Search the Community

Josh Sawyer recently explained what the current combat system looks like: I believe this will be a significant step back in terms of strategic resource management. Even if spells are weaker, making Empowerment a significant boost, or very limited per-encounter uses, I don't think this is enough. You'd still have the problem of the original game in which you'd use the same (per-encounter) spells too often, and even if they are very limited in (per-encounter) uses, it would only create a priority list. I'd love for Josh Sawyer to explain his reasoning in detail and give some example scenarios. That said, I think eliminating having to make a conscious decision of saving spell uses for following encounters would be a huge loss.

After playing through Pillars, my opinion on standard Vancian casters sorta changed: the basic impression remained the same, but the usefulness of them did shine through. I am still not impressed by a Priest(just take a Paladin...? Seems more useful), but the other two are just fantastic. So where is the problem? Chanters / Ciphers / Monks etc. Per encounter resource builders as opposed to standard Vancian casters. This is the part of impression that remained the same. Let me elaborate: I feel that Vancian casting systems(Druid etc) should exist only in Vancian settings. What are those settings? Those are settings that allow you to rest whenever, wherever as long as there are no enemies nearby(think BG, NWN etc). This is important because of one thing I'll mention here. In semi Vancian settings(say Pillars), you have TWO LAYERS to spellcasting: STRATEGIC(long term resource management) and TACTICAL(what to use, when to use etc...short term in battle decisions) layers. Strategic layer exists because you can't just rest whenever / wherever(camping supplies). This part of equation is completely VOID / "LACKING" in a standard Vancian setting. Thus you have only one layer to it that is often very fun: TACTICAL. Thusly, you can freely buff your party, debuff enemies, fling fireballs etc as you wish.You CAN'T do that in Pillars(unless Cipher, Chanter etc). And this is one of those things that, rightfully if you ask me(though I do understand why it is in there: kickstarter backers requested it), infuriated a lot of players: even with AI, you can't use "per Rest" abilities as you would in, say, BG II or NWN. Then I saw the Gamescom Tyranny video and I noticed there are no Chanters / Ciphers etc. Only spellcasters(Entropy / Frost etc). This made me think: will Obsidian make the right choice and abandon Vancian casting for good? I mean, it's not like Obsidian has ANY links with DnD anymore, thusly they can FREELY ADAPT the rules(think of Homebrewed Warhammer Fantasy 9ed rules or the difference yet eerie similarity between WHFB and Warmachine). And why would they use Vancian rules in a system that actively suppresses it? edit: I agree that adding in a strategic layer is ok as opposed to simply spamming(basically) willy nilly, but this way does not work imo. What do you think? Should Vancian spellcasting remain a part of future Obsidian RPGs or should they adapt Cipher etc mechanics and go full tactical mode? Is Vancian spellcasting antiquated?

Please forgive the wall of text. I am a big fan of considering what went before. So the arguments about Vancian magic versus mana-based systems (and the completely understandable passion it generates) got me thinking. And, because I find myself less moved about it than some other folks, I thought that maybe I could add something new to the debate by casting my mind back to other RPGs from the Days of Yore. Of course, it should go without saying that pen and paper systems mechanically might not fit into a CRPG. But thematically... sure. Why not? Magic has always been divided into a giddying variety of types: divine versus arcane, sorcerer versus mage, cantrip versus spell, innate powa versus learnt, scroll versus memorized, generalised mage versus specialist... then you get funky stuff like bards or rangers or paladins all of whom access magic in the form of innate, modal, passive and spell-casting forms. Accessing magic is similarly broad, i.e. via using a wand, magic item or having a stack of five fire-and-forget offensive spells (all viable and powerful additions for a spellcaster). This is before we consider 3E style feats and meta-magic. Therefore pen and paper systems have always allowed spellcasters a broad range of tactics and methods to access magic. Too many perhaps, showcasing the piecemeal evolution of the hobby. So as I watch the debate unfold, it strikes me that the combatants (and I say this with respect) have perhaps not done a three-sixty and fully considered the diversity of What Went Before (WWB). Sorcerers, for example are as near-as-dammit using a mana system, the closest you'll get in an IE game. Sorcerers, by the way, are my favourite arcane spellcasting class. I often bang on about RuneQuest here, but please hear me out (read me out? Whatever). The magic there was (a) divided into two and (b) specifically rooted into the setting. There was Battle Magic and Rune Magic. Battle magic was predicated on the idea that magic was something anybody could access (classless system) if taught. It used a statistic, POWER, using a mana-type metric (boosted by items that one could store POWER in). Battle Magic consisted of buffs, minor healing and stuff. Rune Magic was the preserve of advanced cult members and was like powerful arcane magic in D&D. You could do all sorts of funky stuff with it. But the spell-list was relatively small compared to D&D but all the spells were useful. All the spells were impactive. All of the spells were fun. It was a case study in the Less Is More approach to game design. It combined hardcore, old school flavour with what would now be considered to be a mana-system, but was managed in a way that made sense --- lose POWER by casting spells and your character became physically weaker. The decision to cast spells was one made carefully. Of course, Rune Magic casters had all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to mitigate this, and this was also part of the fun. So, my conclusions 1. Old-skool Vancian magic evolved with the game to the point where there were so many options it began to undermine the whole fire-and-forget principle, creating bulky mechanics to underpin the innate clunkiness of design (meta-magic, prestige classes etc) 2. Sorcerers are almost there in terms of aping the mana model, and might be a model worth studying for this project 3. Other properly granular old-skool systems, like RuneQuest, managed to create impactive, fun, immersive magic systems using a mana-based model 4. Therefore it seems odd that the debate around a mechanic so potentially nuanced can boil down to Vancian versus Mana when there is obviously so much room to exploit in the natural gap between the two. Many thanks if you finished to read my post, and if only a handful of people Google 1st Edition Gloranthan RuneQuest after this then I'll be a happy man. Love & Peace

I'm neutral because I adapted fine to all the magic mechanics I've come across. Instead of bemoaning Obsidian's basic decision on spell/ability cooldowns, let's have some constructive discussion on what can be done right with them. From Kickstarter comments Q&A (linked from Known Information sticky): Josh comments: (Geez, it's a fair bit of work to quote things when a thread is locked. )

So this happened. Without a Vancian magic system you end up with a bunch of underpowered sorcerers running around spamming underpowered spells. It takes all strategic planning out of a magic system and turns it into a purely tactical one. Some people like it but I always thought it was lazy design. It also tends to lead to a spell progression where you upgrade your spells as opposed to getting new spells. Also lazy. The sheer number of spells in BGT is astounding and choosing which ones to memorize and when to use them was a ton of fun. And hello mana pool! I suppose this was expected when they talked about the soul thing. Of course I’m just speculating as nothing official has been announced. Anyway I'm just bitter because I really like IE magical combat and I think a game made in their image should have the same basic magic system. But what do I know.