic-users still "cast" spells, just not from memory. They cast them from scrolls, with wands, with staves, really any magical items.

Yes but magic items don't come up that often. If I did that, I would make magic item creation rules for the items with charges easier, cheaper and available at lower levels. What about clerics? Do similar limitations apply or do they cast spells as normal?

[bluskreem]

Maybe use Holmes' Scroll creation with a (significantly) GP lower cost?

[coffee]

Oct 22, 2010 9:24:00 GMT -6 bluskreem said:

Maybe use Holmes' Scroll creation with a (significantly) GP lower cost?

That's kind of what they did in 3e.

We had one guy in a game who took those rules to heart. He literally walked into the dungeon (or other adventure) pulling a wheeled spell caddy (his word, not mine) to hold and organize the long list of scrolls he had with him. (several pages of notebook paper listing those scrolls)

If only the DM had enforced time constraints! Every round, this guy would go through his list, find the perfect scroll for the situation, and then get it out and use it -- all within the 6 seconds of game time he had available. While the rest of us players sat around and twiddled our thumbs during the long period of real time that ticked away.



I'm not saying don't use scrolls; it's a highly flavorful option for your game. I'm just saying be aware of some of the ways players can pervert your good intentions and become monsters.