Vancian Magic was “in character.” From the point of view of the Characters, if they were discussing the metaphysics of magic in their world, they would understand it as something like “You memorize this arcane rite from a book, and this memory in your mind is charged with power. When you invoke it, that power is released along with that memory. You have to re-study it again after a night’s rest.”

That is not the case for 4E. At-will/Encounter/Dailies are metagame mechanics. They exist for us, the Players, NOT for the characters’ IC POV. 4E characters are not supposed to think “Wow, I can only swing my sword REALLY hard once a day so I better save it.” It is more along the line of watching a movie where the hero is battling against all odds, and somehow comes through with that killing blow or whatever at the last minute. It is for our benefit watching the adventure.

Now, it isn’t TOTALLY gone in 4E. Certainly the Wizard does maintain a certain element of that. Some of his powers are “memorized” In Character, as it were, and there is still a spellbook mechanic. But I believe those are more nods to the genre conventions than anything else.

I both like and dislike Vancian magic. I think it gave a strong illusion of adaptability, but it was also very unbalanced at times. I mean, your mileage may vary, but Clerics almost always had to memorize Cures for most of their slots. When they made the rule allowing them to memorize other spells and “default” them to Cures it helped some. But in a lot of other ways I think it just really helped make the game more about resource management than fantasy.

A better explaination is in order. Generally by way of inference my slander of 4e is ment to press my answer to the “Do you personally prefer Vancian magic to the alternatives?” – obviously, the answer in my opinion is no.

Still you aren’t looking for a one word answer so -
“Are there good reasons to go with a “fire and forget” spell system?”
Of course, I do not mean to say that there are NO reasons not to like the Vancian system, as with all things (or most things) there are pros and cons. Its easy to keep track of ones spells if all of them are once per day (or if there are few divisions of spells – once/encounter/will – only three types and easy to control) – write them out on scrap paper each “day” and if they aren’t crossed off then you can use them. Simple. Hard to imagine though. I mean, I read quite a bit of fantasy (all I can really but there is always more to read and never enough time!) and a magic user that complains “I can’t because I’ve cast that already today” is both ‘unlikely’ and pretty pathetic… Particularly when very feeble reasons are presented as to why one can’t cast again – he forgets. Yes boys and girls everyone who practices magic no matter how intelligent -even the Gods- suffer amnesia at the most inconvienent times…even though they just recited it a second ago… *cough* no it’s not just to keep the game balance what are you talking about?!

I slander 4e in this instance (not because I see an oppotunity to do so and want to get a chip in for my side or anything) for it’s degredation of all classes in to the same ‘flaw’. Where the old Vancian system was limited to just some classes’ spells before, it now seems to have grown a hybrid form and have taken over the game altogether. I’m thinking here that regardless of the new “at will” and “per encounter” titles the spell system pretty much remains, gaining only a small measure of credence and losing a lot more.

To illustrate the point and further the general damnation I submit that the ’spell’ system is now applied to combat in general – a serious error in a Fire and Forget system by my thinking. Ok you define “spell” system in 4e and I do not, but you must admit, the definition between a caster and a fighter grows very thin. The list of fighter ‘abilites’ is removed from Wizard ’spells’ only by name and power level. So a fighter in 4e can’t swing his weapon in such a way again right now why? He forgets? His arm is tired? And yet he can perform an even more fantastic move instead? …um… ok. Amazing! He is to ‘tired’ to swing his sword in a large arc again but he can do a backflip/slash/whirlwind *thing* instead. Who would have thought huh?!

Yes there are reasons to use a Fire and Forget system (more than just the one I have listed I am sure), but no I do not think they are enough and they seriously damage the credence of a game – even a fantasy one should attempt to maintain some logic (obviously this is up to personal preference and I really do not care to argue with anyone about this I am just stating my views, in your own mind you are master and I have no wish to change anyone). Hence no I do not prefer the Vancian system or any derivations of it, to the alternatives. Hence my answer to “Whether or not you like 4E” in terms of the Vancian system would be no.

In the post, I asked, “Whether or not you like 4E, are there good reasons to go with a “fire and forget” spell system? Do you personally prefer Vancian magic to the alternatives?”

You didn’t answer that question.

Seriously, if folks want to complain about how much they dislike 4E, go somewhere else. I like the game. Lots of folks do.

I’m tired, people. Tired of edition wars. Everyone just go back to your corners, and play the game of your choosing. It’s OK for us to have differences of opinions.

There are areas we can dialogue – let’s talk about specific issues (like Vancian magic). Let’s see if we can’t get past the “your game sucks,” “no, your game sucks” crap, shall we?

While the combat system is supposed to have been sped up (which it has when minis are used) it has been slowed down, precisely because minis must be used now. Every encounter requires careful placement and arrangement of figures. I digress.

Since d&d has been around so long, it does not need to feel more like other fantasy works. I feel a little lost since 4e resembles so little of what I have been used to since AD&D in many ways. The Vancian system was an integral part of that feel and without it, mages seem very limited. Most spells are only looked at as combat related and the “rituals” do not have the same feel as similar spells in 3.5. Utility spells, which are supposed to make up the gap, still do not have the same application.

The system for wizards worked really well for both NPC wizards as enemies and allies as well as PC wizards. The new system is good for newbies and for a quick game. I see them as totally different games to be enjoyed for different purposes. I play both 4e and 3.5e concurrently.

I’m more upset over the ‘gaminess’ of the class powers. The mechanics make it feel very much like an MMORPG, and the powers are much narrower in their application. Spells like Grease and Create Water, which had a million and one uses and encouraged creative thought and problem solving, have been replaced by insta-buffs and one round effects that limit player and DM thinking to inside-the-box tactics. The limited number of powers available (only four dailies and four encounters max) also impede creativity, as opposed to 3e (our party’s bard currently has access to almost twenty spells, and he uses them all quite cleverly).

I’m not saying I dislike the new system. I think it’s a great idea. I just wish they hadn’t changed so much else along with it.

In 4e, not only have they made a magic system that seems workable and tactically coherent, it puts the different classes on a more level playing field, and provides more analogous tactical options all around. When you throw in the fact that you can play a Druid and fill the Controller role of a Wizard, I would call it a big win (for me).

And yeah, I know liking 4e isn’t trendy, but I couldn’t care less. A more consistent system for resolving game mechanics = more time and energy left over for role playing.

As far as whether the removal of Vancian magic is a Good Thing, I would say “it depends.” A lot of GMs have house-ruled various replacements for years with spell points, mana, use of HP to fuel magic and others. The ability has always been there.

Much of older D&D was about pulp and it was about whimsy. I find that Vancian magic fits very nicely in that category. I never saw D&D having to be realistic or have good reasons for Vancian mechanics. I always see magic as a living, breathing thing that mages make an uneasy peace with. To me, Vancian seems to enforce that much more than “At-Will” and “Daily” powers. In those cases, magic has just become another arrow or bullet – nothing special.

I find the use of Vancian magic is just as reflective of Gandalf as is a spell point system. Gandalf can always wield a sword via house rules. Gandalf’s exact spell casting mechanics was never spelled out by JRRT. I think that is for the best because then we’d be doing it that way.