My comment on Vance was meant as a "this is why it works the way it works" not as a "this is the only way it should work". There are a lot of stories of magic out there that D&D does not model well at all.

I think variant magic systems have probably been one of the most common house rules for D&D. And many other games take very different approaches, suggesting that the D&D Vancian fire-and-forget approach is far from one size fits all.  It certainly is not my favorite approach to RPG magic.

Quote from: DavetheLost;974352My comment on Vance was meant as a "this is why it works the way it works" not as a "this is the only way it should work". There are a lot of stories of magic out there that D&D does not model well at all.

I got that but what important not Gygax using Vance as a starting point but the process he used to get to the published game. If a referee wants a decent magic system for their campaign then the sure way of doing that is to use Gygax's process. Start out with something based on whatever inspires you, and then play over and over again altering and tweaking things until it works like you want it too.

Quote from: Skarg;973823* Penalties to re-cast a spell if you don't wait a certain period, either per caster or per subject. Combined with risks of accident which apply the worse the modified roll result is, means it can be safe to cast a spell periodically, but have problems of some sort if you try to cast it very frequently.

Interesting. I'd like this for any system* where there is a tendency for an MU to cast the same spell repeatedly. If for no other reason than to get some variety in what the MU does.


* However, I'm not sure what system that would be.

Quote from: DavetheLost;973983How many people arguing about "Vancian" magic in RPGs have actually read the Jack Vance stories in question?

No clue. I read Vance's Dying Earth stuff way back in the day and reading it didn't change my preference for spell point systems. I highly doubt there is any correlation between reading Dying Earth and preferring one system over another though. Fire and forget seems a reasonably accurate high level summation of what Vance described as to how the mages of the Dying Earth impressed spells on their minds, etc. etc. etc.

Quote from: estar;974358I got that but what important not Gygax using Vance as a starting point but the process he used to get to the published game.

Important in what sense? Is there any evidence that designers today are unaware that trial, error, and correction is one aspect of a design process?

Quote from: Bren;974597Important in what sense? Is there any evidence that designers today are unaware that trial, error, and correction is one aspect of a design process?

I am sure most are aware of it but doing it to extent that Gygax did not so much. The situation is understandable as most publishers have deadlines and limited time to devote to individual project and can't take a year or two to put a supplement or game through the wringer multiple times.

Having done both, my conclusion that extended playtesting with multiple groups of players is the best process to use for development. Provided you can spare the time and generate the opportunities to do the testing.

Quote from: The Exploited.;973256While I like Wizards a lot especially the Thoth-Amon kind (I personally prefer the term Sorcerers). I've always been bugged about Wizards being rather limited (at the early levels).

But the one thing that really sticks out, for me at any rate, is that whole 'forgetting' the spell after it's cast. So, effectively you can only cast it once per day. Anyone else feel the same on this?

The second part of this thread is asking for advice. Have you got any ideas/suggestions on how to remedy this?

1) I was thinking of adding some kind of 'Magic Points' secondary attribute. Tied to Wisdom. I'm not saying that magic points are the best but it would eliminate some of my bugbears.
2) Or just let the players cast any spell they want as their level suggests. So, in essence, they could cast sleep twice a day, etc.
3) Give them an extra spell as their intelligence bonus suggests (I've seen this in a couple of OSR games already).
4) I think it's in Crypts and Things - There's a 'luck attribute' and you can roll on it to see if you can remember the spell you've just cast.

Last option: Or do I just tell myself to STFU and play as god intended.

Any advice or thoughts welcome!

Ta'!

I suppose you've not played DCC?  In DCC, characters have less spells total than in standard OSR games, but they cast by making rolls of D20+INT+Level versus a DC of 12+spell level.

If they make the check, the spell functions (and is more powerful the higher the roll was). If they fail the check they can't cast it again for the rest of the day.  But as long as they succeed, they can keep casting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975408I suppose you've not played DCC?  In DCC, characters have less spells total than in standard OSR games, but they cast by making rolls of D20+INT+Level versus a DC of 12+spell level.

If they make the check, the spell functions (and is more powerful the higher the roll was). If they fail the check they can't cast it again for the rest of the day.  But as long as they succeed, they can keep casting.

Hey mate, I've not played it yet, but I bought it last week (and Hubris!). I've only scanned it because I've been mad busy with work. I love the character's flavour. At first, I thought the 'funky dice' would be a bit of hard work, but it works really well. There's an online die roller for guys who don't want to buy the app (so that's really handy).

I'm loving it so far, and I've also bought the app. The magic, from what you've said seems very cool too (an easy formula to use). So you can cast away until you screw up! That works well into the narrative I wanted. Sure, you can cast magic but it's unpredictable and dangerous. The way it should be!

Cheers!

Quote from: The Exploited.;973256While I like Wizards a lot especially the Thoth-Amon kind (I personally prefer the term Sorcerers). I've always been bugged about Wizards being rather limited (at the early levels).

But the one thing that really sticks out, for me at any rate, is that whole 'forgetting' the spell after it's cast. So, effectively you can only cast it once per day. Anyone else feel the same on this?

The second part of this thread is asking for advice. Have you got any ideas/suggestions on how to remedy this?

1) I was thinking of adding some kind of 'Magic Points' secondary attribute. Tied to Wisdom. I'm not saying that magic points are the best but it would eliminate some of my bugbears.
2) Or just let the players cast any spell they want as their level suggests. So, in essence, they could cast sleep twice a day, etc.
3) Give them an extra spell as their intelligence bonus suggests (I've seen this in a couple of OSR games already).
4) I think it's in Crypts and Things - There's a 'luck attribute' and you can roll on it to see if you can remember the spell you've just cast.

Last option: Or do I just tell myself to STFU and play as god intended.

Any advice or thoughts welcome!

Ta'!

Spell slots in 5e basically are magic points. It works just fine and does change the feel from "I cast Magic Missile, so I forgot how" to "I'm all out of magic power for the day because I cast so many spells." Not having to occupy valuable slots with niche spells you may never use is quite nice.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;975472Spell slots in 5e basically are magic points. It works just fine and does change the feel from "I cast Magic Missile, so I forgot how" to "I'm all out of magic power for the day because I cast so many spells." Not having to occupy valuable slots with niche spells you may never use is quite nice.

They are mostly magic points that manage to mostly avoid the typical pitfalls of magic point systems in games with a wide range of effects and power levels:  

1. The "conversion rate" problem, where the system makes it preferable to turn a few powerful spells into multiple weaker spells (or vice versa, depending upon the exact implementation) is avoided by still using slots with flexibility, coupled with 5E's change so that spells do not inherently scale by the level of the caster.  That means if you upgrade a 1st level spell to a 3rd level slot (where allowed) you mostly get what you pay for, often with a slight cost in efficiency that is probably worth it for getting that one spell off now.  Likewise, downgrading slots is a net loss, and thus still requires a little operational planning by the player.  Though not so much as to cause analysis paralysis or extreme manipulation by the caster savant player.

2. The number of spells prepared and the number of slots available is kept small enough that your average casual player can make informed decisions about what to do, but not so limited that they either blow things too quickly or go the opposite route and conserve too much.  There is a little bit of a hump in the learning curve for a new player compared to simpler magic point system, but once over that I find the player gets to a functioning state much quicker.  That is, the exact mechanic has an upfront cost that quickly pays for itself in operational understanding.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;975473spells do not inherently scale by the level of the caster.

I didn't really appreciate how much this helped address the LFQW problem until someone else pointed it out. Used to be that your low-power spells got more powerful in a linear fashion, while your got these upper-class spells that were quadratically more powerful. Now it's more like your biggest spells are always big hitters relative to your level, while your older spells gradually get demoted from "nuke" to "nice to have." Magic Missile now starts at 3d4+3. It is a very potent spell at level 1, capable of ending some encounters before they really get going. At high levels, that's more like a single, unaugmented weapon hit.

Question: when you talk about not liking the memorization of spells, is the mechanics you don't like, or the explanation?

The reason I ask is because I recently created a magic system for my own fantasy heartbreaker, and for the sorcerer class, the mechanics are fairly similar to the Vancian D&D approach, but the explanation is quite different.  In my game, sorcery spells take a long time to cast.  The higher the spell level and the lower the caster level, the longer it takes; in theory, anyone can learn and cast any spell, but in practice, it will take a couple YEARS for a first level sorcerer to cast a fifth level spell.  For a high level caster performing a first level spell, however, it only takes a few minutes.

Anyway, to keep things fun, sorcerers are able to construct foci, which are magical objects (wands, amulets, etc.), keyed to their creator, that store spells to be activated later.  Each foci holds a certain number of spell levels, and a sorcerer can utilize a total number of focus levels equal to three times his experience level.

The effect is similar to Vancian D&D, because time must be spent casting spells to be held in one's foci.  However, the big differences are that you can keep spamming a spell if you have the time, and it's pretty reasonable for high-level sorcerers to recharge their foci with low-level spells mid-adventure.  It also gives some flavorful reasons why mages are festooned with rune-covered bits and bobs, and some tactical considerations to their gear.  It doesn't get away from the need to pre-select your spells, Vancian style, but it does change how low level spells are used to a small extent.  A sorcerer will start an adventure loaded for bear, but as he casts his powerful spells, he may replace them with a bunch of first-level spells.

I also have another magic class called the mystic.  That one has spontaneous casting that causes fatigue and possibly worse and each learned spell induces a 'mark' (like corruption from DCC).  It's meant to model all the non-academic mages, from clerics to psychics.  But that's a whole nother thing.