What's wrong with Vancian casting?

>>47759651
The fact that each tier is straight-up "better" and not a different set of spells altogether.

>I see people complain

There's a few people who like to incessantly complain about non-issues. Just ignore them.

>>47759651
A lot of people are used to mana based systems like those seen in video games and don't understand how that would be imbalanced in most TTRPG systems.

because when you don't know whats going to happen ahead of time you end up preparing a bunch of boring, general purpose spells, usually combat spells, so you're not stuck with a bunch of useless spells you can't use.

D&D uses it, and, lacking any other relevant personality traits or accomplishments, they define themselves solely by how much they don't like D&D.

>>47760319
Isn't that what scrolls are for?

>>47760319
and the alternative is being stuck with a bunch of useless spells that you try to apply creatively to the situation at hand, which is contrived and doesn't really work that well in practice.

>>47760350
Its the exact same principle.

>>47759651
i much prefer systems with a little creative leeway in how the spell is cast, where the intention matters more than the formulae.

It all seems far too scientific for my taste.

The power of spells in a vancian system tends to escalate quickly relative to the typically-assumed power level of the genre.

I once ran a D&D campaign where instead of the spell progressions looking like this:

Exp Lv — Spell Lv Acquired
1st — 1st
3rd — 2nd
5th — 3rd
7th — 4th
etc.

I instead had all the casters use tables that look like this:

Exp Lv — Spell Ability
1st — Memorize 1st level spells
3rd — Cast 1st level spells
5th — Memorize 2nd level spells
7th — Cast 2nd level spells spontaneously
9th — Memorize 3rd level spells

So a high level caster was able to throw around a LOT of low level spells, but there was no game breaking, genre bending, world altering, or curb stomping.

It was the best game of D&D I'd ever played.

>>47760625

(stupid typo—I'm missing a "spontaneously" for 3rd level casters on that second table).

Mana points.

>>47759651

Crunch wise I just think it's a pain in the ass to keep track of all my spells. I've never had much patience for it and it's really not any fun for me

I personally like the fire and forget method of magic. You learn as many spells as you can remember at one time but as soon as you cast a spell once you forget it entirely until you spend the time to learn it again.

>>47759651
Vancian casting is good. D&D casting is shit.

>>47760734
This is based on a system of writing spells down is not just writing it down but actually transferring the spell onto your paper. No duplicates and people hoard their spells, so you either have to make your own or ask nicely so someone lets you read their book.

>>47759651
Because its a random obscure magic system that got popularized with D&D, but doesn't really fit most fantasy settings very well.

D&D has even had spell point systems since AD&D, so there are alternatives.

Its not necessarily a bad system, but it does have some annoying aspects to it

>>47759651

It's fine, but it requires a certain style of game. Magic in D&D is pretty hot and cold. Vancian casters are great when they are 'on', but not terribly useful when they are 'off.' So magic needs to be treated like a limited resource and pressured like one.

If the GM is too lax about allowing plenty of time, and being predictable, casters wind up dominating, because they have the solution to every problem at hand. This is where most of the complaints come from. People envision scenarios where casters pull off perfect play. But in a game where the GM is being genuinely unpredictable, the reality becomes much different. A group might have to pick between wasting time or taking some risks when the caster is either tapped out or unprepared.

I never cared much for Vancian casting. Always struck me as odd.

I wish D&D and Pathfinder had an option for "magic points" to expend: wizards could rely on organizing spell components and specific gestures, sorcerers could ingest/absorb bloodline-specific things, alchemists could brew hard liquor and get tanked, witches could masturbate with broomsticks, etc.

>>47759651
Nothing. 4chan just likes to complain to be contrarian. It's like when you come here talking about problems, and people respond with
>playing D&D
But if you actually ask them about what you should play instead, all of a sudden, they stop responding, shuffle their feet about, until one of them says "G-gurps?" before getting laughed out of the room.

>>47760164
No they're not. I went around asking for a mana-based system a few days ago, and all I got was BRP and GURPS.

Vancian casting doesn't work like real magic actually works, so it is unrealistic and non-intuitive.

>>47761134
I like where your head's at.

>>47760747
The term "vancian casting" was coined specifically to refer to D&D casting. You seem to be confused.

>>47759651
So here's my opinion on it.

Casters need limits or we end up with ridiculous bullshit. One of those limits is making the spells they cast draw from a resource. That's a sensible limitation and it works for a lot of different flavors of mages.

The problem with vancian casting is that you don't have a single resource to cast your spells from - you have a completely separate resource for each tier of spell. Inexplicably, you can run out of both 4th and 6th level spell slots and yet your 5th level spell slots are not affected by it. It's utterly retarded.

"Mr. Wizard, I'm gonna fall! Please cast Fly and save me!"
"No can do. I done used up my last 3rd level slot just a minute ago."
"But you just cast Remove Curse!"
"That's a 4th level spell, I still got me some of those slots."
"Then cast Fly as a 4th level spell!"
"No can do, it don't work like that."
"But why?"
"3rd level mana and 4th level mana aren't compatible. Gotta kerjigger the spell to run on a certain level of mana every mornin' or it don't work."

Compare that to
"Mr Wizard, I'm gonna fall! Please cast Fly and save me!"
"I can't, I'm outta mana!"

>>47759651
>It's difficult to explain to new players
>It leads to dumb and unfun situations where a player has a spell the party needs but doesn't have it memorized
>It leads to dumb and unfun situations where the player can suddenly bring to bear tons of corner-use spells to utterly dominate any predicament
>It doesn't play nice with multiclassing in 3e
>As implemented in D&D where individual spells gain power based on caster level AND higher level casters gain access to better spells it puts the quadratic in Quadratic Wizards.

I think I nailed everything didn't I?

File: 1460297225522.gif (2MB, 663x603px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 663x603px

>>47761207

>Vancian casting doesn't work like real magic actually works

>>47761410
But you can do that in the current edition. In fact, spells scale with slot level spent (instead of CL).

I like 5e's version, but that's sort of halfway between vancian and spell points. I just don't really like the idea of having to pick out every spell so specifically

>>47759651
Because it's excessively limiting and leads to a whole slew of problems see the "18 minute adventuring day."

>>47762497
But don't you still have to prepare them as spells of specific levels? Also, it doesn't change the fact that you have nine different resources instead of one. Like, seriously, I don't understand why anyone would ever want spell slots over a much more intuitive and easy to keep track of Mana Point system.

>>47762697
No, you just prepare a list of what you can (spontaneously) cast that day. No specific spells for specific slots.

Former spontaneous casters get new toys to make up for it, such as sorcerers being the only ones who get metamagic.

>>47760625
Can you describe this way of doing things in more detail? I am intrigued.

>>47759651
People's complaints are almost 100% about 3.pf OGL games and while they claim it's because "D&D sucks" or "Vancian casting sucks" it's actually because of how 3.pf made magic the solution to anything, magical class features superior to other class features, and how magic is much easier to support extensively in splat books.

5e and 4e are both solutions to Vancian casting, with 5e being the "true" solution to D&D style Vancian casting.

>>47762723
Oh yeah, I knew Sorcerers were the only ones with metamagic, but I didn't know preparing your spells was just "Hey prepare a number of spells and cast them in at least this level slot". Which is a nice way to go about preparing your spells, but given that and how your spells scale with level, but that still brings up the question of why you can run out of 4th level slots, be incapable of casting spells of that strength, but be perfectly fine to cast 5th and 6th level spells. Why do they need to be separate resources at this point?

>>47760625
>The power of spells in a vancian system tends to escalate quickly relative to the typically-assumed power level of the genre.

No, the Vancian system doesn't do that. Individual spells that aren't properly balanced do that.

If Magic Missile was an example of the power of an average 9th level spell, the magic system would be basically worthless.

>>47761254
>The term "vancian casting" was coined specifically to refer to D&D casting. You seem to be confused.

The vancian system actually comes from Jack Vance's stories which is where D&D draws it's 'vancian' spell casting from.

>>47761134
>>47761223
The Slayers book for 3.5 had something like that, it worked more like Shadowrun's system put you had a separate fatigue pool that you cast your spells from. Each spell cost XdX worth of fatigue, which your spellcasting skill and/or having the character perform the whole incantation instead of just saying the spell'
s name(represented in gameplay by having the spell take longer to cast), could lessen.

>>47761254
Actually the term vancian magic drives from jack vance's The Dying Earth novels and the version presented in there was kind of neat. D&D kind of fucked it up a bit. Spells had to be prepared in advance, but if you ran out you cracked open your spellbook and you prepared some more. You didn’t need to wait 24 hours for some magical egg timer to run out. Granted holding more than one spell in your brain at once made you quite the badass.

>>47761254
you are retarded. Vancian casting is based on a novel. D&D aped that style of casting.

>>47761207
>Real magic
Are you one of those SpellsofMagic.com fags? If so, get out.

>>47762841
You can use 5th level slots to cast 4th level spells. You can not use 4th level spell slots to cast 5th level spells.

The way casting works for wizards in 5e is you prepare your level + int mod of any spells you know how to use (in theory you could only prepare highest level ones, but you'd just have unused lower levels), then you must use the spell's level as a "minimum" for casting it while many spells add perks for higher level spell slots (ex magic missile creates an extra missile per extra level)

>>47762933
>You can use 5th level slots to cast 4th level spells. You can not use 4th level spell slots to cast 5th level spells.

That's exactly what I dislike. It makes zero sense that I can be incapable of casting spells at the strength of level 4, but capable of casting them at the strength of level 5. Why do caster have nine small pools of mana at different strengths instead of one big pool of mana where the strength is determined by how much of that pool you use? It's non-intuitive, doesn't make sense, and adds an unnecessary layer of book keeping for no practical benefit.

>>47759651

In theory, it gives you impactful choices about what spells to go with when going on an adventure. In practice, most players don't know what utility spells they'll need that day, so they stick with standard generally good spells instead of always picking Stone to Flesh in the hopes of the DM throwing them a petrified princess. Since they have no reason to think they'll need a niche spell, they have no reason to consider choosing it, and thus it basically doesn't exist. And since it basically doesn't exist, the DM will never make a scenario where it's useful, meaning there's no reason to choose it, meaning....

This can be addressed with clever DMing giving hints, but since so many people start with DnD, DnD has a higher percentage of inexperienced DMs who can't do that kind of stuff.

Of course, a lot of issues with "Vancian Magic" are really more issues with "DnD wizards", but there's a reason most DnD ripoffs are more creative with magic systems than anything else.

>>47762841

In order to hold back the energy needed to cast your 5th-level spells, you can't go overboard on lower-level ones. Another way to think of it is like videogame cooldowns: you still have lots of power, just not the right *kind* to cast Fireblast over and over again

>>47761165

Seriously, do you really believe this? Because it doesn't look obnoxious enough to be b8, so I'm worried you're actually serious.

Literally every time some retarded DnD faggot says "Well le what le else le should le I le play le? XDDD am i cool yet?", they get a list of better games posted.

File: souls.png (2MB, 1300x1027px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x1027px

>>47759651
DnD magic is badwrongfun for three combined reasons.
1. The spells are ranked and constantly ramp up in raw power. This scale starts at 'versatile and useful' at 1st level and climbs from there.
2. Although a caster can't learn every spell, there is a spell for every situation. When asked what magic is supposed to be able to do, the answer is "everything".
3. Casters are not forced to specialize in specific types/schools of magic. The only limit to what spells a caster can learn are what's on the spell list of their class, which tends to be massive.
Magic becomes much better when even one of these things is fixed. Being able to learn basically any spell you want is fine if the spells are all balanced against each other. Having spell rankings that increase in power is fine if you're limited to a specific type of spells, like elemental spells or illusion spells or teleportation, ect. ect.

I am probably stupid and talking out of my ass but there's my two cents about it.

>>47763281
But they're not cooldowns, they're long term resources that replenish with rest. There's no mechanical or lore related information that says that they're anything but "mana for different strengths of spells". In fact, the fact that you can use 5th level mana for any spell of 5th level or below is what tells me that they're not different types of mana, but different strengths. The problem is, I can't just be like "You know, I don't really need my 5th level spells all the much right now, I guess I'll free up some of that mana for lower level spells to get some more mileage out of the deal". But no, instead, if I want to get more mileage out of my lower level spells, I have to cast them at the exact strength of my higher level spells, even if casting Cure as a 5th level spell isn't necessary.

I reiterate: what is the benefit of having many rigid spell slots instead of a single granular pool? Why are they worth keeping?

>>47763515

It's more like "I can cast 20 spells today, and 10 of them I can make a bit stronger, and for 3 of them I can really put my back into it. I've already cast a bunch of small ones so I might as well use up my put-my-back-into-it energy on this fireball"

Another analogy you can think of if you like is a baseball pitcher. Sure, it doesn't take any more energy to throw a slider than a four-seam fastball, but the mental/physical strain of throwing that slower, more delicate pitch in just the right way is a limitation in and of itself. If I've been twisting my fingers, elbow and brain all afternoon to throw nifty breaking balls I might just want to unload with some heat, and vice versa.

>>47759651
I like dnd 5th edition, but I don't like vancian
>unintuitive, takes forever to learn or teach, goes against common ideas about magic
>difficult to explain in settings not directly made to emulate vance's work, which are increasingly prevalent even in dnd games
>forces arbitrary game pacing due to ability to nova on too few fights or be exhausted by too many
>hard to explain why someone can cast a high-power spell, but not multiple low-power ones in its place


There's also the fact that vidya solved this problem (how to limit use of special powers) decades ago with MP and similar resources, but WotC is still hung up on vancian for legacy purposes. I've been playing 5e with an MP houserule for months now (spell level = MP), and contrary to the fears of many tabletop players, it hasn't snapped the game in half, and it doesn't feel any less like a tabletop RPG.

>>47763019
It makes zero sense that you can't cast a high level spell at a low level?

You don't have to respond, just read this out loud.

>>47763484
You missed one point:
4. Failure or drawbacks built into the magical effects are both rare and fully avoidable, so magic is almost without any limit or drawback. On the other hand, physical actions are rife with drawbacks, limitations, and restrictions. Compare grappling with fireball as systems of attack - generally, a melee combatant specialized in grappling will bog the game down to pointlessness, and still not be effective, while a fireball always hurts.

>>47763515
>I like a single health pool over wounds systems

>>47764520
I think his point is, why can you cast 4 more level 4 spells but not a single level 5 spell?

>>47764321
Fucking read the DMG, pleb

>>47759651
There's the problem of exponential power gain. Every two levels, you gain a higher level of spell. So instead of adding a 1st level spell when you level, you add a 2nd, or a 3rd, or a 4th. And eventually, you start gaining lower level spells at the same time. So instead of gaining one 1st level spell, you might gain a 2nd level spell, a 5th level spell, and a 6th level spell.

Also, your power is going to be much higher if you're on a short adventure or one-off fight, because you can blow all your spells. And then there's always the problem of managing your spells when you have no way of knowing how long it's going to be before you can rest. And if you run out of spells, not only can shit get really boring for you, but the entire party takes a power hit. And suddenly, the GM is faced with either giving you an opportunity to rest where maybe you shouldn't have one (and thus sustaining the adventure but removing the biggest limiter on your power), or stymieing progress.

>>47764587
The same reason that when you can barely move your arms from lifting weights, you can still go for a nice, long jog.

>>47764587

Same reason you can do a hundred geometry proofs in 8th grade-math but calculus is gibberish to you

>>47764757
It's more like
>I can lift a 20lb weight six times
>I cannot lift a 25lb weight once

>>47764828
My way makes more sense than yours. You lift weights and jog using your physical body, but they rely on different muscles. You cast 4th and 5th level spells using your brain, but they rely on different parts of your mind.

>>47759651
It makes little sense outside specific setting

>>47764867
>You cast 4th and 5th level spells using your brain, but they rely on different parts of your mind.
That is a post-hoc rationalization that is not even supported by the fluff text. Fire-and-forget isn't because it uses a different part of the mind, but because the caster literally forgets the spell once it's cast. Hence the whole "memorization" thing.

Nobody who wasn't raised on dnd even conceptualizes magic spells like that. It's usually
>I can use magic forever no matter what
>I can cast spells until I get exhausted or start bleeding from my head
>I can keep casting until something terrible happens

>>47765070
Suit yourself. But the complaint seems to be "It doesn't make sense when I imagine casting spells this way that doesn't make sense."

File: maxresdefault.jpg (128KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1280x720px

>it dosent make any sense
Sure it does. I could easily come up with some phony metaphysics about how each level of power draws from a different level of spiritual vibration from the bodies chakras. That energy is a limited resource, and the sorceror must enter a meditative state in order to attune himself to mystic forces in order to produce a spell. The energy produced by the Chakras each has its own spiritual frequency, which is why the spells that rely on the energy from one spiritual vibration can not be used to fuel another

It's all bs of course, but it's believeable as whatever phony bs you come up with to justify the existence of a Mana pool.

>>47764321
>unintuitive, takes forever to learn or teach, goes against common ideas about magic

The idea of a Mana pool is a completely modern invention of Vidya and Rpgs. Unless by common ideas of magic you mean "shit made up by video games"

Bottom line is that people that hate vancian magic are upset at having to make strategic choices instead of being able to anything at anytime like in their favorite anime or fantasy novel

>>47764076

>I've already cast a bunch of small ones so I might as well use up my put-my-back-into-it energy on this fireball

So let me get this straight. You've had a long day of adventuring, you've used lots of itty bitty spells, and you're starting to run low on juice. What you are facing does not warrant huge, high level, high strain spells, yet the logical decision is to just piss it all away and go all out on spells you don't even need? Besides that, that doesn't address the absurdity that you don't simply decide to go all out, no, you are literally incapable of casting more of those itty bitty spells without going full bombastic.

Meanwhile, your baseball analogy does not make sense, frankly. The baseball pitcher has only one resource that he has to manage and that's his own stamina. He doesn't have separate amounts of stamina for different pitches - that's a fucking retarded concept.

Besides that, you're just dodging my question at this point. Once again, I reiterate: what are the benefits of having separate spell slots over a single mana pool? For what reason are we putting up with an archaic, unintuitive, and nonsensical resource system for spellcasting?

>>47764520
My point is that for some retarded reason, every spell level has its own wholly separate resource from every other spell level. You can run out of 4th level juice and be completely, 100%, entirely unhindered in your ability to any other spell level. Couple that with the fact that it's unintuitive and will require you to keep track of up to NINE resources and frankly, I fail to see any logical reason for why it should be kept around.

>>47764583
I mean that's not what I'm talking about but there's nothing wrong inherently wrong with health as opposed to wounds systems (and to be honest, unless I'm misunderstanding something or Savage Worlds isn't representative of general trends in Wound systems, they're literally just HP with the numbers dialed down).

>>47759651
If the game has a class whose role is "cast spells", who is able to learn enough different kinds of spells to warrant such a restriction, that class is far too broad.
Personally I prefer my spellcaster classes as fantasy superheroes with a few powers that branch out logically. Getting a new, totally unrelated kind of magic should be very rare even for PCs, unless you start learning it from the basics, which Vancian magic doesn't easily support. It's absolutely ridiculous that in D&D 3.5 a wizard gets a guaranteed two spells per level with the option to learn from scrolls, none of which have prerequisites besides level, while a fighter gets one bonus feat every two levels and some of them will only be chosen as prerequisites for feats he actually wants.
No, I don't mean superheroes who are basically D&D wizards such as Dr. Strange, don't be a smartass.

>>47759700
Yeah OP just ignore all complaints about anything only loudmouthed fags complain about things

>>47765487
I get what you're saying. I think mana pools make more sense, too. I just don't see why it's such a big deal. And I'm 99% sure most people would have more trouble keeping track of a mana pool than spell slots, because normies can't into math; comparatively, keeping track of spell slots is easy as fuck.

My problem was with you saying you wanted to use a 4th level spell slot to cast a 5th level spell. Obviously, the idea is that the spell requires at least that much <whatever>; any less and the spell wouldn't work, but you can power spell ups.

>>47765487
>My point is that for some retarded reason, every spell level has its own wholly separate resource from every other spell level.
My point is that for some retarded reason, pull ups, push ups, and lunges all seem to operate on wholly separate resources from each other. You can run out of pull-yourself-up-juice completely, 100% entirely unhindered in your ability to perform lunges. That's completely unintuitive, as you're doing them all with your body muscles.

>Couple that with the fact that it's unintuitive and will require you to keep track of up to NINE resources and frankly, I fail to see any logical reason for why it should be kept around.
While I have issues with Vancian casting on other grounds, I actually think this is one area in which it shines. Granted, 9 spell levels is a bit many, but it's pretty nice with 3 or 4. It keeps you from spamming a few spells over and over, and it means that the balance between spell levels isn't as delicate, since they aren't in direct competition with each other (for the same pool of spell points, etc.).

>>47762928
YOU CAN'T BUY SPELLS ON THE INTERNET

YOU HAVE TO EARN THEM WITH RLXP!!!!!

>>47762866
I like Shadowrun's system. As long as you don't push too hard, you can usually soak the drain pretty well, but if you really NEED it, you can push harder and take damage.

>>47760350
shhhhh, martials might be listening.

>>47765230
MP has been around since the days of Dragon Quest, Anon. It's almost as old as vancian casting. Ironically, the reason MP was adopted was because it simplified things and made things make sense to players.

Spell slots are objectively more complicated as they require you to keep track of up to nine different resources. I cannot think of a single benefit to keeping spell levels.

Preparing spells ala 5e is fine for wizards, though, as it fits their flavor, but preparing spells as a cleric or druid just makes me shake my head because they don't get spells through study, they get spells through their god or nature.

>>47765528
Yeah, mages should definitely be limited in either power or scope. Ideally, I think the "versatile" classes like Wizards or Bards should get lots of varied but little effects (basically what amounts to a bunch of first/second/third level spells) whereas the more limited classes like Sorcerers would get powerful effects with a very limited scope (say, only getting Fire spells, but very powerful fire spells).

>>47765634
>My problem was with you saying you wanted to use a 4th level spell slot to cast a 5th level spell.
Oh no, that wasn't my intention. What I meant was, why can't I break up my 5th level slots to get more 4th level slots? Why do I have to use them as 5th level slots? It just doesn't make any sense to me that it would go one way but not the other.

>>47761463
IMHO, yeah, you did.

>>47765737
>My point is that for some retarded reason, pull ups, push ups, and lunges all seem to operate on wholly separate resources from each other. You can run out of pull-yourself-up-juice completely, 100% entirely unhindered in your ability to perform lunges. That's completely unintuitive, as you're doing them all with your body muscles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

>While I have issues with Vancian casting on other grounds, I actually think this is one area in which it shines. Granted, 9 spell levels is a bit many, but it's pretty nice with 3 or 4. It keeps you from spamming a few spells over and over, and it means that the balance between spell levels isn't as delicate, since they aren't in direct competition with each other (for the same pool of spell points, etc.).

Let's say you have 50 spell points and access to 9th level spells, where the spell point cost is directly based on your level. Now, you could cast just 50 first level spells - that's quite a lot, and you probably wouldn't even go through half your spell points before you got a chance to rest. Alternatively, you could blow through almost your entire mana pool by casting 5 9th level spells, leave you with a measly 5 spell points. With a unified (and ideally, limited) pool, you have to be much, much more strategic about what level spells you cast. Like, gee, I could cast a gigantic fucking wall of death flame, but I don't really need it right now and I might end up in a bind later, so let's just go for a modest fireball to finish things off.

Compare that to where you get at like, at least 3 spells of the majority of levels, and there the level spell you cast at is not as important.

>>47765859
Really, the only good part of spell slots in 5e is that it puts a chokehold on how many 6th+ level spells you can cast per day.

Warlock strikes a nice balance between spell slots and high-level spells, though.

>>47761463
>Modern players don't understand the most basic fucking system of rpg magic.
So, your players are stupid.
>All situations must be handled like a pixel-bitching puzzle game.
So, your players are stupid.
>I never thought of limiting spell access like the fucking books say you can, and I can't think as creatively as my players.
So, your DM is stupid.
>We need the edition of DnD where you don't play characters, you play math sheets.
So, your players are autistic.
>I actually used the phrase Quadratic Wizard.
So, you are autistic *and* stupid.

>>47766030
>With a unified (and ideally, limited) pool, you have to be much, much more strategic about what level spells you cast.
And most spells don't end up getting cast, because it's impossible to perfectly balance all the spells, and a few end up being more powerful/effective than the rest.

>>47760164
>Mana
>that would be imbalanced in most TTRPG systems
Anon, MOST of TTRPGs use mana system for magic or something very, very similar. And last thing they have problem with is baalance and flexibility.

File: 102313_1.1.jpg (75KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 900x600px

>>47766127
>Pretending that D&D magic system is fine and dandy
>Putting entire blame on players and GM
>Using phrase DM
Unless you are playing 0D&D, you can't be excused for being a stupid motherfucker

ITT: People unironically defending one of the most obtuse, outdated and badly balanced game mechanic ever created

>>47766157
No, Anon, any given mage would always be looking for the best spell to handle a situation - the best bang for their buck. If the situation only warrants Burning Hands, they're going to use Burning Hands. If the situation warrants Meteor Storm, they're going to use Meteor Storm.

The difference is that now, spamming Meteor Storm or Wish isn't a viable option because you only get five of them and they leave you with, at best, a single Level 5 spell. So now, they have to actually find the best tool for the job instead of going straight to their best spells.

>>47766157
So let me get this straight
>Spell X, Y and Z are shit
>Magic system is badly designed
>We should stick to this shit, because otherwise everyone will just cast the only effective spell, N
What kind of thinking is this?!

>>47759651
it's not what video games do

>>47766388
>It's what everyone but D&D does
Here, FTFY

>>47759651
>Lack of flexibility
>Lack of real tactics - instead fighting against your own resources
>Extremely linear progression of power, rendering low level spells useless after getting the one from higher
>There is absolutely no fucking difference between casting 3 Magic Missiles or summoning 3 Meteor Swarms, when you are done with each, you can't fire any other spells, because
>System originally created for a book, thus not having to be used as anything else thna plot devide, turned into game mechanics
>Perfect tool for GM to fuck you up, since he knows in advance what you can do and how to counter you, actively rendering your PC useless

>>47766379
Yes, because the only option other than "all spells are perfectly balanced" is "a lot of the spells are complete shit". The need to use discreet, manageable increments and simple math makes balancing things a challenge, and even your GM's play-style will alter the value of things. And when you've got 9 spell levels that need to all be valued properly (and using relatively small numbers so that everything is quickly and easily accessible to people playing without the aid of a computer), and tons of spells at each level to balance against each other, a truly equitable system is an impossibility.

>>47766658
>I never played any other game than D&D
>Thus I'm absolutely unfamiliar with past 30 years of progress in the balance of magic in TTRPG
It shows, really

>>47766658
Fantasy Craft is known for it's insanely well balanced magic system. A core assumption of that magic system is spell points. You're full of shit.

>>47766691
Bitch, please. I've probably been gaming for more years than you've been alive, and the majority of my experience has been with games other than D&D.

>>47766729
>You're full of shit.
No, you.

Shadowrun has my favorite spellcasting system thus far. Through the Breach has an alright one too, though it's basically a mirror of the skirmish game's. Do any systems have one similar to Shadowrun?

>>47766658
>and using relatively small numbers so that everything is quickly and easily accessible to people playing without the aid of a computer

I strongly doubt you're incapable of calculating the difference between a double digit number and a single digit number without the use of a calculator, since you have to do that (and more!) for HP.

>>47766752
>I don't have a retort for Fantasy Craft, so I'm just going to say you're full of shit instead!

Sure showed me. While I'm at it, let me list some other games that use Spell Points as the main resource for their magic which are also not nearly as imbalanced as D&D.

>GURPS
>Runequest

Its boring, inflexible, scales exponentially, doesn't 'feel' magical, and in general its shit.

MP/PP for life, go psionics fluffed as magic.

>>47766752
>the majority of my experience has been with games other than D&D.

Pathfinder doesn't count.

>>47761410
I don't think it ever worked like that for wizards, that's sorcerers.
Wizards need to have the specific spell prepared.

>>47766906
Assume the Wizard did have Fly prepared, but he used all his 3rd level slots already.

>>47766752
>I've probably been gaming for more years than you've been alive
>majority of my experience has been with games other than D&D
What were they? Fantasy d20? Pathfinder?

Seriously mate, if you would EVER play any other fantasy-themed game than D&D, you wouldn't write down half of the bullshit you've just did

>>47766803
>I strongly doubt you're incapable of calculating the difference between a double digit number and a single digit number without the use of a calculator
If you want to keep your spell point pool from being obnoxiously huge, you have to keep your costs relatively low. So maybe it's 3 points for one level of spells and 5 for the next one up. This limits your ability to fine tune. If you were playing something on a computer, however, there would be significantly fewer drawbacks with having the next level of spells cost, say, 17/13 as much, instead of 5/3.

>Sure showed me.
You were being deliberately antagonistic, so I saw no reason to engage you.

>let me list some other games that use Spell Points as the main resource for their magic which are also not nearly as imbalanced as D&D
First, as I've said, it's impossible to perfectly balance everything. Second, I'm not now, nor have I been talking about the sum totality of the vancian magic system that D&D uses. If you follow the thread back, you'll see in my first post that I said that I had other issues with it. But having spells of different levels be separate resources has some definite advantages over a spell point system.

File: 517.jpg (9KB, 248x233px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 248x233px

>>47766965
>so I saw no reason to engage you.
>Not engaging
>Directly insults the other side

>>47766926
Wizards can spend a different spell from the same level to cast a different prepared spell?
If so, what's the point of not allowing them to do it with higher level spells?

>>47766965
>This limits your ability to fine tune. If you were playing something on a computer, however, there would be significantly fewer drawbacks with having the next level of spells cos
Anon, did you just confess math up to 20 with four basic operations are beyond you and you need computer for that?

>>47766839
Pathfinder was put out, like, yesterday. I started role-playing more than 15 years before 3e came out.

>>47766958
I've played a number of games in the RQ / BRP family. I've played a bit of GURPS and Savage Worlds. I've also played a decent number of games that did the "use this individual power X times per Y (usually a day)".

>>47767009
>Anon, did you just confess math up to 20
If 3rd level spells are 17/13 as expensive as 2nd level spells, and 2nd level spells are 11/5 as expensive as 1st level spells, then by the time you get to 5th level spells, costs are likely going to be in the triple digits.

File: Even the cup is judging you.jpg (62KB, 640x736px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x736px

>>47767021
Which means you would have to be 50... right...

>>47767056
Please explain me something - why the fuck it's in fractions and why exactly those fractions and not other? Or not just natural numbers?

Aside of course of you making shit up so it will look obtuse?

>>47759651
My preferred system is the Unisystem goa/Buffy magic system.

Spell casting roll, consequences for failure, fatigue.

Shadowrun is similar.

Goa/Buffy let's players design their own spells though , and that's pretty cool.

>>47767056
There are 9 levels of spells, right?
Use prime numbers. So spells go for 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 23 mana points. Give player 1 + Level + Feats mana as their max

Here, I've just created better system than you, it took me whooping 30 seconds, while it's transparent and more handy than your convoluted, pointlessly complicated shit

>>47767058
45

>>47767079
I could've used percentages. The point is that with a spell point system, you're commonly going to be moving from something like a 3 point cost to something like a 5 point cost, the increment of which is unlikely to exactly mirror the difference in, say, the sizes of the dice you have at your disposal for damage. You have a scale of relatively small, discrete numbers that you're trying to match to another scale of relatively small, discrete numbers, and the matches are going to be approximate.

>>47766476
This post is so wrong, I'm not even going to bother with sentences.
>Lack of flexibility
aside from all the shit that normally goes into differentiating spells -- range, area, number affected, relevant rolls, and the effect itself -- using slots lets you tweak a spellcasting class through the number allotted, the relative power between spell levels, recharge/expenditure conditions... for example, there's no reason a level 3 cleric spell and level 3 wizard spell need to be remotely similar in power, so long as each class is tweaked in terms of number of spells to balance out against each other.

Oh wait, you meant flexible for the _player_, not the designer. Well fuck that. The object of any game is to give the player an deliberate obstacle for the fun of overcoming it. Design needs flexibility to make that fun. Players need to be limited to make something fun.
>Lack of real tactics - instead fighting against your own resources.
Resource management is not always the most important thing in tactics and strategy both, but it's usually in the top 2.

>>47767170
(cont.)
>Extremely linear progression of power, rendering low level spells useless after getting the one from higher
This is counterfactual. If spell power were linear, you would be able to say things like "an extra level 4 slot is exactly worth ~2 level 2 slots, or 80% of a level 5 slot". In that case you try to spend your large slots on the first thing that can soak all the damage/effect -- since you can't break them -- and then you have all your small, flexible slots left to spend judiciously. If this sounds like exactly the opposite of what happens in a real game, it's because your premise is full of shit. Spell power scales non-linearly with level.
>There is absolutely no fucking difference between casting 3 Magic Missiles or summoning 3 Meteor Swarms, when you are done with each, you can't fire any other spells, because
Except one is an area of attack with a save, the other is single-target attack with no save or attack, and while we're at it, fireball is an area attack with a save and an attack roll. The only way they're "the same" is that they both use the concept of damage. And guess what: there are shitloads of other spells you could have taken.
>System originally created for a book, thus not having to be used as anything else thna plot devide, turned into game mechanics
Gygax uses a system like Vance because Vance used the game-iest system ever. You take something open ended and nebulous and way to slippery to craft a good game around, and you replace it with manageable concepts of limited, countable resources. If Jack Vance had never written shit, we would still have a similar system in one game or another.

>>47767181
(cont)

>Perfect tool for GM to fuck you up, since he knows in advance what you can do and how to counter you, actively rendering your PC useless
The GM has the power at any time to say, "no, that didn't work". If he wants to be formal about it, he can open up a notebook and just give the monster "immune to spells and damage, oh and by the way go fuck yourselves". They don't need tools to fuck you over. They need tools to make you delicate snow flakes feel like you're accomplishing something when you're not.

>>47767154
Just read the other anon: >>47767141
Because if you are really this fucking stupid and not just trolling, I simply rest my case.

I know that practice makes master and D&D players don't practice anything but their championed game, but shit son, there is a difference between being a fan-boy and outright retardation.

Who, aside you, is saying anything about triple digits? You are pulling things from your ass and expect from anyone to treat it as given facts, while you make it all up on a fly.
The other anon made on a fly system that has what? 25 mana points? 30 with some min-maxed build? And it works just fine.
Meanwhile, you are sperging some bullshit about fractions that you yourself made up for God knows what reason and how it would made game inplayable. No shit, if your entire purpose is to paint it badly.

>>47767170
>>47767181
>>47767197
>This is what D&D does to your brain
I guess we now have a perfect cap to represent "Muh tradition" in action

File: Disgusting.gif (905KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 240x228px

>>47767181
>>There is absolutely no fucking difference between casting 3 Magic Missiles or summoning 3 Meteor Swarms, when you are done with each, you can't fire any other spells, because
>Except one is an area of attack with a save, the other is single-target attack with no save or attack, and while we're at it, fireball is an area attack with a save and an attack roll. The only way they're "the same" is that they both use the concept of damage. And guess what: there are shitloads of other spells you could have taken.
>Missing the point this bad

Jebus Cristos...

File: Train your aim.jpg (6KB, 235x206px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 235x206px

>>47767170
>>47767181
>>47767197

It isn't Ars Magica.

>>47759651
>And what would be a better alternative?
How about just anything?

>>47767201
>>47767141
You apparently aren't even reading what I'm saying and are just arguing against your preconceived notions. I'll try this one more time.

Let's say we're using the scale in this >>47767141 post here, where a 3rd level spell costs 5 and a 4th level spell costs 7. Let's also say that 3d8 is an appropriate amount of damage for a 3rd level spell in whatever system we're playing. That's 13.5 damage on average. Now, assuming the spell has similar parameters (and that there is a directly proportional correlation between damage and worth in spell points, which there won't always be, but there should be some correlation based on the merits, and that's as good as any for the sake of example), the 4th level spell should do 140% as much as the damage as the 3rd level spell, or 18.9 hit points. But I don't have any dice that will get me to that, and neither do you. So we're forced to approximate and use dice that are as close to that as possible. Now, maybe the spell is balanced out in other ways, but all our units are discreet, and out of 9 levels of spells, some things are going to be more powerful than others.

>>47767337
Which is why you add variety in the form of other variables, to account for the discrepancy.

>>47767337
>some things are going to be more powerful than others.
As if they fucking weren't more powerful than others at this very point, you fucking moron

Seriously,. what's your problem? What? You can't bitch about numbers, so you are going to switch to imaginary inbalance, heavily implying that current system is in perfect balance?
Or maybe it never occured to you that higher level spells are simply more powerful.
Or that if you start with other damage than 3d8, you will get different outcome with next spell.
How about 3d6? What are you going to do now? Cry how this is too low for 3rd level spell? Or self-create another issue?

The biggest problem D&D has is being cementing it's own prison cell for past two decades, while calling it "overhaul"

>>47759651
It's not a problem on its own exactly, it's just that alot of systems that use it are broken

>>47767359
Reread the last sentence of the post you are replying to.

I'm not saying that you can't make some decent approximations, but with maybe 200 spells of 9 or so levels, you're not going to get everything to fit neatly all the time. And speaking more generally, game design will never attain perfection and imbalances will always exist. The greater number of things and the more freely you can choose between them, the greater a problem the discrepancies are going to be. Water on pavement finds every crack.

>>47767404
Yes, but that exact issue exists with vancian casting and isn't a mark against spell point systems.

>>47767404
>with maybe 200 spells of 9 or so levels, you're not going to get everything to fit neatly all the time
Can you please stop pretend the current system is perfectly balanced? D&D magic is universally hailed as one of the most broken systems in existence. And you act as if it was some sort of golden perfection

File: reenactment.jpg (46KB, 300x461px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x461px

Because it's a really strange system that feels VERY gamey.

Channeling X arcane power into an X*Y intensity fireball just makes a lot more sense than "I can now shit out a level 4 fireball, but only once, and now I forget how until I read my book again" from an intuitive perspective.

It makes magic feel less like an otherworldly force being bent to your will and more like preparing a deck of playing cards.

>>47759651
Literally only D&D and its clones use this shit, because it's awful and everyone knows that it's awful.

>magic is just a codified series of wacky stunts with extremely specific outcomes
>if you want to do something that isn't covered by one of the OFFICIAL Wacky Stunt Guides, you're shit out of luck
>oh, and you need to prepare your wacky stunts in advance and have them fitted to an appropriate Stunt Socket every single day
>once used, your Stunt Sockets aren't usable again until tomorrow, even if you sleep or get healed or whatever

Nearly every other kind of magic is both vastly more sensible and mechanically balanced than Vancian garbage.

>>47767427
I disagree.
It's like, all spells would take a very long incantation to cast in normal circumstances.
So you instead prepare them before hand, so that when you want to cast them you just "trigger" them with the last part of the incantation.
Not all magic has to be "everyone has an amount of magic juice inside of them and you can do magic until it runs out"

>>47767501
>all spells would take a very long incantation to cast in normal circumstances.
What system, what setting? Otherwise - moot point of made up bullshit

>>47767508
D&D with rituals.

>>47766792
>similar to shadowrun
Ghost of albion(cinematic unisystem)
Buffy (cinematic Unisystem)
Fantasy craft

The Unisystem ones are closer to Sr than fc is.

>>47767529
So let me get this straight - game creates pointless fluff to justify shitty magic system and instead dropping the act, we are suppose to follow the fluff created exactly because the magic system is shit?
What kind of logic is that?

>>47767541
Obviously the designers don't think the magic system is shit or they wouldn't use it.

>>47767541
You're not "supposed" to follow anything.
Have you tried not playing D&D?

>>47767411
But the spells aren't interchangeably used in Vancian magic. So you can't forsake your 3rd level spells in favor of 2nd level ones because they're overpriced.

>>47767385
So much butt-hurt.

>>47767424
>And you act as if it was some sort of golden perfection
"While I have issues with Vancian casting on other grounds, I actually think this is one area in which it shines." That's what I said earlier in this thread. I'm arguing one point and the only reason I seem extreme to you is that you seem determined to see zero merit at all anywhere in the Vancian system. You're the absolutist here, not me. I actually have some big problems with the way D&D has typically done spells.

I think I'm so used to 3.x fanboys that I find it jarring when the folks who are rabidly unreasonable are the ones arguing against D&D, like in this thread.

Per-encounter and at-will casting is more intuitive and fun.
DnD would benefit from making everything encounter based and killing the idea of 'per day' or 'per long rest'.

>>47767593
You can cast lower level spells using higher level slots.

File: 006402.jpg (43KB, 460x547px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 460x547px

>>47767501
"casting my spells in advance and putting them into suspended animation in my brain" is a lot less intuitive than "I use the 3 mana I channeled last turn to cast a 3 mana fireball"

The former by itself doesn't even tell you much about what magic in this world is, because the casting of it is done off screen as a game mechanic, the power comes from your in game level not any sort of magical force, and serves to push the game closer to the table and further from the imagination because of these things. The latter is quite a bit more immersive, it tells me "okay magic is something that permeates the world, and I'm able to pull the ambient energy into me and then release it as something I control", and I as the player am actually doing all of that.

>>47767603
Well thought out and contributory post my friend.
>>47767616
That also feels a bit gamey to me, if only because discreet encounters already are.

>>47767576
Anon, what gives you an impression I do?

>>47767549
That's not really true, the designers are beholden to the old ways. They are forced to find work arounds for problems caused by old things rather than remove them, or else they get a shitshow like 4e.

>>47767638
And preparing your spells in advance for entire day is not gamey, because...? With current system you are literally building a deck for MtG, once per day.

>>47767621
>okay magic is something that permeates the world, and I'm able to pull the ambient energy into me and then release it as something I control
That doesn't work with the example you provided at all. Mana implies that you are using some magical energy inside of you that exists limited in amount.

>>47767549
In a perfect world, where "muh tradition" doesn't exist, it still wouldn't be true

>>47767656
>also
>>47767659
>the 3 mana I channeled last turn

>>47767619
That's not much of an issue as it's comparatively easy to make sure that, say, no 2nd level is more powerful than a 3rd level one. You don't have to hit the right values nearly as precisely as you do with spell points.

>>47767659
>Mana implies that you are using some magical energy inside of you
Is this how D&D players understand mana-based magic?

>>47767671
My bad, i misunderstood you.
Then again, there aren't any systems like you described because it doesn't fulfill the purpose of limiting the number of spells a character can cast.

>>47767671
Anon, in mana system, you can cast spells any time, any moment, and their power makes a difference, so you can cast 100 "1st level" spells or 2 "9th level" ones. Out of mana? Draw some! Out of mana? Cast from health. Out of mana? Use outside source, like your buddy, that still has some, but as a non-mage won't use it.
There are countless situations where mana system is just more interactive and about harnessing the power, not reading the book in the morning.

Meanwhile, for your past... 7? 10? posts? All you do is repeating like a mantra that Vancian magic is better, because you repeati t's better

>>47767674
Sure, you have to be a bit more careful with spell points, but you should be careful when designing spells anyway.

>>47767674
You aren't just making sure that all 2nd level spells are weaker than 3ed level, you also have to make sure that all 2nd level spells are internally balanced, otherwise some will simply be total shit, which seems to be your concern with spell points. The dnd system isn't free of that concern.

>>47767679
How do you understand mana-based magic?

>>47767710
You draw energy from outside and maintain access to it. It's not about your body being source nor your body being some sort of battery. Mana poll represents the amount of energy you can access at once without need for intentionally drawing more. So instead being a battery, mage is an energy outlet

>>47767695
It well can though. You just have to bottleneck the amount they can channel in a certain time, or make channeling too much dangerous and limit the number of spells they know/schools of magic they are skilled in.
If casting a fireball worth a damn is something I can only do once every few turns but I can do it all day that's actually in my opinion better for gameplay than "I can be a god for this next room, but then we have to wait 23 hours". It creates a character with a relatively consistent level of power and a more magic system.

I suppose it's a bit like the system in the warhammer fantasy tabletop where you get a certain number of power dice each turn to cast your spells however much you can manage.

>>47767696
I don't think I'm the anon you think I am

File: This.jpg (49KB, 1039x250px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1039x250px

>>47767751
>If casting a fireball worth a damn is something I can only do once every few turns but I can do it all day that's actually in my opinion better for gameplay than "I can be a god for this next room, but then we have to wait 23 hours". It creates a character with a relatively consistent level of power and a more magic system.

>>47767710
mana depends on the setting. It's a catch all term for any magical force that is applied to cast spells.

It can be externally or internally originating and can be restored or collected in a number of different ways.

>>47767704
>you also have to make sure that all 2nd level spells are internally balanced
Yes. This is true. But you have to balance far fewer spells against each other, which is easier (as is balancing spells of the same power level), and there is far less damage an imbalance can do. Like, if one spell of one out of the nine levels you know is significantly too powerful, maybe you favor it over other spells of its level. In a magic point system, there's a danger of favoring it over literally everything else (which isn't to say that you'll never cast any other spell ever, since situations and needs will vary, but you could still cast it a whole lot).

>>47767702
>Sure, you have to be a bit more careful with spell points, but you should be careful when designing spells anyway.
You do. But you don't have to get it quite as much right on the nose. I mean, it's not like this invalidates a spell point system, as it's not a ruinous weakness, and spell points have other advantages, but I do feel like this is particular area is one where vancian magic is comparatively strong.

>>47767744
>>47767751
Fine, i guess you can have "mana" represent "access to energy" rather than "energy" just don't act like it's the most intuitive (or only) way to use it.

File: 1369869.png (56KB, 447x265px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 447x265px

>>47767790
But it is the most intuitive way. Thing is - how could you know, if your only experience with magic in TTRPG is D&D and clones. And don't even try to bullshit that's not true, because you wouldn't ask that question in the first place nor has tunnel vision about spell slots.

>>47767779
>Continously ignoring how imbalanced D&D magic is
>Keeps preaching about being absolutely sure all spells are perfectly balanced in other systems
I rest my case

>>47767695
What he described is basically how magic works in the witcher novels and RPG.

Sortof like fma, too.

>>47767800
>Continously ignoring how imbalanced D&D magic is
Are we talking about the system, itself, or the actual spells. Because D&D's spells are all over the place. But the fact that spells are cordoned off into separate levels that aren't in direct competition with one another keeps things from being more out of whack than they would otherwise be.

>Keeps preaching about being absolutely sure all spells are perfectly balanced in other systems
My point is that spell imbalances are more damaging when all of your spells are in direct competition with each other. And what I've been trying to get across is that spells will never, ever be perfectly balanced in any system. Perfection is not achievable.

>>47767779
That's not necessarily true though, I think you're making a lot of assumptions filling in the blanks of this hypothetical system. First of all limiting the number of spells people have is actually in my mind a good thing, I think a wizard who has 5 or 6 spells he can throw around is a lot more interesting than the walking toolbox. It makes getting a new spell very exciting and makes building magic users much more engaging. Secondly there are plenty of things you can build into the system that ensures a player NEEDS many different spells, as long as you don't throw in any spells that are just "a lot of damage for very little power" you'll probably be fine, as no other spell would really be able to seriously outstrip it's peers like that.

>>47767843
>keeps things from being more out of whack than they would otherwise be.
But it doesn't. They are all fucked up and there is rarely point nor situation other than pure emergency to cast lower level spells when you have access t higher tier magic. D&D is incredibly linear in this.
Besides, tell me something - what difference does it make if players use all spells or only those useful ones? Because you keep talking how they are somehow supposed, if not outright compelled to use all spells that there are and not only the useful shit. What kind of logic is this?

>>47767800
>And don't even try to bullshit that's not true
It's not though, no matter how much you keep projecting
>nor has tunnel vision about spell slots
What?

>>47767621
>serves to push the game closer to the table and further from the imagination because of these things.

Is that a problem?

File: 9096726.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>47767876
>Seriously asking this question

File: 006403.jpg (44KB, 460x542px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x542px

>>47767876
I play wargames when I want a competitive battle game, I play roleplaying games when I want story driven experience.

>>47767892
Please don't tell me you are using D&D for that roleplaying, story-driven experience

>>47767621
>>47767886
To be honest you're just saying "i think this magic system is bad because i can't apply my particular model of magic into it very well"
So go ahead and use another system, but it's not an argument as to why that magic system is bad.

>>47767768
But you don't WANT a consistent level of power from a character whose power is that of gods.

>>47767621
>The former by itself doesn't even tell you much about what magic in this world is
"mana" doesn't either. It's just "magic juice points". It honestly seems much more flavorless than the idea of studying some ancient symbols and diagrams to prepare to cast some spell later, and the way it limits casters in battle is actually very clever, because while a wizard will have long-term flexibility to plan for things, they will always have the rigidity of having to prepare, which leaves them more susceptible to the unexpected.

>>47767900
>it's not an argument as to why that magic system is bad
Were you even reading this thread or you just decided "Nah, people just hate DnD and came here to complain about it"?

>>47767913
I read your post and it was bullshit, isn't that enough?

>>47767903
... why?
Oh, right, I forgot - D&D is the only game in the market that casually gives every single magic user access to godly powers.
And then "balancing" it with spell slots.

What could work in Vance books doesn't exactly works as game mechanics, mate

>>47767886
Yes, I am.

You guys know these are games right? That it's okay for them to be gamey?

>>47767923
Which post was mine then? And why it was bullshit?

Come on anon, you can do better than that

>>47767928
Please never design an rpg or DM

File: 1465505380068.jpg (96KB, 450x347px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 450x347px

>>47767928
>It's ok when games has fucked up ruleset

I mean this could be excusable if it was late 80s and the turbulent, aggressive marketing of TSR, but that's a thing from the past, so what the hell?

>>47767938
'Kay.

File: Sweet Jesus, help me.gif (2MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x188px

>>47767928

>>47767942
No I mean Vancian magic has tons of problems, and I don't really have a good alternative aside from some kind of wound track for casting spells or something.

I just saw that particular sentence and thought it was a weird thing to say.

As if it somehow isn't supposed to be a tabletop game.

>2016
>There are people who seriously consider Vancian magic good

>>47767933
There's only one post i could have been answering.
You're wasting my time and i'm not gonna stay here repeating myself.

File: 1377367256601.jpg (76KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 831x445px

>>47767962
>I don't really have a good alternative
Rarely this picture suits so well

File: OhWell.jpg (17KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x327px

>>47767950
What?

>>47767967
>One post
>Answers two
Big Brother is proud of you, citizen.

>>47765230
>The idea of a Mana pool is a completely modern invention of Vidya and Rpgs

Well here's a mana pool from Bushido (which came out in 1981). Runequest also used magic points to cast spells.

>>47765859
>the days of Dragon Quest

Older than that. When it comes to CRPGs, I remember Ultima III having them.

File: bushido power points.jpg (324KB, 568x973px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 568x973px

>>47765230
Fuck, forgot the image.

>>47759651
I have no problem with it, I just think that it shouldn't be the only way to caste magic in a system with multiple casting classes. Let the traditional wizard class have it and for everyone else work something else out that's unique.

>>47767994
>D&D
>Variety
Pick one

>>47760405
The single most different magic system in fantasy literature is discarded as unimaginative because D&D used it.

File: 1465773200544.jpg (100KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x960px

>>47767971
MP is just another kind of game mechanic that lets you fire magilazors everywhere and be a Goku. Cloud uses Thundaga.

Ideally magic should require some kind of faustian pact, or ever better, would kill you a little every time you used it.

I mean traditionally miracles were either the work of God, or witchcraft granted by Satan. There *was* no magic that wasn't divine in origin. It was the work of faeries who stole children, and demons, and angels, and oracles.

>>47767900
>To be honest you're just saying...
Exactly what I typed. Complain about that instead please.
>>47767909
Mana or vancian can function to describe equally flavorful systems. Both can be bland, both can be done well. Inherently though the vancian system tells you very very little about the world's magic or at least dosen't get you to experience the world's magic, because you as a player are not knee deep in the casting of magic, the character is doing all the legwork so to speak.
And the vancian system doesn't leave wizards "susceptible to the unexpected" it makes them "generally very powerful most of the time, able to counter anything if they have prior warning" Compare this to "man with sword". The wizard is, functionally, always at least "man with sword" except his sword is fireballs, the only difference being that the party has to rest to refill his fireballs. He then has the ADDED benefit of being able to counter the expected, not the removed ability to counter the unexpected.

>>47768024
Anon, maybe you didn't notice, but I didn't say a single word about MP.
But I've got two words for you. Well, one acronym, one word:
GURPS Thaumatology

And here goes your idiotic assumption that it's either slots or MP.

>>47768008
Maybe because D&D turned it into THE most formulatic, rigid and unflexible magic system in existence?

>>47768041
Yeah, that works.

>>47768028
>the only difference being that the party has to rest to refill his fireballs.
That makes him very susceptible to a sustained attack. without respite, or a different kind of event than he was prepared for. You're not even talking about "Vancian" anymore with the "always at least man with a sword" you're talking about the unbalance in some editions of D&D, which is a different issue, particularly because forcing a wizard to limit his daily allotment, and choose them before the time he needs to use them, is a limiting element to casters.

>>47768028
That is basically what you said.
You make a lot of assumptions about the magic system of the setting.
That magic is quantifiable, or easily quantifiable.
That it's "something that permeates the world and you pull the ambient energy into you"
And you use that to conclude that a mana-based system is more intuitive and immersive.
It is, for those rules you have in mind.

>>47767983
Oh shit dude, you're right. Ultima 3 came out a whole three years earlier than Dragon Quest, and it may not have even been the first game to use MP.

File: 006394.jpg (36KB, 460x544px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 460x544px

>>47768082
Well that's all well and dandy that sustained attack fucks over a wizard but you know what that means for practical play? The wizard player getting to have the time of his life as he does exactly nothing after he runs out of spells and has to sit behind man with sword for the rest of the day, or the wizard player essentially just negating his weaknesses by sitting down for an off screen rest between every fight. If he's limited in a much shorter time frame, it removes the ability to abuse the system with the "15 minute adventuring day" and it prevents him from ever being a useless asshole in a dress for long.
>>47768093
>You make a lot of assumptions about the magic system of the setting.
Do you know what an example is.
I'm saying "vancian in anti-immersive because of these reasons, here's an example of a hypothetical system that doesn't have those problems"

Didn't want to make a new thread for this, can I get some feeedback on a magic system I'm developing for a homebrew? It's based off a blend of Abhorsen charter magic and Runelords runes.

Every mage is taught the basic [X amount] runes (I have yet to determine all of them). Runes symbolise things like fire, metal, time, movement, create, destroy, sharp, heat, etc

Runes can be combined in amounts depending on the casters level:
1 rune: hedge wizard
2 runes: initiate
3 runes: trained wizard (the max most people can reach)
4 runes: Archwizards
5 runes: gods and angels

The player picks the runes he wants to combine, then tells the GM his intentions. The GM decides what effect the spell will have and the caster rolls for success. The runes can either be inscribe on an item or can be cast freehand for a one off effect.

A few examples:

Caster picks fire and movement. Tells GM he wants a basic fireball. GM agrees and the player rolls.

Caster picks water, movement, electricity. Tells GM he wants to make a storm. GM agrees and player rolls.

Caster picks water, movement, electricity. Tells GM he wants to make a storm. Since the character doesn't have much knowledge of combinations yet, the GM lets the player roll, but on success tells him that he created a ball of electrified water.

Thoughts? It allows for GM abuse, but so does being a GM in general. I'm split between the GM in the last example telling the caster what effect his combination will have before he rolls or after.

File: 1Magicka2_STEAM_Background.png (841KB, 940x586px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 940x586px

>>47768481

>>47768570
Well fuck.

>>47759651
It's not a-Vance-d enough

>>47760343
/Thread

>>47767478
100% this.

>>47765552
Says the loudmouthed fag.

>>47768041
>GURPS Thaumatology

>thinks that's anything other than shit

Man, just quit trying to sell your dumb game already.

>>47769763
I don't understand why anyone would play GURPS and not use RPM.

>>47768156
You simply gave an example of a setting where mana based casting fits better than vancian magic.
You can just as easily imagine a setting that doesnt.

>>47759651
>What's wrong with Vancian casting? I see people complain about it a lot, but what's the problem?
It feels artificial and unnatural for spellcasters to learn and cast spells that way, at least in my opinion. Vancian casting can work, yes, but it's weirdly meta-fictional. Do characters in your campaign discuss what level spell lots they have remaining? If not, how can they express their reserves of magic remaining accurately? If so, does that not feel like they are stating their hit points, or what numerical bonuses or penalties a spell grants? I like my magic system to be organic to the campaign world, and I like doing so without going all 'Order of the Stick'.

>And what would be a better alternative?
Psionics. Characters know a limited roster of spells that by and large doesn't change day by day. Casting a spell costs an amount of mana/power points that can recharge on an encounter or daily basis. The more powerful spell effects have a higher baseline character level required to learn them and cost more base mana (flying, teleporting, huge AoEs, time stop, save or sucks, etc). Every spell can be magnified by spending more mana while casting it, up to a limit based on your level, so low-level magic stays relevant all game long. Some spells can even gain new effects if you spend enough mana to boost them, for example a buff spell could affect multiple allies for additional mana, or a cold damage spell could also slow enemies affected by it.

Psionics is a more organic way of modelling and quantifying reserves of magical power. It's probably not the best ever made but it works well. A lot of the complaints about it, at least from people I have played with, were made by guys who didn't realize that you could not just spend ALL of your mana to cast one giant mega-spell that inflicts massive damage.

>>47764587
You have not reached that level of mastery yet.

>>47770876
>Do characters in your campaign discuss what level spell lots they have remaining? If not, how can they express their reserves of magic remaining accurately?
They discuss which and how many spells they have prepared. And vancian casting doesn't assume magic to be limited by some kind of "magic reserve"

It's only meta-fictional because you're trying to fit a magic setting that doesn't fit into.
ITS FINE IF YOU LIKE AND WANT TO USE ANOTHER SYSTEM BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE VANCIAN MECHANICS
But vancian casting makes sense in the right setting.

Imagine a world where magic exists simply because specific series of gestures combined with an ancient language cause reality to change.

Maybe it's a tool the gods created when they shaped reality as a way to modify the world.
Maybe we're in the matrix and magic is accessing the command line with admin privileges.
Either way there's no "magic energy" involved. How can you fit mana or power points here?
It makes more sense to use vancian magic here, or maybe a different system would be a better fit, i don't know, but a mana system wouldn't make sense.
Yes i know most D&D settings do have "magic energy" but its amount isn't what limits spellcasting, It's not just a mechanical abstraction it's saying something about the setting.

Bottom line, depends on the setting

>>47770523
So you're just straight retarded then, okay I get you know.

>>47771438
kys

>>47771436
You seem to have this completely retarded idea that settings are these naturally occurring things and not things created to support roleplaying.

>>47771482
No, that's you.

I'm saying vancian magic is a system created to support a setting where magic works in a particular way.
It can't be fucking expected to work in every setting you want
If you want to quantify magic and have the amount of magic energy be what limits spellcasting, OF COURSE VANCIAN MAGIC WILL BE A BAD CHOICE THAT'S COUNTER INTUITIVE AND IMMERSION BREAKING

>>47760625
What do you mean, cast spontaneously? Cast all known spells (which is a lot) like sorcerers? That actually sounds pretty nice. I'd play that, on the condition that other casters get the same treatment.

>>47771543
Here's what you aren't getting you fucking mong

If a certain magic system is shit for gameplay, you shouldn't be putting it in your setting.

THE SETTING SHOULD BE MADE WITH GAMEPLAY IN MIND

File: reuenthal.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>47771566
Then stop fucking saying it's immersion breaking and meta-fictional and criticize the gameplay

>>47768481
How many runes are there? If initiates are thought only two, it would limit the fuck out of them (try to come up with 3 spells using "fire" and "movement" that don't involve fireballs/rays etc. you probably can if you treat "fire" metaphorically, like Dresden files RPG, but I don't think you meant that.), making every fire initiate a fireball thrower and nothing else.

Honestly, looks a little like ars magica, so you might want to look it up.

>>47771607
Sorry if it confused you, but the levels are the amount of runes they can combine. Everyone is taught all the basic runes.

>>47771645
Then it's most certainly ars magica.

>spells can never ever be balanced and you need psychotic non-competitive ranks to get anyone to pick the not best ones
What if instead of having Fireball deal vastly more damage than Burning Hands, I set a low baseline for the average damage of spells and have the difference between them all be damage type, aoe shape, and application, with the damage itself being something that improves with caster level?
How about I don't make any insane "utility" spells like the ability to teleport halfway across the world or letting six people soar through the sky for no resource cost?
Maybe I should make summonings actually difficult to perform instead of "haha I used 1 action and a slot deal with this bear army haha"?

File: 006396.jpg (38KB, 460x545px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 460x545px

>>47771595
wew fucking lad have you been reading the thread?
Their been plenty of criticisms of gameplay itself from it's poor job of effectively restricting spell casters in a way that is conductive to gameplay to it's inherent reduction of the value of situational spells, and it's total lack of player engagement in the act of spellcasting. Not only this but immersion is not how accurately the mechanics model the setting, it's how well the mechanics immerse you in that setting. Vancian magic, at least in it's dnd implementation, EVEN if accurate to the setting is anti immersive, because it removes the actual act of magic from the hands of the player and into the character's off screen actions and further drives the game from role to rollplaying through it's hands off deck of spells blatantly gamey nature that encourages the player to view magic as game play mechanic rather than an ability of their character.

>>47760164
I like Shadowrun's way of doing it, at least in terms of casting the spell. There aren't many points, but you risk tiring yourself out (or hurting yourself, if you're pushing your limits to cast extra-powerful spells), with stronger spells being more taxing.

>>47771829
MANA points, rather.

>>47769763
It wasn't about playing GURPS, but using the fucking book for reference for other options than slots and straight-up mana. Especially since original anon asked about pact-style magic.

Vancian casting is a problem because it's a strongly themed system of magic directly tied into the cosmology of a specific fantasy setting, The Dying Earth, which has then been divorced from the setting and themes it was designed for and bolted onto a setting-agnostic chassis that presents it as the best and most reasonable possible mechanical system for any kind of fantasy magic, forcing settings built around that framework to either tailor their themes and cosmologies to dovetail with those mechanics, or to ignore the glaring split between the way magic works thematically and the way it works mechanically.

In short, the problem with Vancian casting is that DnD takes the specific and tries to make it universal, when every setting should have it's own specific magic system.

>>47771776
Different anon, but mate, we are talking about D&D here, the game that perpetuates own existence by being roll-playing instead of role-playing since... well, since it was created. D&D never was suitable for anything else than roll-playing.

File: 1413518590777.jpg (9KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x240px

>>47769844
This.

RPM is strong as fuck. Sorcery or straight advantages is a pretty cool alternative but it depends on what kinda game you wanna run.

>>47771776
>Their been plenty of criticisms of gameplay itself
And i'm not replying to those.

I'm replying to the people who (like you) think vancian casting is bad because you want it to represent something it was not made to represet.

>because it removes the actual act of magic from the hands of the player
How is
>i use 4 points of my magic power to cast fireball
more immersive and "in the hands of the player" than
>i cast the fireball i prepared some hours ago in a ritual?

Also if you want to argue only the D&D implementation in particular is bad, fine but that's moving the goalposts.

File: image.jpg (228KB, 750x726px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 750x726px

>>47761207
I'm sorry, are you talking prestidigitation, Harry Houdini escaping from anything that involves a lock, and ouija boards or am I missing something

File: Cool-story-bro0_h.jpg (71KB, 550x442px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 550x442px

>>47772111
>I'm consciously ignoring all arguments
>Because they don't count
>Since I say so

>>47772421
I'm ignoring the arguments that have nothing to do with the point i'm criticizing, which is the idea that vancian magic is meta and less immersive.
So yes, shit specific do D&D like individual spells do not count.

File: squidward13.png (228KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 500x380px

>>47772572
>>criticize the gameplay, not anything about immersion
>everyone's been criticizing the gameplay
>>no, i'm not replying to those, they have nothing to do with my argument about immersion

either you're trolling or you're replying to a post that was replying to someone else with a different argument

>>47759651
>I see people complain about it a lot, but what's the problem?
There is nothing wrong with it. It is just a particular system among others. That's it.

>>47772786
The gameplay only makes it anti immersive if it dissonates with how the lore says things are supposed to work.
If it's shit gameplay it could be not fun, but not anti immersive if it's a good representation of how things work.

I don't like that magicians don't need to do anything to cast a spell except say kaboom and force every time save or get fucked. Spellcasting checks when.

>>47772111
Because "I'm a wizard and I need to interact with magic to cast spells by channeling power and deciding how much force to put into a single incantation" is much more immersive game play than "I cast fireball"
>>47772799
>Everything is equal just different meme
>>47772886
How are you still not getting that immersion and setting accuracy are not the same thing?

>>47772572
So basically you are talking with yourself about imaginary issues, while the thread is about something completely different.
Noice.

>>47773001
>more immersive game play than "I cast fireball, because I read that in the book this morning"
Here, FTFY

>>47766157
>And most spells don't end up getting cast, because it's impossible to perfectly balance all the spells, and a few end up being more powerful/effective than the rest.
>he thinks this problem is specific to mana pools
>he thinks there aren't unused trash spells by the dozen in 3.PF

>>47773001
>>Everything is equal just different meme
Well, allow me to try to elaborate then (english is not my mother tongue). The system itself has survived through multiple editions, and it is hardly surpirsing considering it is (i) easy rulewise, (ii) you will not be able to cast multiples of a particulary high-level spell in general and (iii) in a thematic sense it is not that bad is it? What is wrong with it?

>>47772060
Damn straight. Symbol/Syntactic can be pretty fun as well, if requiring a bit more work on the GMs part. Had a guy use it for a dwarven rune warrior last campaign. Shit was pretty cash

File: bonfire_by_catbib_d8fwmod.jpg (144KB, 696x883px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 696x883px

>>47773019
"because I did something off screen at the start of the session" and "because of mechanical engagement with the system right now while I'm doing the thing" are not comparable.

One of those is obviously going to be more engaging and immersive and make you feel like you're doing the thing, whatever it might be.

>>47773125
I've got a much simplier, but also pretty cynical explaination for you.
D&D is a living fossil, a dinosaur among TTRPG, due to the effects of "muh tradition". The only time they've tried to change anything? Not only they barely moved furnitures around, but the massive outcry 4e created pretty much convinced everyone involved there is just no point, or spergs will eat you alive for even trying to change, not to mention changing for real.

File: No one can stop this bath of blood.jpg (26KB, 476x270px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 476x270px

>>47773125
>If it doesn't suck completely, then it's acceptable for it to suck slightly

>>47773001
>Because "I'm a wizard and I need to interact with magic to cast spells by channeling power and deciding how much force to put into a single incantation" is much more immersive game play than "I cast fireball"
It's pretty stupid and cheap how you're oversimplifying it. I can also say "I finish the incantation i prepared this morning, creating a fierce fireball" is more immersive than "I use 4mp to cast fireball"

>How are you still not getting that immersion and setting accuracy are not the same thing?
A good correlation between the system and the reality of the game world is directly related to good immersion.
A balance between this and being fun to play makes a good RPG.

>>47773125
In my opinion it causes a few unnecessary problems.

For one It isn't particularly good at limiting wizards as the wizard either ends up just getting to reset his spells at his leisure if he's not pressed for time and if he is he'll just have a really unpleasant time being out of magic and feeling worthless, the only time it really works is when the GM coordinates it so the party is forced to face just enough enemies at a time that the wizard has to to use little more or less than his entire prepared list of spell, and in general it makes spell casting something that doesn't require much risk or input from the player, it's just, at best, mild resource management. Saying "I cast this spell" isn't very magical feeling compared to what it could be.

>>47773218
>If it doesn't suck completely, then it's acceptable for it to suck slightly
I haven't got a clue whether you are serious or just having a laugh, if you are serious though, what are the alternatives? Not only that, you seem to be looking for a system without any flaws whatsoever.
The Vancian system has worked through all these years for a reason.

>>47773263
>Examples are simplified to the essentials
>I WON'T STAND FOR THIS!

On the other hand, why any of you is still talking with this moron? It's obvious he's trolling and you are all chewing the bait.

>>47773309
Don't pretend you didn't oversimplify one of them on purpose, smartass.

>>47773303
>The Vancian system has worked through all these years for a reason.
Yeah, that reason being D&D sticking to it, because.
No real reason, just using it. Do you see Vancian magic in any other TTRPG? You know why mana was adopted in early 80s by pretty much everyone and their dog? Because it wasn't fucking obtuse system created for specific setting that works perfectly fine with the setting, but goes to shit the moment you try to apply it to anything else.
And the guys behind D&D didn't give a fuck about this, because who cares, they are D&D. They don't need to adopt, change or evolve. Bad elements in the core mechanics? Sure, this patchwork of fixes will surely mitingate the problem... but why should we change the basic elements that cause all the problems, hah, that would be too smart to do!

>>47773337
>You
>As in singular
Anon, don't want to break it for you, seeing your dedication for entire day to keep walking in circes in this thread, but there is more than one person arguing with you. Or rather - poking fun out of your utter idiocy.

>>47773275
>For one It isn't particularly good at limiting wizards as the wizard either ends up just getting to reset his spells (...) if he is he'll just have a really unpleasant time being out of magic.
Agreed. But, as you say, for a good DM that will not be a problem.
You will always find problems systemwise for RPGs. If that is the worst one for the Vancian system, I would be quite content with it.

>>47773363
Why would be most commercially successful system try to copy the others?

>>47773303
I guess Lord of War is now some obscure old film and people no longer get jokes from it... shame.

But on topic of game mechanics - the desired direction should be removing of all flaws or trying to remove them. Not just making shit that can work out if you clench your teeth and endure the shitty elements. It's a game, it should be fun. Teeth-clenching due to poor and inadequate crunch design is not fun at all.

>>47772886
>shit gameplay
Congratulations, you've answered the question in the OP.

>>47773399
>Why would be most commercially successful system
There are two answers for this posts

First one:
Is this the infamous "If it sells, then it's good" argument?

Second one:
The game sells in States. Nowhere else. D&D since mid-90s is pretty much dead arond the world. You know why? Because other games did their job better.

>>47773363
>Yeah, that reason being D&D sticking to it
Yes, they do, and it still works. It is a simple, clean and thematic system.

>>47773263
>It's pretty stupid and cheap how you're oversimplifying it. I can also say "I finish the incantation i prepared this morning, creating a fierce fireball" is more immersive than "I use 4mp to cast fireball"
Admittedly it's a touch hyperbolic, but the point is there.
I'm talking about the actual things I'm forced to mechanically acknowledge in either system while slinging spells. In one I have to consider what spell to use, how much mana I have, and how much mana I can put into this spell without it perhaps backfiring, in D&D's system I merely have to consider what spell.

Sure I can be more or less immersed DESPITE this but that's besides the point.

It's not entirely the same thing. It's a factor. A perfectly mechanically accurate sci-fi combat system about pressing a button to fire a super weapon from 10 thousand kilometers off using a super computer's calculations and no input from you other than "that's the target, get to it" is always going to be a lot less engaging and immersive than an equally well done star ship dog fighting combat system, assuming all other factors like dm and player quality are the same, because immersion relies on the player feeling in control of the action. The inversatility, rigidity and simplicity of vancian magic result in it being closer to that one button super weapon than the lasers on a fighter craft.

>>47773420
>I guess Lord of War is now some obscure old film and people no longer get jokes from it... shame.
I am 30. I guess I should just kill myself and be done with it?

>>47773462
>If I repeat it for another 500 times, I will convince myself this is true
Do you have any arguments at all? You know, other than saying "but it's good and it works"?
It doesn't work. Magic in D&D is fucked up ever since AD&D. That means - for past 35 years. Nobody ever did anything about it, because the guys involved with the original system were no longer at hand, then TSR facing financial problems and then by the 90s the entire company was owned by corporation, so decisions were made by accounting department. And accounting department said "but why change anything at all, if we can pack this instead as traditional values and sticking to the path started by original team?". Hence the birth of muh tradition on corporate level.

>>47773449
>If it sells, then it's good" argument?
I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm saying there's no reason to copy others if you're more succesful than them. Most likely what would happen is D&D would become just a shittier version of those other systems and the fans would move on.
>The game sells in States. Nowhere else
I don't think so.

>>47773489
Then you were still teen when the film was in cinemas. That means you should fucking know it, as people between 16 and 25 created 2/5 of the audience and were the biggest demographic for it.

>>47773522
Think whatever you want, but it won't change reality.

>>47773514
>Do you have any arguments at all? You know, other than saying "but it's good and it works"?
What other type of arguments would you like to see? Metaphysical and transcendent ones? Wrong topic.
In the end though isn't, "but it's good and it works" enough for a game?

>>47773363
>Do you see Vancian magic in any other TTRPG
Legend of the Five Rings uses a semi-Vancian system of magic, and it makes even less sense there than it does in DnD; DnD is ostensibly generic enough that individual settings can be made to work with Vancian even if needing to work with Vancian severely limits what kind of settings you can handle well.

L5r's cosmology and the way magic there works are both strongly defined and don't resemble Vancian in any way, and it's mind boggling that Shugenja are still using that magic system even now.

>>47773528
>Then you were still teen when the film was in cinemas. That means you should fucking know it, as people between 16 and 25 created 2/5 of the audience and were the biggest demographic for it.
Is it any good? If not, I have missed fuck all have I?

>>47773522
You're right that dnd doesn't need to change, but it would be a better game if it did. Dnd is too big to fail, so it's gotten away with grandfather clausing in a bunch of awful shit
>>47773528
I don't remember every fucking film that came out when I was a kid

>>47773528
Are you Dr. Kasaija from Uganda? You remind me of him.

>>47773546
A bad of tofu will keep from starving but I'm sure you'd rather have a perfectly cooked steak. Same principle. Vancian magic isn't fundamentally dysfunctional it's just not very good.

>>47773522
Anon, fucking Pathfinder, the game that has undying popularity among D&D crowd (God knows why) was one step from financial failure. Then there was 4e, which WAS one and now 5e, which is again one step above financial failure. It doesn't matter if the game sales pretty well by number of sold copies, if the company invested shitload of money into marketing to sell it at all in the first place. So sure, numbers don't look that bad (they still aren't peachy) out of context, but when fucking execs WotC openly talk about subpar sales and not reaching quotas, well...
And the best part is how this is a classic vicious circle. To sell D&D in non-English speaking country, you need to make a translation, That inflates costs. Game sells poorly. The cost-return is non-existing or you outright loose money. So the company decides they are not making more translations for language X. Since there are is no support in language X, the popularity of game vanes. Popularity is dwindling, so the company see no reason to even bother with market of that specific language. In the end, they are giving up entire country, because due to the size of the operation and their quotas, they have no profit from it.
Hence D&D at this point sticks mostly in English-speaking countries, and since WFRP is much more popular in Europe... yeah, the game is mostly selling in States.
Like mad, but only there.

>>47773564
>Is it any good
Different anon, but it's fucking perfect. Lots of black comedy and straight-out comedy and Cage is fucking golden in this film - definitely one of his better roles.

>>47773573
>2005
>Kid
Aren't you too young to be on this site?

>>47773663
reminder that half of the people born in 1998 are 18
reminder that you can legally post on this site and not remember 9/11

>>47773606
>Vancian magic isn't fundamentally dysfunctional it's just not very good.
Agreed, but it is "good enough". It gives wizards powers and limitations. Plus, these "powers" and "limitations" makes sense. It's certainly not perfect, which I have not (ever) argued, but for a particular system I will not fault it.

>>47773663
>Different anon, but it's fucking perfect. Lots of black comedy and straight-out comedy and Cage is fucking golden in this film - definitely one of his better roles.
I guess I will have a look then. Thank you.

>>47773722
>Agreed, but it is "good enough"
The question is why you'd settle for "good enough".

>>47773199
>People reacted to 4e badly, change is bad.
Calling 4e an RPG is laughable. That's why people reacted badly.
Plus, you know, the insulting pr behavior, and the joke that was 4e fr.

>>47773385
>i don't have an argument or anything to add to the thread, i just wanted to insult you
ok

>>47773469
>In one I have to consider what spell to use, how much mana I have, and how much mana I can put into this spell
D&D does try to do this metamagic. For the classes with spontaneous casting it even kind of works. And not all mana-based systems allow for that kind of depth.
Of course it's different from D&D wizards because you need to know which spells you'll need beforehand, and eventually having to use spells in unconventional ways for unforeseen situations. If you prefer the dilemma of managing a mana resource, that's your preference but i don't see how it's inherently superior.

>>47773363
I don't want to defend D&D but i do like the concept of vancian magic because it's different from the other system that's basically everywhere already. I probably wouldn't play a D&D edition that removed it.

>>47773722
>it is "good enough"
... so?
We are suppose to cheer for this or what? That system could be even more broken, but lucky us, it's not?

>>47773835
Surprise, motherfucker - if you are openly ignoring entire thread and all the arguments, people won't do anything else than insult you and your lame rhetorics

>>47773303
>what are the alternatives
Not that guy, but seriously? There have been like 10 alternatives given.
Everything from MP to channeling mana to spellcasting rolls plus fatigue to ritual path magic.

>>47773800
Other anon, but for me 4e was WotC playing it safe. They made a lot of fuss about revolutionary changes, then did NOTHING, but due to the game being received extremely bad all over the world, they could openly say "Changes are bad" and keep doing the same game over and over, gaining a "proof" how D&D must be true to traditions.
In short - semi-conscious decision to fuck up the edition for further marketing gains with incoming games. It's not like their life was depending on 4e being successful or not.

>>47773786
>The question is why you'd settle for "good enough".
D&D is a introductory system (if we are not talking OSR). For a introductory system Vancian magic is enough. That is what I use D&D for (as a introductory system that is (unless we are talking OSR)).

>>47773897
>We are suppose to cheer for this or what? That system could be even more broken, but lucky us, it's not?
Yes, lucky us. With a good enough DM the system is fine as it is. Secondly, I have not seen a magic system that can not be broken.

>>47773924
>Not that guy, but seriously? There have been like 10 alternatives given.
It was a rhetorical question.

>>47773920
Even the guy i was arguing with admitted he did use hyperbole, you're the only one acting like a brat.

>>47774017
>For a introductory system Vancian magic is enough
Except it's a fairly awful system, at least the way the OGL has it standing. It's less bad in 2e/5e, but it is still ripe to be abused while somehow being so much more inflexible than almost any other magic system out there.

>>47774017
So let me get this straight
Company provides sub-par product
It's customer DUTY to fix it to fully enjoy the deficient product
Said product was bought for money
The company keeps providing deficient product over decades and over decades customers are suppose to cheer for getting something of subpar quality.
Gee, I wonder why each edition is selling worse than the previous one...

And D&D is anything, but introductionary. The amount of feats and elements to learn before playing it is way beyond what can pass as "introductionary". Nobody cares about having just single roll for everything, if the rules for those rolls are convoluted mess spanning over few books.

>>47774017
>D&D is a introductory system
... if you want to play D&D for the rest of your life, sure. This is one of the most damaging systems on the market for new players and teaches them so many bad practices it's just insulting when you unironically call this shitfest introductionary game.

>>47774017
>It was a rhetorical question.
Why would you ask a rhetorical question implying there are no good alternatives, when you've been given like 10 better alternatives?

>>47774078
>Gee, I wonder why each edition is selling worse than the previous one...
This is absolutely false, tho, why would you state this?

>>47772025
This. Vance's wizards are not magic missile turrets.
>Be incredibly powerful wizard
>Have five entire spell slots
>Each one of them is filled by an instakill or super-utility spell

>>47759651
"Spells in general require preparation" is fine.

"You can only cast X spells per day" Hard limit is stupid.

>>47774130
Anon, 5e broke even after a fucking year. Rings you a bell? 4e was oficially declared a bomb. PF barely regained fucking production costs over 15 months. 3e initial sales were so bad everyone in the industry was openly talking about death of D&D.
So yeah, so fucking false...

>>47759651
>>I see people complain about it a lot, but what's the problem? And what would be a better alternative?

1) Spells are literally just ammo that you can run out of and you cannot determine what you will need the next time you need it. So you can go t have an adventure and it can happen that you know a spell that would have been extremely useful but you haven't prepared it so you cannot get to use it. Once you ran out of spells you can resort to either prestidigitation or using your staff to hit things. It is a very bipolar good-bad situation.

2) It is a toolbox that does EVERYTHING including what other classes do sometimes even better, which not only complicates the problem mentioned above it also conflicts with the other classes. Why waste a spell that can only pick locks when anyone with a decent lockpick skill can do it? It just shows the fundamentally bad design where every class was designed individually to be Jack of all trades, instead of considering a team setup. It has tons of completely unnecessary duplicate effects, which can be useful in a 1 from a 100 situation but useless in the other 99 situations.

3) All these limitations forces the rest of the party to adapt to the needs of the caster because his usefulness is determined by the magic system, if he has his spells he is powerful if he ran out he is dead weight. There is no reliable way of knowing when to use a spell in a dungeon crawl, while a fighter can wield his sword any number of times, so every time blind decisions have to be made and it can very often be a wrong one.

4) Too powerful, with such an amount of spells there are some combinations of spells that can abuse the rules to outright break their intended usefulness and achieve effects that are unintended by the developers and no rules cover them stopping the game, causing confusion and the requiring for the DM to step in and rule what happens. Which can also lead to disagreements and rules layering, which again stops the game.

>>47774097
Absolutely this.

>>47774265
All records show that 4e outsold 3e and 3.5, outsold PF for the majority of it's life span until the end of the Essentials line, and 5e equaled 4e's selling numbers over the same time span.
In the old 4e threads, records were often posted to disprove the naysayers, like yourself, who claimed 4e was selling poorly, or that PF outsold 4e.
Look up those threads in the archive, if you feel like educating yourself.

>>47774066
>Except it's a fairly awful system, at least the way the OGL has it standing. It's less bad in 2e/5e, but it is still ripe to be abused while somehow being so much more inflexible than almost any other magic system out there.
It is fine for crawlers. Which it was defined for in the very beginning. So, OSR wise, I am fine with it.

>>47774078
>The company keeps providing deficient product over decades and over decades customers are suppose to cheer for getting something of subpar quality.
I have never said that, have I?

>And D&D is anything, but introductionary.
Why not? It is well known, and quite simple to play in the end, is it not?

>>47774107
>Why would you ask a rhetorical question implying there are no good alternatives, when you've been given like 10 better alternatives?
What is a better system for D&D? It implies Vancian magic, doesn't it?

>>47774097
Only if it's 3.PF. 5e's fine, 4e's fine, 2e's fucking FINE.

3.PF inflicts brain cancer.

>>47774377
I wonder which edition is the most popular one among people finding green horns to introduce them to the hobby... Oh, right, it's the fucking 3.PF.

>>47774352
>It is well known
Among people already in the hobby

>and quite simple
Which edition we are talking? Because any game that has more crunch than 20 pages can't be called "simple" and no ed was that short with rules, not even 0D&D. It's not even about D&D, but TTRPG in general. If rules go for more than single short chapter, the game is not simple. At least not for a layman.

>>47774449
Nah. It's 5e, anymore. 3.PF is dying, and thank fucking god for that.

File: v0GeGw5wmRFUT.jpg (863KB, 1276x850px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 1276x850px

>>47774496
>Be Slav
>0D&D and AD&D got full support
>All the shit that happend later reached you only as core books
>PF was never published and is completely unknown

>>47774488
>Among people already in the hobby
And people trying/waiting to get into the hobby. D&D is typically the system that they have heard of.

>>47774488
>Which edition we are talking? Because any game that has more crunch than 20 pages can't be called "simple" and no ed was that short with rules, not even 0D&D. It's not even about D&D, but TTRPG in general. If rules go for more than single short chapter, the game is not simple. At least not for a layman.
It is quite simple. Sure, you will give your players certain sheets and will have to explain shit for them (thac0), but in general (i) it will work out fine during gameplay (ii) D&D is what they want to play to begin with.

File: ndLHz3K.png (68KB, 400x419px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x419px

>>47774563
>D&D is typically the system that they have heard of
What country, Anon-kun?

>>47774563
>D&D is what they want to play to begin with
How the fuck you know that and based on what exactly, aside of course being shill-tier D&D supporter?

>>47774352
>What is a better system for D&D? It implies Vancian magic, doesn't it?

>What is a better system
Several examples of better magic systems have been given. I prefer the spell casting roll + strain/fatigue approach, but the "channel energy from area to power your spell and then make a casting roll" approach is okay too.

>for D&D
Well there's a new stipulation out of nowhere.
Okay then: psionics. It's not amazing, but it's better than vancian, and there's an option to make the limiter something other than *daily* maximum points to cut down on 15 minutes adventuring days.

>It implies Vancian magic, doesn't it?
Not really. Though I can very much see wanting the fan favourite spells as part of the game if running an existing setting, the casting system doesn't need to be vancian spell slots .

>>47763285
>Literally every time some retarded DnD faggot says "Well le what le else le should le I le play le? XDDD am i cool yet?", they get a list of better games posted.

I don't think I've ever seen a more autistic way of writing something. I get everyone you disagree with must be leddit, but isn't this going to a retarded degree?

>>47761192
>>47766213
Wut

>>47768008
Anon didn't say that, though. They complained that it was restrictive, and talked about how it felt less like like being master of the arcane and more like being owner of an applied physics degree. Unimaginative never entered into it. Come to think of it, D&D didn't, either.

>>47771776
It isn't going to work, Anon. Other Anon is invested in their opinion. They aren't going to change their mind just because your argument makes sense and theirs doesn't really. Best to just walk away.

>>47768570
Played first one, shit was ballsy as fuck. Spamming customizable spells all day long rocks.

>>47774030
Oohhh, GOT'EM!

Fucking this.

Magic isn't even real, why do people think one system should work for every setting?

5e warlock is probably the most sensible vanician casting.

You've enough juice for 4 or so of your basic spells at a time, with the more complex and powerful spells requiring preparation and energy pre-invested.

>>47775405
Missed your quote there, anon.

>>47775427
I did.
Don't feel like fixing it now though